The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-03-11 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. i .costi qUgIiW s eryjceS ga and fl0U!!ilShi ng ~0mmunity MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2003 - 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: FEB 25, 2003 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. APPROVE TREE REMOVAL LICENSES *D. APPROVE SET-UP LICENSE *E. APPROVE CANCELATION OF APR 29 SPECIAL MEETING *F. APPROVE AMENDING AGENDA FOR APR 1 SPECIAL MEETING TO INCLUDE 2003 BONDING PROJECT DISCUSSION *G. APPROVE A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CLOSURE OF ANY SUBURBAN DIVISION COURTHOUSE OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT *H. APPROVE A RESOLUTION TRANSFERING AND ASSIGNING SAC CREDITS - MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING *I. APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE, LLC, EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT 960-963 964-993 994 995 996-1007 1008-1012 1013-1014 o 10. 11. 12. PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ACTION ON CASE # 03-06: MAHOGANY BAY 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD STREET VACATION 1015-1051 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING PROJECT A. BRIEF PROJECT UPDATE B. ACTION ON RECOMMENDED ALTERNATES FOR THE SLOPED ROOF AND THE COST SAVINGS OPTIONS C. ACTION AWARDING CERTAIN CONTRACTS 1052-1056 STATUS UPDATE ON CASE #03-01: BILL STADDARD MINNETONKA ENTERPRISES 5331/5341/5351/5361 THREE POINTS BLVD GREENWAY PROJECT A. APPROVE LOST LAKE GREENWAY PUBLIC USE EASEMENT B. APPROVE BID DATE FOR GREENWAY PROJECT ACTION ON PORTABLE STORAGE UNIT ORDINANCE 1057-1059 ACTION ON APPOINTMENT TO WELFARE REFORM EXECUTIVE POLICY COMMITTEE 1060 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax 1061-1065 B. Minutes: Planning Commission - Mar 3 & Mar 24 1066-1076 C. SRA communications 1077-1078 D. Communications Law Update 1079-1082 E. City of Shorewood re Enchanted Island bridge 1083 F. Dreamwood law suit update 1084-1107 G. Newsletter: Gillespie Center 1108 H. Correspondence: Hennepin County Housing, Community Works & Transit 1109-1117 I. Report: Building activity 1118 J. Redevelopment Update 1119-1121 13. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. citvofinound, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING March 11, 2003 Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Mar 11 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Mar 11 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Mar 15 - 10:00 - Mound Visions Update - Gillesple Center (Kandis & garah) Mar 18 - 6:30 - Annual Reports Mar 19 - 3:3- Fire District meeting at Minnetrista (Bob only) Mar 25 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Mar 25 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Apr 1 - 7:00 - CC special meeting on appointing commissioners and 2003 bonding Apr 1 - 6:30 - CC/Docks joint workshop Apr 8 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Apr 8 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Apr 17 - 6:30 - Joint CC/Docks workshop Apr 24 - 8:00 a.m. - Emergency Operations update & planning meeting (Pat only) Upcoming Absences Mar 8-26 - Pat Meisel - personal time off Mar 26-30 - Kandis Hanson - personal time off Attorney's costs - As a cost savings measure, John Dean will not attend this meeting. Any legal questions that cannot be satisfied in this meeting could defer the approval on any item. Council members are encouraged to contact staff with any questions in advance of the meeting to anticipate and assist with any questions, especially legal questions. HRA Workshop dates - Mound Harbor Renaissance has requested the special HRA workshop dates. Those are in addition to other reporting that they expect to do, including the minutes in the HRA packet. Property Management Agreement - The agreement with Westport Properties follows interviews with them and Common Bond. Common Bond did not make a good show in the interview and a good case for the Mound HRA to do business with them. They were also higher priced. The Westport Properties agreement reflects the input of John Dean but lacks the reaction of Westport staff. A final draft may be provided at the meeting, should there be any additional changes. Public Safety building - Todd C will do the update of the public safety building at this meeting, followed by the request for funds. For the benefit of the public and viewers, there should be a brief summary at the CC meeting, with his recommendation for add-alternates and the cost savings options. As it turns out, there will not be any contracts awarded at this meeting, so that item will be deleted at the start of the meeting. Ci.ty Council Apr 29 meeting - The April 29 meeting has been canceled, and just the Mayor will attend a planning session with the staff members charged with emergency operations. One less meeting--yeah! April 1 meeting - The April 1 special meeting notice needs amending to also list the addition of the second topic -2003 bonding. Stoddard case - There continue to be new developments occurring in the Stoddard case, so Sarah will do an oral update as events have unfolded as of the meeting date. Greenway Project- No printed materials regarding the Greenway Project were available at the time the agenda packet was prepared. John Cameron will provide handouts at the meeting if developments are far along enough to consider. Otherwise, one or both of these items may be deferred to a future meeting. Human Resources On Friday afternoon, I called left a message with Police Chief candidate Jim Kurtz, offering him a certain salary for the position. As of 3:00, the time of this printing, I have not received a reply. Work is underway to complete the job description for the Public Works Director/Engineer, so that advertising can begin in about a week. Hiring for this position depends upon the creation of a funding mechanism to pay for it. Council members will soon hear a proposal that will do just that. John Cameron has emended his retirement plans to Oct 2004. That in no way impedes these plans to hire, in that John, who now serves Mound exclusively, will continue with MFRA but do work of another nature. Other Whereas, many cities are in the process of amending their budgets, it is my suggestion that we wait until we know the final analysis to do that. In the meantime, staff is preparing some proposals to offset the lost revenues. Those proposals will be presented when they are fully developed. The Fire Station and well house were completely demolished by 1:15 on Thursday this week. Say goodbye to a bygone era. Have a great weekend! MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 25, 2003 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director, Sarah Smith, City Engineer John Cameron, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Becky Glister, Geoff Mic~hael, Jeff Skelton, Leah Weycker, Marcia Overstreet, M. Fitzgerald, Ann Eberhart, .~i Larson and Julian Hook. Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent A~!!iii~e~' ~"~'~" considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacte~===;~ a roll c~=~iiii~!i~Q~e. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Co~iimember or'~i~en so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the~seq~enda an~'considered in Mayor Meisel called the meeting to ordeF~;~ 2, P LED G E O F AL L E G lAN CE Me~t~diti0~?~f~::~:~ lette~::~:'~m Ridgeview Medical Center and Hanson requested the add itie~:~?~;~:B, C=¥={~anager s Repo~ MOTION by Haflex:s, seconde~y BrOwn to approve the agenda as amended All voted in favor. Motion 4. CONSENT AGEN~?~:~?~?? Meyer requested the remOval of item 4G. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve the consent agenda as amended. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of February 11,2003. B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $272,801.64. C. Approve partial payment request No. 1 to Wickenhauser Excavating for the old post office demolition in the amount of $33,325.86. D. Approve agreement for disposal between NRG Processing Solution, LLC, and the City of Mound. 1 -960- Mound City Council Minutes - February 25, 2003 E. Approve garbage collectors licenses for Randy's Sanitation, BFI, and Waste Management. F. RESOLUTION NO. 03-23: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CONTINUATION OF CDBG FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) G. (removed) 4G. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR NEW SIGN LOCATION - VILLAGE BY THE BAY Meyer stated that he is opposed to the public lands permit for this sign because it is not good for Mound parks and that there are no other instances of commercial advertising in our parks. He feels there is no hardship in placing the sign elsew.,here. Hanus stated the property in question was given to he City by the develop~i~?~nd it s the only gateway to the development, and that the sign is not advertising b~i~?~?~iarks the area and names MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adog~=,ii~i;:"following":';~!~D[ution.~ The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meise!~:~:'~ Os~k. The f~:;i:'i'~wing voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. "::%iiiiiiii!i??~..,~,~!iiiii? RESOLUTION NO. 03-24: RESOLUTI~N~?~O. APP'~E A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR THE VILLAGE BY THE BAY, LLC~'6='~¥~S~.L~PERMANENT PROJECT 5. COMMENTS AND SUGG~:~:~::~ FR~:. CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM Leah ~-"~r ~ ~ ~er~iiiii~i~j~'~'=Ska'{~iii!i~'a'rk Committee, informed the Council of receipt of a $75,000.~:~i9~ ~i~,k from Wara Real Estate, Inc.' The fund raising efforts are cont n~,i~==~n'~J'~=~=~{~ii! I(~'~i~ign, along with the $18,000 already raised, will get the project unde~ay. 6. MOUND HARB'O'~!,!,~.EN~!~-~:~' -'"'" ~ANCE, LLC. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY DEVEE~MENG AGREEMENT Meisel stepped down as ~ayor for this discussion and Acting Mayor Hanus presided. Discussion on this item occurred at the HRA meeting earlier in the evening. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to extend the preliminary development agreement with MHR to June 24, 2003, with condi'tions to include the following: 1) within 30 days the developer team shall provide to the HRA and Council a list of parties who will have a role in MHR, and a description of the role that each will have; 2) provide monthly updates as to the progress of the completion of the site plans; 3) MHR begin preliminary work on the market and financial feasibility studies, although 'not due by June 24,. 2003; 4) MHR begin work on the Memo of Understanding and Contract for Development, although nOt due by June 24, 2003. It was also understood that a further two-month extension will be considered if, by June 24, 2003, MHR had completed the 2 -961 - Mound City Council Minutes - February 25, 2003 site plan and was making satisfactory progress on points 3 and 4. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Osmek and Meyer. Mayor Meisel abstained from participating in discussion and voting. Motion carried. Mayor Meisel returned to preside over the rest of the meeting. 7. CASE #03-01: BILL STODDARD (MINNETONKA ENTERPRISES) REQUEST FOR VARIANCE AT 5331153411535115361 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD. Sarah Smith reviewed the variance request from William Stoddard for front yard setback red,uction of 10 feet for Lots 5-8 and lot area size variances fo.~:Lots 5-7. The purpose for the variance requests is to allow development of the subjeCt':lots for four single family The Planning Commission voted 7 to 1 to recomme:~d:?~enial 6~ii~he variances, with d eta ils noted i n th ei r me eti n g m in ute s. It was noted that a packet of information was d~ii~e:re:~i::ii~' City Hall by Paul Larson on behalf of the applicant at 4:00 p.m. today. Smith ~ that this information was not reviewed prior to the meeting by Staff orii~bU~:cil. '%i~i!iii:~!ii':i;~ .... Applicant was present at the meeting anCJ!i::i~xpl~ii~:~?~i~at he has an option to purchase the subject lots Additional comment regardi~?he:':" b:i~af':[~~~:: ':':' prope~y was presented by Julian Hook, legal representative for the ~ti:~. H~:'::~f~o stated that these four lots have been lots of record since 1962~::~g~?payi~??al estate taxes as four separate lots since that t me. Discussion follow~:~?:~ga~::::.va~i~ issues, including density the Harrison Shores Replat, and vari~ environ~tal i~ues associated with the prope~y. Brown asked staff ~t , thei~commendation for approval and Smith summarized information contained":~?:~he~?~:lann ng repo~. Jeff Skelton of 1770 Baywood Shores Drive, commented that he felt the construction of four homes was not feasible on those lots. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Osmek to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the variances stated and bring said resolution back to the next council meeting. Said resolution shall include the findings of the Planning Commission and that the lot sizes could be conforming, and that upon request of the applicant the matter will be referred to the Planning Commission for consideration of a minor subdivision, dividing the four lots into three conforming lots. The following voted in favor: Brown Hanus and Osmek. The following voted against: Meisel and Meyer. Motion ca~-ried. 3 -962- Mound City Council Minutes - February 25, 2003 / ACTION ON PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Jim Fackler reviewed the project of organizing park districts within the City of Mound that correspond to the voting precincts, and via direct mailings requesting residents to attend a POSAC meeting in order to share information on what the residents would like to see in their parks, what problems they are experiencing and to promote volu nteerism. The cost of postage for three of the six districts was $620. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Osmek to discontinue the direct mailing, due to cost, with a clear message to the Parks Commission to continue with the project in concept but research other means of contacting residents, for example the City Contact or The Laker. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 8A. LETTER FROM RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL CENTER Mayor Meisel received a letter from the Ridgeview support to increase their licensed bed capacity for beds. It was the consensus of the cOuncil to su this asking for a letter of from 109 to 129 8B. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Kandis Hanson's updated included: 1) the public; 2) The old post office Police Chief interviews on February 26th on March 1st at 10:45 a.m. ruary all¸ ne & Spirits opened to Greenway Project; 3) Facility groundbreaking 9. INFORMATIONIMI~ A. LMC Friday Fax B. Correspondence: C. Maxfax D. Report: Finar E. Legal Cou F. Corresponder G. Newsletter: H~ H. Corespondence: I. Report: Public Safety' J. Minutes: POSAC - February 13, 2003 K. Minutes: DCAC- January 16, 2003 h January 2003 Sheriff's Report ;rs of America 10. ADJOURN MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to adjourn at 10:05 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 4 -963- MARCH 10,2003 CITY COUNCIL MEETING P ETTYCAS H POL $106.37 FEB 022703SU E $1,570.19 FEB 022003S U E $261.76 FEB 022603S U E $2,710.71 FEB 030503SU E $11,202.58'MARCH 031003SUE $270,841.75 MARCH TOTAL $286,693.36 -964- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/20/03 9:51 AM Page 1 Current Period: February 2003 Batch Name PettyCashPol User Dollar Amt $106.37 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $106.37 $0.00 In Balance Refer 6163 PETTY CASH Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies Police Dept Petty Cash $106.37 Invoice 030220 Transaction Date 2/20/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $106.37 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $106.37 $106.37 Pre-Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $106.37 Total $106.37 -965- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/28/03 2:26 PM Page Current Period: February 2003 Batch Name 022703SUE User Dollar Amt $1,570.19 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $1,570.19 $0.00 In Balance Refer 22703 KESTNER, AL Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $547.41 Invoice 022703 Transaction Date 2/27/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $547.41 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION KIVISITO $240.00 Invoice 022703 PO 17669 Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION KESTNER $240.00 Invoice 022703 PO 17669 Transaction Date 2/28/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $480.00 Refer 22703 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (POLl Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 CELL PHONES $436.66 Invoice 022703 Transaction Date 2/27~2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total · ~ ................................ $436.66 (Dash Payment E 609-49750-210 Opereting Supplies REPLENISH PETTY GASH $30.20 Invoice 022703 PO 17699 yment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies REPLENISH PETTY CASH $75.92 Invoice 022703 PO 17586 Transaction Date 2/27/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $106.12 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $1,059.99 $480.0O $30.20 $1,570.19 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $1,570.19 $1,570.19 -966- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/19/03 4:00 PM Page 1 Batch Name 022003SUE Payments Refer 22003 MOUND POST OFFICE Cash Payment invoice 022003 Cash Payment invoice 022003 Transaction Date E 601-49400-322 Postage E 602-49450-322 Postage 2/19/2003 Current Period: February 2003 User Dollar Amt Computer Dollar Amt $261.76 $261.76 $0.00 In Balance UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE Wells Fargo 10100 Total $130.88 $130.88 $261.76 Fund Summary 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $130.88 $130.88 $261,76 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $261.76 $261.76 -967- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/07/03 8:01 AM P~e I Current Period: March 2003 Batch Name 030503SUE Payment Computer Doltar Amt $11,202.58 Posted Refer 30503 SCHWALBE, SUE Ck# 010496 3/5/2003 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $492.O0 invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $492.00 Refer 30503 MILLER, JOHSON Ck# 010492 3/5/2003 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBUSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $430.75 Invoice 030503 Cash Payment E 609-49750-305 Medical and Dental Fees REIMBUSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $50.00 Invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 30503 MINNESOTA BUILDING PERMIT TE Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Transaction Date Total $480.75 Ck# 010493 3/5/2003 E 101-42400-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION 03-28-03 $30.00 PO 17726 3/3/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $30.00 Refer 30503 JOHNSON, KELLYAND VERONICA Ck# 010491 3/5/2003 Cash Payment G 101-22900 2331 Driftwood, Johnson, su CLOSE ESCROW ACCOUNT $801.50 e nvoice 030503 ransaction Date 3/3/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total 801 Refer 30503 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (PA/V) Ck# 010494 3/5/2003 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 ;ash Payment Invoice 030503 E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-42400-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 281-45210-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 281-45210-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-42400-321 Telephone & Ceils 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 282-3599 ANDERSON, MIKE $35.33 01-19-03THRU02-18-03221-6822NELSON, JOYCE $11.77 01-19-03 THRU 02-18~03 #23 KESTNER, AL $34.40 WALK IN REPAIR CHARGE $39.15 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 282-5889 SIMONEAU, MATT $73.48 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 292-1182 GEISE, LEE $35.33 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 221-6813 HOFF, KATIE $44.03 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 292-1375 WIDMER, DENICE $14.13 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 292-1375 WIDMER, DENICE $7.07 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 363-5883 NORLANDER, JILL $30,34 -968- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/07/03 8:01 AM Page 2 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 #18 HARDINA, $34.40 Invoice 030503 Cash Payment invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 030503 Cash Payment Invoice 03050-3 E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Ceils E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-43100-321 Telephone & CellS E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells E 602-49450-321' Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 101-45200-321 Telephone & Cells E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Cells Transaction Date 3/312003 Due 0 Refer 30503 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone & Cells Invoice 030503 DAMON 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 221-6814 RAHN, $35.33 JODI 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 221-6811 SKINNER, GREG $24.49 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 221-6074 TAFFE, JOHN $15.40 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 221-6740 BERENT, BRIAN $15.40 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 #21 HEITZ, FRANK $34.40 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 #19 KIVISTO, SCOTT $40.07 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 #16 JOHNSON, TIM $34.40 01-19-03THRU02-18-O3221-6822NELSON, JOYCE $11.78 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 #17 POUNDER, CHRIS $34.40 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 ~221-6822 NELSON, JOYCE $11.78 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 ¢Y22 HEITZ, DON $34.40 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 #20 GRADY, CAN $57.47 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 292-1375 WIDMER, DENICE $14.13 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 221-6811 SKINNER, GREG $24.50 01-19'03 THRU 02-18-03 221-8385 SWARTZER, BRIAN $35.33 01-19-03 THR~ 02-18-03 221-6812 FACKLER, JIM $76.72 01-19-03 THRU 02-18-03 221-6811 SKINNER, GREG $24.49 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $883.92 Ck# 010490 3/5/2003 03-03 472-0600 $1,041.46 -969- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/07/03 8:01 ,AM Page 3 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone & Cells 02-03-03 SERVICE CALL $70.00 Invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,111.46 Refer 30503 PROFESSIONAL LA W ENFORCEM Ck# 010495 3/5/2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training TRAINING 03-19-03 DEBORD $10.00 Invoice 030503 PO 17582 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training TRAINING 03-20-03 HAWKS, SHIRLEY $10.00 Invoice 030503 PO 17582 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.00 Refer 30503 SCOTTYB'S Ck# 010497 3/5/2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous 02-20-03 APPRCIATION DINNER $500.00 Invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3t5/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $500.00 Refer 30503 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA Ck# 010490 3/5/2003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone & Cells 01-03 472-0635 $354.12 Invoice 030503 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone & Ceils 01-03 472-0635 $354.12 Invoice 030503 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone & Cells 01-03 472-0635 $354.12 Invoice 030503 tCash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 01-03 472-0621 $837.66 Invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,900.02 Refer 30503 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (POL Ck# 010500 3/5/2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-212 Motor Fuels THRU 02-26-03 GASOLINE CHARGE $1,522.13 Invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,522.13 Refer 30503 SPEEDWAYSUPERAMERICA (P/W Ck# 010498 3/5/2003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels THRU 02-27-03 GASOLINE CHARGES $264.23 invoice 030503 Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels THRU 02-27-03 GASOLINE CHARGES $1,469.09 Invoice 030503 Cash Payment E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels THRU 02-27-O3 GASOLINE CHARGES $871.17 Invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,604.49 Refer 30503 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (PAR Ck# 010499 3/5/200~3 Cash Payment E 101-45200-212 Motor Fuels THRU 02-27-03 GASOLINE CHARGES Invoice 030503 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 $750.22 Total $750.22 Refer 30503 AT&T Ck# 010489 3/5/2003 Cash Payment E 101-41310~321 Telephone & Cells 02-03 952-250-0429 $106.09 Invoice 030503 Transa(~tion Date 3/5/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $106.09 -970- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/07/03 8:01 AM Page 4 Current Period: March 2003 Fund Summary BATCH Total $11,202.58 101 GENERAL FUND 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $8,943,11 $51.10 $1,415.15 $743,22 $50.0O $11,202.58 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $11,202.58 $o.oo $11,202.58 -971 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 1 Current Period: March 2003 Batch Name 031003SUE User Dollar Amt $270,841.75 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $270,841.75 $0.00 In Balance Refer 31003 A & S TRAINING, LLC Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training FIREARMS TRAINING $1,150.O0 Invoice DS-P-P3-1 PO 17583 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,150.00 Refer 31003 A+ CLEANING CONTRACTORS, IN Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 03-03 CLEANING SERVICE $1,260.96 Invoice 8785 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,280.96 Refer 31003 ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO, INCOR Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings Invoice INV49488 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings Invoice SVCINV02384 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 WINDSCREEN $16.52 SERVICE CALL $355.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $371.52 Refer 31003 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice DC305610 Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice MS304903 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CREDIT-ICE Invoice MT304805 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 31003 ASSURED SECURITY Cash Payment E 609-49750-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings Invoice 2544 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Refer 31003 AUTOMATED ENTRANCE PRODUC Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings Invoice 0017SBP013 $48.96 $109.20 -$7.88 REKEY DOORS Wells Fargo 10100 Total $150.28 BI-PART DOORS $145.57 10100 Total $145.57 $13,600.00 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,600.00 Refer 31003 AWD COOLERS OF MINNESOTA Cash Payment E 101-41110-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Refer 31003 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLENEOUS Invoice 36694700 ;ash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS nvoice 36691500 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 25822000 02-28-03 WATER $30.28 02-28-03 WATER $30.27 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $60.55 $545.36 $284.52 $192.00 -972- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:5¢ PM Page 2 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,604.35 Invoice 25821700 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 Transaction Date Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 258:~1400 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 25759900 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS Invoice 25752300 Cash Payment E WINE Invoice 25693100 Cash Payment E WINE Invoice 25661000 Transaction Date Wells Fargo Refer 31003 BFI OF MINNESOTA, INC. E 609-49750-384 Refuse/Garbage Disp'os 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale 3/6/2003 10100 02-03 GARBAGE SERVICE E 101-43100-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 02-03 GARBAGE SERVICE E 601-49400-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 02-03 GARBAGE SERVICE E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Dlspos 02-03 GARBAGE SERVICE E 101-43100,384 Refuse/Garbage Dis~3os 02-03 MAIN STREET E 222-42260-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 02-03 GARBAGE SERVICE (2) 315/2003 Refer 31003 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUP Cash Payment E 101-41910-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 92885149 PO 17678 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Refer 31003 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Refer 31003 BUILDING CODES/STANDARDS DI Cash Payment E 101-42400-434 Conference & Training Invoice 031003 PO 17463 $804.00 $2,518.05 $83.00 $202.00 $588.00 Total $7,821.26 $35.52 $31.66 $31.66 $31.67 $20.39 $117.40 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $268.30 $1,184.72 Total $1,184.72 $522.02 BULBS Wells Fargo 10100 3/4 MINUS (CL 2) Wells Fargo 10100 04-08-03 REGISTRATION Total $522.02 $35.00 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35.00 Refer 31003 BUILDING OFFICIALS INTERNATIO Cash Payment E 101-42400-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2003 MEMBERSHIP DUES $85.00 Invoice 031003 PO 17462 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $85.00 Refer 31003 CARGIL SALT DIVISIoN ....... '~: Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials BULK SALT $1,431.69 Invoice 660819 -973- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 3 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials BULK SALT $469.20 Invoice 659246 Cash Payment CREDIT-SALT -$1,166.97 Invoice 8751 Cash Payment BULK SALT $1,015.36 Invoice 8752 Cash Payment BULK SALT $1,120.04 Invoice 8749 Cash Payment CREDIT-SALT -$974.54 Invoice 8746 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,894.78 Refer 31003 CARQUEST OF NA VARRE E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery WIPERS $16.52 Invoice N6113 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery WIPERS $16.52 Invoice N6113 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery WIPERS $16.53 Invoice N6113 Transaction Date 2/25/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $49.57 Refer 31003 Cash Payment Invoice 2762 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo Refer 31003 CENTRAL PARTS WAREHOUSE Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials CYLINDER KIT Invoice 41700A Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials CYLINDER KIT Invoice 41700A Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials CYLINDER KIT Invoice 41700A CEDAR VALLEY EXTERIORS E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic GARAGE WALL REPAIR 10100 $500,00 Total $500.00 $16.94 $16.94 $16.94 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.82 Refer 31003 CHADWICK AND MERTZ Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees 02-03 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $4,315.20 invoice Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,315.20 Refer 31003 CLASSIFIEDS, ROUNDUP, LAKER, Cash Payment E 101-42110-328 Employment Advertising 02-01-03 CLASSIFIEDS $29.40 Invoice 21527-B Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $29.40 Refer 31003 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $147.00 Invoice 61381211 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $147.00 Refer 31003 CONTRACT RESOURCE SERVICE E 101-41910-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA CARPET INSTALLATION invoice 23340 $19,344.60 -974- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 4 Current Period: March 2003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 CORPRO COMPANIES, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic CONTRACT VISITS Invoice S$063492 Transaction Date 2/25/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 COX, TROY Cash Payment R 601-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues REFUND WATER/SEWER Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 DAVIS AND STANTON Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous COMMENDATION BARS Invoice 05276 PO 17575 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750.254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa CREDIT-MIX Invoice 205810-A Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER invoice 210535 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 209627' Cash Payment E 609-49750;252~Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 208820 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Refer 31003 DOSSETT, SINDI Cash Payment E 101-49840-300 Professional Srvs VIDEO MEETING Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 DUANE'S 66 SERVICE Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Mateflals LP GAS Invotce 34689 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials LP GAS Invoice 34689 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 E-Z RECYCLING Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic 03-02 CURBSIDE RECYCLING Invoice 4861 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Refer 31003 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 346606-A Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 367181 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 364415 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale invoice 362636 Total $19,344.60 $900.00 Total $900.00 $78.26 Total $78.26 $70.50 Total $70.50 -$10.50 $2,039.10 $422.30 $2,356.75 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,807.65 $20.00 Total $20.00 $30.00 $30.00 Total $60.00 $8,075.25/ Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,075.25 CREDIT-BEER -$8,00 BEER $1,245.05 BEER $7,494,30 BEER $4,890,05 -975- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54. PM Page 5 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $13.15 invoice 361594 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,269.50 invoice 361593 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 - Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15,904.05 Refer 31003 EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings FRESH AIR INTAKE $3,360.00 Invoice P3677 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,380,00 Refer 31003 EXTREME BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $32.00 invoice 106566 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $32.00 Refer 31003 FACKLER, JAMES Cash Payment E 101-45200-218 Clothing and Uniforms REIMBURSE CLOTHING ALLOWANCE $11~3.91 Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $113.91 Refer 31003 G & K SERVICES Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-11-03 UNIFORMS $15.41 invoice 482099 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-11-03 UNIFORMS $15.41 Invoice 482099 Cash Payment E 602-49450-2t8 Clothing and Uniforms 02-11-03 UNIFORMS $15.41 Invoice 482099 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 02-11-03 MATS $30.42 invoice 482099 Cash Payment E 601-49400-2~0 Shop Materials 02-11-03 MATS $30.42 ,.~ invoice 482099 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 02-11-03 MATS $30.43 InVoice 482099 ,, Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-04-03 UNIFORMS $16,52 Invoice 475074 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-04-03 UNIFORMS $16.52 Invoice 475074 CaSh Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies 02-04-03 UNIFORMS $16.52 Invoice 475074 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies 02-04-03 MATS $30.42 Invoice 475074 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies 02-04-03 MATS $30.42 Invoice 475074 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies 02-04-03 MATS $30.41 Invoice 475074 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies 02-18-03 UNIFORMS $17.55 Invoice 489149 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies 02-18-03 UNIFORMS $17.55 Invoice 489149 Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies 02-18-03 UNIFORMS $17,55 Invoice 489149 -976- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/033:54 PM Page 6 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 02-18-03 MATS $30.42 Invoice 489149 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies 02-18-03 MATS $30.42 Invoice 489149 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies 02-18-03 MATS $30.41 Invoice 489149 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 03-04-03 MATS $50.72 Invoice 503125 Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 02-18-03 MATS $13.98 invoice 489146 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 02-18-03 MATS $55.48 Invoice 489148 Cash Payment E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 02-18-03 MATS $27.67 Invoice 489145 Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-25-03 UNIFORMS $17.23 Invoice 496069 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-25-03 UNIFORMS $17.23 Invoice 496069 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 02-25-03 UNIFORMS $17.23 Invoice 496069 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 02-25-03 MATS $28.60 Invoice 496069 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 02-25-03 MATS $28.60 Invoice 496069 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 02-25-03 MATS $28.61 Invoice 496069 Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 03-04-03 MATS $51.85 Invoice 503124 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 03-04-03 MATS $75.50 Invoice 503126 Cash Payment E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 03-04-03 MATS $30.19 Invoice 503123 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $865.10 Refer 31003 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTO REPAIRS $328.46 Invoice 58446 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTO REPAIRS $15.70 Invoice 58368 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTO REPAIRS $40.83 Invoice 58485 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTO REPAIRS $48.41 Invoice 58532 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $433.40 Refer 31003 GCR MINNEAPOLIS TRUCK TIRE C Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery REPAIRS #10 $4,647.19 Invoice 39998 PO 17667 '~ Transaction Date 3/4/2003 . Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,647.19 Refer 31003 GILLESPIE CENTER -977- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03106103 3:54 PM Page 7 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous POLICE BANQUET $108.00 invoice 0zz703 Cash Payment E 101-42110-328 Employment Advertising CHIEF INTERVIEWS $182.00 Invoice 022703 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $290.00 Refer 31003 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies 02-03 WATER #5158500 $55.80 Invoice 022803 Cash Payment E 101-43100-210 Operating Supplies 02-03 WATER #5158502 $9.17 invoice 022803 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 02-03 WATER #5158502 $9.17 Invoice 022803 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies 02-03 WATER #5158502 $9.16 Invoice 022803 Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies 02-03 WATER #5158501 $29.45 invoice 022803 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $112.75 Refer 31003 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICER Cash Payment E 101-41500-433 Dues and Subscriptions 05-01-03 THRU 04-30-04 DUES $140.00 Invoice 0023003-B Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $140.00 Refer 31003 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY .................... Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$22.77 invoice 608237 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$80.90 Invoice 607266 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $535.38 Invoice 678024 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $382.75 Invoice 678023 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $4,088.72 Invoice 674676 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $253.65 invoice 675675 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $306.00 Invoice 674547 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $160.02 Invoice 674546 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $117.18 Invoice 674352 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $177,55 Invoice 674345 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,917.58 Refer 31003 HANSON, KANDIS Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Cells REIMBURSE EXPENSES $49.95 invoice 022003 Payment E 101-41310-331 Use of personal auto REIMBURSE EXPENSES $11.42 Invoice 022003 -978- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 8 Current Period: March 2003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $61.37 Refer 31003 HARDINA, DAMON Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 2003 BOOT ALLOWANCE invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 1~0100 $129.97 Total $129.97 Refer 31003 Cash Payment Invoice 4415 Transaction Date HA TCH, JIM SALES COMPA Y E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials POWER SUPPLY $590.92 PO 17672 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $590.92 Refer 31003 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery HOSE, ETC $172.00 Invoice 45027 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery MATERIALS $102.72 Invoice 45105 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair SHAFT,PLATE,ECT $117.89 Invoice 021903 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $392.61 Refer 31003 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S A Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners 01-03 BOOKING FEE $1,099.43 Invoice 013102 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,099.43 Refer 31003 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR (R Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners 01-03 ROOM AND BOARD $1,884.48 Invoice 000915 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,884.48 Refer 31003 IKON OFFICE MACHINES Cash Payment . E 101-42110-202 Duplicating and copying $125.17 Invoice 23636366 Transactions...... Date 3/5/2003 Total $125.17 Refer 31003 INFRATECH Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply $1,923.50 Invoice 030182 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,923.50 Refer 31003 ISLAND PARK SKELL Y 02-24-03 THRU 03-24-03 MAINTENANCE Wells Fargo 10100 MAGNETIC LOCATORS Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS $403.99 Invoice 12411 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS $403.98 Invoice 12411 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS $429,40 Invoice 12185 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS $116.97 Invoice 12358 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS $25.86 Invoice 12365 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS $512.70 Invoice 12471 -979- CITY OF MOUND Payments 08/06/03 3:54- PM Page 9 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS $548.73 Invoice 12563 Cash Payment Invoice 12579 Cash Payment Invoice 12642 Cash payment Invoice 12711 Transaction Date E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery REPAIR TRANSMISSION E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery REPAIR TIRE 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 $116,95 $1,581.48 $15.00 Total $4,155.06 Refer 31003 JOHNS VARIETYAND PETS CaSh Payment E 101-42110-328 Employment Advertising INTERVIEW SUPPLIES $13.34 Invoice 125332 Transaction Date 314/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13.34 Refer 31003 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE Invoice 216240 Cash Payment WINE Invoice 1526986 Cash PaYment WINE Invoice 1526985 Cash Payment LIQUOR Invoice 1526984 Cash Payment WINE InVoice 1524131 Cash Payment WINE Invoice 1524130 Cash payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR InVoice 1524129 Cash payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE InvOice 1521359 Cash payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 1521357 Cash payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 1521356 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE invoice 1518128 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale 10100 Total -$21.25 $1,171.35 $1,953.60 $1,135.61 $122.88 $237.05 $994.59 $304.81 $811.00 $939.30 $0.00 $7,648.94 Refer 31003 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN Cash Payment invoice 55218-A Cash Payment Invoice 55128-B Cash Payment Invoice 55218-C Cash Payment Invoice 55218-D Invoice 55218-E E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs E 60t-49400-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 CTY RD 15 REALGINMENT 01-03 P/W FRANCHISE ORDINANCE 01-03 NEW ,LIQUOR STORE 01-03 DREAMWOOD LAWSUITE 01-03 WELL SITE LAND PURCHASE $568.45 $226.26 $806,00 $132.oo $259.09 -980- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 10 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 SKAALERUD LOT SURVEY $1,874.85 Invoice 55218-F Cash Payment E 101~-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 ROEGLIN ASSESSMENT APPEAL $132.74 invoice 55218-G Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 SAGE ASSESSMENT APPEAL $676.30 Invoice 55218-H Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 EXECUTIVE $1,068.00 Invoice 55218-1 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 ADMINISTRATIVE $710.29 Invoice 55218-J Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PUBLIC SAFETY $278.48 Invoice 55218-K Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PUBLIC WORKS $783.40 Invoice 55218-L Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PLANNING AND ZONING $372.00 Invoice 55218-M Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PARK AND RECREATION $144.00 Invoice 55218-N Cash Payment E 101-41110-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 HRA MEETING $16.50 Invoice 55217-A Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 01-03 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $206.50 Invoice 55217-B Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 NEW POST OFFICE $598.40 Invoice 55217-C Cash Payment G 101-22908 Landform Development 01-03 LANDFORM DEVELOPMENT $744.50 Invoice 55217-D Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,596.76 Refer 31003 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials PENTRATING OIL $17,41 Invoice 0568538 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials PENTRATING OIL $17.41 Invoice 0568538 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials PENTRATING OIL $17.41 Invoice 0568538 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials MIRROR HEAD $21.70 Invoice 0581721 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials MIRROR HEAD $21.70 Invoice 0581721 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials MIRROR HEAD $21.69 Invoice 0581721 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $117.32 Refer ~ 31003 LEAGUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T Cash Pay'~nent E 101-41110-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT Invoice 031003 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 Cash Payment Invoice 031003 E 101-41310-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT E 101-41500-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $87.06 $70.13 $193,46 -981 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 11 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $2,258.28 Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 101-42400-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $227.32 invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 101-43100-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $846.41 Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 101-45200-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $195.88 Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 222-42260-151 Worker's Comp lnsuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $5,603.21 Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $810.13 invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 601-49400-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $1,165.62 Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $1,721.83 Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 281-45210-151 Worker's Comp Insuranc WORKERS COMP 1ST INSTALLMENT $246.67 Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,424.00 Refer 31003 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $34.90 Invoice 514146 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,473.55 Invoice 514145 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $7,258.65 Invoice 511848 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,88t~.75 Invoice 509640 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $37.30 invoice 508412 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,517.30 Invoice 508411 Transaction.~...... Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,208.45 Refer 31003 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-27-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $256.40 Invoice 12061 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-24-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $23.20 Invoice 12040 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-20-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $112.70 Invoice 12029 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-13-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $146.30 Invoice 12500 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-10-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $21.60 Invoice 12479 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-06-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $76.10 Invoice 12466 Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-06-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $64.30 invoice 12465 -982- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 12 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 02-03-03 DELIVERY CHARGE $16.00 invoice 12442 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $716.60 Refer 31003 MES - SNYDER, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies SPINNING NOZZLE $545.00 Invoice 052872 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $545.00 Refer 31003 METRO MUNICIPALITIES, ASSOC! Cash Payment E t01-41310-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2003 ANNUAL DUES BALANCE DUE $10.00 Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10.00 Refer 31003 MIDLAND GLASS COMPANY, INCO Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings F/I SECURITY SYSTEM $452.63 Invoice 13697 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $452.63 Refer 31003 MINNCOMM PAGING Cash Payment E 601-49400-418 Other Rentals Invoice 67200003035 Cash Payment E 602-49450-418 Other Rentals Invoice 67200003035 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 02-03 ON-CALL PAGERS 02-03 ON-CALL PAGERS Wells Fargo 10100 $105.07 $105.07 Total $210.14 Refer 31003 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals COLIFORM,MF-WATER $72.50 Invoice 157196 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $72.50 Refer 31003 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCiA TiO Cash Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contrib 02-03 FIRE RELIEF $9,361.66 Invoice 031103 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,361.66 Refer 31003 MOUND, CITY OF Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities Invoice 031003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 WATER/SEWER FINAL WATER/SEWER 02-03-03 THRU 02-14-03 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $19.67 $16.79 $36.46 Refer 31003 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS Cash Payment Invoice 74750 Cash Payment Invoice 74984 Cash Payment Invoice 75175 Transaction Date E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs 3/4/2003 CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE WellsFa~o 10100 Total $1,085.gl $1,011.30 $1,112.36 $3,209.57 Refer 31003 MUZAK - MINNEAPOLIS Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings Invoice 119320 LEASED MUSIC EQUIPMENT $498.95 -983- CITY OF MOUND 03/o6/03 3:54 PM '~ Pag~ ~3 Payments Current Period: March 2003 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $498.95 Refer 31003 NATIONAL RECREATION PARKAS Cash Payment E 101-45200-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2003 MEMBERSHIP $215.00 Invoice 031003 PO 17679 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $215.00 Refer 31003 NATIONAL WATERWORKS Cash Payment E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract CLAMPS, ETC $799.96 Invoice 9133446 Cash Payment E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract CLAMPS, ETC $2,500.00 Invoice 9133321 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,299.96 Refer 31003 NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $983.16 invoice 19364 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $983.16 Refer 31003 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN .................. .... Cash Payment E 10'1-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS $211.76 Invoice 821319627 PO 17677 Cash Payment E 609-49750-409 Other Equipment Repair MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS $53.23 Invoice 821319627 PO 17677 on Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total ................. $264.99 Refer 31003 NORTHERN WATER WO"~ SUP~ ..................................................................................... Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 RepaidMaint Supply WATER METER Invoice 3156176 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 3155683 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 3155991 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 3153360 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 $304.74 WATER METER $138.33 WATER METER $1,013.30 CREDIT-METER -$39.27 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,417.10 Refer 31003 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INCORPO Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One-Call Invoice 3010536 Cash Payment E 602-49450,395 Gopher One-Call Invoice 3010536 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 01-03 LOCATES 01-03 LOCATES $51,15 $51.15 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $102.30 Refer 31003 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $350.97 Invoice 8001472 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $429.23 Invoice 8000942 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 8000433 $174.50 Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,979.38 Invoice 8000426 -984- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 14 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253rWine For Resale CREDIT-WINE Invoice 8000548 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 8000942 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Refer 31003 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 42173695 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 42173642 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Refer 31003 Cash Payment Invoice 925387 Cash Payment Invoice 925386 Cash Payment Invoice 923295 Cash Payment Invoice 923924 Cash Payment Invoice 923293 Cash Payment Invoice 291257 Cash Payment Invoice 921256 Transaction Date WINE Wells Fa?go -$8450 $429.23 10100 Total $3,354.81 $121,56 $129.76 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $251.32 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, /NC E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,889.30 10100 Total E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo $806.85 $287.25 $100.00 $394.45 $64.50 $109.60 $4,651.95 Refer 31003 'Cash Payment Invoice 11074 Cash Payment Invoice 10506 Transaction Date PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $1,885.61 $1,296.98 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,182.59 Refer 31003 PLUNKETT'S, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic FEB,MAR,APRIL PEST CONTROL $41.40 Invoice 759267 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $41.40 Refer 31003 POUNDER, CHRISTOPHER Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 2003 BOOT ALLOWANCE $164.00 Invoice 031003 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $164.00 Refer 31003 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$84.43 Invoice 213957-00-B Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$84,43 Invoice 213957-00-C -985- CiTY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 15 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$13.09 Invoice 228615-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa CREDIT-MIX -$6.06 invoice 227142-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,760.67 Invoice 231514-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $91.50 Invoice 231323-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,865.29 Invoice 230802-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $436.46 Invoice 228737-00 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,965.91 Refer 31003 R & S COLLISION SERVICES, INCO Cash Payment E 101-42110-361 General Liability Ins AUTO REPAIR $586.10 Invoice 7707 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $586.10 Refer 3100~ ~.~i ELECTRIC, iN~)~'Po~D Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings ADD RECEP FOR COPIER $166.00 Invoice 022503 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings DUPLEX FLOOR RECPS $650.00 Invoice 021103 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $816.00 Refer 31003 RANDY'S SANITATATION ........." ................................................ ....................... Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings 02-03 ROLL-OFF $221.07 Invoice 1755 Transaction Date 3~3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $221.07 Refer 31002 SENTRY SYSTEMS, INCORPORA T Cash Payment Invoice 29174 Transaction Date G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings 3/5/2003 03-01-03 FIRE ALARM SYSTEM Wells Fargo 10100 Total $772.17 $772.17 Refer 31003 SHAKOPEE, CITY OF Cash Payment E 101-42110-440 Other Contractual Servic 2003 DRUG TASK FORCE CONTRIBUTION Invoice 1965 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,400.00 $8,400.00 Refer 31003 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, I Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Invoice 0097088 Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 01-03 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Invoice 0097090 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Welts Fargo 10100 Total $9,000,24 Refer 31003 SOS PRINTING ...................... ' ................................ ' ...................................................... Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies ENVELOPES $34.94 Invoice 64470 PO 17469 E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies ENVELOPES $34.94 Invoice 64470 $4,081.22 $4,919,02 -986- CITY OF MOUND. Payments 03~06~03 3:54 PM Page 16 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 64470 Cash Payment Invoice 64470 Cash Payment Invoice 64470 Cash Payment Invoice 64470 Cash Payment Invoice 64470 Cash Payment Invoice 64470 Cash Payment Invoice 64470 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Refer 31003 STS CONSULTANTS Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 240885 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies ENVELOPES $34.94 ENVELOPES $34.94 ENVELOPES $34.94 ENVELOPES $11.65 ENVELOPES $11.65 ENVELOPES $17.47 ENVELOPES $17.45 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $232.92 ASBESTOS FLOOR TILE Wells Fargo 10100 $519.83 Total $519.83 Refer 31003 TELESYSTEMS,/NC. Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings TELEPHONE SYSTEMS $1,740.00 Invoice 1232 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,740.00 Refer 31003 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 286271-B Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 286964 Cash Payment Invoice 289494 Cash Payment Invoice 289493 Cash Payment Invoice 289492 Cash Payment Invoice 288711 Cash Payment Invoice 288519 Cash Payment Invoice 288518 Cash Payment Invoice 247703 Transaction Date CREDIT-BEER BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo -$0,50 $214,15 $428,00 $1,987,45 $47.75 $8,897.75 $3O5.2O $4,522.10 $392,00 10100 Total $16,793.90 Refer 31003 THYSSEN-KRUPP ELEVATOR COR Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic MARCH,APRIL,MAY MAINTENANCE Invoice 205030 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 TODD, RICHARD $491.04 Total $491.04 -987- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 17 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms invoice 031003 Transaction Date 2/25/2003 Refer 31003 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY REIMBURSE BOOT ALLOWANCE $99.99 Wells~Fargo 10100 Total $99.99 Cash Payment E 101.43100-230 Shop Materials SHOP MATERIALS $10.75 invoice 230858 Cash Payment E 601-49400~230 Shop Materials SHOP MATERIALS $10.75 Invoice 230858 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials SHOP MATERIALS $10.75 Invoice 230858 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $32.25 Refer 31003 TOL'I'Z, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSO Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Se~vic 1705 EAGLE LANE LEAK $375.55 Invoice 060883 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 31003 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS, INC. Cash Payment E 609-49750-500 Capital Outlay (GENE~RA DATA CONVERSION invoice 14778 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies REGISTER PAPER ROLLS Invoice 14834 ITransaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,469.61 Refer 31003 TRI-STA TE PUMP AND CONTOL, I Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 RepaidMaint Supply Invoice 21949 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Refer 31003 TRUE VALUE, MOUND Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials Invoice 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Cash Payment invoice 013103 Payment 013103 Cash Payment Invoice 013103 Total $375.55 $9,4O3.92 $65.69 LAMP Wells Fargo 10100 Total MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES E 601.49400-230 Shop Materials E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 101.45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES E 101.45200-409 Other Equipment Repair MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES E 101-45200.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES E 101-41110-300 Professional Srvs E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies E 222.42260~210 Operating Supplies MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES E 101-43100.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $96.92 $96.92 $81.06 $77.06 $67.46 $104.62 $16.83 $15.53 $13.40 $12.52 $290.11 $15.21 $56.63 -988- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 18 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 022803 Cash Payment Invoice 022803 Cash Payment Invoice 022803 Cash Payment Invoice 022803 Cash Payment Invoice 022803 Cash Payment Invoice 022803 Cash Payment Invoice 022803 Cash Payment Invoice 022803 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Refer 31003 TUSHIEMONTGOMERYARCHiTE Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings Invoice 18 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 E 101-41910-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 802-49450-230 Shop Materials E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $16.21 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLII~S MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Wells Fargo 10100 01-03 LIQUOR STORE Wells Fargo 10100 Total Total $247.87 $9.93 $50.33 $53.42 $52.35 $26.26 $439.21 $1,646.01 $67.17 $67.17 Refer 31003 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 375238-0 Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies Invoice 376230-0 Cash Payment E 281-45210-200 Office Supplies Invoice 375540-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES SELF-INKING STAMP COPY PAPER INK JET CARTRIDGE INK JET CARTRIDGE $20.68 $20.68 $20.68 $20.68 $20.68 $6.89 $6.89 $10.34 $10.37 $67.57 $85.40 $t5.41 $30.82 -989- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 19 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377593-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 101.45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450~200 Office Supplies invoice 377059-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110~200 Office Supplies Invoice 377141-0 Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377556-0 Cash Payment E 101.43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377656-0 Cash Payment E 601.49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377656-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377656-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 376778-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 376778-0 Cash Payment E 281-45210-200 Office Supplies Invoice 376778-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 376778-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 376778-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 376778-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377605-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 377235-0 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 31003 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSO Cash Payment E 601-49400-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Invoice CTS00492462 INKJET CARTRIDGE MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES FOOTREST,BATTERY,ETC CHAtRMAT,DRAWER,BULLETIN OUTLET OUTLET OUTLET ,. CHAIRMAT,DRAWER CABINET CHAIRMAT,BOARD CHAIRMAT CHAIRMAT,BOARD CHAIRMAT,BOARD MISCELLAENOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES CHAIRMAT Wells Fargo 10100 $30.81 $9.47 $9.47 $9.47 $9.47 $9.47 $3.16 $3.16 $4.73 $4.71 $86.44 $147.82 $208.03 $208.03 $208.O3 $186.15 $74.36 $325.71 $51.05 $146.69 $146.70 $1,063.16 $78,29 Total $3,361.47 WATER/SEWER REV BDS 1993B $214.09 -990- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06/03 3:54 PM Page 20 Current Period: March 2003 Cash Payment E 602-49450-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Invoice CTS00492462 Cash Payment E 396-47000-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Invoice CTS00497879 Cash Payment E 609-49750-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Invoice CTS00498710 Cash Payment E 60149400-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Invoice CTS00498709 Cash Payment E 675-49425-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Invoice CTS00498709 Cash Payment E 351-47000-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees Invoice CTS00498711 Transaction Date 3/4/2003 WATER/SEWER REV BDS 1993B PSB LEASE REV BONDS 2002 LIQUOR GROSS REV 2001B GEN OBLIGATION SERIES 2001A GEN OBLIGATION SERIES 2001A GO IMPROVE SERIES 2001C Wells Fargo 10100 $261.66 $950.00 $373.75 $186.88 $186.87 $373.75 Total $2,547.00 Rear 31003 WIDMER, INCORPORA TED Cash Payment E 440-43140-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-03 SNOWPLOWING $2,467.00 Invoice 5890 Cash Payment E 601-49400-400 Repairs '& Maint Contract 02-01-03 WATERMAIN BREAK $1,815.00 invoice 5868 Cash Payment E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 02-05-03 REAPIR WATERMAIN $968.00 Invoice 5867 Cash Payment E 440-43140-440 Other Contractual Servic 01-03 SNOWPLOWING $62.00 Invoice 5808 Transaction Date 3/3/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,312.00 Refer 31003 WILLE'FTE BUILDING COMPANY Cash Payment E 101-41910-500 Capital Outlay (GENE~RA REMODEL ClTYHALL $15,128.00 Invoice 030203 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15,128,00 Refer 31003 WINE COMPANY ......... ' ..... Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR $1,347.22 Invoice 095060 Transaction Date 3/6/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,347.22 Refer 31003 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 609-49750-381 Electric Utilities 02-03 ELECTRIC SERVICE $571.76 Invoice 0895-951-498-05 Transaction Date 3/5/2003 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $571.76 -991 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/06103 3:54 PM Page 21 Current Period: March 2003 , Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 351 G.O. Improvement Bonds 2001C 396 HRA LEASE REV BONDS 2002 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 440 CBD FUND 455 TIF 1-2 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $84,390.31 $7,131 .O5 $587.79 $373.75 $950.00 $6,793.87 $2,529.00 $1,686.68 $4,081.22 $16,521.97 $5,586.28 $122,586.05 $8,075.25 $186.87 $9,361.66 $270,841.75 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $270,841.75 $270,841.75 -992- CITY OF MOUND Payments · 03107/03 8:02 AM Page 1 Current Period: February 2003 Batch Name 022603SUE Payment Computer DollarAmt $2,710.71 Posted Refer 22603 SKINNER, GREG E 602-49450-430 Miscellaneous E 601-49400-430 Miscellaneous E 101-43100-430 Miscellaneous Cash Payment Invoice 022603 Cash Payment Invoice 022603 Cash Payment Invoice 022603 Ck# 010391 2/25/2003 REIMBURSE CHAIRS $33.34 REIMBURSE CHAIRS $33.33 REIMBURSE CHAIRS $33.33 Cash Payment Invoice 022603 Transaction Date Transaction Date 2/25/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 22603 NORLANDER, JILL .Ck# 010390 2/25/2003 E 101-42400-210 Operating Supplies REIMBURSE PERMIT ZIPLOCKS $11.76 2/25/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $11.76 Refer 22603 MINNESOTA RURAL WA TER ASSO Ck# 010389 2/25/2003 Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION 03-04-03 Invoice 022603 PO 17676 Cash Payment E 101-43100-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION 03-04-03 Invoice 022603 PO 17676 Transaction Date 2/25/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 $100.00 $100.00 Total $200.00 Refer 22603 CONSECO VARIABLE INSURANCE Ck# 010388 2/25/2003 Cash Payment E 609-49750-131 Employer Paid Health 2003 ANNUAL LIFE INSURANCE $2,398.95 Invoice 0001032798-B Transaction Date 2/25/2003 Due 0 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,398.95 Fund Summary BATCH Total $2,710.71 101 GENERAL FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $145.09 $133.33 $33.34 $2,398.95 $2,710.71 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $2,710.71 $o.oo $2,710.71 -993- 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 CITY OF MOUND PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BONNIE RITTER SUBJECT: TREE REMOVAL LICENSES DATE: MARCH 6, 2003 The following tree removal licenses are up for renewal. This license year runs from April 1st through March 31. All renewals are subject to receipt of proper application, fee and certificate of insurance. Aaspen Tree Service, Wayzata Bear Tree Service, Mound Rob's Tree Service, Watertown Viking Land Tree Service, Rockford Tall Timber Tree Experts, Wayzata Roger's Tree Service, Mound Asplundh Tree Experts, Spring Lake Park Amberwood, Mound Emery's Tree Service, Delano Shorewood Tree Service, Watertown Rainbow Tree Service, St. Louis Park Above Ground & Beyond, Mound Tree Top Service, Inc., Delano pdnted on recycled paper -994- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FA, X: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound,com TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BONNIE RITTER SUBJECT: SET-UP LICENSE DATE: MARCH 6, 2003 The following Consumption & Display Permit (set-ups) is up for renewal. The license year for this license is from April 1st through March 31st. Approval is contingent upon receipt of all applications, fees and certificates of insurance. Al & Alma's Supper Club CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.S.C. FAX: (952) 975-9963 E-MAIL: CHADLAW(~DSAC ENTRAL.NET TELEPHONE: (952) 975-9960 March 3, 2003 Kandis Hanson City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55317 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK BUILDING 600 WEST 79TH STREET, SUITE 210 P.O, BOX 623 CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 TAX ID NO. 41-2007769 Richard J. Chadwick* Craig M. Mertz Lynette M. Bledsaw** Of Counsel: Larry Gansen *Also licensed in Wisconsin **Also licensed in Michigan Re: Possible Closure of Ridgedale Court House Our File No.: 6678 VIA FAX AND U.S. MAIL Dear Ms. Hanson · Introduction: Last week it was announced by the Chief Judge of the Hennepin County Court that the Ridgedale Branch of the District Court would probably soon be closed because of budgeting difficulties. Under the proposal each of the various cities now assigned to Ridgedale would be individually re-assigned to a new location. In the future, Mound would find that its new cases would be permanently heard at Brookdale, Southdale, or downtown Minneapolis. [Background: At the present time, Mound officers routinely travel to the Ridgedale to obtain warrants, file complaints, file citations, and testify in court cases. Any of the three proposed alternate locations would result in increased travel time for officers (compensation issues for the city budget) and increased occurrences of officers being in transit to court rather than being on patrol in Mound.] Commentary: Last week all of suburban prosecutors were asked to attend court house closure meeting. The meeting was held last Thursday afternoon, 02/27/03, and I attended the meeting on behalf of the City of Mound. At the meeting, I learned that closure idea had been broadened and that now both Southdale or Ridgedale, or possibly both of those suburban court houses, were under serious consideration for closure. Concerns were expressed at the meeting that closure of the suburban court houses, rather than actually cutting costs, might merely be shifting costs from the court system budget to suburban city budgets. After listening to the commentary, I concluded that mere opposition to closing suburban court houses would be ineffective, as it is certain that expenses will have to be cut to meet revenue. Thus the affected communities will have to participate in a process to identify -996- March 3, 2003 Page 2 other areas of cost savings. In order to give you some idea of the scope of the problem, published statistics for the year 2002 show the criminal court work load being split up between the four Hennepin County court houses roughly as follows: 2002 Misdemeanor (petty misd., misd, and gross misd.) Cases Filed Downtown MPLS 37,639 Brookdale 12,573 Ridgedale 11,081 Southdale 16,370 Total 77,663 All of the attendees at the prosecutor meeting were asked to ask their City Managers for a city council resolution (or a mayor's letter, or a manager's letter), which would be addressed to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the Hennepin County District Court, and the Hennepin County Board, opposing court house closures. All were urged to send such a letter before the end of this week, as this matter is quickly coming to a decision point. As background information I enclose the following: 1. A copy of a 02/28/03 report from the Bloomington prosecutor to Bloomington Mayor Gene Winstead (attached as Exhibit A); [While this report focuses on the effects of closure of the Southdale Court House, the problems identified would be largely similar for Mound if Ridgedale were closed~] 2. A copy of resolution proposed by staff of the City of Minnetonka to the Minnetonka City Council opposing closure of Ridgedale court house (attached as Exhibit B); 3. A copy of a resolution proposed by staff of the City of Bloomington to the Bloomington City Council opposing closure of the Southdale court house (attached as Exhibit C); and 4. A copy of a letter drafted by the Minnetonka City Attorney, which letter I understand was being presented to the Minnetonka mayor for signature (though I do not know its present status) (attached as Exhibit D). -997- March 3, 2003 Page 3 Conclusion and Requested Action: It was the sense of the suburban prosecutor meeting, that each municipality should communicate its concerns to the District Court before Friday, March 7, 2003 in one of three ways: First preference, by council resolution, and failing that, Second preference, by City mayor's letter, and failing that, Third preference, by City manager's letter. Sincerely, ~____~ICK AND MERTZ, P.S.C. Craig M. Mertz, Mound City~rosector ptk/CMM enclosures: (4) cc: John Dean, Mound City Attorney T:\N ETBACK\6678~vIANAGER 1 .LTR -998- IIIcity of bloomington, minnesota Memorandum DATE: February 28, 2003 TO: Mayor Gene Winstead, ~ cc: Mark -CityAtty. FROM: RE: Sandra H. Johnson - Potential Closure of Summary: On February 27, 2003, at the Criminal. Justice Coordinating Committee meeting, Mark Thompson, the Hennepin County Cou~ A~sti:ator, announced that due:to anticipated budget cuts it was likely that one or more of the suburban'division courthouses, potentially the Southdale facility serving Bloomington, wo.uld be.i closing. He went on to indicate that the suburban cases displaced by the Closing W0uld. fiot necessarily be diverted to the other suburban courthouses; they might go to the downtown courthouse. ThOmpson advised that if the anticipated budget cuts went beyond the initially anticipated 6%, Hennepin County's chief judge, Kevin Burke, would be announcing the closure and'that it would be done very swiftly. The Minnesota Bar Association .announced today, that ~e }egislature anticipates cutting 10% of the state court's budget. Suburban prosecutors, the head of the. Mkmesota.Chiefs of Police, Chief Joy Rikala, and Hennepin County Commissioner Koblick. met aM-agreed that the closure of any suburban division courthouse would have an adverse impact onthe remaining ones and might signal the demise of all of the division courthouses, tt was. agreed that we would attempt to work with court administration to find more efficient'meth°ds.of processing our cases, including better utilization of the suburban courthouses, Ali of the suburban prosecutors agreed to draft resolutions opposing any closure of suburban courthouses and asking to be included in the Hennepin County District. Court budget cutting process and in devising cost-saving measures for the processing of'suburban cases for the conside, ration of'our City Councils. Issues: 1. What would be the impact of the closure of another suburban courthouse with the reallocation of a portion of those cases to the Southdale, Division IV, Courthouse? 2. What would be the likely impact of di~,e~ng-Bloomington's petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor and gross misdemean01~¢ases?downt0wn? A. Implications of a Reallocation of Other. Suburban Cases to Division IV. The Division IV Courthouse is already running at .capacity With the following 2002 caseload: 1,656 Gross Misd. Case filings (781 from Bloomington) 10,593 Misd. Case filings (2903 from Bloomington) 4,121 Petty Misd. Case filings (est. 1200 from Bloomington) , 16,370 cases (est. 4884 from Bloomington) EXHIBIT -999- , Bloomington in 2002 made 10,704 court appearances at Division IV with its prosecutors appearing in court 4 days per week, one other city. The courthouse serves 6 communities: Richfiold, Eden Prairie, MAC and Bloomington. The other suburban courthouses at Ridgeda!e and:Brookdale each had about 12,000 cases in 2002. If another courthouse closed and its filings split between the remaining two divisions, the Southdale courthouse could expect to receive approximately 5,500 of those cases. This is the equivalent of adding another Bloomington:to the~o0urtho~e capacity. Potential Problems: 1. The current court administration staff is Unable to keep up with their existing caseload. There is up to 3 week backlog in updating court records and opening and processing incoming mail. The resulting failure to promptly record fine payments, guilty pleas by mail, attorney waivers of the 1st appearance in court, and requests for continuances of court cases has lead to unnecessary court appearances and also the erroneous issuance of warrants. · Lack of adequate competent court administrative staff has also led to 'bad updates' of court records. What this has meant is that some cases that are supposed to be scheduled for jury trial have been mistakenly updated as 'dismissed'. Defendant's are given a notice of the time and place of their next court appearance that is different from court records, so that the court, p[osecutor and state witnesses are in one courtroom ready to start a trial and the defendant is at another location. · The court service counter is overwhelmed with unreasonably long lines. 2. There is no expansion space at Division IV for additional administrative staff, probation officers or public defenders. 3. There is inadequate lobby and courtroom seating for the number of defendants set on for court at any given time. 4. There is inadequate office space for prosecutors. Originally, each jurisdiction was assigned their own office space from which to work while the court was in recess. Because of the need for additional public defender and probation:0ffieer, space, 6 jurisdictions work out of one office so that it is no }onger possible.to make the court recess time productive. Conclusion The closure of any suburban courthouse and the increased caseload from a reallocation of their cases will result in sharp reduction of court access and court-, services to the citizens of the suburban communities assigned there. It will also shift some of the costs of the court system onto the suburban communities in the form oflndr(ases in the coStof delivering prosecution and police services. - 1000- 2 B. Potential Loss of Suburban Court and its Implications. There is reason to believe that it is the eventual Plan of court administration to close all of the suburban courthouses, requiring all court appearances (even speeding tickets) to be heard downtown. The likely implications for the. dties.w~Uld include: 1. Inconvenience to citizens requiring, access to'.the-courts only at a 24-story downtown courthouse along with all other Hcnnepin County communities and more serious felony offenses and offenders. There will. be much:longer court calendars. 2. Additional cost of delivering prosecution services resUlting from thc remote location and shared calendars with other jurisdictions. It. is. possible thatcities may have cases set for the same time and date in separate courtrooms. Suburban communities do not typically have sufficient prosecutors to cover more than Otie courtroom at any given time. 3. Additional cost of police services. Police officers woUld not only have to appear m a remote location, but their waiting time at court will also increase on mUlti-jurisdictional calendars. More significantly, their day-to-day one of transporting criminal case.filings, complaints and prisoners to the downtown eourthouseinstead of simply the Southdale court will be time consuming and likely to result in additional cost, such as booking costs. 4. Loss of civilian witness and crime victim cooperation with the prosecution. The remote location and the waiting time at eourt'will- have a direct, impact on the prosecutor's ability to get victims and witnesses to court:.wh~n needed. Law: Minn. Stat. §488A.01, subd. 9, provides that: · The municipal building commission or the county of Hennepin, or both shall provide suitable quarters for the holding of regUlar terms of court in Mpls, Bloomington, .and at such other northern and western suburban loe.~tio, ns'clisburSed throt~ghout the county as may be designated b~ a ma/ority ofthed~td~e~of the ,court; and · In addition to the regular locations of holding court, trials of traffic and criminal violations before court without ajury shall be' held in suehloeations as may be designated by a majority of the judges of the-court. Minn. Stat. §383B.65, provides that: · The county of Hennepin may relocate the municipal court serving the City of Bloomington and thereupon shall provide 'suitable quarters for the holding of regular terms of court in a southern suburban location with the county qs may be designated b_¥ the .mq[ority of the judges of the court. All functions of the court may be discharged, including both court and jury trials of civil and criminal matters .... In 1986, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §487.191 and a state-wide initiative to consolidate all the various lower level courts into a single district court, the Hennepin County municipal court, processing petty misdemeanor and misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases, merged with the existing District Court for the Fourth Judicial District. This did not result in a physical -1001 - consolidation of the courthouses, the division Co~ouses continued to handle the non-felony criminal cases. Despite the merger, the statutes requiring suitable suburban court locations continues to be good law. That was made clear in the case of In re Petition Regarding the Assignment of Judges in the 9th Judicial District, 416 N.W.2d 450 (Minn. 1987) where the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the unification statute' did not repeal existing statutes regarding court administration, only those provisions that might be irreconcilable, Minn. Stat, §488A.01 has been amended twice since unification of the courts without any. effort to repeal it. Also clear is that the Ckief Justice of the Supreme Court has overall supervision over the court system and the chief judges of our state's ten judicial districts Under M~: Smt~ §2.724. Generally speaking, the Board of County Commissioners has authority over the physical plant of the division courthouses, with the court system paying them rent for the use of the facility. The Ridgedale court's rent is $7,000.00 per month. Minn. Stat. §375.18, subd. 3 provides that each county board may erect, furnish and.maintain a suitable courthouse. Minn. Stat. §475.52 allows the board to issue bonds for the-acquiSitiOn or betterment of the courthouses. In the end, however, Minn, Stat. §488A.01, subd. 9, seems to require that there be separate southern, western and northern suburban court locations, but allows a majority of the judges of the district to designate the exact location. Accordingly, it runs contrary to statute to require the suburban cases to be heard downtown. A majority of the bench in conjunction with the county board could move the Southdale cour!house; butonly to another south suburban location. Finally, it is not obvious how the closUre of a suburban courthouse would result in a significant cost savings to the district court. Court :~stmtion and the court must still process the cases wherever they are heard. This should.:req~r¢: flie;i.s, ame level' of staffing and equipment. The only savings realized would be the appm~!irnate.:$~i000.0.0 per.month in rent for the facility. However, it would require the 'samei~i~0~offi~ ande°~om space at anOther location. Conclusion: The suburban communities in the past have effectively opposed such bench initiatives with the potential to negatively impact the delivery of court services to their residents by the adoption of resolutions in opposition to the bench proposal. Attached is such a resolution for the consideration of the City CoUncil. : - 1002- 4 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 CITY OF MOUND PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com March 4, 2003 Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz Minnesota Supreme Court Minnesota Judicial Center 25 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Hennepin Cbunty Board of Commissioners c/o Sandra Vargas, County Administrator Hennepin County Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Chief Judge Keven Burke Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Mark Thompson Court Administrator Hennepin County District Court Hennepin County Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 Dear Colleagues: Hermepin County District Court Administrator Mark Thompson announced at the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) meeting on February 27, 2003, that the · District Court was considering closing one or more suburban courthouses in response to proposed state funding decreases. Mr. Thompson had budgetary or statistical information that he declined to share with CJCC participants because it was only in draft form. At no time has the leadership of the Hennepin County District Court involved the suburban cities in a cooperative effort to analyze possible measures to absorb the anticipated budget cuts. I believe that the closing of one or more suburban courthouses will result in the following: There will be much longer court calendars and overcrowding at the remaining courthouses, which do not have the space to absorb additional defendants and the court staff needed for the increased workload, Police officers will be offthe streets for longer periods of time to travel longer distances and to wait longer periods of time for overcrowded court schedules, · Suburban police departments will incur increased costs to pay for longer waiting times and additional officers to cover the longer absences, · Suburban citizens will suffer major inconvenience from traveling longer distances and waiting longer periods of time to be heard, Cooperation of civilian witnesses and crime victims with the prosecution will be lost, particularly in domestic abuse cases, due to the remote location and increaSed waiting time, and · Prosecution costs will potentially increase if each city's cases are spread between more courtrooms. I am opposed to the closure of any suburban courthouse because of the consequences listed above. I recognize, however, the real need to cut costs at the district court level. Suburban cities are themselves struggling with proposed cuts in their won state funding. My city wants to cooperate with the District Court in analyzing other alternatives that could avoid shifting the court's budget cuts to the cities. I am requesting that the leadership of the Hennepin County District Court immediately provide accurate budget and statistical information to the suburban cities and to meet cooperatively to examine possible solutions to the proposed funding cuts. Our City Manager and City Attorney are cooperating with suburban cities to crate to task force of representatives to meet with the Court. Our city council does no meet again, until March 11, 2003. At that time, I will be asking the council to adopt a resolution to the same effect as this letter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Pat Meisel Mayor - 1 O04- RESOLUTION NO. 03- A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CLOSURE OF ANY SUBURBAN DIVISION COURTHOUSE OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the official governing body of the City of Mound, a municipal corporation organized under the home rule provisions of the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Court Administrator for the Fourth Judicial District Serving Mound announced at the Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee on February 27, 2003, that the closure of one or more of the suburban division courthouses was a possible response to proposed state funding decreases, and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 488A.01, subdivision 9, requires that the municipal building commission, or the county of Hennepin, or both, provide suitable quarters for the holding of regular terms of court in Minneapolis, and at such other northern and westerns suburban locations disbursed throughout the county as may be designated by a majority of the judges of the court; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.65, subdivision 2, provides that the county of Hennepin's relocation of the court serving the City of Mound requires it to provide suitable quarters for the holding of regular terms of court in a southern suburban location within the county; and WHEREAS, the Division IV Courthouse for the Fourth Judicial District, located at 7009 York Avenue, Edina, Minnesota, currently provides suitable quarters for the holding of regular terms of court in a southern suburban location within the county serving the City of Mound; and - 1005- WHEREAS, the City of Mound, through its City Attorney's office, filed approximately 5,000 petty misdemeanor, misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases at Division IV Hennepin County Courthouse, and at the location made over 10,000 court appearances on those cases involving citizen victims, witnesses, City police officers and prosecutors during calendar year 2002, and WHEREAS, THE SOUTH SUBURBAN, Division IV Hennepin County courthouse processed at least 16, 370 court filings in year 2002 for the six communities it already serves (St. Louis Park, Edina, Richfield, Eden Prairie, MAC and Bloomington), the western suburban, Division III, courthouse processed at least 11, 081 court filings and the Northern suburban, Division II, courthouse processed at least 12,573 court filings in year 2002, it is inevitable that the closure of any one of the three Hennepin County Division courthouses would adversely affect the remaining suburban courthouses to which those cases would be reallocated, each of which is already running at capacity; and WHEREAS; the City of Mound's police department must make daily trips to the courthouse serving the City of Mound with case filings, criminal reports, and persons taken into custody on its misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor cases, in addition to police officer Witness trips to the courthouse for the purpose of offering testimony at those hearings and trials of these criminal cases; WHEREAS, the closure of the Division IV Hennepin County courthouse or any of the other Hennepin County Division courthouses will deprive the citizens of the City of Mound of convenient, suitable assess to court system of the Fourth Judicial District and increase the City's costs of providing police and prosecution services; - 1006- NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND that: 1. The City Council opposes any proposed closure of the south suburban, Division IV, Forth Judicial District Courthouse based on its concern that such would unduly inconvenience the citizens of Bloomington served thereby, result in increased costs of prosecution and increased costs to the Mound Police Department; 2. The City Council opposes any proposed closure of the Division III and II, Fourth Judicial District courthouses based on its concern that such would result in a reduction of the level of services currently offered at the Division IV courthouse due to the resultant overcrowding of that facility by the reallocation of the other suburban cases. 3. The City Manager and the City Attorney are authorized to cooperate with other Hennepin County suburban cities to form a task force for the purpose of working with the leadership of the Hennepin County District Court to examine posSible solutions to its anticipated loss of state funding. 4. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to provide copies of the Resolution roi the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the State of Minnesota, the Honorable Kathleen Blatz; the members of the Hennepin County Board; the Chief Judge of the Fourth Judicial District, the Honorable Kevin Burke, Hennepin County Court Administrator Mark Thompson. Passed and adopted this day of March 2003. ATTEST: Mayor Secretary to the Council - 1007- 5341 May'wood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director / Matt Simoneau, Building Official DATE: March 5, 2003 SUBJECT: Transfer and Assignment of City-Wide SAC Credits - Mound Public Safety Building SUMMARY As the City Council is aware, the building located at 2240-2244 Commerce Boulevard (Mueller Lansing) is to be acquired and demolished as part of the CSAH 15 road reconstruction project. At its January 28, 2003 meeting, the City Council transferred the credits from the Mueller- Lansing building to Mound Home Laundry and Scotty B's Restaurant as they are being relocated to other locations in the community. Additionally, the City Council also accepted (2) SAC credits from the building which are available for use City-wide at the City Council's discretion as stated in the letter from Jodi Edwards of Metropolitan Council Environmental Services dated January 14, 2003. Members of the City Council are also advised that there are SAC credits available due to the recent demolition of the Mound Post Office and Fire Station. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the approval of the attached resolution approving the transfer and assignment of the following MCES SAC credits to offset the new credits associated with the Public Safety Building which total (8). Post Office 2 Fire Station 3 City of Mound 2 (formerly Brimkley's Market) - 1008- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (MCES) SAC CREDITS TO MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 2415 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the Mound City Council, at its Jalauary 28, 2003 meeting, transferred Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) SAC credits associated with the pending demolition of the building located at 2240-2244 Commerce Boulevard for Mound Home Laundry and Scotty B's Restaurant as they are being relocated to the Mound Marketplace shopping center and also retained (2) SAC credits associated with the Main Street Market (formerly Brinkley's Market) space; and WHEREAS, the (2) SAC credits on file with the MCES are available for use City-wide at the City Council's discretion as stated in the letter dated January 14, 2003 from Ms. Jodi Edwards of the MCES; and WHEREAS, there are also (5) SAC credits available for use City-wide due to the recent demolition of the Mound Post Office and Fire Station buildings; and WHEREAS, the new Public Safety Building under construction at 2415 Wilshire Boulevard requires (8) SAC charges as calculated by the MCES; and WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that the (7) SAC credits on file be used to offset the charges associated with the new Public Safety Building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve transfer and reassignment of the (7) SAC credits currently on file with the MCES to the new Public Safety Building to offset the charges which were calculated by MCES staff. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember - 1009- The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted March 11, 2003 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -1010- Metropolitan Council Building communities that work January 14, 2003 Environmental Services Matt Simoneau Building Inspector City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Dear Mr. Simoneau: The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division has determined SAC credits · for the properties to be demolished at 2240-2244 Commerce Blvd. within the City of Mound. It is the Council' S understanding that this property will not be redeveloped as it is part.of a road reconstruction project (CSAH 15). This project should be credited 44 SAC Units, as determined below. The credits may be taken city-wide on your monthly SAC report, when this demolition occurs, since there will be-no new use on this site. Since these credits will be taken city-wide, it is up to the discretion of the city on how to use them. The city may use these credits to pay for SAC for' ahy-0'f'the businesses that will be relocated due to this demolition. ~ ~'- SAC Unit__s Credits! " Dvinci's (paid 12/87) 7.50 60 seats ~ 8 seats/SAC Unit Home Laundry (6/86) 35.00 Brinkley's (retail) ~"~ 3580 sq. ft. ~ 3000 sq. ft./SAC Unit Total Credit: 43.69 or 44 Ifyou have any questions, call me at 6Sl-602-1113. Sin~eerely, -- ~ Jodi ~L. Edwar Staff Specialist, ' ..... Municipal Services Section %:" ' 'S'. Selby, MCES .... Sarah. Smith, Community Development Director, City of Mound ,,~.metrOCouncll.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street * St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 * (651 ) 602-1005 * Fax 602-1138 * TrY 291-0904 A. a~ o.~o.,~_ 101 1 - 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM TO: File Notes FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director / Matt Simoneau, Building Official DATE: January 28, 2003 SUBJECT: SAC Credits - Mueller / Lansing Building SAC Credit Correction from MCES The purpose of this memorandum is to document the January 28, 2003 telephone conversation with Jodi Edwards of the MCES regarding the January 14, 2003 letter from the MCES about existing SAC credits for the Mueller / Lansing Building (attached.) A copy was provided to Mike Mueller on January 27, 2003 who indicated that the size of Main Street Market (formerly Brinkley's) is 4340 SF as opposed to 3580 SF. Additionally, there is another space in the building (1300 SF) which is leased by Hech Design. As per my discussion with Ms. Edwards, the City can revise her letter to increase the total square footage for Brinkley's / Hech Design to 5640 and assign a retail calculation of 3000 SF / SAC. Therefore, (1.88) SAC credits are available for the Main Street Market (formerly Brinkley's) space and will be retained by the City / I-IRA. These credits can be used to pay for SAC charges for any of the businesses that will be relocated due to the building demolition or used city-wide at the City Council / HRA's discretion. Business Name Brinkley's / Hech Design (5640 SF @ 3000 SF / SAC Credit 1.88 Total Credit: (2) -1012- FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 3/6/03 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this __ day of ,2003, by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota public body corporate and politic ("HRA"), the City of Mound, a municipal corporation ("City") and Mound Harbor Renaissance, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company ("Developer"). WHEREAS, the parties hereto did on or about July 23, 2003 make and enter into an agreement regarding the potential redevelopment of portions of downtown Mound (the "Agreement"); and WltEREAS, Agreement was subsequently extended beyond its initial expiration date of December 31, 2002 to February 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, at their meetings on February 25, 2003, both the HRA and the City, at the request of the Developer agreed, with conditions, to an amendment to the Agreement providing for additional time to complete the determinations called for in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties are entering into this First Amendment to Agreement to memorialize the extension of the term of the Agreement, and the conditions imposed on such extension. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows: A. Paragraph 10 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 10. Term. This Agreement shall expire on June 24, 2003, the Developer may terminate this Agreement upon 30 day written notice to the HRA and City, in the event that Developer determines, in good faith, that the Redevelopment is not feasible, or the HRA or City is not taking actions consistent with facilitating the Redevelopment. The HRA or City may terminate this Agreement on five day written notice to Developer if Developer fails to comply with the provisions of Paragraph B a of the First Amendment. The parties each waive any claim or cause of action that they have against any other party based upon the termination of this Agreement. B. Additional Requirements. ao Not later than March 25, 2003 the Developer will provide the HRA and City with a list of parties who will have a role in the Development and in the Developer, and a description of the role that each will have. JBD-228506vl MU195-15 1 -1013- To the extent possible, the Developer will begin work on market and financial feasibility studies, and on the form of the final contract for development. None of these matters are required to be completed during the Term contained in Paragraph 10 of the Agreement. Co The Developer will provide the City and the I-IRA with monthly updates concerning progress toward completion of the site plans for the Redevelopment, and the matters described in sub paragraph b above. C. Additional Extensions of Term. In the event that the Redeveloper has developed a site plan for the Redevelopment within the Term, and is making reasonable progress on the other matters described in paragraph B b above, the City and the HRA will consider further extension or extensions of the Term for the purpose of concluding the market and financial feasibility studies, and preparing a final development contract. D. Effect of Amendment. Unless specifically modified by this First Amendment, the Agreement remains unaltered, fully enforceable and in full force and effect according to its terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the date and year first above written. MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Its By: Its CITY OF MOUND By: Its Its By: MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE, LLC By. Its Chief Manager JBD-228506vl MU195-15 2 -1014- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: March 3, 2003 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Review of Vacation Request - (10) foot of Commerce Boulevard R-O-W APPLICANT: Dave Bortner / F. Todd Warner (on behalf of Mahogany Bay) PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03~08 LOCATION: 2642 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Central Business District (B-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear District REQUEST The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a request from Dave Bortner and Todd Warner of Mahogany Bay to vacate a (10) foot strip of Commerce Boulevard right-of- way that is adjacent to their property located at 2624 Commerce Boulevard. BACKGROUND A conditional use permit was approved for Mahogany Bay on August 8, 2000 to allow boat storage and restoration activities on the property subject to specific conditions. The CUP was subsequently amended in 2001 and 2002 to extend the condition which requires paving until May 30, 2003 so as to allow time to resolve multi-party drainage problem. Following preparation of a detailed survey of the property and submittal of a proposed grading/drainage plan, it has been determined that the paving condition cannot be satisfied without the release of an unused (10) foot portion of the Commerce Boulevard right-of-way. PROCEDURE Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358 states that a statutory city may abandon ownership or control over all or any part of the land they have set aside, dedicated or used as streets or alleys and further states that a City Council may initiate the action by resolution or by the submission of a petition by a majority of the landowners and the owners of at least 50 percent of the land area. Procedurally, state statute requires that the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposal following two weeks of published and posted notice. -1015- The City must also provide written notice to each affected owner at least (10) days before the public hearing. Members of the City Council are advised that the Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Laker on March 1, 2003 and March 8, 2003 and was posted at City Hall. Additionally, a copy of the notice was also mailed to all affected owners within (350) feet on February 27, 2003. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all involved utility companies for review and comment. As of March 3, 2003, responses have been received from CenterPoint Energy / Minnegasco and ExCel Energy. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OVERVIEW - February 3, 2003 In general, the Planning Commission was favorable regarding the vacation request as it allows Mahogany Bay to fulfill the obligations of their conditional use permit which was approved in 2000. Much of the Planning Commission's discussion focused on whether or not the "triangle" portion of right-of-way in front of Kirby's Bay should also be vacated even though the neighboring property owner had not submitted a petition. While the Planning Commission expressed support for the additional vacation area, members were concerned about holding up the current petition fi'om Mahogany Bay in light of the May 2003 deadline for completion of the paving activities. The Planning Commission, by consensus, encouraged the City Council to consider a City-sponsored vacation for the adjacent property owner, if possible. The applicant also indicated that they would like to see the City participate in the costs(s) associated with resolution of the drainage problem and also stated that in the event the neighboring property owner didn't pave the lot, it was possible that some sort of barrier (ie. bollard, etc.) might be necessary to eliminate the cut-through traffic. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION It is City staff's understanding that City Council Liaison Osmek met with the owner of Kirby's Bait following the 2/3/03 meeting who indicated that he would not be opposed to a future vacation request but was not interested in incurring any unnecessary costs and/or fees. 2. City Engineer Cameron has advised that a detailed legal description would need to be prepared for the neighboring property if a vacation request was to be undertaken. 2 -1016- RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the 10-foot strip of right of way in front of Mahogany Bay be vacated as recommended by Staff since there is no public benefit to retaining this portion of the boulevard area along Commerce Boulevard since it is unimproved and is presently being used by the applicant as part of their gravel parking lot. As part of its recommendation, the Planning Commission requested that the City's approval be made contingent upon the following conditions: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or private utility companies. 2. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. 3. Any and/or all drainage and/or utility easements should be retained and/or reserved. 3 -1017- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 03- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF A TEN (10) FOOT STRIP OF UNUSED RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO MAHOGANY BAY LOCATED AT 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD PLANNING AND ZONING CASE # 03-08 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mahogany Bay, has submitted an application to vacate a portion of the alley and/or public right-of-way legally described on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the applicants would like to use that portion of the 10-foot strip of unused public boulevard to pave the existing parking lot and to correct a drainage problem; and WHEREAS, the 10-foot strip is unimproved and unmaintained is not serving as a public access in the subject area; WHEREAS, there are currently no public utilities located in the right-of-way; and WHEREAS, there are no known private utilities located in the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, when the City vacates a street and/or right of way, the involved portion of the public right-of-way is split 50-50 and is attached to the abutting properties; and WHEREAS, the City can specify the extem to which a street and/or public right-of-way affects easements including the right to maintain and continue existing utility easements; and WHEREAS, the vacation request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at February 25, 2003 meeting who unanimously voted to recommend vacation as there was no public benefit of retaining the involved portion of the 1 O-foot of the right-of-way, there are currently no municipal utilities in the subject area nor is it being used as a public access; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851, the City Council of Mound held a public hearing on the vacation request on March 11, 2003 and provided proper notice thereof pursuant to state law. -1018- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the public street right-of-way vacation request subject to the following conditions: The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff and/or private utility companies The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. 3. Any and/or all drainage and/or utility easements should be retained and/or reserved. This vacation request is approved for that portion of the public right-of-way adjacent to the following described property included on Exhibit B. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councihnember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted March 11, 2003 and Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bomfie Ritter, City Clerk -1019- EXHIBIT A That part of Commerce Boulevard in Government Lot 1, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Southerly line of Chapman Place (now Bartlett Boulevard) as dedicated in the plat of MOUND BAY PARK, distant 100.00 feet Easterly along said Southerly line from the Easterly line of Lake Avenue (now Commerce Boulevard) as dedicated in said plat of MOUND BAY PARK; thence Southerly, parallel with the Easterly line of said Commerce Boulevard, a distm~ce of 100.00 feet; thence continue Southerly along said parallel line, a distance of 100.00 feet; thence Westerly, parallel with the Southerly line of said Bartlett Boulevard, a distance of 100.00 feet to the Easterly line of said Commerce Boulevard and the point of beginning; thence Northerly along said Easterly line a distance of 100.00 feet; thence Westerly, parallel with said Southerly line, a distance of 10.00 feet; thence Southerly parallel with the Easterly line of Conunerce Boulevard a distance of 100.00 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the Southerly line of Bartlett Boulevard, a distance of 10.00 feet to the point of beginning. - 1020- EXHIBIT B (Insert Legal Description for Mahogany Bay) - 1021 - Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2003 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #03-06 STREET VACATION - 10 FOOT STRIP OF COMMERCE BLVD MAHOGANY BAY - 2642 COMMERCE BLVD Dave Bortner and F. Todd Warner of Mahogany Bay have submitted a request to vacate a 10 foot strip of Commerce Boulevard right-of-way that is adjacent to their property located at 2624 Commerce Boulevard. A conditional use permit was approved for Mahogany Bay on August 8, 2000 to allow boat storage and restoration activities on the property subject to specific conditions. The CUP was subsequently amended in 2001 and 2002 to extend the condition which requires the paving until May 30, 2003 so as to allow time to resolve multi-party drainage problem. Following preparation of a detailed survey of the property and submittal of a proposed grading/drainage plan, it has been determined that the paving condition cannot be satisfied without the release of an unused 10 foot portion of the Commerce Boulevard right-of-way. Discussion Mueller was interested in vacating the remainder of the right-of-way area adjacent to Kirby's Bait. He felt that, before Kirby could fix their portion of the drainage problem, the vacation of the northerly section would be required as well. It makes good common sense to take care of this at the same time for both properties. Osmek asked if it would be required to have a request to vacate before we could add this portion at this time. Smith agreed that Mueller brought up a good point but indicated that she would have to research the requirements in state statute as a petition has not been submitted by the abutting property owner. Bortner felt that, considering the cost, he would have concerns about his neighbor gaining a portion of the vacated land without participating in the cost of the application. Smith said that the current application will provide for Mahogany Bay to meet the requirements of the CLIP which expires in May 2003 and expressed concern about holding up Mahogany Bay's progress if the proposal is expanded. Michael agrees that it's a good thing to do but doesn't want Mahogany Bay to suffer. Osmek agrees but it's a question of fairness. Either Kirby pays $350 or alleviate the $350 from Mahogany Bay. - 1022- Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 Ayaz thought someone should contact Kirby's regarding their participation. Hasse wanted to know if a wall would be required. Bortner indicated it wouldn't and offered to walk the area for anyone interested. Bormer clarified the issues associated with the vacation request including the need for the 10 feet to meet parking lot standards and the resolution of the ponding water that accumulates from both Commerce and Bartlett. He also stated that they would like to see the City participate in the cost. It is anticipated that, if Kirby doesn't pave at the same time, some kind of divider (i.e. fence, bollards, etc.) will likely need to be put up to cut down on traffic between the two properties. Mueller advised Bortner to be sure the Council is aware that they want the City to participate in the cost of resolving the ponding problem. There hasn't been a use change at the Kirby property so we haven't required any changes from him. He hopes that the Council will not require cost-participation as the use of the Kirby's Bait property has not changed and suggested that the City look at the Kirby's request as a "City request" instead of a property owner request. Raines thought the safest way would be to address the two matters independently and deal with the Mahogany Bay vacation request as presented. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to recommend approval of the vacation to the City Council. Osmek wanted to know if there was a proposal from the Planning Commission as a price for release of the property. Smith stated that vacation is not a sale pursuant to state statutes. It is either vacated or retained. Mueller said that the appraisal costs alone would be more than the property itself was worth. MOTION carried unanimously - 1023- 03/03/'03 M0N 11:34 FAX 330 6590 NSP DEL SYS CONST ~001 XcelEnergy NORTHERN STATES POWER': Facsimile Cover Sheet To: Company: Phone: Fax: Sarah Smith 952.472.0620 From: Address: Kathy Blomquist 414 Nicollet Mall ~ GO-7 Minneapolis, MN .55401 Phone: 612/330-5604 Fax: 612/330-6590 Date: Number of pages including this cover sheet: 03MAR2003 3 Comments: Please see attached. Thank you, - 1024- 03/03/03 M0N 11:35 FAX 330 6590 NSP DEL SYS CONST 002 XcelEnergy 414 Niooliet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540%1993 VIA FACSIMILE: 952.472.0620 (original by mail today) March 3, 2003 City of Mound Sarah Smith, Planning Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Vacation of Part of Commerce Blvd ([Ylahogany Bay, Applicant) Dear Ms. Smith: A field representative of Xcel Energy has inspected the area of the proposed vacation; and has indicated that overhead distribution lines, which serve this and other properties, are located therein. Please be advised that we have no objection to said vacation, provided, however, that utility easement rights in favor of Xcel Enerqy be r~served in the vacation resolution for existing distribution facilities crossing the proposed vacation strip as indicated on the attached. Should you require a precise definition df said facilities, we will need to locate and survey them. Please provide me a copy for my file of the final reservation. Very truly yours, Right of Way Agent Siting and Land Rights (612) 330-5604 2003.071 \\FN PCPGO0$\Home\BLMK02\VAC.respRESV.do¢ - 1025- 03/03/03 MON 11:35 FAX 330 6590 8 en chrn ork El~v=940.28 1 I I I I curb cut--~,~ MH .... Rirn=,9,~6. 71 NJqv~-953.51 S. IHv~- 933.~T$ I NSP DEL SYS CONST ..2 ".\ .: 1 · FF. Elev=gJ6,15 i gr¢~VeI [~003 Building \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - 1026-'".:--~- 'N. bituminous CITY OF MOUND r 2/18/2003 Land Use' Application Department and Public Agency ROuting and Comment Form Directions: Please review the attached vacation request an submit all comments on the attached form no later than March 3.2003. ~.~. ,~ ~ Description: Request for vacation of "tr.d~Rg~lar" portion of Commerce Boulevard which 'fronts the Mahogany Bay pa~king lot. NOTE: Paving of the parking lot is a condition of the CUP which was approved for Mahogany Bay. Applicant: Mahdgany Bay Property Location: Hearing: Yes City Council Date: 3/11/03 City Staff Public Aqencie.s_ [] Matt Simoneau, Building Official [] DNR Area Hydrologist Julie Eckman [] John Cameron,, City Engineer [] Hennepin County [] Greg Skinner, Public Works [] LMCD [] John Dean, City Attorney [] MCWD [] Loren Gordon, City Planner [] Metropolitan .Council [] Greg Pederson, Fire Chief [] MCES [] John McKinley, Police Chief [] Adjacent Municipality [] Jim Fackler, Parks Director [] Mound Westonka Schools '"~te Utility.Compani~lectric / Telephone / Cable) coMMENTS:,// ' ~ CenterP°int Energy Minnegasco has no facilities within the above-described.area and has no objection to its vacation. Thank you for the advance notice. ' ~ SteCen Von Bargen /"' Right-of-Way Administrator CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco - 1027- S341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 5S364 (gs~ 472-3t9o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 17, 2002 SUBJECT: CUP Amendment APPLICANT: Dave Bortner / Mahogany Bay PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-34 LOCATION: 2642 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Central Business District (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear District SUMMARY The City Council will hold a public hearing to review an application from Mahogany Bay for an conditional use permit amendment to extend the timeframe for paving of the parking lot. As the City Council is aware, the original CUP was approved in 2000 and amended in 2001 to extend the timeframe for completion of the paving activities by October 1, 2002. Based on information provided by the applicant, the additional survey information is to be prepared on September 18, 2002 and will be delivered to the City Engineer for technical review as soon as it is completed. Members of the City Council are advised that City Engineer John Cameron will be present at the meeting to explain the site conditions including the existing drainage problem in the subject area. BACKGROUND Details and background history regarding the CUP for Mahogany Bay are contained in Planning Report No. 02-34. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525' Subd: .3 (B) requires that all requests for' conditional use permit (and amendments) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a,public hearing is held by the City Council, Procedurally, state statute requires that the notice of public hearing is published at least (10) days in advance of the public heating and is also mailed to all property owners Within (350) feet. Members of the City Council are advised that the notice of public hearing was published in the Laker on September 13, 2002. Additionally, the notice of public hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on or before September 13, 2002. -1028- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound,com NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETITION TO VACATE AN UNUSED PORTION OF THE COMMERCE BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS MAHOGANY BAY LOCATED AT 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD CASE # 03-06 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that tile City Council at'the City of Mound, will meet on Tuesday, March I 1, 2003 at 7:30 PM to hold a public hearing to consider a request from Mahogany Bay for vacation of a (10) foot strip of Commerce Boulevard right-of- way in order to correct a drainage problem and allow paving of the parking lot. The subject area proposed to be vacated is legally described below: that part of Commerce BOulevard In Government Lot I, Section 25. Township 117, Range 24, described as follows: commencing at a point on the Southerly line of Chapman Place (now Bartlett Boulevard) as dedicated In the plat of MOUND BAY PARK, distant I00.00 feet Easterly along said South*tO' I/ne from tha Easterly tins of taka Avenu* (now Commerce eoulevard) ae dedlaated In said plat o! MOUND SA I' PARK,. thanes Southerly, parallel with the EaSterly line of ~ald Commerce Boulevard, a distance of lO0. O0 test; thence continue Southerly along said parallel line, a #latonaa o! 100.00 feat; thence Westerly, parallel with the Southarl, v line of said Bartlett Boulevard, a distance of lO0. O0 feat to the Easterly line of said Commerce Boulevard and the poInt of beginning; thence Northerly along ~ald Easterly line a distance of 100.00 feat; thence Westerly,, parallel with said Southerly line, o distance of 10.00 feet; thence Southerly parallel with the Easterly line of Commerce Boulevard a distance of 100.00 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the Southerly line of Bartlett Boulevard, a distance of tO. O0 feet to the point of beginning. ander Planning and Inspections Secretary Copies of the application materials are available to tile public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Notice of public hearing to be mailed to all property owners within (350) feet of subject area on or before February 27, 2003. Published in The Laker on March 1, 2003 and March 8, 2003. 1 printed at] recycled paper - 1029- 5341 May'wood Road Mound, MN 55364 (9.52) 472-319o PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 18, 2003 SUBJECT: Vacation Request - (10) foot of Commerce Boulevard R-O-W APPLICANT: Dave Bortner / F. Todd Warner (on behalf of Mahogany Bay) PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 03-08 LOCATION: 2642 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Central Business District (B- 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear District REQUEST Dave Bortner and Todd Warner of Mahogany Bay has submitted a request to vacate a (10) foot strip of Commerce Boulevard right-of-way that is adjacent to their property located at 2624 Commerce Boulevard. BACKGROUND A conditional use permit was approved for Mahogany Bay on August 8, 2000 to allow boat storage and restoration activities on the property subject to specific conditions. The CUP was subsequently amended in 2001 and 2003 to extend the condition which requires paving until May 30, 2003 so as to allow time to resolve multi-party drainage problem. Following preparation of a detailed survey of the property and submittal of a proposed grading/drainge plan, it has been determined that the paving condition cannot be satisfied without the release of an unused (10) foot portion of the Commerce Boulevard right-of-way. PROCEDURE Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358 states that a statutory city may abandon ownership or control over all or any part of the land they have set aside, dedicated or used as streets or alleys and further states that a City Council may initiate the action by resolution or by the submission of a petition by a majority of the landowners and the owners of at least 50 percent of the land area. Procedurally, state statute requires that the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposal following two weeks of published and posted notice. The City must also provide written notice to each affected owner at least (10) days before the public hearing. Tentatively, the City Council public hearing is to be held on March 11, 2003. - 1030- Therefore, the Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Laker on March 1, 2003 and March 8, 2003 respectively and will be mailed to all affected owners on or before February 27, 2003. As the Planning Commission is aware, current City policy also requires that any proposed vacation request is reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to formal review by the City Council. VACATION ACTION When a city vacates a street, the involved portion of the public right-of-way is split 50-50, (presumably to the centefline) and is usually free of easements either in favor of the public or owners of other property abutting the street. However, members of the Planning Commission are advised that the City may specify the extent to which a proposed vacation affects existing utility easements, including the right to maintain and continue existing utility easements. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. City Engineer John Cameron Refer to memorandum dated January 14, 2003. Public Works Director Skinner No comments received. Parks Director Fackler No comments needed. Fire Chief Pederson No concerns from Fire Department. Acting Police Chief McKinley No police issues. Building Official Simoneau No comments. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all involved utility companies for review and comment. PUBLIC AGENGY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to Hennepin County for review and comment. Please refer to the letter from Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County dated January 14, 2003. 2 -1031 - GENERAL COMMENTS It appears there is little public benefit to retaining ownership of this particular section of unimproved fight-of-way. Additionally, the opportunity to complete the required paving activities and correct a long-standing drainage problem is viewed as positive. If the proposed vacation request is approved, any and/or all existing private utility easements should be retained and/or reserved. Cost sharing of any and/or all necessary improvements is a discussion item for the City Council. RECOMMENDATION As there appears to be no public benefit to retaining this portion of the boulevard area along Commerce Boulevard, staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation. At a minimum, City staff recommends that the following list of minimum conditions be included in any recommendation for approval: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or private utility companies. 2. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. 3. Any and/or all drainage and/or utility easements should be retained and/or reserved. 3 - 1032- City of Mound VACATION APPLICATION Planning Commission Date City Council Date 'PAID JAN 9 7.O03 CITY OF MOUND Case:; No:., ;500,00 Distribution:~, / ~ ..P( , City Planner Minnegasco NSP ~ City Engineer Police Dept. ~ GTE ,~,..P u~c~rks - ' Fire Dept. . v Parks --7' / ' , - lease type or print clearly Ad dress~~ -~~ ~{~. - Phone Adjacent Address ~'~ ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of Business ,. (APPLICANT'S ' Lot Block Plat PROPERS) Subdivision PID~ ZONING DISTRICT Cimle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 VACATED ' IS THERE A ~ / PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS ~ND? I certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the information provided and that I am responsible for.al~costs incurred by the City related to the processing of ~"-~"'~J~~~this applic at ion. /~/~///~~~ /7 ~~Z-- ' ' Print Applicant's Name /A"~lJli-cant'S ~i~r~a'~r~' - ~' Date Print Applicant's Name Vacation Application Page 1 of 1 Revised 03~20/02 Applicant's Signature Date - 1033- ~ ~ (CO. RD. NO. 125) outherl line of Chapman Place BAY pARK I I $ -Y-~.,-~, Blvd.) per the plot of MOUND : se4.~e'jo"w~_~uu.?_%. ---- --- i \ .... -,., Line aralld wi~h ~he ." "'~ Sou[~dY line of Chopm~n place ~ ' ' ~ ~ /* (now Bortlett Blvd') ~o~ =/" ~ ~ . i ~o.~oo~ .... '"" ~. ~orallel with the ~.~ ,rlY line of Chapman Place N8438 ~0 E ~ ' . (now Bartlett gl~.) Proposed Vacated Commerce 8oule~rd: ~ot port of Commerce goule~rd in Government Lot 1, Sect/on 23, Township 117, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at o poin~ on the Southerly line of Chapman Place (now Bartlett goule~rd) os dedicated in the plat of MOUND gAY PARK, distant 100.00 feet Easterly along sam Southerly line from the Easterly line of Lake A~nue (now Commerce Boule~rd) os dedicated in said plo~ of MOUND BAY PARK; thence Southerl~ parallel with the I hereby ce~ify that this su~ey, Easterly line of said Commerce 8oule~rd, o distance of I00.00 feeC thence continue plan, or repo~ was prepared by me Southerly along said por~flel line, o distance of 100.00 feeC thence Wesferl~ parallel with or under my direct super/sion and that I om o duly Licensed Land ~he Southerly line of s~id gert/eft goule~rd, a distance of 100.00 feet to the Easterly line Su~eyor under the laws of the of said Commerce 8oule~rd and the point of beginning; thence Northerly along said S~Minnesota. Easterly line a distance of 100.00 feeC thence Westerl~ parallel with ~ _~ dis~ance of 10.00 feeC thence Southerly para/lei with the Easterly line of Commerce goule~rd o distance of 100.00 feeC thence Easterly parallel with the Southerly line of F;aul E. Otto Land Surveyor Bart/eft Boulevard, a distance of 10.00 feet to the point of beginning. Date: /~-/~-4:2~) Reg. No. 40062 Requested By: Wee sitm Revised: . denotes ironpipe,m°numentset ~f°und Mahogany Bay _.o,,o...o..,...co. 0andden°teSmarkedir°n os snown: ~.~t,=j[d----"="'ITTO iuffalo, MN153f39WestDivisi°nit' Date: Drawn By: Scale: Checg,ed By: ~'~j' ~1 ~1' Ph:(763)682.4727 Job No. I T, Fax (763)6823522 e denotes soil boring p ~ SSOCA ES : ' e denotes/percolation test hole 10/9/02 D.N.A. 1"--20' ~.,,.o....,U.dS...yo..,.c. 1--02-0457 Topogra.ph ic S'urvey §. 0 ~Z z~ -------J §u!pt!n8 ! lg'££6~-'~Ul'N tot../ ~ \... /' )/ (~;~1, 'ON '0~ '0::)) 'OA'lg.L.L:3q.LSVg I I tJa, vno : mou~,y .: '~lq .1o e§pe .... IZ '9£6=u~.~ /- .... ina q.~r~o 5 'H 'N '.L ~ousqoue8 G. RAD IN G PLAN 0 0 'C Engineering ° Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2003 TO: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director FROM: John Cameron, City Engineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Mahogany Bay - Street Vacation - Commerce Boulevard Case #03-06 MFRA #13495 As requested, I have reviewed subject street vacation request of Mahogany Bay and have the following comments and/or recommendations: 1. The right-of-way requested to be vacated is already used by the applicant as a gravel driveway/parking area. 2. Hennepin County has determined that the area requested for vacation is not under their jurisdiction. It is part of the right-of-way for Commerce Boulevard, a City street. 3. The only condition we would suggest be included as part of the street vacation is that the City retain drainage and utility easements over the entire i0 foot wide strip of }UW to be vacated. sAmain Amou 13495\correspondenceXsmith 1-21 - 1038- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, corn Hennepin County Transportation Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 763-745-7500, Phone 763-478-4000, Fax 763-478-4030, TDD www. co.hennepin.mn.us January 14, 2003 Ms. Sarah Smith, Planner City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: "Mahogany Bay" Proposal, CSAH 110 Sarah: As discussed with John Cameron, City Engineer, Hennepin County has no issues with the proposed 1 O-foot wide Commerce Boulevard right of way vacation or the grading/drainage work proposed on-site. The new paving should abut the existing bituminous entrance; Hennepin County will provide 36 feet of 15-inch diameter metal culvert with flared ends when work commences under a city-issued permit. Please call me at 763-745-7643 with questions or discussions. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ.'jh c: John Cameron, MFRA ~ Dave Bortner, Mahogany Bay An Equol Opportunity Employer - 1 039- Recycled Paper CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT WHICH ALLOWS OPERATION OF MAHOGANY BAY AT 2642 COMMERCE BOULEVARD P & Z CASE # 02-34 PID # 22-112-21-14-0008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Dave Bortner of Mahogany Bay, has submitted a request to amend the conditional use permit which was approved on August 8, 2000 which allows operation of Mahogany Bay, a boat and marine sales and merchandise business located at 2642 Commerce Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the conditional use permit issued on August 8, 2002 was approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Require all sales or storage of any merchandise to be located within the building and outside display or storage of any boats to be limited to 72 hours. 2. The parking lot be paved to city standards within 18 months of the approval of the resolution. 3. Recognize a hardcover variance of 60% is granted. 4. Recognize a building setback variance of 45 feet from the residential district. ; and WHEREAS, the conditional use permit was amended on October 23, 2001 and the timeframe for completion of paving activities was extended until October 1, 2002; and - 1040- WHEREAS, the applicant has requested an extension that requires paving of the parking lot by October 1, 2002 due to an existing multi-party drainage problem in and around the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has verified that there are existing site drainage problems associated with the subject site and adjacent areas; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that the additional survey work which has been requested by the City Engineer will be prepared on September 18, 2002; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that he intends to pave the parking lot following resolution of the surface drainage problem; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at its September 16, 2002 meeting and recommended approval of the conditional use permit amendment subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the conditional use permit amendment with the following conditions: a. The condition included in Resolution No. 01-95 which requires paving by October 1, 2002 be extended to May 30, 2003. A report from the City Engineer is provided to the Planning Commission within (60) days regarding the status of the parking lot and recommended improvements following receipt of the survey information to be provided by the applicant. This conditional use permit is approved for the following legally described property: See Exhibit A The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: - 1041 - Adopted September 24, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk - 1042- Excerpts from the MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 2002 Mahogany Bay Survey Existing property line along Commerce Boulevard does not allow room for parked vehicles to maneuver. It is suggested that the property owner apply for vacation of the city street right of way between the county right of way and the property line. This would allow them to add approximately 10 feet to their parking lot and facilitate the required paving. Mueller confirmed with Cameron that the plan presented would allow the neighbor, Kirby's Bait, to pave in the furore with successful treatment of the storm water runoff. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, to recommend moving this item to the City Council and recommend the application for vacation of the adjacent city right of way by the property owner. MOTION carded unanimously. - 1043- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952~ 472-5190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 17, 2002 SUBJECT: CUP Amendment APPLICANT: Dave Bortner / Mahogany Bay PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-34 LOCATION: 2642 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Central Business District (B- 1) COMPREI~NSIVE PLAN: Linear District SUMMARY The City Council will hold a public hearing to review an application from Mahogany Bay for an conditional use permit amendment to extend the timeframe for paving of the parking lot. As the City Council is aware, the original CLIP was approved in 2000 and amended in 2001 to extend the timeframe for completion of the paving activities by October 1, 2002. Based on information provided by the applicant, the additional survey information is to be prepared on September 18, 2002 and will be delivered to the City Engineer for technical review as soon as it is completed. Members of the City Council are advised that City Engineer John Cameron will be present at the meeting to explain the site conditions including the existing drainage problem in the subject area. BACKGROUND Details and background history regarding the CLrP for Mahogany Bay are contained in Planning Report No. 02-34. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permit (and amendmems) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Procedurally, state statute requires that the notice of public hearing is published at least (10) days in advance of the public hearing and is also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet. Members of the City Council are advised that the notice of public hearing was published in the Laker on September 13, 2002. Additionally, the notice of public hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on or before September 13, 2002. -1044- PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The proposed amendment to the conditional use permit for Mahogany Bay was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its September 16, 2002 meeting. In general, members of the Planning Commission expressed concern that the project had not been advanced. John Cameron was present at the meeting and explained the site conditions and responded to questions from the Commission including a proposed timeline for fulfillment of the condition(s), Dave Bortner of Mahogany Bay was present at the meeting and indicated that the necessary survey information has been ordered from Otto & Associates and will be made available to the City Engineer as soon as it is ready. Additionally, the applicant was encouraged to have Otto & Associates contact City Engineer John Cameron to ensure that they provide all necessary information including a proposed parking plan. Mr. Bortner assured the Planning Commission that they intend to pave the parking lot. RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the conditional use permit for Mahogany Bay subject to the following conditions: 1. The condition included in Resolution No. 01-95 which requires paving by October 1;, 2002 be extended to May 30, 2003. A report from the City Engineer is provided to the Planning Commission within (60) days regarding the status of the parking lot and recommended improvements following receipt of the survey information to be provided by the applicant. 2 - 1045- 5341 May'wood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: September 11, 2002 SUBJECT: CLIP Amendment APPLICANT: Dave Bortner / Mahogany Bay PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-34 LOCATION: 2642 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Central Business District (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear District REQUEST The applicant, Dave Bortner (on behalf of Mahogany Bay), has submitted an application for an amendment to the conditional use permit which was issued on August 8, 2000 and amended on October 23, 2001 to request an extension regarding the condition which requires paving until such time as the multi-party drainage problem can be effectively resolved. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA In granting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed land use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the conditional use permit review criteria are contained in City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 1. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permit (and amendments) are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Procedurally, state statute requires that the notice of public hearing is published at least (10) days in advance of the public hearing and is also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the notice of public hearing was published in the Laker on September 13, 2002. Additionally, the notice of public hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on or before September 13, 2002. - 1046- GENERAL COMMENTS Representatives of Hennepin County, the City of Mound, and the property owner met on the subject site on several occasions to discuss the site conditions. In order to properly address the drainage problem, additional survey information is necessary including topography and location of the City/County public fight-of-way boundaries. It is City staff's understanding that the survey has been ordered and is to be prepared on or around September 18, 2002 by Otto & Associates. Until that information is received, it is unknown what the solution is with regard to the drainage or whether or not the parking lot can be designed to function properly in the limited space available or even if it can be paved. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the City Engineer will be present at the meeting to specifically explain the existing site conditions and drainage problems in this area(s) as it is a fairly complex issue. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the removal of the paving condition altogether if it is determined by the City Engineer that it cannot be accomplished due to existing site conditions. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit for Mahogany Bay subject to the following conditions: 1. The condition included in Resolution No. 01-95 which requires paving by October 1, 2002 be extended. Following receipt of the updated survey and preparation of a parking plan, a follow-up meeting with all involved parties including, but not limited to, the applicant, the adjacent property owner(s), Hennepin County and the City of Mound, shall be held to discuss resolution of the matter. 3. The paving condition shall be eliminated if it is determined by the City Engineer that it cannot be accomplished due to existing site conditions. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Tentatively, the public hearing for review of the CUP amendment request from Mahogany. Bay is scheduled to be held by the City Council at its September 24, 20(52 meeting in the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is made at its September 16, 2002 meeting. 2 - 1047- STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607 FAX 952-472-0620 Minnesota State Statute 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. "The Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public right-of-way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the Council. No such vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks published and posted notice. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at or abuts upon any public water, no vacation shall be made unless written notice of the petition or proposed resolution is served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 30 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice under this subdivision is for notification purposes only and does not create a dght of intervention by the commissioner of natural resources. After the resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceeding which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof and description of real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the works "entered in the transfer record." The notice shall then be filed with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any Such vacation proceedings." REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Accurately completed application form, including name, address and day phone of both applicant and owner. Also any fees and escrow deposit as indicated on the application form. all pm r,, 35~.~feet of the s~bj:ect property and two sets of Wild. be requi~edl City s.taffwil assist be re'§~onsibi~:for the ~ayment ef any fees this se'~ice~. ::. ' CURRENT CERTIFICATE OF SURVEy: 2 copies drawn to-scale and one copy 8-/2" x 11" (may be reduced). Survey must include all of the items listed on the City of Mound Survey Requirements (attached), Also include the legal description of the area to be vacated. For vacation of a right-of-way, the applicant must show that there is no public need for the access to be retained for a public purpose. Vacation Information Page 1 of 5 Revised 03/20/02 - 1048- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3 ! 90 MEMORANDUM To: From Date: Re: Members of the Planning Commission Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 10/31/2002 Mahogany Bay CLIP Amendment At its September 24, 2002 meeting, the CitY Council approved an amendment to the CUP for Mahogany Bay to extend the timeframe for completion of paving activities subject to conditions. Specifically, a condition was included in the resolution requiting review of the updated survey and site plan by the CitY Engineer and follow-up report to the Planning Commission within (60) days. For your review and information, copies of the updated survey and site plan as well as a written report by the City Engineer have been included. It is anticipated that Dave Bormer of Mahogany Bay will be present at the meeting. City Engineer John Cameron has also been invited and plans to attend. - 1049- MEMORANDUM DATE: OCTOBER 31, 2002 TO: SARAH SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: FROM: JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: MAHOGANY BAY SITE IMPROVEMENTS MFRA File No. 13495 As requested, we have reviewed the Site Plan m~d Grading Plan, both dated September 18, 2002, that have been submitted for subject property and have the following comments recommendations: 1. The proposed 15"culvert under the driveway from County Road 110 needs to be changed to plastic pipe (HDPE). 2. The applicant will need to apply for street vacation in order to use the west I0 feet for his parking lot as shown on the Site Plan. 3. The plans and the street vacation will need to be approved by Hennepin County. 15050 23RD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 - 1050- JCAMERON@MFRA.COM (763)476-6010 FAX (763) 476-8532 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - 1051 - MOUND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2003 A~enda 1. Demolition Schedule Update. 2. Review Updated Budget And Potential Cost Savings. Evaluate Facility Color Options And Roof Materials. a. Precast Walls- Color b. Roofing Options c. Trim- Windows, Trim, Doors, Etc. 4. Furniture Layout (Final). 5. Kitchen Appliances And Possible Design Change. 6. Neighboring Property Issues. 7. Miscellaneous Issues. 8. AdjOurn. - 1052- 03/07/'2003 ~.1:57 95294175915 AHCON crY1 SOUTH METRH PAGE 01 To: Kandis Hanson Company: City of Mound Fax Number: 952-472-0620 Pages: 4 (includes coyer page) Date: 31712003 AMCON FAX Don Geiger 952-890-1217 VOICE 952-890-0064 FAX Subject: Budget Information Notes: Good rnorning Kandis, Please find attached updated Budget Work Sheet, Proposed Cost Savings/Revised Alternate #1 and 03/03 Meeting Minutes. Please make the following recommendations to the HRA and City Council: 1. Accept Revised Alternate #1, with scaled back west wall and ,asphalt shingles, for a cost of $106,416. (Council) 2. Make allocations of $237,522 from contingency to source of funds to balance project costs. (HRA) At this time we have no contracts to recommend award, we will award additional contracts and SAC charges at the next HRA/Council meeting. l just want to extend a small explanation in regards to the cost of asphalt shingles. The cost of the Base Bid is higher due to the quantity of shingle and mobilization costs in proportion to the work being completed, The overall cost of asphalt shingles did not change from our discussions on March 3 when you consider the Base Bid and Alternate #1. f you have any questions please feel free to call, 952-200-4390, Thank you, Don Geiger Arncon CM cc: Todd Christopherson, Amcon CM - 1053- CITY OF ~OUNI) Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Meeting held on 3/03/03 Date p~fnted 03/07/03 The meeting was convened at 4 PM Monday, March 3, 2003 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Kandis Hanson City KH Jeff Andersen City JA John McKinley City JM Don Geiger Amcon TC Grog Pederson City GP Miles Britz SEH MB 1. Demolition, salvage, started today. Building demolition will start on Wednesday or Thursday, DG will contact GP on timing for building demol~on, DG spoke to Demolition contractor and he will set aside bdcks for the City to salvage. Held safety meeting on site today with Amcon Safety Consultant and Demolition contractor. 2. GP inquired on the retaining wall, If Site Clearing contractor has no intentions to selvage the Owner would like to remove and selvage the wall. DG to call Grog Skinner. 3, Called Bill Reynolds at Specialty Systems in regards to sheathing, Changing sheathing to %" plywood, from 2 layers of ',~", will save $700 on the base bid and $2,800 on Alternate #1. This change is acceptable with MB. 4. Discussed precast c~lor options and sample 1078 was selected. MB to contact Hanson to arrange mock-up panels and discuss the possibility of two (2) panels being made. One panel will have water wash aCCents and the other panel to have a mix of water wash and acid wash accents. 5, GP received the furniture layout and pricing from Metro Systems. City inquired if there would be a way that they could take this drawing and get bids from other suppliers to try and save costs. 0. A c~tizen who could possibly provide some of the kitchen equipment free of cost contacted GP. GP to discuss with this pe~,on, equipment would have to fit in the space currenlly allotted on the drawings. 7. KH and GP to talk to the neighbor on possible acquisition of parcel of adjacent property. 8. HRA/CouncJI meeting is on March 11, Amcon ~ provide KH with Bids to be Awan:ied, Construction Cost Update, Cost Savings and Meeting minutes from this meeting. 9. Next meeting is Monday, March 17 at 4 PM at Temporary Fire Station. 10, Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM. Minu~s by DG. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. Page 1 of~ 1 - 1054- 03/87/'2003 11:57 9529417596 AHCON CH SOUTH METRN PAGE 82 M(x,md Public Sa'at*/FaCility Mound, MN 3/7/03 Budget Work Sheet Oece~ber-02 Expendltun~s TOI~I Po~t Bid (12/4/02) Recommended Mar 2{X)3 ~00,000 12,478 237,522 Rec=mu~ended ellocetio~ 250,000 S~ ~de f~r cx~-t~Jction Amc~l CM TO be bld NOT in~lude~ in ~ ~ #1 (pur, d sho~) U. 128 37,200 10,230 0 4,fx.31,g4~ A,q'tcon 37,200 Max Stelntnge~, 0 C~ (~,7~) ~ AMCON c~t eel UPS 11 Om2 alt~ 031t.xJt - 1055- 0.~,,, 0,,,,, 2803 11:57 9629417596 AMCON CH SOUTH HETRM PAGE 03 Mound Public Safer7 Facillt~ Mound, MN PROPOSED COST SAVINGS REVISED ALTERNATE #1 3/7103 PROPOSED COST SAVINGS Miscellaneous Changes Plank Revision Foam Insulation Revised Precast Finish Fencing Lights Retaining Wall Remove Additional Trees Revised Hauling of Excavation Rebid Dry Wall Hanson Hanson Hanson Estimate Specialty Sales Veit Veit Veit Minuti-Ogle PR4~3 Revised Hose Tower Roof Roofing Reduce roof height, revise substrate Delete metal shingles Add asphalt shingles TOTAL Specialty Sales Specialty Sales Twin Cities Roofing Still not final, there are potential issues related to viability of site, Need to verify dump site. (5,000) (11,000) (21,840) (2,300) (4,100) (8,000) (1,38o) (12,150) 3,200 (932) (9,252) 12~000 (60,754) REVISED ALTERNATE #1 Delete Mansard Roof at West Elevation Revised frame work and sheathing Delete metal shingles Add asphalt shingles Revised roof penetrations and flashing Revised steel supply Revised steel erection Deduct sheathing in other contract TOTAL Specialty Sales Specialty Sales Twin Cities Roofing Dalco Roofing Thombeck Steel Fabrication Western Steel Erection Kellington Construction 93,528 (30,605) 19,500 21,750 5,863 6,630 106,416 AMCON Potential Cost Savings 03 11 .xts -1056- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: From Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 3/4/2003 Portable Storage Unit Ordinance Summary At its February 24, 2003 and March 3, 2003 meetings, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed new ordinance to regulate the placement of portable storage containers in the City of Mound. As the City Council is aware, this project was discussed at the recent joint PC/CC work session held in January. Recommendation Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the new ordinance and further requested that a "per day fine" be considered for inclusion in the ordinance. Based on review of City Attorney John Dean, the City Code already includes a provision for successive day violation(s) and is therefore unnecessary. Additionally, the severability clause which was included in an earlier draft has also been removed. - 1057- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SECTION OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO REGULATE PORTABLE STORAGE CONTAINERS The City of Mound does ordain: Section 1. Definition. For purposes of this section, "portable storage unit" means any container designed for the temporary storage of personal property which is typically rented to owners or occupants of property for their storage use and which is delivered and/or removed by truck or trailer Section 2. Permit Procedure. No person shall place a portable storage unit on private property without first obtaining a penxfit from the City. Each container placed in accordance with this section shall be issued a placard that must be prominently displayed indicating the date of placement and removal Failure to obtain a penmt or to post the placard shall be considered to be a violation of the City Code m~d subject to the penalties defined therein. Section 3. Fee. The fee for the permit shall be set forth in City Code Section 500 and shall be subject to mmual review by the City Council Section 4. Special Provisions. a. Portable storage units 1nay be located in all districts. There shall be no more thm~ one (1) portable storage unit per property which shall not exceed (160) square feet. Stacking of portable storage units on top of each other is not permissible. c. Portable storage units shall not be placed on public property or in a location which obstructs traffic visability. Portable storage units shall be placed only in the driveway or on a hard surface and must be setback of minimum often (10) feet from the front property line. Portable storage units shall not be placed on residential property for more than (10) consecutive days unless it is being used in conjunction with a construction or remodeling project which has a valid building permit in which case it nmst be removed within (120) days unless an extension has been applied for (30) days prior to the expiration and is approved by the City Council. The portable storage unit must be removed within ten (10) days following the final inspection or issum~ce of the final certificate of occupancy. -1058- Passed by the City Council of the City of Mound this __ day of ,2003. Attest: Mayor Pat Meisel City Clerk Bonnie Ritter - 1059- PENNY STEELE COMIVIISSIONER 612-348-7887 FAX 612-317-6119 penny, steele~co.hennepin.mn,us BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A-2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAi~OLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0240 February 21, 2003 Kandis Hanson, City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55443-4300 Dear Ms. Hanson, In 1997 Hennepin County passed a resolution forming the Welfare Reform Executive Policy Committee. Mound is one of the cities indicated in the resolution. An elected official appointed by your City Council may serve as your representative. The Committee meets approximately once a quarter. Please contact my assistant, Cynthia Dufour at 612-348-7887 as to who will be the representative from your city. A meeting is planned for Monday March 10, 2003. Please feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, Penny Steele Hennepin County Board of Commissioners PS:cd PRINTE]- '~ 060 -,~LED PAPER Feb Z1 Z883 1G:58;37 Via Fax -> 95247ZBGZ8 ~dmi.is~ra~or Page OB1 0£ 8BZ · -FndayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities When is 9 ½ percent equal to 40 % ? City officials and others who have tried to digest the governor's budget.proposal for aid reductions have been confronted with a wide array of seemingly contradictory statistics. Depending upon how you measure it, the governor's proposal could appear to be either modest or dramatic. In the governor's budget proposal, he portrays the cuts as a 5 percent reduction for cities in calendar year 2003 and a 9.5 percent reduction in calendar year 2004. The governor characterized these cuts as reasonable when he recently stated "If you're on a city council or a city manager and you can't manage a 5-percent reduction in your total revenues without reducing police or fire services, you should be fired." Elsewhere in his budget, he indicates that the cuts are 22 percent of aids and in other sections the cuts are described as 29 percent, 18.9 percent and 38.5 percent. So which numbers are correct? As you might guess, all of the figures are, in their proper context, accurate. Starting with the governor's 5% and 9.5% figures--he compares his proposed cuts to total city revenues. The problem is that total city revenues include revenues to all governmental funds including the general fund, debt service funds, special revenue funds and capital projects funds. In fact, about the only things excluded are enterprise fund revenues and proceeds from bond sales. By using such a broad number, the cut appears to be modest. However, most of the funds outside the general fund are not available for general government operations nor can they. necessarily be reduced to cover state aid reductions. February 21, 2003 Page 1 The 22 percent figure refers to the city and county cuts as a percentage of total property tax aids and credits. This category is commonly used in state financial reports. However, property tax aids and credits include programs that do not fund cities or counties. In fact, programs like the circuit breaker, the renters' refund and the targeting program--all programs that provide direct payments to individuals based on their property tax burdens--are included in this broad category. These latter direct taxpayer programs are not cut under the governor's proposal and therefore including thern results in the appearance of a smaller cut. The 29 percent, 18.9 percent and 38.5 percent figures all are related to cuts in aids paid only to cities. The total cut over the two-year period is 29 percent of ALL city aids. All city aids include several specific programs such as aid to police and fire and PERA aid as well as LGA and market value homestead credit. The first year cut--for 2003 aids--is actually 18.9 percent while the second-year permanent cut is 38.5 percent. The 29 percent is roughly an average of the two annual cuts. To really make your head spin, the League would like to suggest two additional statistics--20.9 percent and 40.8 percent. These are the reductions in city LGA and market value homestead credit for calendar year 2003 and 2004 respectively. In the end, none of these measures accurately portrays the actual impact of the Governor's proposal on individual city's budgets. Perhaps the most accurate way to analyze the impact is to look at a cities' cut as a percent of their general operating budget, that is, the portion of their budget which includes the spending from which cuts would have to be made. For mote information on city legislative issues, conlact any rr~mbet of the League of Minnesota Ciliea Intergovernmental Relations learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1061 - Feb Z1ZOOZ 16:59:19 Via Fax -> %Z4?ZBGZO Administrator Page 00Z Of 00Z -FridayFax- A w~ekly legislative update from the League of Mirmesota Cities Unfortunately, that data is not collected on a statewide basis. The House Tax Comrnittee will begin taking testimony on the Governor's budget proposal, including the proposed cuts to cities, beginning next Tuesday. These statistics will undoubtedly be a major part of the committee discussion. Joint and several bill up for House vote The House will vote on the joint and several liability reforrn bill (HF 75) on Monday, February 24~h. Under current law, a party found more than 15% at fault for an injury can be required to pay up to 100% of any court award if other defendants cannot pay. HF 75 increases the fault threshold fi'om more than 15% to more than 50% before a business or nonprofit organization could be held liable for 100% of a darnage award. The bill also eliminates the separate damage limit for government defendants; raising the government threshold from 35% to more than 50%. Ifa defendant is 50% or less at fault, then the defendant would pay damages equal to their share of fault. A similar bill passed the House in the 2001 session on a 68-62 vote. Lawnsign bill advances to the floor The House Goverm'nent Operations and Veterans Affairs Policy committee passed a bill (HF 307-Adolphson) on Wednesday that would pre-empt local authority to regulate the size or namber of noncommercial signs (campaign lawnsigns) from August 1~t in a state general election until 10 days following the election. The law would apply whether or not a municipality has an ordinance. Several House members fl'orn both political parties support the bill. The author argues that local regulation of noncommercial signs during the course of a state general election restricts February 21, 2003 Page 2 free speech. He also complained that some municipalities are restricting these signs without an ordinance. The text of the bill is available on the Legislature's website at: h ttp :#www. leg. sta te~ mn. us/leg/leg is. asp. Please contact Iaura Offerdahl at (651)281- 1260 or lofferdahl(i~,hnnc.org as soon as possible if you have any concerns with this bill. Co~mnittee hearings next week: For information on hearings relating to the Governor's budget recommendations see the House (_l.!U:p :i/w w3, h ou s e. leg. s!..~.!,¢, mn. heal.asp) and Senate schedules Ch_U.p:f/www,senate.leg. state, nm.us/schedule/ind ex.htm). WEDNESDAY, February 26, 2003 10:15 AM House Judiciary Policy and Finance Room: Basement Hearing Room~ State Office Building Chair: Rep. Steve Smith Agenda: HF 261 (Boudreau) Minnesota Citizens' Personal Protection Act of 2003 adopted recognizing the right of law-abiding citizens to self-protection, authorizing pistol permits, providing criminal penalties, and appropriating rno ney. WEDNESDAY, February 26, 2003 12:30 PM Senate Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee Room: 15 Capitol Chair: Sen. Leo Foley Agenda: S.F. 58 (Foley) DWI blood alcohol concentration level reduction (0.08 BAC). For more informalion on city legi,qal/ve/~auea, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cit/e~ Intergovernmenlal Relal/on~ team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1062- Feb Z8 Zf183 15:5fl:38 Via Fax -> 95Z472flGZO fl&ministra~op Page 801 Of 883 'd -Frl ayFax- A weeMy legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities City aid cuts explained Get behind the numbers in the Governor's budget proposal on city aid cuts to learn what the proposal means for Minnesota cities by participating in the League of Minnesota Cities' free, debriefing sessions. The League will host meetings from: 1-3 p.m., Monday, March 3, at the Bemidji City Hall; and '2-4 p.m., Wednesday, March 5, at the Mayo Civic Center Ballroom, Rochester. Presenters include LMC Executive Director Jim Miller and LMC Policy Research Manager Eric Willette. Meetings already have been held. in Willmar, Burnsville and Duluth. Attendance is first-corne, first-serve; registration is not required. If you have questions, please contact Lynn Peterson at lpeterson@lnmc.org or 651.281.1254 A confusing forecast: state budget deficit hardly changes but additional cuts of $125 million needed Today, the State Department of Finance released the updated state budget forecast and although the state deficit is projected to increase by a remarkably small $11 million for the balance of the current biennium and by an additional $14 million for the 2004-05 biennium, the governor will now have to revise his proposed budget to identify an additional $125 million in spending reductions. February 28, 2003 Page 1 Why, if the deficit has only grown by $25 million does the governor need to find $125 million in spending reductions? The explanation is confusing. Essentially, the governor's proposed budget, which was released last week, included most of the expected reduction in state program costs that show up in today's forecast, but his proposed budget did not include any of the revised reductions in revenues that are included in today's forecast. The governor will release a supplemental budget within the next two weeks that will include recomrnendations on plugging the $125 rnillion hole. Although there were no clues in today's budget forecast press conference about where the governor might turn to find. the additional savings, it is possible that he could recommend additional cuts to state aid programs as a way to cover the additional $125 million. Commissioner of Finance Dan McElroy acknowledged that the state's economic forecasting firrn currently has one of the most optimistic forecasts for econornic growth among the major economic forecasting firms. He went on to stress that the econornic and geopolitical uncertainty we are now facing make this forecast a potentially more risky and volatile projection. He did not rule out the possibility that the state could prepare an additional forecast before the end of the legislative session if economic and world political circumstances indicate that the state's economic performance~and therefore the state's budget--changes substantially. Fm mote infmmalion on cily legislative issue,,, contact any m~mbet of the League of Minncsola Citi,~ Intctgovemmenlal R¢lalion~ team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1063- Feb 28 2883 15:51:42 Via Fax -> 9524728628 fldminixtrator Page 882 Of 883 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities House Judiciary Committee approves conceal and carry bill February 28, 2003 Page 2 a bill reducing Minnesota's per se blood alcohol concentration (BAC) threshold from · 10 to .08. The House Committee on Judiciary Policy and Finance on Wednesday passed a bill that would remove the authority of police chiefs to issue concealed firearm permits and would allow eligible individuals to obtain permits without demonstrating a safety need. HF 261 (Boudreau), also known as the Minnesota Citizens~ Personal Protection Act of 2003, would make county sheriffs responsible for ad rain ister[ng the permitting process. The. committee also amended a provision into the bill that would give business owners the right ban guns from their property. The property owner must then post a notice of the ban, must provide secure storage lockers for firearms and must assume full liability for gun- owners' safety on the premises. The liability provision does not exempt accidental, or non- violent, injury. In other words, ifa city chose to prohibit guns from city-owned property, the ci[y xvould then assume liability for any injury suffered by an individual that removed a firearrn prior Lo entering. The LMC provided testimony opposing a reduction in municipal authority and expressing concern about the liability provisions. The bill passed to the Committee on Ways and Means by a vote of 12 to 8. The Senate Crime Prevention and Public Safety Committee is expected to hear the bill next week .08 DWI passes first committee This week the Senate Crime Prevention and PubIic Safety Committee passed SF 58 (Foley), The committee heard testimony from state agencies and Mothers Against Drunk Driving about the impacts of a lower BAC threshold on reducing traffic fatalities. A representative from the Office of Traffic Safety also warned legislators that the federal government will begin withholding highway construction money if the state fails to adopt a .08 law by October. Opponents also registered their concerns with the committee. The Metropolitan Inter-County Association argued that counties were ah'eady hit hard by the felony DWI law that went into effect last August and that lowering the DWI threshold would aggravate the impact on county budgets. The association representing the state's bowling proprietors suggested that the bill targets social drinkers and will negatively impact on-sale establishments around the state. Legislative interest in this issue goes back several years, but .08 legislation may be more likely to pass this year with federal highway funds on the line. States that do not adopt the .08 BAC laws by federal FY 2004 would have 2 percent of highway construction money withheld, with the penalty increasing to 8 percent by 2007. If the Legislature fails to enact the .08 BAC standard~ Minnesota stands Lo lose 2 percent ($6.64 million) in FY 2004 and 4 percent ($13.28 million) in FY 2005. This is also the last year the state is eligible for ah'nost $3 million in federal incentive money for joining 34 other states that have already made the change to .08. For more information on c[Iy leg[$1alive issues, contacl any member of Ihe League of Minnesola Cilies tnletgovernmenlal Relalion~ learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1064- Feb 28 2883 15:53:81 Via Fax -> 9524728628 adainistrator Page 883 Of 883 To review this legislation, visit the Legislature's bill tracking page at: hkt_l.v :3~'/w w w .les.. s tare. rrm. us/le gdlegis, asp. For more information on .08 BAC, go to the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety's website al.: h ttp://www.dps.state, mn.us/ots/Laws Legislati ;~_~Jdefhult.asp and click on the "Hot Topics" link. Hearings of h terest -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities February 28, 2003 Page 3 definition modified to include tax increment financing captured tax capacity. MONDAY, March 3, 2003 Immediately after the Joint Convention Committee: Senate State and Local Government Operations Chair: Sen. Jim V[ckerrnan Room: 123 Capitol Agenda: SF 316 (Marry) Open meeting law; establishing administrative remedy for violations of the law. TUESDAY, March 4, 2003 8:15 AM Comnlittee: House Jobs and Economic Development Finance Room: Basement Hearing Room, State Office Building Chair: Rep. Bob Gunther Agenda: HF 3 (Magnus) Job Opportunity Building Zones TUESDAY, March 4, 2003 10:15 AM Committee: House Taxes Room: 200 State Office Building Chair: Rep. Ron Abrams Agenda: HF 172 (Lenczewski) Local government aid city aid base reduced as aid appropriations increase. HF 593 (Lenczewski) Local government aid tax base WEDNESDAY, March 5, 2003 2:30 PM Committee: House Civil Law Room: 5 State Office Building Chair: Rep. Mary Liz Holberg Agenda: HF327 (Hackbarth) Shooting range generally accepted practices defined; and relation to local ordinances, closing and relocations, and nuisance liability provided. THURSDAY, March 6~ 2003 10:15 AM Committee: House Taxes Room: 200 State Office Building Chair: Rep. Ron Abrams Agenda: Presentation of Study on Local Government Aid by State Auditor Awada THURSDAY, March 6, 2003 12:30 PM Committee: Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee Chair: Sen. Jim Vickerman Room: 123 Capitol Agenda: SF 295 (Murphy) Requiring installation of automatic sprinkler systems in high-rise buildings. FRIDAY, March 7, 2003 9:00 AM Committee: Senate State Government Budget Division Chair: Sen Jane Ranum Room: 107 Capitol Agenda: Informational hearing on SF 214 (Neuville) Wage freeze. Minnesota Business Partnership proposal. For more infmmalion on city leg/slalive i,,suea, conlacl any member of Ih,* League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651,281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1065- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 3, 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Greg Raines and Council Liaison Dave Osmek. Absent and excused: Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Engineer John Cameron, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following individuals were present: Mark Hagen, 6382 Maple Road, Council member Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Eric Gustavson, 1700 Baywood Shore Drive, Ken Patz, 1716 Baywood Lane, Jeff Skelton, 1770 Baywood Shore Drive, Paul Larson, 3865 Shoreline Drive, and Bill Stoddard, 10201 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite A, Minnetonka MN, 55305. 3. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 67 2003 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to approve the minutes of the January 6, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. 5. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #03-05 FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES 6382 MAPLE ROAD MARK HAGEN AND KITTY SHEA Overview - Community Development Director Smith This is an existing single-family home on a dead end road. It is located on the boundary between Mound and Minnetrista. The property owner proposes to add an addition to the front and side of the dwelling. There is no functional garage on the property at present. The proposed garage will face east with access from Maple Road and also includes an upper story addition. The existing house is non-conforming with a 17.2 foot front setback. City staff recognizes that there are hardship conditions on the property and feels that a variance is warranted. However, a minimum setback of 1.5 feet is recommended. The applicants shared their plans with~their neighbors and received written comments which are included in the packet. The property to the west is unlikely to be developed in the area. Smith noted that the applicants are currently parking on Maple Road which presents many challenges especially for the snowplows. - 1066- Plmming Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The proposed setback on the west and south side is increased to a minimum of 1.5 feet. 2. Applicant shall procure temporary and permanent easements from the western property owner to allow access for construction and maintenance purposes. 3. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use requests. 4. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the variance application is approved. 5. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. Smith again reviewed the conditions at Mueller's request. Mueller asked if any other modifications to the plan have been recommended by staff to minimize the total impact of the variance. Smith indicated that development towards the lakeside is not feasible due to conditions. Any improvement to the street side would require a variance because the setback is already less than the required 20 feet. Staff thinks it is reasonable to want a garage on the property. Mark Hagen stated that the lot slopes from the street to the lake and that they currently park the second car on the street. He stated they are not requesting a large garage and that the current plan is an efficient and economical plan for them. Mueller asked if the second story work occurs in the new construction area. Hagen indicated it was and commented that they want to keep the height conforming to the neighborhood and don't want to overshadow the neighbors. Hasse inquired how siding could be placed on a building which is only 6 inches from the property line and further commented how a firefighter with a hose could get between the buildings? He commented that he does not support the plan. Osmek stated that the property directly abuts a portion of Minnetrista that is virtually unbuildable in this area. He asked if there would be any consideration to contacting that property owner to see if a subdivision was possible so as to provide more space. Mueller stated that he has a problem with building so close to the street when there is amp!e space toward the lake as it tends to canyonize the street. He commented that too many of these close variances have been approved and that he has problem with a second story on the lakeside. He inquired about the possibility of constructing a larger single car garage which could be pushed further back from the street. - 1067- Plamfing Commission Minutes Februa_D, 3, 2003 Ayaz stated that there is a similar property along Island View with a garage close to the street and that the garage is very tight. He commented that a larger single-car garage may be a good idea and may be both practical and possibly more aesthetically pleasing. Mueller stated that we don't do this on non-lakeshore properties therefore why should we allow it on lakeshore properties? Hagen stated that the lot slopes toward the lake and commented that the house in Minnetrista is about 35 feet higher. The house to the south is 20 to 30 feet higher in elevation than their home. He also stated that the house immediately next door (east) is similar in elevation to their home. Raines stated that he has no problem with the plan and questioned whether any views were obstructed. Hagen stated that there is no sight obstruction to the lake due to the house addition. If there is an obstruction it is due to the trees along the lake. Raines stated that the property to the west is unbuildable in this area. From a parking standpoint alone there are benefits to not only the City but to the individual as well. Raines stated that there are more pros than cons to this plan. Mueller stated that the street includes a boulevard area. City Engineer Cameron indicated it was about 7 feet in width. MOTION by Raines, seconded by Glister, to recommend approval of the variance. Glister stated the plan is a good use for the property. There are a lot of needs here and he doesn't have a lot of options. Mueller stated the addition is too close to the street and if we do it here we will have to continue to do it. He inquired when are we going to start requiring people to build within their setbacks. Even though it may not negatively impact the neighbors at this time the next person who moves in may feel they are not getting what their neighbor did and therefore we end up with walls instead of open air. He commented that we are being detrimental to the remainder of the community. There is a boulevard and that is a positive. The way the motion currently reads you are agreeing to a six inch setback. I would hope you would vote "no." Osmek stated he agrees with Mueller and that six inches is way too close. He suggested the construction of a single garage which could be moved back from the lot line which would enable 2 cars to get off the street. Osmek stated he would vote "no" as its way too tight. He stated that we need to find a better way to do this. MOTION failed. Voting in favor: Raines and Glister. Voting against: Clappsaddle, Ayaz, Hasse, Michael, Osmek and Mueller. Mueller stated that the applicant should investigate adding toward the lake instead of towards the street and restructuring the garage to be more conforming. 3 - 1068- Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 Osmek asked if the applicant would take this back and do a little more work on it. He commented that there has to be something better than coming within 6 inches of the lot line. Try coming up perpendicular to the road which would shorten up the driveway. He also suggested adding something on to the lakeside such as 3-season porch or another bedroom in that direction. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to table this case in favor of a new plan. MOTION carried unanimously. CASE 03-01 FRONT SETBACK AND LOT AREA SIZE VARIANCE LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES WILLIAM STODDARD / MINNETONKA ENTERPRISES 5331/5341/5351/5361 THREE POINTS BOULEVARD Overview - Community Development Director Smith The applicant is requesting a reduction from the R-1 setback standard of 30 feet to allow a 20 foot front setback for the property and lot area variances. The R-1 minimum lot size is 10,000 SF. Three lots do not meet this requirement. Notice of the variance request was sent to those individuals that live within 350 feet of the site as a courtesy following City Council directive. Land use in the area is residential (single family on the west, south and east; condominiums on the north.) The property includes four parcels that were platted in 1962 and are entitled to lot of record provisions. There are utilities available to the lots. Staff commented on the variance requests and indicated that the minimum front setback of 20 feet is reasonable as it reduces the amount of fill to be placed in the flood plain which is consistent with our obligation to enforce the rules from the watershed district. Impacts to the existing wetland are also minimized. Regarding the requested lot area variances, staff indicated that 3 of the 4 lots met the code when they were platted and further commented that special or unique conditions exist that may warrant relief of the ordinance restrictions. Smith commented that 3 lots are within 80-90% of the minimum size for the district and that front setback variances were granted previously. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use requests. 2. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the variances are approved. 3. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. 4. The lowest floor (including basement and/or crawl space) shall be at or above the RFPE. 4 - 1069- Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 5. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. The applicant, Bill Stoddard, stated that there is a lot of history on this site. Variances were given to these lots in the past, as well as to neighboring properties. He stated he is willing to work with city staff. Mueller stated that he is opposed to the variance for the front setbacks and inquired what the City Attorney has to say about reasonable use of the property? Smith stated that the undue hardship must be demonstrated with a variance and that you need to allow the property owner reasonable use of property. If the Planning Commission wants a legal opinion on this matter, staff suggested that City Attorney Dean be consulted. Mueller stated that when you look at the lots, it wouldn't make any difference whether we allow 4 houses or 1 house as it still would not decrease the setback. Smith stated that because the northern portion of the property is high and the southern portion is lower and includes a lakeshore setback requirement, a designated wetland and the 100-year flood plain, the application of the 30-foot setback standard to this property creates environmental issues in the rear of the property. It will require the placement of more fill and additional excavation in the area which could impact the wetland. It also pushes the houses closer to the 50 foot lakeshore setback. Relief on the setback in this case is appropriate because you are minimizing the impacts in the rear of the property. The applicant is meeting all the codes with regards to the lakeshore setback and is staying away from the wetland and appears to be doing what he can to minimize the impact to the flood plain. These lots were platted for residential use and have utililities available but are smaller than they were originally perhaps due to code changes or interpretation. The majority of the discussion in recent years involved the existing wetland and whether or not one existed. This item can now be removed from discussion as it has been resolved. Meuller stated that in the past the Planning Commission has had an informal 10% rule for lot size and if you were to look at it that way, 3 lots would be allowed but this wouldn't address the 20 foot front setback issue. City Engineer Cameron stated that Three Points Blvd is wider than necessary and that the boulevard is 6 feet wider than state aid requires so the boulevard on this side is already 3 feet wider than what is absolutely necessary. He commented that in reality, there is 17 feet from the curb line to the property line. Meuller stated that it occurred to him that it would be incumbent upon the City to work out an arrangement for this property because reasonable use of land will become a discussion issue. He commented that he has a little trouble with setbacks that but feels he can resolve that issue in his own mind but that he can't come to terms with 4 lots but indicated that it was workable. He commented that it's the density issue that bother him. He stated that if the proposal includes 3 lots instead of 4, the only variance needed will be for the front setbacks. - 1070- Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 Mueller stated that as a citizen, he doesn't want to have to buy a lakeshore lot because we don't want to give them a 20-foot variance. There are condos across the street with garages 20 feet from the road. He commented that he doesn't like going closer to the street. He stated that he feels the City will end up buying the 4~' lot to keep the density down. Mueller commented that there is a boulevard and a sidewalk. It's private ownership. Courts have told us before that we can't be so restrictive to prohibit development. Mueller asked if all the properties except to the north are zoned R1 ? Smith stated they were. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Osmek, to move denial of the application. MOTION carried. Voting in favor: Clapsaddle, Hasse, Ayaz, Michael, Glister, Osmek and Mueller. Voting against: Raines. Staff suggested that the Planning Commission make findings based on its recommendation. Mueller made the following findings of fact to support the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial: 1. The front yard setback negatively affects all adjacent property. 2. A 20~foot setback would not be conducive to the balance of properties in the area. 3. Lots 5-7 do not meet the 10,000 SF minimum lot area requirement. 4. Ordinances change for a reason. 5. The impact of traffic in the neighborhood would be negative and could affect safety if four (4) dwellings were built that close to a fairly major roadway. Michael offered Raines a chance to comment. He declined. 6. OLD / NEW BUSINESS Third Monday in February is a federal holiday. Therefore, meeting will be held on the 4th Monday which is Feb. 24th. The regular meeting day and time were discussed. It is suggested that the meeting start time be moved to 7:00 PM instead of 7:30 PM. MOTION by Mueller, second by Glister, to change meeting start time to 7:00 PM. MOTION carried. Voting for: Ayaz, Hasse, Raines, Michael, Glister, Osmek and Mueller. Voting against: Clapsaddle. 6 - 1071 - Planning Commission Minutes February 3, 2003 The Commission also briefly discussed moving the meeting night to Tuesdays as discussed at the recent joint workshop with the City Council. Staff suggested that no action be taken on this matter as she just learned that the Recording Secretary has a conflict with Tuesday. Smith also advised the Commission of other upcoming items. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Raines, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair GeoffMichael Attest, Planning Secretary 7 - 1072- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 2003 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Crreg Raines, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Dave Osmek. Absent and excused: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staffpresent: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Noflander. The following individuals were present: Dave Bortner, Mahogany Bay 3. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 3~ 2003 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Glister, to approve the minutes of the February 3, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. 4. APPROVE AGENDA WITH ANY AMENDMENTS The agenda was approved as presented. Mueller added an item under Old/New Business. 5. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #03-06 STREET VACATION - 10 FOOT STRIP OF COMMERCE BLVD MAHOGANY BAY - 2642 COMMERCE BLVD Dave Bortner and F. Todd Warner of Mahogany Bay have submitted a request to vacate a 10 foot strip of Commerce Boulevard right-of-way that is adjacent to their property located at 2624 Commerce Boulevard. A conditional use permit was approved for Mahogany Bay on August 8, 2000 to allow boat storage and restoration activities on the property subject to specific conditions. The CLIP was subsequently amended in 2001 and 2002 to extend the condition which requires the paving until May 30, 2003 so as to allow time to resolve multi-party drainage problem. Following preparation of a detailed survey of the property and submittal of a proposed grading/drainage plan, it has been determined that the paving condition cannot be satisfied without the release of an unused 10 foot portion of the Commerce Boulevard right-of-way. - 1073- Planaing Commission Minutes Febru~ 24, 2003 Discussion Mueller was interested in vacating the remainder of the right-of-way area adjacent to Kirby's Bait. He felt that, before Kirby could fix their portion of the drainage problem, the vacation of the northerly section would be required as well. It makes good common sense to take care of this at the same time for both properties. Osmek asked if it would be required to have a request to vacate before we could add this portion at this time. Smith agreed that Mueller brought up a good point but indicated that she would have to research the requirements in state statute as a petition has not been submitted by the abutting property owner. Bortner felt that, considering the cost, he would have concerns about his neighbor gaining a portion of the vacated land without participating in the cost of the application. Smith said that the current application will provide for Mahogany Bay to meet the requirements of the CUP which expires in May 2003 and expressed concern about holding up Mahogany Bay's progress if the proposal is expanded. Michael agrees that it's a good thing to do but doesn't want Mahogany Bay to suffer. Osmek agrees but it's a question of fairness. Either Kirby pays $350 or alleviate the $350 from Mahogany Bay. Ayaz thought someone should contact Kirby's regarding their participation. Hasse wanted to know if a wall would be required. Bortner indicated it wouldn't and offered to walk the area for anyone interested. Bortner clarified the issues associated with the vacation request including the need for the 10 feet to meet parking lot standards and the resolution of the ponding water that accumulates from both Commerce and Bartlett. He also stated that they would like to see the City participate in the cost. It is anticipated that, if Kirby doesn't pave at the same time, some kind of divider (i.e. fence, bollards, etc.) will likely need to be put up to cut down on traffic between the two properties. Mueller advised Bortner to be sure the Council is aware that they want the City to participate in the cost of resolving the ponding problem. There hasn't been a use change at the Kirby property so we haven't required any changes from him. He hopes that the Council will not require cost-participation as the use of the Kirby's Bait property has not changed and suggested that the City look at the Kirby' s request as a "City request" instead of a property owner request. Raines thought the safest way would be to address the two matters independently and deal with the Mahogany Bay vacation request as presented. 2 - 1074- Planning Conunission Minutes February 24, 2003 MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse, to recommend approval of the vacation to the City Council. Osmek wanted to know if there was a proposal from the Planning Commission as a price for release of the property. Smith stated that vacation is not a sale pursuant to state statutes. It is either vacated or retained. Mueller said that the appraisal costs alone would be more than the property itself was worth. MOTION carried unanimously 6. OLD / NEW BUSINESS A. Review and approval of 2003 PC Work Rules Smith gave a brief summary of the change necessary according to City Attorney John Dean. Glister also informed staff that the 7:00 time change needed to be changed as well as the voting section. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister, to change the Work Rules as proposed. MOTION carried unanimously B. Review of portable storage unit ordinance (draft) Glister felt that the permit placard should reflect date of expiration and issuance so City staff can determine at a glance if the property owner is in compliance. Ayaz wanted to know what is time line was between request for extension and approval? Smith indicated it should be part of the tracking system. Request should be required 30 days before expiration. Ayaz was also concerned about the 180 day time frame. He thought 90 days should be adequate. Osmek noticed the ordinance lacked "teeth". Smith said a misdemeanor clause is included in the City Code. Raines felt a daily fine might make more sense. Staff will research this issue. Mueller suggested the following changes: Section 1. Include the phrase "delivered and/or removed by truck or trailer". Section 2. Placement and removal. Also fee per day. Section 4 (b) 130 square feet is too small; should be up to 160. (e) need to change 180 to something less; and include "and unless an extension is applied for 30 days prior to the expiration and approved by the City Council". 3 - 1075- Plmufing Commission Minutes February 24, 2003 The Planning Commission felt that 120 days should be adequate. Smith will talk to City Attorney regarding penalties. Smith will make changes for review at the 3/3/03 meeting and set it up for City Council review on 3/11/03 if possible. C. Planning Commission Vacancy The Planning Commission discussed the vacancy on the Planning Commission due to the unexpected loss of Frank Weiland. The matter was discussed with the City Manager including whether it was reasonable to appoint a new Commissioner from the pool of candidates from last November. Smith indicated that if this process was used, the City Council would need to direct staff to use previous candidates in lieu of re-advertising if this was a preferred process of the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Osmek agreed and further stated an opinion from the City Attorney would also be necessary as well. He was of the opinion that, because the interviews were so recent and the candidates were so qualified, it would make sense. Mueller was uncomfortable with not advertising. We may get a new candidate that far outshines what we have. Mueller, Glister, Raines, and Michael all agreed that re-advertising would be the best way. Smith will share the information with the City Manager. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Raines, to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 PM. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair GeoffMichael Attest, Planning Secretary 4 - 1076- Kandis M Hanson Page l'of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Mark Hanus" <mahanus@earthlink. net> "Kandis M Hanson" <KandisHanson@cityofmound.com> Monday, March 03, 2003 7:20 PM FW: Update .... Xcel Utility Relocation-Removal of Abandoned Facilities ..... Original Message ..... From: Strommen, James M. To: William Burns_(E-mail).;Tom Landwehr ~(E-mail).;Tom Burt (E-mail)_;Terry Schwerm (E-mail).;Terry Quigley (E-mail);Steve Stadler (E-mail);Steve Mielke (E-mail);Steve Lawrence (E-mail);Ron Case (E- _mail);R. ick Getschow (E-mail);Richard McCoy_(E-mail};Randy LaFo3L(E-mail};Paul Oehme (E-mail);Patty Muscovitz (E-mail);Neal Beets (E-mail);Moorse Ronald (E-mail);Mitchell Rasmussen (E-mail);Michelle Morse (E-mail); Matt Fulton (E-mail)_;Mark McNeill (E-mail);Mark Hanus (E-mail);Mark Bernardson (E- _mai_[l;Kevin Hansen (E-mail);Jon Haukaas (E-mail).;John Wallin (E-mail);John Anderson (E-mail);Jim Keinath (E-mail);Jim Gates (E-mail);Jeannine Clancy (E-mail);Jeanne Andre (E-mail)_;Greg Gappa (E- mail);Glick Marcia (E-mail);Ginny Black (E-mail);Geralyn Barone (E-mail);Gerald Butcher (E-mail);Gene _Dietz (E-mail)_;Duane Schwartz (E-mail);Doran Cote (E-mail);Donald Loebrick (E-mail);Diane Deblon (E- _mail).;Desyl Peterson (E-mail);David Jessup (E-mail);Dave OsberCl (E-mail);Dan Faulkner (E-mail};Chris WallbergJ~E-mai[)_;Chris Miller (E-mail);Charles Honchell (E-mail);Bruce Nawrocki (E-mail)_;Bob Cockrie_l (E-mail);Barry Johnson (E-mail).;Allan Orson ~E-m~_ Sent: 3/3/03 12:27:23 PM Subject: Update .... Xcel Utility Relocation-Removal of Abandoned Facilities To SRA Delegates and Alternates: I want to give your public works people an update and reminder on the issue of Xcel policies on facilities relocation and removal of abandoned facilities. As you know, several SRA cities are coming off"bad years" with Xcel regarding the failure to "promptly" relocate facilities in the ROW. We have met with Xcel in lieu of seeking further review in the PUC. I have requested that each of the offended cities, and other SRA cities, keep record of Xcel and other utility performance this construction season. If the general promises of cooperation made by Xcel do not materialize and the problem continues this year, the SRA should consider filing a complaint with the PUC. These delays cost real money and add public inconvenience. In connection with litigation I am handling it has come to my attention (not in a private communication) that Xcel gas has indicated it will abandon or greatly reduce the circumstances in which it will remove steel main/service lines installed across ROW and replace them with plastic dual mains on either side of the non-traveled portion of the ROW. The dual maining elimination of older mains and in street mains or service line location is regarded as safer. Xcel's apparent new policy is to limit relocation and removal to situations in which Xcel deems the mains to be in "direct conflict" with the project. Xcel will have a narrow view of what is in "direct conflict." I don't know how many of your cities have projects where Xcel gas (or CenterPoint) is dual maining or otherwise upgrading form old steel to plastic (PVC). It appears, however, that for financial reasons Xcel is drawing a line in the sand on when it will move. I have heard of this policy from a couple of different cities and from a person at the Office of Pipeline Safety. As you know, our problem with Xcel last year was with electric facilities. With the addition of gas relocation issues, what appears to be developing is a corporate decision to be less willing to move as directed by a city, when Xcel believes that a narrower legal interpretation of what it must do can be claimed. The law requires "prompt" relocation at the utility's expense when the facility "interferes" with: - 1077- 3/4/03 Page 2 of 2 1. a public improvement project 2. the health and safety of the public 3. the safe and convenient travel in a ROW "Interfere" is defined by the statement that relocation under these circumstances (promptly and at utility expense) cannot be "merely for the convenience" of the city. Minn. Rules Part 7819.:~'100. In sum, 1. Please keep good records of any utility's conduct with respect to these issues. 2. Please advise me if a utility takes the "direct conflict" position in your city on a given project. It looks as if there will be some willingness on Xcel's part to fight out in court or the PUC, selected situations where relocation or removal costs it more money than it is willing to spend. Jim Strommen 612-337-9233 -- Mark Hanus -- mahm~us~earthlink.net -- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet. - 1078- 3/4/03 MOSS B~J^N T. GROO~N (612} 347-0340 E-Mail: O~oaanB(~moss-bamett.90m Web ~te: ~.mu~d~co~s~w,~ COMMUNICATIONS LAW UPDATE To: From: Date: Moss & Barnett Clients and Interested Parties Brian T. Grogan, Esq. February 26, 2003 & BARNETT A Professional Association 1. BANKRUPTCY IN THE CABLE TELEVISION INDUSTRY In the past year the telecommunications industry has experienced a rash of bankruptcy filings which did not seem possible until recently. In the wake of bankruptcy filings by WorldCom and Adelphia, franchising authorities across the country have begun asking questions about the enforceability of their franchise should their operator file for bankruptcy. There are two main types of bankruptcy filings for businesses. One is ka~own as a Chapter 7 liquidation in which the ba.nkn~ptcy court appoints a trustee to sell offthe company's assets and liquidate the business. The proceeds from such sale are used to pay secured creditors first mhd unsecured creditors on a pro rala basis. Generally speaking, however, there is little cash left in a Chapter 7 liquidation to pay unsecured creditors. The more common tbrm of bankruptcy filing in the telecommmfications industry is a Chapter 11 reorganization which is designed to allow a company to reorganize and reduce debt. While the company is developing its plan of reorganization an automatic stay is implemented which protects the company from attempts by creditors to collect on unpaid debts. On Jmmary 30, 2003, Moss & Barnett held a seminar for franchising authorities regaxding concerns over bankruptcy in the cable television industry. We have outlined below m~swers to the key questions which were raised during that seminar. a. Will franchise fee and PEG support pa.~ents to the city continue? If the operator wishes to maintain the franchise, franchise fees coming due after the bankruptcy filing (post petition) will most likely continue to be paid if funds are available, but the payments may be delayed. If not paid, the city can seek relief fi'om the bankruptcy com~r. Generally, in banlcruptcy proceedings an entity is not permitted to continue to take advantage of the benefits of an executory contract like a cable TV franchise without salisfying its obligations there under. If the operator does not make the payments vohmtarily, the bankn~ptcy court may compel payments pursuant to the city's "police and regulatory power," but the corn1 has discretion to determine the amount and timing of the payments. b. Will the city be able to collect fines/penalties from a performance bond/security fund/letter ofcredlt? Prior to a bax~kruptcy petition nothing prevents the city from enforcing the fi'anchise in accordance with its terms. Following a bankruptcy petition an automatic stay will be imposed by the bankruptcy court and the city will in all likelihood be prohibited from imposing or collecting penalties directly from an operator under the terms of the fi'anchise. Enforcement matters under the franchise will likely need to be heard by the bankruptcy court. Whether the city can enforce a bond or letter of credit posted by a third party without relief from the automatic stay will depend on the particular circumstances. However, the enforceability of a bond or letter of credit is far more likely than 571663/1 I - 1079- MO S S & BARNETT A Prof¢~sior~l Association a cash securily deposit because they are held by a third party and will likely not be considered property of the esta.te. c. Can a city deny renewal ora franchise solely because an operator is in bankruptey? No. Denying an operator franchise renewal simply because it is in bankruptcy would likely not be upheld by a bankruptcy court and the city would have to show some other reason for such denial. For example, the reasons for denial outlined in 47 U.S.C. § 546 remain viable grounds on which to base denial of a request for renewal. d. What if an operator in bankruptc, v beans to provide poor customer service, how can a city enforce franchise compliance? Enforcement proceedings under the city's police and regulaloD, powers are not subject to the automatic stay. Whether the activity contemplated by the city is within this exception will need to be analyzed al the time. The city can likely enforce the fi'anchise and issue default notices but cannot impose monetary penalties against the operator or draw from a cash security fund. e. What if an operator in bankruptcy chooses to stop all of its capRal expendRures particularly system upgrades which may be required under a franchise. It certainly would not be unusual for an operator to curtail capital expenditures after filing for bankruptcy protection. The bankruptcy court may need to decide whether any capital expenses required by a franchise must be made during the time the operator is in the period of bankruptcy administration. Those communities that do not have franchise requirements for a system upgrade and where the system has not already been upgraded will likely find any upgrade plans delayed during the pendency of the banka-uptcy proceedings. However, enforcement of existing fi'anchise obligations remains feasible, albeit without the benefit of rnoneta.1T penalties to compel compliance. 2. FCC ISSUES NINTH REPORT ON COMPETITION On December 31, 2002, the FCC released its 9~' Annual Report on Competition in Video Markets. Among the key findings, the FCC concluded that subscribership to multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) increased by 1.8% to just under 90 million. Of those 90 million subscribers, 69 million are subscribers to traditional cable television systems (CATV) while over 18 million subscribe to direct broadcast satellite (DBS) services. CATV subscribership was virtually fiat rising a mere .04% in 2002. h~ contrast, DBS subscribership increased audience by over 2 million subscribers (14%) in 2002. Overall, the audience share of viewership lbr cable chmmels increased 4% while ~he audience share for broadcast networks decreased 4%. This is consistent with the trend over the past several years where the a.udience share tbr broadcast television has steadily declined. Satellite delivered programming also increased in 2002 with 308 chaxmels now available up from 287 in 2001. Of the 1,300 commercial television stations in the United States, 90% have been granted digital television construction pe~Tnits and 643 are now on air with digital television operations. From June 2001 to June 2002 the Consumer Price Index increased by 1.1%. During that same time pehod, cane rates in creas ed 6.3 %. The concentration and consolidation of subscribers among the top cable operators continues. The four largest MVPDs now control 50.5% of all subscribers in the countxy while the top 10 MVPDs control 84.4% of subscribers. 52.3 million subscribers axe se~wed by 107 large regional clusters which serve 100,000 or more subscribers each. There are now 32 regional clusters in the United States with more than 500,000 subscribers serving a total of more than 33.3 million subscribers. Haxdwired competition 571663/1 2 -1080- MO S S & BARNETT A Professional Association in the cable industry remains elusive, however, of the 33,246 community units registered by the FCC (local units of government which franchise cable operators), only 617 (2%) have effective competition based on the presence of a second wired cable operator. 3. TRANSFER APPROI/AL MAY BE B/ON OR LOST DURING RENEB/AL On September 20, 2002, the County of Santa Cruz ("County") prevailed in a long legal battle with Charter Communications over the County's ability to deny a proposed transfer. See Charter Communications. Inc. v. CounW of Santa Cruz, 304 F. 3d 927 (9th Cir. 2002). As a result of the Santa Cruz decision, cable operators are no longer able to rely on prior case law for the proposition thai 1) a local franchising authority ("LFA") is not entitled to request additional infmxnation regarding a proposed tramferee or 2) an LFA has limited authority to review a proposed transfer. In Santa Cruz, the Ninth Circuit emphatically held that "the County's denial of consent should be upheld as long as there is substantial evidence for any one sufficient reason for denial." The court found that the County's concerns regarding Charter's financial capabilities as well as the stability of subscriber rates following the transfer were not unreasonable. See www.murdcipalcommunicationslaw.¢om for fin'ther analysis of this case. The reaction of the cable industry to the Santa Cruz decision has been swift. In some cases, state cable associations are approaching state legislatures seeking clarification regarding 'the scope of authority for LFA review of a proposed transfer. In all cases cable operators are approaching renewal negotiations with an eye Iowa.rd clarifying the scope of transfer review. Cable operators are now attempting to obtain "pre-approval" for certain transfers thereby excluding LFA review. Cable operators have oflen sought a franchise exemption fi'om a transfer review if the franchise was pledged as collateral for financing or in cases of internal rest~a~cturing where no change of control takes place. As a result of Santa Cruz, however, LFAs should be on guard with respect to the language proposed by cable operators in draft renewal franchises. In addition, LFAs should be leery of imposing any burdensome procedural requirements on their review. Many cable operators seek to limit municipal review to "legal, technical and financial" qualifications despite the fact that there is no such stalutory limitation on the issues which an LFA may consider al the time of a transfer review. Further, LFAs should not include ax~y limitation on the applicable timeframe for review. Cable operators argue that the federal one hundred twenty (120) day time limit is applicable axed this should be set forth in the local franchise. However, this one hundred twenty (120) day time limit may not be final depending upon the cable operator's responsiveness to informatiou requests which may be submitted by the LFA. See 47 C.F.R. § 76.502 mid 47 U.S.C. § 537. 4. STILL NO DECISION FROM FCC IN CABLE MODEM PROCEEDING All comments m~d reply comments have long since been submitted to the FCC in its proceeding regarding the appropriate regulatory treatment for high-speed data delivered over cable modems. In the spring of 2002, the FCC issued a Declaratory Ruling that cable modem service is a "interstate in~¥rmalion service" as opposed to a "cable service." As a result of that decision cable operalors immedimely ceased paying franchise fees on high-speed cable service revenues and altered their fi'anchise renewal negotiations to attempt to draft out any regulatory oversight of cable modem service. 571663/1 3 - 1081 - MO $ S & BARNETT A Professional Association The Declaratory Ruling was appealed by a number of parties and is before the 9~ Circuit Court of Appeals, The FCC also issued a Rulemaking Proceeding seeking comments on the Declaratm~/Ruling and a mmqber of a.ncilla.~ issues, So fir, no decision i¥om the FCC has been rendered, Last week, however, the FCC issued a decision which fi'ees the Bell operating compmfies fi'om unbundling rules for new high-speed networks. This decision known as the UNE-P decision may provide insight regarding the FCC's likely direction in the cable modem proceeding. One aspect of the UNE-P decision is intended to promote investment by the Bell operating companies in their DSL products without tbrcing the Bell's to make such facilities available on an unbundled basis to competitors. As a result of the FCC's UNE-P decision, many believe the FCC will not seek any new regulations over high-speed Intemet smMce offered over a cable modem. Moreover, it appears unlikely that the FCC will force cable operators to provide open access (~k/a forced access) to competing ISPs ~o the operators' high-speed h~temet access platform. The net result for fi'anchising authorities is thai the FCC does not appear inclined to provide any flu'ther local regulation of high-speed Internet access over a cable modem. Thus the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco may be the best hope for fi'a.nchising authorities seeking regulatoD~ authority over cable modem service including the ability to impose a franchise fee on such service. · · · Brian T. Grogan is a shareholder with the Minneapolis law firm of Moss & Barnett practicing in the areas of telecommunications and cable television law. Brian represents entities throughout the countly on fi'anchise renewals, trm~sfers of ownership, competitive franchising, telecommunications planning, right-oI2way management, first amendment issues, tower siting, leasing and zoning, litigation and other 1'elated communication matters. He is a frequent presenter at state and national conferences regarding communications law and he is a member of the American Bar Association (Forum Committee on ~,ommumcat~ons Law), National Association of Telecommunicalions Officers a~d Advisors, Inlemalional Municipal La~3~ers Association (Contracls, Franchises and Technology Sectimi), and is past chair of the Communications Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Association. Brian Grogan al Moss & Barnett, 4800 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402, phone: (612) 347-0340 or via email at grm, anb~moss-barnett, com. Web site: Please visit www.municipaicommunicationslaw, com for additional updates on communications law issues of interest to municipalities. If you would 1/ke to begin receiving tt~s Communicatiom Law Update via email or facsimile or if you have updated contact inforrnafio~ please notify: Terri H~rm. mer, Moss & Barnett 4800 Wells F~go Center, 90 South 7th Street, Mi~meapol/s, MN 55402-4129 Phone: (612) 347-0349 Fax: (612) 339-6686 E-m,xil: hammert~_ ~oss-bamett.com The ntateritds in this Comntu~ietttio~s Lr~w Update have bee~ eontptied frorn a varietyof sourees a#d address o~lya portion of the relevant issaes eo~tained withi~ hundreds of pages of regulations a~d decisions, l~/e have ~ot addressed ~n a~y intporta~t l~oi~ts that nta. v apply to .~our situtttio~, l~ou should consult with legal counsel before taking a~ V aetlo~ o~ ~ atters covered bY this (.'ontntu~ieatio~s [_.aw Up, elate. ' 57166J/1 4 -1082- February 26, 2003 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ° cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Re: Enchanted Island Bridge, or "The Red Bridge" To: Residents of Enchanted and Shady Islands From: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator; Larry BrOwn, Director of Public Works/City Engineer As you areaware, the City of Minnetrista is responsible for the maintenance, operation, and.replacement of the Enchanted Island Bridge. Minnetrista recently had further testing performed on the condition of the bridge, and it found that the bridge continues to be weakening. Weight Restrictions: Reducing the mount of weight on the bridge is necessary to keep it safe. Minnetrista, in fact, recently removed pavement from the top of the bridge to remove some .weight. Acqordingly, Minnetrista has reduced the total load limit of vehicles to four (4) tons. This weight restriction will likely remain in effect until the replacement bridge is completed. Minnetrista has contacted Westonka School District on a plan to provide bus service to students living on the island. It.has alsO notified licensed trash haulers, UPS, and FedEx of the new weight reStrictions. All fire protection and law enforcement agencies will be able to respond in the event of an emergency. Schedule: Minnetrista expects the following schedule for the bridge replacement: * Early April: * First half of May: * October 2003: * June 2004: Award :contracts for construction of the bridge Constmcti0n begins Substantial completion- bridge will be fully driveable Final completion (includes shoreland restoration, landscaping, project site clean-up, etc.) The new bridge will be Constructed in stages such that there will be a one-lane bridge available throughout construction. Mound Groundbreaking: Starting at 11:00 a.m. Saturday, March 1,.the City of Mound will have- building-bashing & groundbreaking activities. The new joint fire and police station will be built on the site of the current 50-year-old fire station at 2415 Wilshire Boulevard. Everyone is invited to attend. Contact Information: more immediate informatiOn, you may wish to call the City of Minnetrista; 952.446.1660, www.ci.minnetrista.mn.us; Mound Fire Department, 952.472.3555; or the City of Shorew°od, 952.474.3236, www. ci.shorewood.mn.us. OPRINTED ON RE(;YC~.ED PAPER - 1083- 25aroughout the project we will do our best to keep you informed' of progress. For FEB ~ G 2003 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Jolm'M. Anderson, et al., Vo City of Mound, et al., Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Citizens for Commons Association, a Non-Profit Neighborhood Association, Defendants. CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL DISTRICT COURT Catherine L. Anderson Court File No.: 02-11148 FOURTt-I JUDICIAL DIgTRICT STIPULATION AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDER Court File No.02-11148 The parties hereto, through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the entry of an Amended Scheduling Order in this matter. The Amended Scheduling Order will give all parties sufficient time to complete discovery and submit dispositive motions before trial, if any, in light of the Court's Order dated January 16, 2003, granting Citizens for Commons Motion to Intervene. Accordingly, the parties request that the scheduling order dated September 20, 2002, be amended as follows: 1) 2) 3) Discovery shall be completed by July 7, 2003. The Joint Statement of the Case shall be filed by August 4; 2003. All dispositive motions Shall be filed with the Court to be heard on or before August 24, 2003. -1084~ 4) .Mediation shall be completed by August 18, 2003, or' within thirty days after a decision on any pending dispositive motion. Dated: aqI 7-o ,2003 Dated: ~--"~//7' 2003 LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD, P.A. Marc D. Simpson, Esq. (183301) 150 South Fifth Street Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 ~~g~7~~HOFF,. B _. & KUDEE.scld~:' · Justin L. T;mplin: B~. ~30'5807) 160 Flagship Corporate Center 775 Prairie Center Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RIDER, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP "D~ed: I ,2003 By ~,~..~ d~'~ Timothy J. Nolan, Esq. (203671) Caroline Ostrom, Esq. (278476) Attorneys for Citizens for Commons Association 333 South Seventh Street Suite 2000 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 340-8911 SO ORDERED. Dated: February 25, 2003 ORDER Catheri-ne~L -~Ande rs on Judge of District Court 945881-1 2 -1085- GEORGE C. HOFF HOFF BARRY & KUDERER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION DIRECT (952) 746-2706 e-mail ghoff~hbklaw.com February 27, 2003 By Facsimile (612) 348-2131 & U.S. Mail District Court Administrator Hennepin County Govermnent Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 ATTENTION: CIVIL FILING .Re: John M. Anderson, et al v. City of Mound, et al Court File No: MC 02-011148 Our File No: 3200-150 Dear Administrator: Enclosed for filing please find the following with respect to the above matter: 1. City of Mound's Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties; 2. City of Mound's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Indispensable Parties; and 3. Proposed Order. By copy of this letter, the above are being served on all counsel of record. Our check in the amount of $5.00 for the fax filing fee will follow by mail along with the Affidavit of Service. Sincerely, HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. GCH:wmp Enclosures cc: Marc D. Simpson, Esq. Timothy J.' Nolan, Esq. Client 160 FLAGSHIP CORPORATE CENTER 775 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 (952) 941-9220 FAX (952) 941-7968 1-800-989-9220 - 1088- STATE OF MINNESOTA' COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT John M. Anderson, Kelly M. Anderson Robert J. Beissel, Philip L. Bowman, Julie N. Bowman, Michael R. Gardner, Susan G. Gardner, Aaron S. Gross, Melissa S. Gross, Jeffrey J. Jesberg, Thomas R. Menken, Bonita J. Menken, Matthew J. Mizemy, John E. Mundt, Robert E. Riebe, Sharron L. Riebe, and Jason S. Sasanfar, Plaintiffs Vo City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation; the unknown heirs of John D. Chipman, deceased and the unknown heirs of Jesse Chipman, deceased, Defendants, and Citizens for Commons Association, a non-profit neighborhood association, Intervenor/Defendants. Case Type: Other Civil Court File No: MC 02-011148 DEFENDANT CITY OF MOUND'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO: PLAINTIFF ABOVE-NAMED AND THEIR ATTORNEY, MARC D. SIMPSON, LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD, SUITE 2300, 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 and INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT ABOVE-NAMED AND ITS ATTORNEY, TIMOTHY J. NOLAN, RIDER BENNETT EGAN & ARUNDEL, SUITE 2000, 33 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET, MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 \\CADDYkDDRIVE\WPDATAk3200-150XPleading\dismiss-nmm.doc - 1087- PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant City of Mound, will on Thursday, March 27, 2003, at 8:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, before the Honorable Catherine L. Anderson, courtroom 1456, Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, move the Court for dismissal for failure to join indispensable parties, pursuant to Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02 (f) and 19.01, as follows: 1. Dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety without prejudice; Awarding to the Defendant its reasonable costs and disbursements incurred herein. This Motion is based upon all the files, records and proceedings herein, City of Mound's Memorandum Of Law, and the arguments of counsel. Dated: .~/--2--D. ,2002 Hoff, Barry & Kuderer, P.A. 160 Flagship Corporate Center 775 Prairie Center Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (952) 941-9220 Attomeys for Defendant City of Mound 2 - 1088- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT John M. Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, Vo City of Mound, et al., Defendants. and Citizens for Commons Association, a non-profit neighborhood association, Intervenor/Defendant. Case Type: Other Civil Court File No: MC 02-011148 Honorable Catherine L. Anderson CITY OF MOUND'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTIES INTRODUCTION The Plaintiffs are requesting an order from this Court that will impact "inland" property owners. Despite that, the Plaintiffs have not made those affected property owners parties to this case. Accordingly, the City of Mound now moves for dismissal of this action, without prejudice, for failure to join indispensable parties pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(f) and 19.01. FACTS This matter was submitted to the Court previously on the Intervenor/Defendant's motion to intervene. The Court issued its order and memorandum dated January 16, 2003 (hereinafter the "Order") granting intervention.~ The Order contains the recitation of the facts necessary to make a determination of this motion. The Courts Order granting intervention was based on the standards found in Rule 24.01. Those standards are virtually identical to the standards in Rule 19.01 which governs this motion. 1 - 1089- The Wiota Common was privately dedicated to all property owners, including both Lakeshore and inland property owners, in Dreamwood in 1907. Order, p. 1. Since that time, the Wiota Common has been continuously used by Dreamwood property owners for access to Lake Minnetonka. Id. Plaintiffs seek to upset the nearly-a-century-old dedication and continuous use by claiming all rights to and interest in the Wiota Common for themselves. Despite the interests of the inland property owners already recognized by this Court, Plaintiffs seek to do so by suing only the City of Motmd and the unknown heirs of the individuals who originally dedicated Dreamwood. Id. (quoting Complaint, p. 11). Plaintiffs' Complaint in this matter seeks injunctive relief enjoining the City of Mound "from licensing docks along the lakeshore to anyone, except to plaintiffs pursuant to such future ordinances as may be duly enacted by the City Council for all docks along all privately owned lakeshore in the City of Mound." Order, p. 1. Plaintiffs also seek declaratory judgment that the inland owners were "granted a private easement for street purposes" only, Complaint, p. 11, and a declaration that they are the "fee simple" owners of the commons? Complaint, p. 10 ~[la. Plaintiffs' Complaint is an unmistakable attack on the property interests of the inland property owners. ARGUMENT The inland property owners, their interests placed in jeopardy by the relief sought in Plaintiffs' Complaint, are indispensable parties to this lawsuit. Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(0 provides for a motion to dismiss for "failure to join a party pursuant to Rule 19." 2 This is tempered by the unusual language that they are requesting a declaration of fee only as to the City. 2 - 1090- Minn. R. Civ. P. 19,01 states the following: A person who is subject to service of process shall be joined as a party in the action if (a) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (b) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (1) as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest or (2) leave any one already a party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the person's claimed interest. If the person has not been so joined, the court shall order that the person be made a party. If the person should join as a plaintiff but refuses to do so, the person may be made a defendant, or, in a proper case, an involuntary plaintiff.3 In its decision granting the Citizens for Commons' Motion to Intervene, this Court has determined that the inland property owners in Dreamwood have an interest in the Wiota Common and that their interests could be impaired or impeded by this action. Order pp. 3 and 4. This Court has also noted that a final resolution of the issues without the inland owners' involvement in the case could be detrimental to their interests. Id., p. 4. In this matter, Plaintiffs seek to claim for themselves all right, title and interest to the Wiota Common. Plaintiffs attempt to accomplish their goal without joining inland owners as parties to the lawsuit. While cleverly pled, the Complaint is an mistakable attack on the interests of the inland owners in at least three ways. First, they are seeking to have the Court declare the inland owners ineligible for a license to allow them to 3 Minn. R. Civ. P. 19.02 provides that, "Ifa person as described in Rule 19.01 cannot be made a party, the court shall determine whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed among the parties before it, or should be dismissed, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. The factors to be considered by the court include: (a) to what extent a judgment rendered in the person's absence might be prejudicial to the person or those akeady parties; (b) the extent to which, by protective provisions of the judgment, by the shaping of relief, or other measures, the prejudice can be lessened or avoided; (c) whether a judgment rendered in the person's absence will be adequate; and (d) whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is dismissed for non-joinder." Because all of the inland owners are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, Rule 19.02 does not apply and the standards in Rule 19.01 guide the Court. McAndrews v. Krause, 71 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. 1955). 3 -1091 - maintain a dock - a clear assault on a very real and valuable interest. Second, they seek to declare that the only easement is for "street purposes" which would unalterably change their longstanding use and enjoyment of a property right. Third, the Plaintiffs want to have fee simple title declared in their names. This means, of course, that they would have an absolute or fee-simple estate in which they are entitled to the entire property, with an unconditional power of disposition during their life, and descending to their heirs and legal representatives upon their death intestate. See Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Ed. This Court cannot contemplate granting the relief that Plaintiffs seek without considering the effects of any potential Order on the property interests of the inland owners. The disposition of this matter, should this Court grant any relief that Plaintiffs are seeking, will as a practical matter impair or impede the inland owners' property rights. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 19.01. As such, the inland owners are indispensable parties and the case should not proceed without them. This case should be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to join parties indispensable to the fair and equitable resolution of this matter. Dated this ~ ~ day of February, 2003. HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. 775 Prairie Center Drive 160 Flagship Corporate Center Eden Prairie, MN 55344 tel: (952) 941-9220 fax: (952) 941-7968 4 - 1092- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT John M. Anderson, Kelly M. Anderson Robert J. Beissel, Philip L. Bowman, Julie N. Bowman, Michael R. Gardner, Susan G. Gardner, Aaron S. Gross, Melissa S. Gross, Jeffrey J. Jesberg, Thomas R. Menken, Bonita J. Menken, Matthew J. Mizemy, John E. Mundt, Robert E. Riebe, Sharron L. Riebe, and Jason S. Sasanfar, Plaintiffs City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation; the unknown heirs of John D. Chipman, deceased and the unknown heirs of Jesse Chipman, deceased, Defendants, and Citizens for Commons Association, a non-profit neighborhood association, Intervenor/Defendant. Case Type: Other Civil Court File No: MC 02-011148 ORDER This matter came on for hearing before the Honorable Catherine L. Anderson, on the 27th day of March, 2003, upon the motions of Defendant City of Mound and the Intervenor/Defendant Citizens Commons Association, pursuant to Rule 12.02 (f) and 19.01 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, for dismissal for failure to join indispensable parties. \\CADDY\DDR/vE\wPDATAk3200- 150~Pleadingktismiss-ord.doc - 1093- George C. Hoff, Hoff, Barry & Kuderer, P.A., 160 Flagship Corporate Center, 775 Prairie Center Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 appeared on behalf of Defendant. Marc D. Simpson, Leonard, Street and Deinard, suite 2300, 150 South Fifth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 on behalf of Plaintiffs. Timothy J. Nolan, Rider Bennett Egan & Arundel, suite 2000, 33 South Seventh Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 appeared on behalf of Intervenor/Defendant. Based upon the files, records and proceedings herein, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant City of Mound and Intervenor/Defendant Citizens for Commons Association's motion for dismissal is granted and Plaintiffs' Complaint is dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. 2. Defendants are awarded their reasonable costs and disbursements incurred herein. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. BY THE COURT: Dated: ,2003 Honorable Catherine L. Anderson Judge of District Court 2 - 1094- FEB-2?-2003 08:43 RIDER BENNETT RIDER BENNETT T, lq~m~. ,61 ?, .~lJ, I-~1 61234l;~7900 P.02/45 EGAN&ARUNDEL l~m~thy j. Nolan (6i~) 340-8Y] l Fcbmary 27, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE ,& U.S. MAIL t'612) 348,.2231 Civil Filiag H~an~ia County Government Cen~r 3~ Sou~ Six~ $~et ~e~U~ ~ 55487 John M. Anderson, et aL p. C~y of Mound, ~t ag smd C#izons for C'ommon~ .4~roeiafion Court File No: 02.1II.4t8 Our File No: 17705/R27¢7I Dear Court Administrator. I3noloo~ for filing ia the above-roferencod mattor on bo~'ot'~pltc~t ~r ~tc~cnfion Cit~n~ f~ ~ommo~ A~iatio~, ple~ ~d ~e tbllow~g: l. Ch~k iv "Hr~p~ Cotmly Dis~ut ~urt" in the ~o~t of $5-00; 2. No~oo of Moron 3. M~o~d~ 4. Exhibit 1 to M~morat~um 6. Affidavit - 1095- FEB-2?-200J 08:4J RIDER BENNETT 6123407900 P.O3/4G Court Admlnistrator Febmm~ 27, 2003 Pag~ 2 By copy of thi, lell,r, coun,~l of l~cord i, ,orval with the abow. Very truly yours, IUDt/R, BENNETT, EGAN & ARUNDI~L. LLP Et)olosur~ ¢c: (w/enclosure. s) ~Y M~¢ D. $in~son, E.scl. (vi~ F~,sintil~ & U.S. Mill) Goorg¢ C. Hoff, Esq. (via Fscsimil¢ & U.S. M~il) 95713~-'~ - 1096- FEB-27-2003 08:43 RIDER BENNETT G123407900 P.O4/4G STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF IIENNEPIN John M. Andcr~on, ct al., City ofldound, ct al,. Plaintiff~. Dct~mdanta, and {,.'itizcns iix Commons Association, a Nou-~fit Nci~bo~d A~ia~on, Dcfend~t in ~lt~l~ent[on. CASE TYPE: OTI~R CIVIL Thc Honorable Catherine L. Amler~on DISTRICT fX)I IRT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIO~ TO DI$1~I$$ Court l~ile No,02- I 1148 TO: PLAINTIFF~ AN]) THEIR ATTORNEY MARC D, SIMPSON, LEONAI~- ,3~ET AND DEINARD, PA., 150 SOUTH FIFTH STREET, SUITE 2300, MINNEAPOLI~ MINNESOTA .~$d02, AND DEKENDANT CITY Olr MOUND, ET AL., AND THEIR ATTORNEY OF RECORD, GEORGE C. HOFF, HOFF, HARRY, & ]{II])ERER, P.A., TT~ PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE, EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55544. PLI~ASI~ 'I'AI~ NO'IlC~ that Dclimdmt Cit~ for C~s ~ei~ioih a Non- PWfit N~bo~d ~sociafion, will bring ~he ~Uo~g mofi~ on for he~g bffo~ ~s Honorable Ca~,~ L ~n 0f ~ ~bov~-n~ cou~ at ~ II~in C~m~ty ~,vemmml C~I~. ~om 1456, Ci~ of ~~lis, Mi~l% on Thu~day, M~h 27, 2~, ~ g:~0 ~m., or ~ soon ~em~ ~ counsol may bo h~d. - 1097- FEB-2?-2003 08:43 RIDER BENNETT $12340?900 P.05/46 MOTION Dcfeqd~ms move thc Co~t fur an Order di.~mi$$in8 Plaimiffs' Colllpllfint, without pr~udiee, pur~uant to Minn. tL C'iv. P, 12.0Z '11~ m~tion i~ bA,w~ upon All of thc fil¢,~ Arid l~c.,,~q::dill~ hcr~Ln inol~din§ bt~,uiur~w, lum of Law flied in ~pon of this motion. Dated: ,,~/~ R~'t[ully submittal, RIDt~R? BIiNN~TT, BOAN_& ARUNDt~L, LLP cm-olme E. oatrom (~?~76) AUomey~ fox' D~f~adant Citizens for Commons 333 ~uth ~cventh ~{te~l, $tdl~ 20~ M~o~, MN 55402 Tel~hone: 612-34~8911/612.33~-388 [ -1098- FE8-27-2003 08:43 RIDER BEHHETT 612340?900 P.OBx4B STATE OF MINNESOTA COUI~Y OF I~NN~I~IN Ci~ze~ for Commor~ A$$ocistion, a Non-Profit Neighborhood A~oci~tion, Deflmdant in Intervention. TYPE: OTHER CIVIL DISTRICT COURT The Honor~bl¢ Uath;dne L. And~m,. FOURTII JUDICIAL DI,~TRICT MEMORANDUM [PI SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS Court File No,0r-! 114.g INTRODUCTIO~ In an *Order d~ted Jo, au{try 16, 2003, thc ~om't ~rant~ Dcfcn~s,,~ C;tlz~ for ~mom A~t~i~on'~ Moron ~o ~te~e for l~ l~t~ p~ose of cs~bKshlng ti,al Iht P~tiff~ h~d f~l~ to join ~~1~ p~ica. Ci~n lbr Co--om c~c~ now m~d f,ov~ fi~r di~ss~ of. · e ~n~ ~ut p~jud~, b~ on ~ Pl~tiffs' ~lw~ to join indisl~a,sabl~ 7~ies -. fll ~ prepay o~em m ~ ~wo~ ~lopm~ ~d ~11 th~ with au ise~mt hs the FACTS The case before ihs Court is one in which linc Plaintiffs seek to qulct adwr.,z cb, iuLs to property, namely, the Wio~ Common. (Compleint at ~1). A~ thc Court ha~ ~h'c~ly fora,d, d~ Wh.,~a Couuuou w~ priw~ely dedicated ~o all owners of Dreamwood, including thc roland property gwn~s, i,l ! 907. (De,:islnn of 1/16t03 at 1). Also, ever since that time, all Dreamwood owners, includiag ~he inlaf[d t,W,T,mS, have oominuously used the Wiots Corruno~ to ~nlo¥ md - 1099- FEB-2?-2003 08:43 RIDER BENNETT 612340?900 P.07/46 gain ~cess to ! J,ke Minnetonka~ ldi; Y~ thc Phinti ~ h~w,'ml~ ~,,~t m,d ,a~de pa~lies lu ~etiua t~ ~t lill, Og Oty u[Mum~ whid~ a~fini~t,r~ 0~, d~k pm~ on ~e Comon, ~d the ,,,k,,c,w,, l,~h, ,.,rl,.,l,,, D. ~l,¥,,a,~ ~,,,.i Jc~i~ ~hiym, u, thc urighml dedlcamr, of~, pl~ Dr~uw~. ~picuo~l~ ab~,~,t ~ thc inl~d I}mI}crty I)wncm, who el~ly have an Aa tho Court ha, notr. d. Plaintiffs, with their Complaint, s~k injunctive the City tram "[llir. cmi~ docks along the lakeshor¢ strips to anyone, except to ploiatifrs pursuant to ,uch hturv ordinauom ~ may 1~ duly *tatted by the City Com~cil for all docks along all privately owned lakeohor, in th, City et'Mound." (Do~illion of 1/16/01 ~t 1) (quoting Complaint ut 11). The Corot h~ aloe found that the inland owner, huvc an interest proptu~ at i~vu,, ~ some have dook, on tho Wiota Common, and that the dispofition of the cast might impo.ir or iml~dc thc inland Owncr~' ~ilitic~ to protect th,ir mteremt in licoi~iug dock~ oa the Common. Id_.~. at 2-3. In ~ddition to permanently mjoinin8 the lieemin8 ofdock,, ?laintttf~ aim ~ek a declaratory judgment that the Court declare the inland owner, of Dreamwood were "grant$d a prival~ e~vement for street purposes" only, and enjoining the ilastallation of landscaping and stnu:Wr~ on Ih~,. C~mrrlnn exes! aS "rrlay be duly ellaeled by the City Council for landscaping m~<I structures on all privately owne~t lake..qhote, anywhere h~ the. City o£Muund." (Cumpla/nt at With this declaratiou and reque~-t for injunotive relief, the Complamt acoka to ¢liminale propemly interests h¢Id by the inland property ownem apart from their entitlement to dook Aa tho Court t,~.s ulr~ly not{~l, the inland owners have enjoyed access to the Wiola Coramon -1100- FEB-2?-21~J 08:44 RIDER BENNETT 612340791~ P-08/46 ~inoe 1907. CDeeiaion of 1/16/03 at I). This ~ocess has e~oompassed more than access to docks. .See !d_: By requesting the declaration that ~h~ Wiogt Common wa~ dedicated Ibr "street" pur~o~e~ only, and enjoin/nS the City f~m helping maint~ ~he boundary mar~/n~ for Common, the Comph/nt clearly ~eel~ ~o e[im/nate ~he inland pro~r~¥ owners' inleree~ from ju~ ~be dock pw~r~m. As demonstrated by thc affidavlt~ and lettea's previot~sly $~bmi~t~d lo the Court a~ the hca~ng on October 21, 2003, and attached to thi.~ Motion, thc Wiota Co~maos~ has b~s continuously enjoyed by thc inlargt owncr~ for a vmict¥ ofpusposcs. Tht [hll,wing are. a sampling from several of Lhcsc af~da~t~. .Me. Cynthi3 $odedand, inland Dreomwood owncr aincc 1~5, ~t~ in h~ a~davit ~t one of ~e ~lling points of her home w~ ~e ~tion of I~e acce~ ~ a Dr~wood resident (App. at l l). She wfit~ ~at "[n~t o~y ~~, but ~Mng, c~ing, ~d boa~ng ~ eome uf ~ wond~ul pfi~leges - not ~e men, on ha~ng a pi~c on ~e dock - we ~ Dr~w~d ~id~ ~joy. But o~e of ~e b~t ~i~ ~ wa~g a ~e ~eto~a ~et eom the dock - e~:ially ~iuc~ I ~'t ~ it ~m my home oa Eagle L~e." ~ a 12. Ich'. R/chard John,,n, inland Dr~amwood owner, ~t~ that M~ f~ily h~ liv~ at th~ inl~d Dre~w~ ~ tbr over o~ty (60) ~a~. ~ ~p~ p~ch~ ~c pm~y in 1~37, ~d ~ey beg~ u~ing ~e Wio~ ~on m ~c ~ly 194~. I.I~ wfit~, "I l~cd how to ~, fieh ~d enjoy hfe do~ by ~o$c ~o~ons. I find it p~acc~l ~d rel~ing to w~ alol~ ~he Co~o~.' Id~ at 1 $. -1101 - FEB-27-2883 88:44 r I DER BENNETT 612348?988 P. 89/46 ~f. l~lt½ Mr.~. ~avlt~ and ~)l)i~ ~al~:, inlanc~ ~)rcamwooc~ oysters .~inc, e 1~R9, wrote, "We hav~ 0nme boya Ihat ,~wim & fish ,r£[]ssr ~k~ck & w~ all ~nju~t £h~ 1~... W~, ~jo¥ sitting down hy the lake m~ the Commons." ltl. at 21. Mr. Dan Cliffwr/te~, "We moved to Mound m 1972 and lovc, d the id~ of [aieing our ~ly n~ ~o Mi~to~ Bo~ my wife, Cowlin~ ~d 1 D~ up n~r ~; ~ss~i~i ~ver ~d ~¢ ~1¢ to ~joy ~ wat~ a~ m o~ you~. Wc wcm ~11~ ~ ~ow t~t w~ could hav~ a bo~t ~d ~ ~k oa ~c ~o~e ~ ~ o~w of o~ hou~ [m Dre~wo~]. ~ whole f~il? ~jo~d ~e u~ o/the l~e ~d would ~te to ~ th~t ~s b~efit would ~ ~ aw~y ~om u~ b~e of whaI we ~e ~ some p~o~ fi~eial g~a Eot a low p¢~l~. The ~om pw~ ~owe a lot of~plo Io ~joy this ~oat 1~." ~ =t 22. A~IALYSI$ Thc Complaint in this case must bc dismissal b~a~ec thc Plaintiffs lusvc fail~l to pul o, no~c~ ~ s~e ~1 p~ics wi~ ~ mt~t ~ ~b~ ~ota Comm~ ~c ~d ps-ope~y ow~less ol~ly ~ve ~ mt~eat m ~e Co~o~ bo~ by p~v~o d~e~on ~d continuoua usc. To ~ti~c ~ ~ a ~t to q~ct title ~ ~c ~on wi~out ~c i~d o~a is ~n~a~ to · ~ b~ic ao~o~ ~~ tbr q~ict htlo actor, ~lim~a~on ot'~c Ci~s i~olY~cnt in the doo~ pro~ ~ ~c CiW's cont~u~ m~ntcnanc9 of~c Wiota Co--on is simply ~e f~t ~ by Pilaff5 to ~iac f~ s~pl~ titl= to prop~ which i~ ~Vbj~t tO 0~ intcr~s~ - ~d ~o do so ~t~u~ ev~ not~g ~l p~so~ who hold ~os= inter~is, In an ~ction to dctcrminc ad¥~rs¢ claims to property, thc plain6ffs mu.~r =y ~d dl ~o~ p~ics c~i~ng ~ int~ in ~= pm~y. %is is rcfl~te~ P~g to adv~ clams. S~ M~. $~t. ~ 559,01; ~59.~. Mi~. Stat. -1102- FEB-27-2003 08:44 RIDER BENNETT 6123407900 P.10/46 ~YC~C to ~c pl~n~s ~tcr~. ~. 8~. ~ )S9.02 pm~dcs that when ~h ~so~ ~s ~g ~o~a or ~e~ of ~ ~ h=~ .s~m~ ~hG ~ ~ csmc, intcr~, or licu ~ thc r~l estate de~'ii~ h~ tim ~mmplaim hcr~n." Minn. (~p~ai: add~), The clear intent of the statute i~ for my and all parQe, with ~ intgmat in thc pmp~ to demurely settled. It ia cle~ ~ ~i ~o~ p~e, met be a~, ~d t~t if thcrc ~c ~y ~ p~i~, &ey ~o ~e ~ be incl~ ~d ~ed by publica~on. Me. vet, ~e r~u~ts for s~ee by public.on u~n u~o~m cl~m~ts ~e ~o be ~ctly ~n~ ~o ~ t~t ~ ~ p~ie~ ~eive notice of~e ~tion. W~ ~.. ~o~ ~ N.W. 775, 776, ~ ~, 180, 181 (1891). If such antic, ~uiremen~ ~e lo ~ strictly cona~ed f~ ~o~ de~e, ~ ~y ~o~ de~t ~ m i~ ~ ~e pr~e~ al i~ue mua ce~inly be ~v~ approp~ale nog~ a~ s~. ~, ~y ~wn p~$oss se~ ~e aumm~caly l~l;es ~o the acliua a~d ~w d~ ~a~ fi~ to app~ ~d ~fend a a n~,d pray. Minn. Stat ~ 5~9.07.. ~ ~tlclt tu~mwn p~ties automatically have st~d~8 m a~ ~d deled ~eir claimed int~'e,$ls, fl~ea~ ct~lai~y p~pl, wid~ h~wn ~t~e~ in ~e property ~ issue must ~ve ~ dsht. iot~sI in ~e Wiots Co--on, ~d ~ey should have b~n ~v~ nohce of~e action by ~mcc oF~c ComplaJnt. A~ a ,-l-lmm~L Ih, Pla~flff, muJl ~ede ~owled~e of t~ inl~d o~ -1103- FEB-27-~03 88:44 RIDER BENNETT 612340?900 P.11/46 int~-~c in the Common by way ofth~ private dedication which ~ b~n of~ord tbr n~ly h~ ~. It is ~o evident m ~c Compl~nt t~t ~c ~la~tliB ~now thc ~l~d ha~c ~ int~t m main~in~ ~ to ~c ~mmon, Thc inl~d o~cn a~ not '~o~.~ P~Pg~ ~C hk~w~ ~dily ~o~aa~lo by a tiflo s~ch, They should, ~cordi~ly, have bcgn ~vc~ ~oti~ oI' ~c action ~d ~ ~ thc The inland property owners are nec~ary an~or indispensable parXi~ to thi~ law.mit, und Plaintiffs, therefore, cannot be allowed to go forward with lheir Complaint..Minn. K. Civ. P, 12(0 provides spe~ifi~lly for a motion to dismiss for fhilure to join a p~x~ pu.r~uant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 19. Mhur K_ ~'~v. P. 19.01 la-ovide~ that; MimlK A p~aon who i$ subject to ~crvic¢ of proccee shall b~ joined p~ in ~ achon il~ (a) in ~c p~n's a~c, ~u~l~tc c~t b~ a~o~ ~zong ~c ~'~y p~g~, or ~) thc cl~s ~ inca mhting to the s~j~t of the ~tion ~d ~t~ t~ ~c d~ifion oF the ration in thc pcrmnt~ ~y (1) ~ ~ pr~l ma~cr imp~ or ~p~ ~e pers~'s ability to ~twt tho i~crcst or (Z) l~vc ~nc a~d7 a p~ ~j~t to a subst~ia risk of ink.ns doublc, m~fiplc, or mco~a~t obli~a~ by re.on of~c p~n'3 GI~ mt~e~t. P. 19.02 provides thr~hcr Ifa person az d~cribed in Rule 19.01 cannot bc made a party, the court shall dotcrminc whcthcr in eq~ty ar~ good con.sclcncc the aotion should pmoc~l among tho parties before it, or should bc · smiss~ the ~:,nt person thus boing rogard~ u indisp~nsabl~. The faotor~ to be ¢onsidcrcd by thc court inolud¢: (a) to what extem a judgm~m rencl~r~l in th~ person's abscnco might b~ p~ejudici~l to the person or those alrmdy parti~i (b) th~ ~xtcnt to wl~icl~, by protectiw p~ovisions in the judgment, by the shaping of reliel~ or o~er me.utes, the prejudice can be less~necl or avoided; (c) whether a Judgment rendered in the person's ~bs~¢ will t~e 6 -1104- FEB-27-2~3 08:44 RIDER BENNETT 612341~79130 P.12×46 ndequate; and (d) whether the plaintiff will have im adequate The Court in this once hn~ nlrendy found that thc inland propcrty owncrs h~¥c an/ntcwst in tile Wiota Common, and that this intcrost could bc impaircd or impcde, d by ~his action. (Dcc/,~ion o1' 1#16/03 at 3-4), Thc Court has al~o rccogn/z~ ia l final t~solulion of tho without the/nland owuet~' presence could be detrimc-ntal to tl~r inicrcs~s, Id. ~t 4. Accord/nil¥, the Compln/nt must b= d/,smissed lbr flfilur~ to join ibc appropr/atc part/cs undm- The Complaint must also be dismissed because the inland property owners are indispensable parties. See Minn. R.Civ_P. 19,02. hna s~it to quiet titl% all persons with an h~l~st iu ih~ titl~ ~ indlspc, m~able. U.S.v. Wood, ~6 l~.:ld 1385, 1358 (Ch Cir. 1972). This ca,,~ c~us~t ~o f~rwatxl iu ~luhy and $~.~1 cous~:i~c~ without the inland properly owners. A judgmmst mndcn:d in Ibis ca.~ wlthcml, th~ inland lWnpt~y owners having been given proper ~toti~ and an opportm~ity to im heard would lm highly l~mjsalMal t. Ih~gr ability lo protect ~heir int~'~s~ in the Common. This potential pt~judlc.~ ~uld p=d~at~s be ic.~.sa~ot or aw~id,-~i l~rOteCtive pmvi.sions in the judsment ~r hy fl~e ~npin8 nf mJief, htr stroh pmteclioa os' mli=f would h~sw to ¢lr. ady s~t forlh lhat th~ itflal~d property ow,~s ~;uutl.uc t, bay= fi~ll access lo the Common and thc City can ¢onlinue to maintain th~ dock Pro~-a~ and th~ Commo,~ ¢,~r ~ own~'s ofDm~nwood, ~ the original priv~lo d~iol~ion ~ont~mplntcd. The Plainliffs would ~v~r ~gre~ to the.~e terms. ~inoe ~e tree ~im of tho~r Complsint i~ to cx¢ludo ¢¥~ryon~ from Common ~xc.t, pt themselves. 7 -1105- FEB-2?-2003 08:44 RIDER BENNETT 612340?900 P.13×4G CONCLUSION ils Moron to Dis~ss Plaing~' Compla~t wi~out prej~ce, Plaiufi~ have aU~pl~ to b~g an msfion 10 q, lUl adv~u t;l{ilus {t~ I. Um~l_~'ly wit~tll ~wvhlg all iul~,t~ p~iem, m contravention of~liahe&t pt'~tice i'¢gaJ<}ix~ such claims, It iS im~rlual lo aute flza( it iv not fl~e inland prope~ o~era ~m ~ an ~j~ic~inn ~mmoa and l&e ac~s. Tl~se rinds ~,,ti,,maa ,au. It is Ibc P{sJn6ffs, ralh~, who · e inland n~mem wifl{nut proper no6ca or ~ ~e ~mplaint be dismlss~ ~fl~om prejudk~. R~otfully submitt~, L~atmd: ,;2/.27. _ ....... 2003 / RIDER, BRNN'F.~, BOURN & ARLI'NDEL~ LLP Timo~y J, Nolan (~0367 I) Caroline B. O~;~m (275476) AUom~ for Def~t ~uz~ns for Com,no,~s 333 Somh Seven~ S~L Suite 2~O Tel~houe: 612-3~-8P~ 1/612-335-3881 -1106- FEB-27-2003 08:48 RIDER BENNETT 612340?900 P.45/46 STATE ON 1VII1N'Ni~$OTA COUNTY OF HBNNEPIN John M. Andm'mou, mt ~1., ¥, City of Mound, e~ al., Defeud~i~, Citizcum for Cummum A.v~ciation, u Non-Profit Neishborhood AsSOciation, I)~£c,clsm in Iu~:erven~ion. CASi~ TYP[I: OTHER CIVIL DIflTR [CT COLURT The Honurablc C~hcrinc 1.. A~d~on FOUI~'rH JUDICIAL DT~TRICT ORDER Court F{i¢ No.02-1 Thc abov¢-captloued m~-r cra.mc ou for hc~ng before ~e Honorable Cm~= L. ~d~u, o~ ~e 27th day of ~c~ a{ 8:30 a.m. P{ainti~ were ~meni~ by M~g D. ~P~U, ~. Dcf~t City ofMo~d w~ r~t~ by ~r~ C. H0~ Nsq. ~l~nd~t in ~iou Cifi~R~ for Commo~ w~ r~t~ by 'F~o~y J. Nulan, ~. 8~d ~u ~e ~~ orc. u~el, ~e Mem~da of~w {n ~u~Un of the Moron, and all o~. ~em, ~ ~inB~ h~in, IT IS H~I~By ORDERBD: Defendant in lntcrv~ntion Citizeas for Common~ Aasocial.h.m's Motion to Dismiss wi~ho~! prejudice is h¢.rcby OF, ANTED, DATED: , ;/,003. BY THP. COURT The Nom.,ruble Catherino L. Ande~m~ -1107- The GiHespie Gazette VOL XI NO 3 March- 2003 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE February 18, 2003 Dear Members and Friends, It may have been slow in coming, but winter has finally arrived. In the last few weeks, I hear a lot more snowmobiles on the lake. The ice is not safe everywhere, so I pray that snowmobilers and ice fishermen are careful. This year, and for as long as I can remember, a number of individuals are volunteering their time to give tax counseling to seniors and Iow income area residents. This wonderful help is provided on Fridays, at the Gillesple Center, f~om 8:30 am to 3:00 pm~ Please call our reception desk at 952-472-6501 if you' want to make an appointment. Items to bring with you are: Tax forms for 2003 from the IRS, copies of 2002 returns and records of all income, such as W2's, 1099's bank interest and dividend statements, Social Security report mailed to you in January and gambling winnings or miscellaneous income received in 2002. Tax aide volunteers for 2003 are: Karen Brewers, Richard Deitz, Jim Niesen, Duane Norberg, Eugene Partyka and Charles Radke. Thanks so much, tax helpers, for all that you do for our senlors and Iow income neighbors. Some of you do not get to our Center frequently. I~ecently, a water pipe connected to our fire sprinkler system broke, pouring water into our new facility. Fortunately, this set off the fire alarm. One of our local firefighters was driving by, entered the building, and turned off the water valve. The firemen cleared most of the water from the building, but it was necessary to contact a company to bring in dryers, water extractors and dehumidifiers to get the rest of the water removed so that mold would not form in our walls and f~rnishings. Although there was considerable damage, we were very fortunate that the damage was minimized by the quick work of our Mound Fire Department. Thanks, Firefightersl We believe that insurance will cover a good portion of the damage. We had a great turnout for our Feb~ary Membership Dinner and Meeting. We have tried to get entertainment that all of you enjoy. We will have the Delano Hill Billy Band entertaining at our March 4~ Dinner and Meeting. The dinners at our center are delicious and nutritious and we hope more of you will sign up and have lunch with us on other days. I try to have lunch at the Center twice a month. We will have a "Spring Fling" f~ndraising dinner in late April, after Easter. We will have more information in next month's newsletter. Please pay your dues if you have not done so. Chairperson Gillespie Center Advisory Council -1108- -1109- -1110- -1111- -1112- -1113- m -r i'rl Z Z rtl ITl -1114- -1115- -1116- -1117- CITY OF MOUND BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT February YEAR: 2003 THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 4 4 771,982 6 1,014,302 SINGLE FAMILY A~ACHED ~WO FAMILY / DUPLEX MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) 1 20 2,450,000 20 2,450,000 ~RANStENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) SUBTOTAL 5 24 3,221,982 26 3,464,302 NON-RESIDENTIAL ~OMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAU~NT) 3FFICE / PROFESSIONAL NDUSTRIAL ~UBLIC / SCHOOLS SUBTOTAL 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ~DDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 2 245,000 3 360,000 ~ETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ~ECKS SWIMMING POOLS ~EMODEL- MISC. RESIDENTIAL 17 108,010 34 210,559 ~EMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS SUBTOTAL 19 353,0~0 37 570,559 ~ON-RESIDENTIAL gOMMERCIAL (RETAI~ RESTAURANT) 3 265,000 11 2,059,374 3FFICE / PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL PUBLIC / SCHOOLS 3ETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS SUBTOTAL 3 265,000 11 2,059,374 ~SMOLmONS II. PERMITSI I VALUATION II. PERMITS I VALUATION ~S~DENT~L DWELU"GS NON-RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 1 2 MOVE BUILDING - RESIDENTIAL TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 1 0 2 ~ UNITS ~ PERMITS ~ UNITS VALUATION ~ PERMITS VALUATION 76 ro~ 2°11 ~1 I THIS I YEAR - TO- PERMIT COUNT MONTH DATE BUILDING 28 57 :ENCES & RETAINING WALLS - SIGNS 5 5 =LUMBING 17 30 VIECHANICAL 17 30 GRADING 2 2 S & W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 6 13 tOTAL I 7S I 437 -1118- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Monthly Redevelopment Update March 2003 Public Safety Building Ground Breaking Ceremony. The groundbreaking ceremony for the new Public Safety Building took place on Saturday, March 1st. Construction on the new facility is expected to take approximately nine (9) months. During the construction of the new building, the Mound Volunteer Fire Department will be operating out of the Balboa Business Center (former Tonka Toys and Toro) building on Shoreline Boulevard. Mound Harbor Wine and Spirits Ribbon Cutting. Mound Harbor Wine and Spirits opened its doors on February 19th following the ribbon-cutting ceremony which took place on Feb. 18th. Post Office Move. The Mound Post Office moved into its new building at 5510 Lynwood Boulevard on December 31, 2002. Post Office Demolition. Demolition of the former Post Office building on Auditors Road took place the week of Jan. 27th. Mound Marketplace. The new Mound Marketplace shopping center is expected to be fully open soon. Current tenants include Jubilee Foods, Caribou Coffee, Scotty B's Restaurant, Great Clips, Harbor Wine and Spirits, For Bead's Sake, Lifestyle Dynamics Fitness, The Shack, Peterson Eye Clinic, The Tobacco Store and Carbone's Pizza. Village by the Bay. To date, permits have been issued for the following buildings in the Village By the Bay residential development: Building 1 4-unit Building 2 4-unit Building 3 4-unit Building 4 3-unit Building 8 6-unit Building 9 6-unit -1119- Building 14 20-unit Greenway Construction. It is anticipated that bidding on the Greenway Trail will take place later this month and/or early April with construction to start shortly thereafter. The date for the groundbreaking ceremony for this project is pending. CSAH 15. The City and Hennepin County approved the Right-of-Way Agreement in October 2002 for Phase I and Phase II of the CSAH 15 / Shoreline Boulevard Reconstruction Project. · Relocation notices to affected businesses were sent out by Hennepin County in December 2002. · Tentatively, Phase I of the project which includes all improvements north of the former Dakota Rail Line is scheduled to begin in FII 2003. Construction documents are currently being prepared by Hennepin County with bidding to occur in the next few months with both Phase I and II to be bid as one project. · Members of the Project Team are currently working to resolve issues related to the NSP substation and MCES lift station. Former Dakota Railroad Line / Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA). The former Dakota Railroad corridor was purchased by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority in cooperation with McLeod and Carver Counties and the State of Minnesota in December 2001. Pursuant to the multi-party agreement with the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the HCRRA is obligated to attempt to provide rail service on the line until the STB permits the line to be abandoned which cannot occur prior to December 31,2003. The Cooperative Agreement between the three railroad authorities also commits them to keeping the rail corridor in tact for the purpose of preserving it for future transportation purposes. Hennepin County has retained TKDA, a railroad consultant, to evaluate the existing corridor to determine the necessary grades to accommodate freight, light-rail and commuter rail service. The corridor study is expected to be completed in April 2003. Mound Harbor Renaissance, LLC. At its February 25, 2003 meeting, the Mound City Council and HRA extended the deadline of the Preliminary Development Agreement with Mound Harbor Renaissance until June 24, 2003 subject to conditions. · Page 2 -1120- Mound Visions Presentation. City Manager Kandis Hanson and Community Development Director Sarah Smith will be giving a presentation at the Gillespie Center on March 15, 2003 at 10:00 AM regarding the downtown redevelopment projects. All members of the public are welcome and encouraged to attend. Mound Development Update. City staff prepares a brief development update on a monthly basis which is sent out in electronic form. Anyone interested in being added to the email list is requested to contact Community Development Director Sarah Smith at 952-472-3190. Email: Sarahsmith@citvofmound.com · Page 3 -1121 -