Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001-01-09
PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2001 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's~gle roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Memb~e~r or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SWEAR IN NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES PAGE. *B. 1. DEC 4, 2000 RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING 4941-4956 2. DEC 11, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING 4957-4959 3. DEC 19, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING 4960-4961 4. DEC 19, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING 4962-4974 5. DEC 27, 2000 SPECIAL MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION *C. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPOINTING KANDIS HANSON, CITY MANAGER, ACTING CITY CLERK FOR 2001 *D. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPOINTING GINO BUSINAR, FINANCE DIRECTOR, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2001 *E. APPROVE RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2001 APPROVE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY CLERK 49754987 4988 4989 4990 4991 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. o o *F. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/ FINANCE DIRECTOR 4992 *G. APPROVE RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 2001 4993 *H. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCILMEMBER MARK HANUS AS ACTING MAYOR FOR 2001 (By consensus of the Council the Acting Mayor term runs concurrent with the term of the Mayor.) 4994 *I. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBERS AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2001 4995 *J. APPROVE MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION OF LMCD MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. SETON VIEW ASSOCIATION SEAHORSE CONDOMINIUMS PELICAN POINT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION CITY OF MOUND LOST LAKE CHANNEL CITY OF MOUND DOCK & COMMONS PROGRAM MINNETONKA BOAT RENTAL LAKEWINDS ASSOCIATION HARRISON HARBOR TWINHOME ASSOCIATION HALSTEAD ACREAS IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION DRIFTWOOD SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AL & ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB SETON TWIN HOMES *K. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS 4996-5019 *L. APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST #1 TO DIAMOND 5 CONSTRUCTION FOR $19,735.30 5020-5023 **Citizen appointments to advisory boards will take place in Feb 2001. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) CONSiDERATION/ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION REGARDING CITIZEN'S PETITION FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR THE METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE"OLD SCHOOL" SITE: ACTION ON RESOLUTION 5024-5046 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. o 10. 11. 12. 13. PUBLIC HEARING A. CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION - METROPLA2NS DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD BLVD AND COMMERCE BLVD 5047-5077 DISCUSSION ON PROPOSED PARKING IMPROVEMENTS TO ALDER ROAD 5078-5080 CONSIDERATION OF CONCEPT PLAN FOR ROAD EXTENSION ON SOUTH WESTEDGE BOULEVARD, REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO PREPARE P[.ANS AND SPECS, AND JOINT AGREEMENT 5081-5092 ACTION ON P, ESOLUTION SETTING STORM SEWER FEE FOR CHURCHES 5093-5093B ACTION ON DNR AGREEMENT FOR BOAT DOCK AT COOK'S BAY, WITH RECONIMENDED AMENDMENT TO CITY ORDINANCE 5094-5099 ACTION ON DCAC RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A POLICY SPECIFYING FIELD STONE AS CITY-APPROVED RIP-RAPPING MATERIAL 5100-5104 ACTION ON DCAC RECOMMENDATION FOR 2001 DOCK LOCATION MAP 5105-5116 14. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Letter: Mediacom on rates 5117-5119 B. Westonka Senior Center newsletter 5120 C. Letter: Congressman Ramsted on Community Policing Award 5121 D. Letter: Met Council Environmental Services on sewer rates 5122 E. Letter: Hennipen County Sheriff's Office on reduction of service 5123 F. Financial reports through November 2000 5124-5126 G. FYI: Resolution of Fred Johnson fire lane violation 5127-5131 H. Westonka Public Schools correspondence 5132-5138 I. FYI: Info from League of Minnesota Cities 5139-5152 J. Dock & Commons Commission minutes: Dec 21, 2000 5153-5157 K. Planning Commission minutes: Dec 11, 2000 5158-5159 L. AMM FAX News 5160 M. The Ehlers Advisor 5161-5166 N. Letter: Hickory Tech User Group on computer support 5167 O. Mound Police Department monthly report: Dec 2000 5168-5170 This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a finaI agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. citlxofmouml, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING January 9, 2001 HRA Meeting There will be no HRA meeting due to lack of an agenda. Pictures, Pictures! Members are reminded to come dressed for pictures on January 23. Please be present at 6:00 p.m. You are encouraged to wear darker colors and refrain from prints, if possible. Thanks! #4. Appointments Proposed appointments stated on the agenda or contained in the packet have the advance consent of those people listed. Those not listed may not yet have been contacted or are undetermined at the time of the agenda assembly. #6. EAW The discussion of a possible Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) must logically take place before the hearing for a street/easement vacation. #7.A. Street/Easement Vacation MetroPlains must do certain homework by the time of the meeting for this hearing to take place. If that is not the case, it must be continued to the January 23,2001 meeting. Members will be updated as to the status of the case at the meeting. #8. Alder Road Improvements I will prepare a discussion of a possible assessment scenarios for the meeting. #9. Concept Plan & Joint Agreement A great deal of progress has been made between the parties in coming together in a joint agreement coveting north and south Westedge Boulevard, water, sewer and easement agreements that will culminate in a twenty-year plan for the reconstruction and hard surfacing of one of the last gravel roads in Mound. A final meeting of all the parties is scheduled for the morning of Jan 9. This is an opportune time for Mound, with other participants willing to provide for the vast majority of the cost of achieving this long-range goal. The Jan 9 Council meeting will provide look at the concept for the south end street extension, with approval of the plan on Jan 23 being critical. Up until now, staff has convinced Rottlund Homes to stay in the project. With all the extensions that have take place up until now, they are saying they will pull the plug on the project if it is not approved on Jan 23. Members are encouraged to see the opportunities for Mound in this project and approve it on Jan 23. Thank you for your consideration. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 12-04-00 (BUDGET) Mayor Meisel all those in favor MOTION carried unanimously. THE CONSIDERA TION AND ACTION ON THE DEVELOPERS OPTIONS FOR THE REDEVEOPMENT OF AUDITOR'S ROAD AND LANGDON DISTRICTS. At this time Mayor Meisel turned the meeting over to Council Member Hanus and excused herself due to a possible conflict of interest. Jim Prossor addressed the Council. Chair Members at the last HRA Meeting, the HRA directed Staff for additional research to be sure that both developers understood the nature of the parameters for redevelopment. Mr. Beard had previously worked on this project for about a year. There were some issues Beard Development was familiar with and Gramercy was not. Those issues were explained. It is unlikely there will be any docks available for private use for a marina at the Lost Lake Site. There would be a need to maintain some type of right-of-way adjacent to/part of the railroad right-of- way. The tracks may be abandoned but the right-of-way needs to be maintained for a period of time. An additional issue is the potential need for redesigning the plaza area to accommodate the need for some surface parking for the True Value Hardware and other surface parking in that area. There is also a potential need to relocate the ponding area. Bruce Chamberlain and Jim Prossor reviewed these issues as well as a few additional issues with Gramercy. Gramercy indicated that they were comfortable with those issues and they will work them out. Staff did not address design on any of these issues but indicated they were not insurmountable issues or problems. Council Member Hanus questioned what Mr. Prossor is requiring at tonight's meeting. Does Staff require a MOTION approving a developer. Mr. Prossor indicated that is correct. He added this is basically to move into a predevelopment and development agreement. negotiate. Now we are looking Council Member Hanus asked what terms we are we looking for in regards to the development agreement and for the negotiations for the predevelopment agreement. Mr. Prossor answered for the predevelopment agreement. We believe that we should be able to negotiate these issues within 45-60 days. In this phase, we must make sure that it appears that there is a likelihood that we can develop a design and financial performer that will allow us to move into the next stage of development agreement. Council Member Brown is concerned with the Hotel Site. He questioned Staff if they were in contact with the previous hotel developers. City Manager Kandis Hanson replied that Staff did confirm the interest of others in developing the Hotel Site. This not only includes people who have in the past expressed an from a party who plus an attraction interest; but it includes a call that was received last week is interested in developing a hotel with a meeting center of some sort that would bring many people into Mound. Council Member Weycker questioned if there are other areas in the city that can develop a hotel other than the Lost Lake Site. One'ofthe issues that needs to be addressed is "how successful is a hotel likely to be given our knowledge of the current market without some of the other develop occurrence". The project team has identified that for many reasons it is important to keep the Lost Lake Site in that general area as a key attraction/visitor welcome area. Staff hopes to accommodate that in any design. Staff also realizes that if there remains strong interest in a hotel concept we are likely to see that strengthen to the point of being economically viable. Interest at this point does not mean it is economically viable. Council Member Weycker questioned location wise, will there be a location available in 3-5 years. Mr. Prossor replied one of the things that Council can do is direct the project team, while going through this predevelopment negotiation period, identify some sites and report back to Council. Council Member Brown inquired if we enter into an agreement with these developers, either one of them, and that site is put aside for housing, don't we cut our throats by not allowing this to be a hotel site. Mr. Prossor responded that very clearly Council has a choice. Beard Group has -~"~. indicated that they are willing to proceed without the Lost Lake Site and Gramercy is subject to modification. What Staff is suggesting is that we would certainly be working with both developers to see if that could still be achieved in this proposal. In the Gramercy case, they have indicated an openness to provide some hotel type rooms and the banquet facility. Staff needs more work to identify how that could be accomplished, maybe through a restaurant concept. The hotel market, even along areas like Highway494, is not very strong at this time. Even 30-40 rooms would not be viably economical at this time. You need probably at least 60 rooms to make it work. That market is just not there. So we could take some time and take a look at that option right now. It is not likely going to yield us what we are looking for. We can keep the site available but then we might potentially lose one of the developers that has an interest here. Mr. Prossor assures the Council that the project team will do what we can to achieve the overall objectives of the HRA and your community. Council Member Brown asked if the discussion Staff had about the hotel site with the attraction, is it a very viable person or a good company? City Manager Kandis Hanson responded that we have presented this person with the idea that they have to present to us in the next phase who their investors are and their financial capabilities. They seem to be willing to do that. It is a local Adventurist. Council Member Weycker stated the Senior Center will be completed soon and there will be some facilities there available for the community with a banquet facility. It would compete with the new Senior Center. Council Member Hanus agrees that a hotel is important. He also agrees that this particular site is probably the most natural place to put such a feature. It is true if we went with Gramercy, it would most likely lock up that site and not make that site available for that type of a project. Personally, I think whatever site is picked, needs to be on Lost Lake. We heard just a few minutes ago that a real small concern probably cannot make it no matter where they are. It is not large enough to warrant management and so forth. One direction I am looking at is working with a developer and possibly seeing if we work out some kind of a minimum inn and incorporate it right into the Auditor's Road section. Not as a separate entity but possibly an off shoot of the rental housing and that perhaps by marrying the two we can make that work and make it viable. That is not my first choice but it is a alternative in my opinion for some sort of inn or rental rooms for people coming in from out of out town. Council started the hotel deal 6 'or more years ago and have had people in and out and it sounds like it is a borderline case. Council Member Brown stated that he sees a lot of new houses being built on the Metro Plain site--massive houses going at the Langdon section along with Auditor's Road. There is a problem with more housing go on the Lost Lake Site; since Council has an opportunity to put a viable commercial property there that would offset a lot of the new housing. Plus with all this new housing there will be people coming with families and relatives with no place to stay. Council Member Hanus asked Council Member Brown what he is suggesting? Council Member Brown responded to talk to both sides and ask them questions and see if we can work with them on something like that. Maybe its not a possibility. Council Member Weycker: I guess tonight though what we were supposed to doing not the details of the plan so we should be choosing a developer to work that are getting to those points. Council Member Brown: I agree with you but if we are giving one side the Lost Lake Site to work with development for housing or the other side not included we are not working apples to apples. Council Member Weycker: And I don't know if we determine that tonight though. Council Member Brown: But that's what we said "If we go with Gramercy the Lost Lake Site will be housing". It will not be a hotel, but if we go with the Beard group the Lost Lake Site will be left open. Council Member Weycker: Staff Question, If truly are choosing not by design tonight this committee sounds like we are picking a design. Mr. Prossor: I think you are identifying your program developments, that's not to say that when we get into a final design that you are going to accept that design, but Gramercy is saying one of their components is going to be housing on that site and if that is not clearly not the intention of the HRA to entertain or accept a good design for that, than you should not select Gramercy. That is what it comes down to. Council Member Weycker: So design does play a little factor. Mr. Prossor: Not design, but project components. Council Member Hanus: They indicated very clearly that they feel to be viable that they need piece of land included in their project. Mr. Prosser: I want to add I don't believe this is a situation where the developer is just saying that to say it. The problem that we have here is finance. To make this thing work this is a very, very difficult redevelopment proposal. And that is why the City gets involved because there are difficult land assemblies, difficult finances. And this developer is saying in order to make the finances work, they believe, based upon their experience, that they need to look at this type of housing. They are looking at a variety of different types of housing again. This is a. Two of the concepts are co-op rentals which is a type of ownership and a third is a straight market apartment. And I think what they are looking at is the idea of being able to market those and be able to effectively and efficiently built and construct that variety of properties and they are able to handle some of those overhead costs that would make this think work. Mr. Beard has a different concept that does not require that. And again that is what we are trying to weigh on. They are not pressing it from a design standpoint; they are pressing from a finance standpoint. Council Member Hanus. Mr. Prossor, I am going to ask you a question and it is not a terribly easy question to stand here is this form and answer. Which of these two applicants do you feel has the best likelihood of carrying off this project? Mr. Prossor: There are certain advantages to both of these developers. In different situations I would probably recommend different developers. But ,-/% in this one there is no question in my mind that, and I would say that the-~ others from our firm, would recommend Gramercy. It is the variety of projects that they bring. Their experience in this type of redevelopment we are looking at and their ability to understand as well as obtain financing for some very unusual projects. They have demonstrated that in a number of different projects. And I think also just the type of different types of housing are some suited to unity based on my experience. Again, the Beard Group has demonstrated some real strengths in other areas. They have done some wonderful work in Hopkins and other areas. And I would probably recommend them in some other situations. But here there is no questions that I am more confident that Gramercy can complete this project. Council Member Hanus: The Beard Group, we know from experience, they are good folks to work with. But I ask that question because I think in my mind that is most important than anything here. Because what we cannot afford to do is to do what happened the last time. Spend a year or two and get nothing at the end. And again, I am not saying negative about Beard, they did the best they could, and they did it honestly and they did it right up front and everything. It just did not work. If another firm appears to have a better shot at pulling off this thing, even though it may not have each bell and whistle and everything perfect the way we would like to see it, I think the overall project is more important than a detail here and a detail there. Again, I am definitely leaning in that direction. Council Member Weycker: I have just one other thing to point out. Even though they want to use that site for housing, they have included more retail than the Beard plan. Council Member Hanus: They are real close though. It maybe slightly more. Council Member Weycker: Actually there more like 36,000 to 23,000 square feet. Mr. Prossor: In the initial proposal they have come back in order to reduce project costs and they are leaving the west side of Commerce Blvd. Undeveloped. So there is not really apples to apples comparison. I think they are taking a look at taking some of that retail and put it along Auditor's Road. So I still say. I think the. When you make your decision. What we are saying is because in the final design, I think these are very similar from a program development stage. Council Member Brown: I know where you are going Mark. But I sure do hate to see. If there is anyway Gramercy can work with us, I would be more than happy to go with them if they will study to make the opportunity to try to work. And I sure do not want to give up that Site. I think there is an opportunity that we are going pass up if we do. Like putting a viable, good, retail spot on that site. That it going to come back to help us. Council Member Weycker: Mark I agree with you. I would make a MOTION to start preliminary discussions with Gramercy. Seconded by Hanus. Mr. Prossor asked if Council Member Weycker is going to propose the HRA back. Council Member Weycker: Actually I know you said last meeting he said 30-45 and then it jumped a little 45-60 so I will say 45 days. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION AYES: 2 (Hanus, Weycker) NAYS: 1 (Brown) Council Member Brown would like to state for the record I still think we need to look at the Hotel Site as a viable site. And I hate to see that go away. Mayor Meisel returned to the meeting. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEM WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT As you have indicated this is a discussion or potential action on a proposed contract for private redevelopment between the City, the HRA and Metro Plains. At the meeting on 11-28-00, I passed out a, what was then the most current, draft of the document. I know have a more current draft of the document which contains basically the results of the meetings which were held with the developer last week. On Friday. There are additional revisions following that meeting. What I guess I would like to do if possible, is to start with a brief overview, then to the extent, since I, possibly you have all had a chance to look at the one I passed out last week. And indicate what the differences are between the two documents. And then open it up to questions or comments that you might have. If that is okay with you. Essentially there are two pieces to this project as there are to any. And they closely mirror the one that you have already done and is under construction. I will refer to it now as the Coast To Coast or however you want to refer to it development. The first provision or the first set of activities, in this instance is, that the developer, Metro Plains, acquires the site, constructions the improvements in accordance with the, to be approved City Zoning requirements and the concept plans which are addressed in the agreement itself. The private improvements which are to be constructed by this contract are of two sorts. They are described as two separate components in the agreement. The first is a commercial development of 50,000 square feet. The second one is a residential development which in total is 99 units of residential. The value of those developments is in the assessment agreement on page 1 exhibit b. The commercial component upon completion will be worth, will have a minimum market value of $4,619,000.00. The residential component which will be completed in phases. At the conclusion of the first, more or less phase, it will have a minimum market value of $8,750,000.00. And upon final completion of all of the residential. The minimum market value will be $17,325,000.00. So there is. In our agreements to all of that, there are undertakings and obligations on the part of the developer to all of those things in the agreement. The commercial part of the development of 50,000 square feet is to be commenced, construction is to be commenced October 1, 2001. With completion of commercial component on October 1, 2002. The residential will be spread out a little bit more. Part of it will start in May of 2002. And part of it will be completed in May of 2003. All of the residential will be completed by the end of the year 2003. So that is part of what the developer is doing in terms of the private portion of this. The developer is also obligated under the development contract as well as the developer will be obligated under other agreements as well, to provide for certain greenways, recreational areas, pedestrian trailways, ponding, and also certain street parking areas that are needed to deal with some of the parking issues that relate to the development. All of those have to be completed as well within the time schedule. The City's obligation, you know all of this, is to pay the developer out of tax increment, in other words, that is the source of the payment here out of the tax increment that is generated by their development, an amount of money up to $2,840,000.00. This is a partial reimbursement to them for their costs in acquiring the site and preparing the site for development. They won't receive that money until three conditions have been met. First of all, they have to generate some tax increment. If they don't generate any tax increment they don't get any money. Secondly, the expenditures must be determined to qualify for reimbursement under the agreement and the determination of qualification is made by the HRA. And then finally, the total level of reimbursement must be consistent with the, analysis that will be prepared for by the City's fiscal consultant. In other words, the City's fiscal consultant will have to determine that the assistance that we are providing. That the development would not occur unless assistance at the level that we are providing is make available to the developer. If they can get by on half of the assistance that we are making available, if our consultants conclusion is that, then the developer will receive one-half of the assistance of $2,840,000.00. And that is the analysis that the City's consultant will be making. And as you will notice, in a minute when the proposed resolution on this, that is one of the conditions on which the contract would be approved. Again, I want to reemphasize that the sole source of payment by the HRA and by the City to the developer for the cost it incurs on this site, is the tax increment. There is no other source of funding that the City will use. No general obligation that the City, no taxes payable by other City residents, or anything of that sort. The sole source of assistance to the developer is the tax increment. That is generated from the development on this site. A couple of other just real quick aspects of the contract, and then I will talk about the changes over the last few days. Council Member Hanus: Just to make sure the Public is fully aware. If the statement is true, but there are potential other funds that are being applied for that could in fact go toward this site. Not out of City coiffeurs but there are potential grant monies and so forth that could end up. And I didn't want that statement you just made to be viewed that there is not a dime from anywhere anytime, anyplace could ever enter into this. Because it could. I think what I said was it will not fall onto the taxpayers or the City through the property taxes. Again there maybe other sources of grants. I don't know what they may be at the moment. But for example if they receive a state grant or something of that sort that will be a grant funded out of money. If someone from Mound doesn't take advantage of those, someone from other city will take advantage of those grants. A couple other aspects of the contract and that I will just mention real quickly. And that is just the main one is that there is another agreement that has to be entered into as well. Look at page 8 of the document real quick. Oh forget about page 8. Let's see. What this is. There is a separate obligation proposed in these kinds of by the Department of Trade and Economic Development and that is in that in addition to this agreement there be a separate agreement referred to as a business subsidy agreement. And you will see the reference in there that the assistance payable to the redeveloper under this agreement which also meets that definition of a business subsidy under the Minnesota Business Subsidy Act, shall not be paid until the parties have entered into Business Subsidy Agreement. Now, there is a portion of Economic assistance that is being provided here that does qualify as a business subsidy under the Statue. And that is the portion that is being paid for the commercial development. That is 1.8 million of the total. Let me take a look here. Is that right. So the Business Subsidy is the $1.8 million and there is a. The business Subsidy Act requires a separate public hearing on that matter. Notice has been given on that hearing and that hearing is schedule to be held by both the HRA and by the City Council next Tuesday, December 12, 2000. So that is a separate agreement that has to be entered into. The other thing I would like to point out real quickly in terms of sometimes these agreements have within them the nature of the agreement to agree as to certain elements. And there is part of that here if look on page 8 of the agreement dealing with public improvements. That section indicates that within the next 60 days, assuming that this is approved, following the approval of this agreement, we have to, the developer and the HRA have to reach agreement on a number of public improvement type issues having to do with the design, construction timing, and financial responsibilities for them and they include the street scape along Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. the traffic lane modifications required by Hennepin County. A parking bay along Lynwood Blvd., park improvements for residential areas, street scape enhancements along the road and parking along those as well, pedestrian trails and improvements to be constructed within the outlots to be conveyed to the public. number of things that yet need to be resolved before the developer will actually be able to proceed with construction of the project. That is fairly typical in these matters. Obviously, one of the important aspects of the development contract is to eliminate as many things as we can, agree on as many things as we can and then list the items that yet need to be agreed to so that we can kind of proceed to rap things up in an orderly basis. And that is what essentially is what is being proposed here. Now in terms of a lot of the changes in the 11-28 draft and the 12-01 draft are pretty unimportant and I just kind. Page 3 in the name addition on 2 we make it clear that the concept plan involves site work under the improvements. Page 5 the new paragraph is what call a "big boy representation". It just means that there are grownups and they are going into this knowing that trouble could happen and they could loose money and they are willing to proceed in an understanding. Page 6 4.21 relocation of utilities. Deals with the, makes it clear that it is the obligation of the developer to relocate public utilities currently located on the property that have to be moved in order to accommodate the development. We talked already about the stuff on page 8. One page 9, these are the numbers that I mentioned to you a minute ago. The amounts of the note. The level of assistance. Page 13 in the events of default. We have separate the two components in terms of default. In other words if there is a default in an obligation under the commercial piece. That default does not give rise for us to terminate the agreement as it relates. In other words there is not cross default provisions. Each piece then stands or falls on its own merits. There are Which is a fairly typical provision in these agreements. The only other significant change is in the note itself. ! have taken out what was referred to as a listing of scheduled payments under the note and instead now the note provides that on each scheduled payment date the developer will receive, essentially, 90% of the tax increment which generated by the develop. We are no longer paying on the basis of scheduled payments. It is just simply 90% number. Among the reasons we are doing that is that it makes it easier for the developer to re-market these notes. That is the first reason. The second reasons is that there may be well situations where because of fluctuations of market value, we may not be able to make a full schedule payment and there might be some carry-over of scheduled payments. That just really kind of creates a bookkeeping nightmare for the City and if we simply say you get 90% of the available tax increment that is there on any (~ schedule payment date. That is really in most ways a better way to do it. "~. If the property turns out to be far more successful, in terms of market value, then we will just pay off the note faster. Which is not such a bad thing either for use or for the developer. So that is the primary change on the note. The assessment agreement we feel that the market values and they are all shown on the first page of the assessment agreement. That is exhibit D. Council Member Weycker: Because it was a school district site which is tax exempt. JOHN: What happens is those parcels get readjusted to what would have been the original value of the property and that becomes the base of the captured tax capacity. Even though it has not paid taxes before. Council Member Brown: Basically this property has been sitting dormant, not making any tax money for the city. By putting this in it will generate new taxes, is that correct? Yes it will generate taxes that were not generated before, both on the base level and in tax increment. The tax increment portion will go to make payments on the note for 25 years. Section 11.3 of the document. What would occur in the event that there is a determination that the school district site was not property included in the tax increment. In the event that such a determination is finally found to be correct then the HRA agrees to utilizes its best efforts in cooperation with the city to take the necessary to qualify the redevelopment property for tax abatement treatment in accordance with the provisions of the Tax Abatement Act. Council Member Weycker: Section 11.3. It is doesn't qualify for the TIF district, then the City would takes the steps necessary to qualify it through the Tax Abatement. There is ongoing discussion with the State Auditor in this regard. Council Member Hanus: The blanks on Exhibit B. That have not dates but dollar figures, as well as a percentage amount that need to be completed. Eight percent of the note amount. And the principle amount is Actually we are still working on that it may be 9% because of the current market placement on that note. It terms of the principle amount, Mark, as you know there will be two notes. There is one for each component. The amounts for those on shown in the agreement on Page 9. The Commercial Note will be $1,800,00.00 and the Residential Note will be $1,040,000.00. This is just an example form. Council Member Hanus: What does this document establish, what does this document do, what does this document lock into, and what does it not lock into? What it does is what it says it does. Basically it sets forth a procedure whereby if the other preliminary matters are resolved and the developer builds/constructs improvements on the site in accordance with the requirements and finishes those, then they are entitle to a level of assistance not to exceed $2,800,000.00. There are provisions in there for what happens in that doesn't occur, but basically that is what it does. Both components are being dealt with in a single document. This is not unusual that it occurs this way. Among the things Council wants it to have both pieces develops and this does require that. Council Member Hanus: I wish to state my position on this. Subject to, of course, hearings and subject to not any new information that comes along, I think that this project is good for Mound and I think it is basically a good project. I have some problems with TIF. Not with the commercial portion but on the residential portion. I have always felt that I think that there is too much paid for the property. In support of that the City had some appraisals done and we make an offer on the property. It was considerably less then what was settled on. I feel that too much has paid for it and now as a result, there is some public assistance being asked for to consummate the deal. I have a real problem with doing that. Commercial is much higher risk property to try to put together than residential. I think that the chances of this developing as residential without assistance is much greater than the commercial portion. My point is this. I cannot bring myself to support putting in public funds into a project that I think was paid. There was too much paid for it. It light of that I have a hard time doing this. I think I have to at least not vote for the residential portion. to the project. I don't want it to stop the project. If the soils as an example were not required to be corrected, the land would have a certain value. And perhaps that what was paid for; but, in this case, there are some serious soil corrections that have to be made. That comes at a big price. That is way the assistance is being requested. The sale price was too high. I don't know what that does Mayor Meisel is looking at this as a complete project. Which would be a $22,000,000.00 project. The commercial side of it will produce more jobs. The residential will produce more people which will support the rest of the redevelopment that goes on. This is a combination all the way around. I think this is a venture that the City cannot afford not to go along with. Council Member Brown: In a way I am with Council Member Hanus. I struggle with putting TIF into housing. I have not problems with the commercial portion. We with benefit the City to have TIF on the residential to get the taxes back eventually from the residential portion. Yes I think it will. The city will get something back. Council Member Weycker: Some of the later estimates we were getting on the property were coming in at the same price that Metro Plains is paying for it. So I don't know if that is an exaggerated price. If not the property by now has probably increased by that amount. I would not use that reasoning. If we pass this, and latter on tonight, but we don't do anything with the project, what happens to this. The obligations to the HRA and the City of Mound only occur if the project gets built. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker, to approve the Resolution as written for the TIF portion of Metro Plains Property at Lynwood. Ayes: 1 (Hanus) Nays: 3 (Meisel, Weycker, Brown) Council Member (????): Pull item c 1-4 Metro Plains land uses. Set a special meeting date of December 19, 2000 7:30 p.m. Public hearing for Metro Plains to cover items C 1-4 land uses for the Metro Plains for December 19, 2000. Council Member (????): seconded Role call Council Member Brown Council Member Weycker Mayor Meisel Council Member Hanus Council Member ????: The purpose for postponing the hearing in this matter is because the shortness of the public's notice. Mayor Meisel: Next thing on the agenda is Comments on Items not on the agenda form citizens. Bob Johnston 2928 West Edge: I did not receive notification of the November 30, 2000, Planning Commisison Meeting. Bart Rovland 2260 Westedge: We didn't receive notification of the Westedge project tommorrow. Council Member ????: We sent out mailings purchased from Hennepin County. Bart Rovland 2260 Westedge: Claims Minnetrista people got the notification but Mound people didn't. Rick Roberts 2274 Westedge: didn't get notified either. Council Member ????: Lets makephone calls to the people who didn't get notified. Mayor Miesel: Move on to Item 5A Truth in Taxation. Council Member ????: fund estimated revenue for 2001 will be $3,100,000.00 and estimated propose expenditure will be $3,200,000.00. The area fire fund revenue is $403,000.00. $385,000.00 expenditures. The death service fund revenues $254,000.00. $307,000.00 expenditures. The capital improvement fund nothing will happen unless council specifically acts. Sealcoat $66,000.00. Municipal aid and the tax increment financing is subject to council approval so we have no projected numbers at this point. The recycling fund revenues $121,000.00. $125,000.00 expenditures. The liquor fund $1,900,000.00 revenue. $1,000,000.00 expenses. The water fund $510,000.00 revenues. $478,000.00 expenses. Sewer fund $990,000.00. $948,000.00 expenses. Storm Water rev $990,000.00 not all in charges, would sell bonds if council $12,000.00 expenses. Cemetery fund $6,200.00. $7,500.00 expenditures. Dock fund $81,000.00. $144,000.00 expenditures some need to be approved by council. someone explained Item 5A The estimated General CITY OF MOUND SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2000 Present were: Mayor, Pat Meisel, Council Members, Bob Brown, Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker. Also present were City Manager, Kandis Hanson, Peter Meyer, Klm Anderson. The meeting was called to order at 6:20 p.m. Set stop time: 8:00 p.m. with ½ hour extension, if needed. 1. DISCUSSION ON DOCKS PROGRAM Bob - Short dollars in dock fund; losing money. Must keep up infrastructure. Inequities of multiple docks. Use program to make money. Pat - Private lake shore pays same tax as abutting commons. 3 tier proposed earlier. Mark - Review each group's benefits and responsibilities. Bob - 90 sites abut parks - could use that money to develop parks. Tonka Bay - grand fathered big boats until they eliminated large boats. Big boats cause more wear on docks. Multiples have limits on number of boats and length of boat. Make all 24' or less. Grandfather others and eliminate thru alteration with exception of Avalon. Andrea - This is a luxury and people should have to pay luxury prices. City did not restore commons in her area after the storm. The City Issues mowing notices on complaint basis only; not proactive. Maintenance requirements are outlined in ordinance. SHORELINE RESPONSIBILITIES Mark - Mowing Watering Trash pick-up Weeds on shore Rip rap - new Leveling sink holes Repair and restack rip rap Reseeding Fertilizing Branches fallen Racking, disposal of leaves Cleanup from dogs and geese Special City Council Meeting December 11, 2000 Pat - Andrea - & Leah Pat - Andrea - Pat - Andrea Pat - Klm - Mark Mark Leah Klm - Mark - Andrea - Pat - Pat - Most common complaints: trash and disrespect for private property. Estimate the cost of city employee per hour to do mowing of commons. LMCD wants site map - requires survey. LMCD no longer satisfied with Mound's lack of accuracy in shoreline. Everyone in town is eligible to use commons and docks, so should have to pay for it like parks. Dedicate percentage of types of uses to certain areas. Paid for by the general fund. That portion dedicated to the public paid for by the public thru tax levy. Establish credits for people who do the work. (maintenance) Establish fair market value of a dock and charge that. Previous council's have agreed not to make the program a money maker. Credits, intrusion issues, enter into fees for docks. There are budget surpluses because no shoreline maintenance is being done. Raise the fees and do the needed improvements. Establish the total cost of a comprehensive maintenance program. Apply natural approaches to suitable areas. Members agree on crediting people who do work. Non-abutters don't invest in multiple shoreline maintenance. Commons land value $50.00 higher than private shoreline. City should recognize and credit commons owners for the maintenance. Cushion of BSU's will disappear with survey. Not enough lineal footage to support BSU now claimed by city. As a city we need to know the actual number. Agree they want a dock program. Agree on credits for maintenance by those doing it. May credit those doing natural buffering. Special City Council Meeting December 11,2000 Kandis - She receives feedback of the inequities of the multiples being bought and installed while others buy and install their own. Bob - Raise $50 Abutters $100 Non- abutters $150 Multiples Put dollars back into dock, commons and parks. Peter- Not favorable to a differentiated program. Kim- Agrees with credits for maintenance but fees set on realistic costs. Don cost analysis first. Jim - Determine Cost of man - time Equipment time Rip Rap per foot - different kinds Value of the benefits Cost of survey Get members copy of ordinance Reschedule a meeting in future. ADJOURN Motion made by Weycker, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 19, 2000 Present were: Mayor, Pat Meisel, Council Members, Andrea Ahrens, Leah Weycker. Also present were City Manager, Kandis Hanson, Greg Nybeck, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. Need to know how much shoreline. Where is it. How much shoreline for site. Amount dedicated to Woodland Point and how much that reduces shoreline. Wand accurate survey but doesn't want city to spend a lot. Need approved site plans. Approved site plan require new multiple dock license. Multiple dock site need approved site plans on file. Commons fronting properties: Should LMCD take next step to get site plans for them Boating Length and # limitations will come up. DNR give general permit to LMCD giving LMCD authority to issue DNR permits meeting their criteria. concerned that when changes are being proposed to multiple dock sites, that a public hearing is held at LMCD - 300' radius from the site - notification 10 days in advance. Usually approved by LMCD following hearing. Notify other with permits who live outside of the 350' area - a courtesy. LMCD licenses Boat Storage Units." Licensing BSU limits the number of boats. The width of the road end is width of the site. Add Abutting commons to that. Advantageous to community to have full-time staff working on dock program. Ownership or control is at the 929' high water line. Not at swamp. Now have about 65 sites that don't meet their set backs. Need to verify shoreline. Should no exceed 1/50. Use a location map. The city needs to know if hearing is needed and who hold the hearing. Can hearing be delegated to city? Requires LMCD discussion. Special City Council Meeting December 19, 2000 Need to be fair and consistent between cities, but Mound has special circumstances due to the size of the dock program and it's local ability to staff the program. $50 -500 for a new license, with out a hearing. $5,500 paid for annual dues. City pays for a license that it administers itself (ie Inspections, etc.) Check with Karen Cole as to delays. canceled. Needs to go through court yet. Recent dates - Confirm that the City has LMCD code book. The depth of the site is based on the width of the site, limited to 100'. Abuses are handled on a complaint basis Motion made by the Mayor to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 a.m. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 1% 2000 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel, City Council Members: Bob Brown, Leah Weycker, Mark Hanus, and Andrea Ahrens. City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Attorney John Dean, Bruce Chamberlain, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe PUBLIC PRESENT: Gregory Metz, 5718 Elm Road Mound Tom and Deb Noethke, 5580 Tonkawood Road, Mound.' David and Julie Willcox, 5989 Chestnut Road, Mound Todd and Michelle Schell, 6001 Chestnut Road, Mound Ken Berres, 57024 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Richard Dluess, 2620 Halstead Lane, Mound Kevin and Lisa Schumacher, 2074 Grandview Blvd., Mound Valanoe J.Magnuss, 2052 Grandview Blvd., Mound Kevin Schumacher, 2074 Grandview Blvd., Mound George L. Fizer, II, 2117 Commerce Blvd., Mound Robert Schidlu, 4975 Beachwood Raod, Mound Led. Hentzges, 5648 Alder Road, Mound Hank Spott, 2241 Cottonwood Lane, Mound Sheila Murphy, 2044 Bellaire Lane, Mound Pat Murphy, 2044 Bellaire Lane, Mound Brett Stuempges, 5716 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Kris Morgan, 5716 Lywnood Blvd., Mound Mark Heese, 5826 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge, Mound Thomas Stokes, 5201 Waterbury Road, Mound Steve Coddon, 5240 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Kathy Anderson, KKE Architects, Minneapolis Lorie Hamm, The Laker, Mound Rod MacChauder Vern Hanson, Metro Plains Duane Norberg, 6015 Aspen Road, Mound Bob Polston, 5780 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Jeff Corn, 5764 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Terri Corn, 5764 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge, Mound Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Mound John Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Laura Spott, 2241 Cottonwood Lane, Mound Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Scott Logelin, Jubilee Foods, Mound Peter Meyer, Sunset Road Peter Wimsath, 2201 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Deb Grand, 6023 Evergreen Road, Mound Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest Lane, Mound Jamie Demarais, 5272 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Mayor Pat Meisel opened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. and welcomed the public. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBERS Mayor Meisel presented Council Member Leah Weycker (service January 1997 through December 2000) and Council Member Andrea Ahrens (service January 1989 through December 2000) with an engraved clock for their years of service as Council Members for the City of Mound. City Manager Kandis Hanson read a description of a volunteer and congratulated Council Member Ahrens and Council Member Weycker. Also a personal thank you from Mayor Meisel. APPR 0 VE AGENDA WITH ANY AMENDMENTS MOTION by Brown seconded by Andrea to approve agenda. MOTION carried unanimously. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. Bob Polston, 5780 Lynwood Blvd. Acknowledged Council Member Weycker and Council Member Ahrens service and appreciated their humanity. PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDA TIOJ¢4q 4~ CASE #00-59: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1800 COMMERCE BLVD. JOHN PASTUCK Staff recommendations from Building Official Sutherland. The applicant, John Pastuck, has submitted a Conditional Use Permit, Minor Subdivision and Variance Application to construct a twinhome pursuant to City Code on the property located at 1800 Commerce Blvd. The property is located in the R-2 zoning district, which allows for two family dwellings, the property is also regulated in part by City Code which allows for subdivision by Conditional Use Permit with conditions. The proposal would split the parcel north/south creating two new lots that do not meet the minimum yard requirement for Lake frontage of 40 feet as required. A public hearing was conducted at the Planning Commission meeting where the Planning Commission determined the physical characteristics of the site are not suitable for the subdivision due to the inadequate lot width at the lake. In addition, the proposed subdivision is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area. The Planning Commission has recommended Council deny the conditional use permit, minor subdivision, and associated variances due to lack of hardship and compliance with the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Staff recommends the application of John Pastuck for a conditional use permit, minor subdivision and associated variances for a Twinhome Development at 1800 Commerce Blvd., be denied for the following above reasons: Council Member Hanus had additional concerns; mainly of creating new lots with variances. Also he requested some verification from the LMCD which the applicant has not yet provided. Mayor Meisel asked if the owner of the property was present. Steve Coddon, 5240 Lynwood Blvd., spoke for Mr. Pastuck. Mr. Coddon went the to LMDC and was informed there was only 22 feet of lakeshore. A compliant was made that this was illegal for docks. Mr. Coddon disagrees with the condominium idea. The other properties have out-lots and there is a tax statement this and no taxes are being paid on as it belongs to an association. Mr. Coddon stated that he was promised from staff that this would go pass when he informed staff of what he was going to do. City Council Andrea does not recall these issues with the LMCD. Building Official Jon Sutherland asked if Mr. Coddon is suggesting modification to this subdivision; which would mean starting the process again. Sutherland further explained that Mr. Pastuck telephoned and asked if the item could be tabled so that he could be present to address the council directly. However, due to the 60-day limitation this item should not be tabled. Council Member Brown would like this item tabled until the end of the meeting in case Mr. Pastuck arrives. MOTION by Brown seconded by Weycker, to suspend discussion until further time when the property owner arrives. MOTION carried unanimously CASE #00-68: ZONING AMENDMENT~ 5989 AND 5964 CHESTNUT BRENSHELL DE I/EL OPMENT Steve Behnke, Fine Line Design Group. This is a property that exists at the end of an unfinished street labeled Chestnut Road. Currently the road ends at this location. Mr. Wilcox owns these four parcels for his residence. He also owns a parcel that exists in this area here, Lot 24. Brenshell Development has purchased these lots from the Moby's. All three parcels are being combined in this application. They currently are zoned R-lA. We are requesting as part of the PUD process to down-zone R-1. None of the lots are less than the 10,000 square foot minimum and other than some internal, private yard setbacks, all setbacks comply with R-1 setbacks. A number of recommendations were handled at the Planning Commission. There were some observations that the original platting did not show the existing residence as part of the plat. This has been incorporated. Some recommendations in terms of right-of-way size and cul-de-sac size have now been incorporated. One change that was discussed at the Planning Commission Meeting was taking three lots and making five lots. The project is similar to the Seton Bluff project. It was decided to incorporate a private drive because of typo and vegetation considerations. Because of the private drive, two of the lots are smaller. They do still meet R-1 standards. One of the recommendations that staff made was to add parking for the houses off the top of the lots. Chestnut Road extended into a cul-de-sac n front of the Wilcox home. One lot access south off of the cul-de-sac and a private drive that accesses to the north to a "T" that subsequently accesses to the homes in the south. The grade up this private drive is steep. It does approach 19%. Staff had originally recommended the need for additional guest parking. There is definitely adequate space in front of the garages in all cases here to handle the amount of extra parking that staff requested which is two extra spaces for house. There will be room for eight extra sparking spots on the individual lots. 5/%5 It becomes the individual homeowners responsibilities to take care of their own guest parking and to take care of their own maintenance of the driveways. Staff recommended that the setbacks from the front of the houses, the front being the garage doors, to the private drive be a minimum of 40 feet. The concept being that you need 20 feet per parking stalls. The two lots that are being restricted by the setbacks are actually the smaller of the two. However, we did feel that negotiating to a 15 feet setback was acceptable. Also accepting the private drive in this case does need to be labeled as a fire- lane and is 22 feet wide. This is not designed to be used for parking. We will be installing concrete curb for the private drives to meet city standards. There is a request from staff for an easement for city maintenance of the storm water pond, which exists, in the southeast quadrant of the cul-de-sac. The entire pond will be surrounded by a drainage utility easement to benefit the City of Mound. There was also a request by staff that the hydrant that is located at the end of the private drive be able to meet fire department standards. We have accepted that as well. The bottom of the first page of the resolution, (packet page #4771) has an error. In that the "whereas" describes an extension of Chestnut Road with a proposed 70 feet right-of-way diameter. Next sentence a 30 feet right-of-way is proposed at the west property line. This should actually be 40 feet right- of-way is proposed at the west property line. Also Packet page 4773 Item #7, shows a hardcover for each lot be not more than 30%. In a normal subdivision this would be handled on the road. I am asking for council consideration of either allowing the upgrade slightly of the hardcover, specifically for Lot 2 and Lot 3. Lot 3 as drawn is 29.7% and that is not taking into consideration any decks or sidewalks. We propose a 30% average for four lots or someway for allowing those two lots specifically a little more coverage or a credit for the extra parking. Council Member Hanus suggested averaging the hardcover for all lots. Building Official Sutherland, believes the Shoreland Management Ordinance with the tiering effect would allow 30% on the whole involvement and it would need to be covered under some consideration or restriction on the Lots. Mr. Behnke requested approximately 35% hardcover and continued that he has read through the balance of the Resolution and concurs with all the findings. Council Member Ahrens questioned Packet page 4771 on the bottom of the page is it 70 and 30 or 80 and 40? Council Member Hanus followed with that it was proposed by the applicant at 70 feet and staff indicated 80 feet. submitted. John Cameron cleared up the situation explaining this is how it was D~I t~~ submitted with a 30 feet right-of-way extension and a 70 feet diameter cul-de-sac. The code requirements for Mound are for a 50 feet right-of-way and a 100 feet diameter right- of-way. Mound standards in the past have been for the improved section of the cul-de-sac to be 80 feet diameter and there have been a number of variances granted. The right-of- way was reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet which is what staff is suggesting with an additional 5 feet on each side of the existing right-of-way that is to the west. The right-of- way for the cul-de-sac is reduced to 80 feet diameter with a 70 feet diameter improved street limit. There would be a 35 feet turning radius that would be improved and a 40 feet radius on the cul-de-sac. It is not called out in the Resolution itself. It is in Staff's report that is in the packet page 4798 item #3 in the preliminary plat. Mr. Cameron then explained the grade situation. The private street that is proposed is approaching 19%; however the cul-de-sac will have a flat landing area. The City's code for public streets limits the grade to 8% which is standard in most communities. Other communities limits private drives to 12% to 15%. At this time, the watermain ends at the end of the improved street. Applicant is proposing a watermain extension and a hydrant. Applicant was also requested to extend the watermain to the east line of their plat so that in the future the City could extend this watermain to Langdon Lane and connect to that main. Also one of the requirements was for the developer to furnish fire flows to meet the requirements of the Mound Fire Department. Also this property has unpaid utility assessments because there was no sewer and water extended to this site. Staff's report on page 4800 explains the dollar amounts. The City would require this to be paid as part of this platting procedure. Council Member Weycker asked Mr. Cameron to explain the easement for the Storm Water Pond. Mr. Cameron explained the Storm Water Pond proposed in this area would gather the storm water in the cul-de-sac, go into the storm water pond, then an outlet into the wetland. The City owns this parcel. It was discussed with Greg Skinner he would prefer that the City maintain the Storm Water pond. The advantage is that the City does not have to rely on a homeowners association to maintain it. The Storm Water Utility Fund would pay for this maintenance. These types of ponds do not have to be cleaned for 15-20 years. At this time Mayor Meisel open the meeting to the public hearing. previously Mr. Stokes, President of Brenshell Development. Reiterated what was - ~, discussed. Also the shed on the Wilcox property will be removed and some evergreen trees will be planted. David Wilcox owns the majority of the property and is supportive of this project. MOTION by Brown to approve the Resolution. Adding and recognizing on page 4787 the recommendation of John Cameron concerning the watermain and sewer charges. Cul- de-sac radius to be 80/40 as per Resolution on page 4773. Also a condition to realign the property line adjustment be made. Council Member Weycker seconded and added a correction under "A" number three and seven are the same. "The existing house on lots 25 and 26 legally described with a lot and block consistent with the subdivision platting. And the removal of the shed that was an existing three feet. Seconded accepted by Brown. MOTION carries unanimously. CASE #00-35 PRELIMINARY PLAT, 5989 AND 5964 CHESTNUT ROAD, BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing. Council Member Brown rescinds the motion until the public hearings are complete. MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown to rescind the motion until the seocnd public hearings. MOTION carried unanimously. Mayor Meisel opened the second public hearing which address the preliminary plat. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker to make the same Motion as made before with the conditions Council Member Weycker added. MOTION carried unanimously. ACTION ON RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINORCOMPREHENSIVE ----.- ~ USE PLAN AMENDMENT: LOTS 18~ 19~ AND 20~ L YNgVOOD PARK CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-64: PRELIMINARY PLAT METO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE ACTION ON RESOLUTION City Attorney John Dean addressed the City Council. Today and within the last few days information has been brought to the City's attention which has an impact as to how to be able proceed on this particular matter. The information comes in two forms. The first comment that has been made is in regards to the November 30, 2000, Planning Commission Meeting to make its recommendation on the various land use matters pending before it and the preliminary plat matter pending before it. Allegedly the meeting was at a time which did not comply with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. That appears to be correct. The notice was posted at the City Hall the morning of the November 28, 2000, following the evening meeting of the Planning Commission. Had the notice been posted at the end of the evening on November 27, 2000, it would have been lawful notice. It was not posted until very early in the morning of November 28, 2000. This is a failure to comply with the requirements of the Open Meeting Law. The City has had discussions with the Developer over this issue. The City expressed to the developer that if the City Council were to proceed to consider these matters, there would at least be the basis for a challenge. Since the City did not have the authority lacking a valid recommendation from the Planning Commission. The developer has taken the position that is a risk they do not wish to take unless there is a remedy. The remedy requires that we continue next week after giving proper notice of a Planning Commission Meeting. In this way, the City meets the intent and the letter of the Open Meeting Law. The other issue that was brought to the City's attention this evening was receiving a letter from a law firm outlining a number of concerns about the process that is being followed. The letter also indicates a petition filed and signed by at least 25 individuals requesting an EAW be prepared for this project. The original of the petition either has been or is being filed with the EQB. The penitence of a petition requested an EQB has an impact on what the City Council can do in deciding these matters. The statue states the City cannot take any action that finally authorizes the project during the penitence of the petition. There are some limitations that are placed on the City. It is my recommendation to the City Council that of the items that are pending, the City Council should not proceed with the Conditional Use permit or the Variance. The Preliminary Plat could be proceeded with tonight. It is my recommendation that the public hearings on these matters be opened and then the matters be continued to Wednesday, December 27, 2000. At which point the Planning Commission would meeting, consider the matter, make a recommendation to the City Council, then the City Council would then act on the various items that are pending before it. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to continue the public hearing to Wednesday December 27, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. for a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. Council Member Ahrens questioned is this for every matter that is pending? Attorney Dean that is correct and that the Planning Commission does not have to take testimony at that hearing. MOTION carried unanimously. Bob Polston has a petition for an EAW for presentation to the City Council and is requesting that the City Council review this. Kim Anderson, 5736 Lynwood blvd., is concerned with the 60 day rule. As per John Dean this will not go over. CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO I, VESTEDGE BL VD. See four (4) draft agreement in packet page 4904. Mr. Cameron explained the development to Westedge Road and the watermain extension that is anticipated on the southern half of Westedge Road. There has been numerous discussions on all four of these agreements at a staff level, between Jon Dean, John Cameron, and Loren Gordon. Also with the City of Minnetrista city staff, their engineer, and their city administrator. All those revisions are in the agreements in the packet. For information purposes, staff was at the Minnetrista Council Meeting last night and presented the final plans that are in the packet. Minnetrista notified all the residents in the area of Westedge Road. Two or three of the residents were present. This was not a public hearing; however residents were given a chance to add their input. We were in agreement on the plans not the agreements. It is my understanding that this will be continued at the Minnetrista City Council Workshop Session on January 16, 2001. Page 4906 on the packet, there is a draft of a Westedge Road extension agreement. This covers the area at the south end where the gravel road connects to the existing blacktop on Westedge and Halstead. There are items the developer of the Minnetrista property has asked to be included in this agreement. The developer requested better layout and road alignment that will address the concerns of the residents on Halstead Lane. This may become complicated because we will require some additional easements from Met Council Environmental Services. The City of Mound has a huge easement for both utility and road. The alignment to be used when this road is redone would go outside that existing easement in one area. Also, Westedge Road that is improved in front of the old waste treatment plant is shoved all the way to the south edge of the existing right-of-way. Mayor Meisel informed Mr. Cameron that she received a telephone call from the developer explaining they are very much in favor of doing whatever Mound requires on that 150 feet stretch of road. The developer is asking Mound staff to design the spec to build with Minnetrista's approval. This needs to be tied to the property in case this development does not happen in 4-5 years. Council needs legal opinion on how to make sure this happens. Minnetrista's Mayor feels that if this agreement were in force, Minnetrista would enforce the agreement. Mr. Cameron spoke with the developer after the meeting last night. The impression that he gave staff was that he wanted final plans and specs completed. Mr. Cameron explained that process would be the burden of the City of Minnetrista or the developer. Mound will provide the alignment that would be approved by the Mound City Council. When time comes for this project to move forward as part of a development; that information should already be available. The way it stands now, the developer would handle it all--at no cost to the City of Mound. Mr. Dean explained the document that we have with Minnetrista is that Minnetrista will not give subdivision approval until the sub-divider has entered an agreement with the City of Mound for the development of the 150 feet stretch of road. CONSIDERATION OF PROPSOAL ON RETIREMENT POLICE Sergeant John McKinley representing the Retirement CoUncil Committee presented the following proposal: At the time of retirement, employees may elect one of two options: 1. Employees may cash out of vacation and sick time accruals in a lump sum form, as per the current policy; or All or part of vacation and sick time accruals may be deposited into an interest-bearing fund that will finance employee and dependent health and dental insurance premiums until Medicare age, or until the finances are depleted. The employees must make a choice at the time of retirement. Council Member Hanus stated that he does not agree with this whole issue. The Council is benefiting the people who use their sick days. The Council should look at other alternatives/methods to identify the abuse, without these types of measures. Council Member Ahrens believes the Council is going in with the wrong attitude toward this. Sergeant McKinley explained employees would be able to place up to 100% of their accrued sick time into an interest bearing account for health/dental insurance premiums. This 100% would be the maximum amount placed into that account. An employee who normally receives 45% severance pay from the sick bank could leave up to the 45% in the interest bearing account. The City for a total of 90% of the sick bank would match this 45%. Conversely, an employee who would normally receive 55% of the accrued sick bank would receive a matching 45% from the City for a capped total of 100% of the sick bank. Any funds in the account may be used by the employee to pay insurance premiums and upon reaching the age of Medicare coverage, for supplemental insurance. Should the employee precede a spouse in death, the spouse may draw on the remaining funds for insurance premiums or may close the account receiving all funds contained therein. An employee may choose to place any or all of their vacation into this interest bearing account in addition to whatever sick time accrual is placed into that account. % Per our conversation, the Finance Director will be checking into which companies are available to manage said accounts and the maximum amounts which can be deposited into those accounts at any one time. It is our understanding that this account, which will be managed by this outside company, will allow the employee to chooses the investment options for the total amount deposited into said account. Mayor Meisel has directed the committee goe back to the drawing board. CASE #00-59 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1800 COMMERCE BLVD., JOHN PASTUCK CASE #00-67 MINOR SUBDIVISION 1800 COMMERCE BLVD., JOHN PASTUCK Mayor Meisel re-opened the public hearing regarding item 5A and 5B. Mr. Coddon explained that Mr. Pastuck is still not available. Mr. Coddon is addressing the Resolution Item 1B and believed it not to be accurate. Also the 60-day situation is something to address. Council Member Brown asked again for the property owner. Council Member Hanus explained the building is not the issue. The splitting of the lots is what the question. These lots are 22 feet wide at the lakeshore side. Council Member Brown stated the Council could only approve or deny because the owner is not present. Mr. Coddon asked if this is denied does the owner have to wait one year to come before the council. Council Member Weycker would like to move to table under the condition that the applicant/owner is willing to forgo the 60-day rule if not we move to deny. As per Mr. Dean, this has been extended another 60 days from today. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to table this Resolution and to continue the public hearing and bring this back to the planning Commission next month. MOTION carried unanimously. INFO RMA TI ON MIS CE L L A NE 0 US LMCD correspondence. Council Member Ahrens is asking for direction for retrieving some of the fees from the LMCD. The City of Mound administers its own dock program and yet pays the LMCD for it. $5,506.25. City Manager Kandis Hanson will discuss with Jim Fackler. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker to adjourn meeting at 11:00 p.m. Council will use same packet to save on photocopies and delivery charges. Staff will provide an agenda for the next meeting. DRAFT MINUTES MOUND JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 27~ 2000 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pat Meisel with the Pledge of'-Allegiance at approximately 7:30 p.m. Those present from the City Council: Mayor Pat Meisel; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker, and Bob Brown. Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson and City Attorney John Dean. Those present from the Planning Commission: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Bob Brown, and Frank Weiland. Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland. APPROVAL OF AGENDA WITH ANY REI,ATED AMENDMENTS John Dean proposed the actions portion' of the agenda beginning with ~4A, the Minor Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment: Lots 18, 19, & 20, Lynwood Park; Action on Resolution, be removed from the agenda. Dean also recommended the CUP and Variances under the second bullet in 4B, be set for a public hearing to occur on January 23, 2001 instead of'taking action on it tonight. He directed the official public notice of that hearing also be made. With respect to Items C, which is the Preliminary Plat approval, he recommended that matter also be continued to January 23, 2001, and it also be set on for public hearing and notice of that hearing be published as required by law. Under Additional Matters, Dean recommended they remain as they are currently in the draft of the agenda packet. MOTION by Bob Brown to approve the agenda as revised, seconded by Mark Hanus. Mayor Meisel called for a vote: DRAFT Roll Call Vote: Council Member Brown Council Member Weycker Council Member Hanus Council Member Ahrens Mayor Meisel: MOTION carried ~ye aye aye aye The meeting was turned over to the Planning Commission Chairman Geoff Michael for continuance of the public meeting. This portion of the meeting began at approximately 7:40. Michael thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Chairman Michael announced they had two items on the agenda. He explained that the reason for tonight's Planning Commission Meeting was because it was decided on the November 27' 2000 meeting, to hold another meeting on November 30th. There was a difference of opinion as to whether it was held in violation of the Open Meeting Laws. He stated the Planning Commission has always had open meetings, but to be sure everything is done legally, they are re-doing the meeting. Chairman Michael stated the first item on the agenda is Case #00-66, which is a zoning amendment for MetroPlains Development regarding the northwest comer of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. Chairman Michael opened the meeting for a motion. MOTION made by Bob Brown to go ahead and approve the plan as stated. Bill Voss seconded the motion with a discussion as to what the motion actually is. It was explained that the Planning Commission took action at the November 30th meeting in reference Case 00-65 on page 7 of today's packet. He requested the Commission to review the motion made by Mr. Brown. We are also making amendments with Case #00-66 on page 8 of today's packet. DISCUSSION:. What we are doing is accepting the residential three PDA and the Destination District rezoning per the Plat and Development Plan that has been submitted. We will be dealing with Case #00- 66 tonight and #00-65 at a later meeting. As stated on Page 8, there was a motion by Voss and seconded by Brown to recommend to the City Council to accept Zoning Amendment and/or Rezoning per 00-66. This was to include the current R-1 District to R-3 Planning Development Area and the R-2 and B-1 to the Destination District. Lots 18, 19, and 20 are included in the minor land use plan revision as a destination district PDA consistent with the rezoning City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT It was requested that staff clarify if anything needed to be dealt with this evening regarding the logistics of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. John Dean answered that that was not on the agenda for the Planning Commission and the City Council removed it from consideration tonight as well. John Dean was asked if a public hearing was needed in respect to that issue and he replied that if it were to ever come back, we would need one, yes, but at this point, no. Call for Vote: Ayes 8 (no call of names) Nayes 0 Show of hands requested: Ayes 8 Nayes 0 Motion carried. Second item on the agenda was Case #00-71, the Street Easement Vacation, MetroPlains Development, northwest corner of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. found on page 9 of the draft minutes. Call for a motion regarding Case #00-71' MOTION made by Voss to recommend the City Council accept the Street/Easement Vacation. Motion was seconded by Weiland. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion. Ayes 8 Nayes 0 Motion carried. Show of hands not requested. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION made by Mike Mueller and seconded by Orv Burma to adjourn. Motion passed. The Planning Commission portion of the meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. The continuation of the Public Hearing was turned over to Mayor Meisel and the City Council at approximately 7:46 P.M. City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD BLVD BLVD. AND COMMERCE Mayor Meisel explained this information is on page 4937 of the Council Packet. Bruce Chamberlain explained that there were a couple of resolutions before the Council, one having to do with the Zoning Amendment and the other is for final approval of the Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment which was put before the Metropolitan Council earlier this year. Recently they have made special effort to look at this site in regard to the Comprehensive Plin, based on the fact there is a development proposal for this site. They essentially granted final approval to the Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the site that is in question. Chamberlain read the Zoning Resolution, CASE 00-66 which states: "A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING OF A GROUPING OF PROPERTIES CONSISTING OF ROUGltLY NINETEEN ACRES INCLUDING THE "OLD SCHOOL SITE" AT 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, AND THE ASSOCIATED ATHLETIC FIELDS..." This resolution will result in the Zoning amendments for the subject property hereby approved as Destination District PUD for Lot 1 except that area of Lot 1 currently known as Lots 18, 19, and 20, Lynwood Park, Lake Minnetonka and Outlot A Block 1 as described in the Preliminary Plat, Mound Vision's First edition dated November 2ha. That zoning will also provide for the subject property that R3 residential PDA for Lot 2 and Outlots B and C Block 1 as described in the Preliminary Plat, Mound Vision's First Edition dated November 2ha. He then introduced Veto Hanson from MetroPlains Development who gave a presentation. Hanson began by explaining that he was not going to be doing the detailed presentation that has been done in prior meetings, but will do a brief overview. Hanson indicated that this project has been ongoing for almost an entire year, not something that was recently started. He explained that in March they had their first formal meeting with staff and various department heads to analyze the potential scope of this project. He stated this project has been through a series of meetings from both the Council and Planning Commission, department heads and staff, as well as the City Council. Hanson explained that this plan is not just a MetroPlains plan but a combination of what the visions for Mound has been and how they have attempted to integrate those visions into the concept on this site. The plans are for a combination of both commercial and residential development. He showed how the site is broken up into four parts with commercial on the comer of Lynwood and Commerce; residential primarily located on the ball field area; the parks surrounding the perimeter on both the north and east sides; and the Ponds Arena site which is an independent property. What MetroPlains has attempted to do is to mesh all these components so the concept plan embodies the concept of embracing the City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT visions for the new downtown. The idea of how the commercial addresses the intersection is such that it represents more of an urban development on the comer as opposed to a strip mall development. The plan allows additional parking for the Ponds Arena site which lacks adequate parking at this time. The residential area will be centered towards the internal portion of the site as opposed to the perimeter. The location of the park allows an opportunity for the community at large to use it. There will also be green space or a transition space between the existing neighborhoods and the new residential site. As requested by neighborhood residents, they have agreed to provide a turnaroulad in the alleyway so the dead-end condition which currently exists will no longer be present. He explained they will be putting in over 30% more landscaping than necessary which will be used for private property across the street from the site. This is where the access points come out. This area is primarily on Lynwood Blvd. and will provide additional screening for those residents. Hanson went on to say that they have also agreed to provide a walk-way system throughout the property to a design standard that would allow an integration of the parks system allowing full access by the public at large to move throughout the property. They will utilize the ponding condition more as a public amenity rather than as a sedimentation control or mn-off control. They have agreed to work with the City in their visions for how the comer of Lynwood and Commerce should materialize so it benefits the downtown as a whole. As a result of this, there will be additional easements that will be requested by Hennepin County in order for those conditions to occur. The easements will allow for ten additional parallel parking stalls on Lynwood. He advised the group that MetroPlains has also agreed to work with quality materials and fagade conditions as in the downtown Mound's Visions Plan. They will be utilized not only within the buildings itself but on the pavement and at the intersection points so it will have the visualization of the downtown's vision as it moves further into the central business district. Hanson stated there are a number of utility relocations that will also be a part of this that will commensurate with the design of the internalization site as well as needs that the community currently has which are looping systems which are currently not looped. This will provide a benefit to the community at large. Hanson went on to state MetroPlains has tried to listen to the visions, concerns, and requests brought to their attention. They are attempting to achieve the goals given to them by the City and Mound visions and have integrated those ideas into their plans. He explained that the density has changed drastically from where it was when they first started by at least 1/3. By making these changes he believes MetroPlains has tried to make this project beneficial to the community. City Council and Planning Commission Joint Me. ting 12-27-00 DRAFT Council Member Weycker stated she would like to see cut-out parking on Elm. There was no other questions or comments by the council or staff. The Public Hearing was opened to the citizens at approximately 8:00 by Mayor Meisel. She explained that as in the last meeting, an egg timer will be used to time the three minutes each citizen will have to voice their opinion. She invited the citizens to come to the podium and requested each give their name and address. John Dean reminded the audience that the item now open for public hearing-was the Zoning Amendment. The following citizens came forward to give their opinion: Bob Polston Dean Fleming Jim Kruse John Wagman Ken Custer Valarie Magnus Peter Meyer Michael Durrell Orr Burma Laures Spott Patty Dodds Ken Berres Paula Larson Bob Johnson Tom Casey 5780 Lynwood Blvd. 2825 Halstead Lane 2830 Pine Road 5469 Bartlett Blvd. 5310 Bartlett Blvd. 2052 Grandview Blvd. 5748 Sunset Rd. 2208 Fern Lane (part-time resident) 3011 Island View Drive 2241 Cottonwood Lane 3021 Dickens Lane 5724 Lynwood Blvd. 5713 Lynwood Blvd. 2928 Westedge Blvd. 2854 Cambridge Lane Summarized Comments from speakers: In a letter from an attorney to the City attorney, it was pointed out what is believed to be a conflict of interest on behalf of the mayor taking part in this project and voting on it. An exhibit was submitted to the City indicating the property owned by the mayor is within the notification zone. Another Council member works directly for the school district as a sub-contractor. Since the school district is the seller of the property, Council Member Weycker also has a conflict of interest and it is requested she not vote on the issue. This is because it is believed the money exchanged in the sale of this property would provide additional moneys for projects of the council member. 6 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT Bob Polston stated he would like to go on record to the City and Council that he has been asked by a number of people in the area to represent them. They do not believe this project is in the best interest in the City, particularly for the people living within the area who have paid taxes expecting the "quietatude" of the area be protected. There was no mistake in the original zoning of the property and should not be changed from R-1 to R-3. He went on to state they do not believe the city has handled the concerns brought before the City insofar as soil borings, soil conditions to sustain this type of development. Mr. Polston stated they do not believe the question of lighting or sound has been adequately addressed. The type of traffic that will be generated will be a threat to the safety and welfare of the children and people of the area. There has been no traffic study done other than by Hennepin County for a construction type traffic study. This project is within 1,000 feet of a lake. The EQB substantially indicates in the law that nothing should be granted on this project prior to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet being done. Request the City forestall taking any action on any of these projects until the Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been returned. Encourage the Council to vote yes for this project and progress on. Does not want the city to continue sitting on their hands and not moving anywhere. This looks like a good program. Appreciate all the hard work in trying to redevelop Mound. Technical issues are at hand but that doesn't mean the project should not go forward. Get Mound where it needs to be. Resident of Mound for more than 20 years. September 1996, the Council condemned his property to dredge on the Lost Lake Channel, so he realizes what it is like to live with the development. No petitions were circulated on his behalf or calling for a special referendum and after years of negotiation with the City, he decided it was better to work with the City than fight it. He believes he made the right decision. It was for the greater good of the City though he lost some privacy. Green Space and ball fields are good to have but you have to look at the greater picture. What is best for the citizens of Mound. Believes Mound needs housing, jobs, and more development. The City should follow through and develop this property. 7 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT Would like to know what the increase tax revenues to the city will be and what the increase taxes to the school district would also be helpful. This project is expensive and should have a fair tax base to increase the revenues to the City so more utilities can be taken care of. For the project. Concern of water problem dating back 43 years. Does not believe the land has been checked well enough to know just how soggy it gets. All of the water from Grandview Blvd. drains through backyards and down onto the field. Ail of Grandview Court drains down onto the field. Will new drain sewers be able to accommodate all this water. Will the developer waterproof the backwalls of the homes? Keep the property as park land. City Mission states must strive to respond to the needs of all citizens. Disagrees with the way the project has been pushed through. Is legal but not just or fair. Wait until new council is in place to vote on these issues so the new members can vote against the project. Justice is in approving project because as a taxpayer we pay city expenses out of one pocket and school district out of the other. The school district has a chance to pick up 7 digits of income from selling this property. Not to the City (taking from one pocket and putting into the other) but from a developer. We bring in 99 new taxpaying families, new'shoppers to the area to help the tax base. This is justice. Wetlands have been previously filled by in residential areas. School property was not maintain for over 22 years and has grown more and more dilapidated. Building is not something we are losing, it's something decided years ago that we would no longer support or maintained. Should have been renovated 30 years ago and by not doing so, the theater, gym, and all other amenities attached to school building was given up then so it became too expensive to renovate now. No other suggestions have been given for this site. Visions has worked hard. Children never went to the school property to play. Football field has been kept locked so it could not be used by the citizens. Only small area for tots was available. Parking was always been a problem in the area during football and softball games. A Softball field can be put at another location. City Council and Planning Commission Joint Me~ting 12-27-00 DRAFT Bringing in new people will indirectly help the softball people. There is a new softball park in Minnetrista, which is more sophisticated. The little lots on this site are not necessarily something we should continue for ever, but could be relocated. Project will give retail base, housing base and tax base downtown. The high school has plans for new fields where they belong. Need to upgrade empty buildings in the downtown area. Get rid of this negativism. Project will probably cause residents to lose all offstreet parking on Lynwood area. Has not yet seen the Hennepin County traffic study yet. Major buffer will be only 50 feet from property. Doesn't feel there is enough trees to buffer existing property. Concern about the turnaround and what it means. Once zoning is done, citizens won't have anything to say about the plan. Opposed to how the project is proposed. Property will be severely impacted by proposed project. Property has always been residential. Covering property with blacktop, concrete and crammed housing on this open space is a mistake. Housing should be placed in areas that need desperate renovating. Concerned about water quality of Lake Minnetonka this project will create. Community should not have the appearance of housing situations as in the northern and southern suburbs of Minneapolis. Mound should acquire land for open space and parks for its citizens and not take it away. When the new Hwy. 12 is under construction, some of that traffic may be relocated or rerouted, possibly to our downtown area, which would cause additional traffic safety issues. City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 Shortage of parks and open space in Mound. Proper fiscal analysis has not been done on the property. Concern of whether the project will give the City a positive cash flow. Need to do an EAW as part of analysis before voting. PUBLIC TESTIMONY ENDED AT 8:30 P.M. by Mayor Meisel. Mayor Meisel asked the council if they had any comments or questions of staff or the developer. Leah Weycker commented on the conflict of interest issues. She stated she does not work for the school district and that was made clear in the previous settlement that was just done. She stated she is an independent contractor that works for the Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative. The school is the fiscal agent for that group so moneys are funneled through them but that is it. They are not her boss nor is she employed by them. Bruce Chamberlain addressed the Council stating that there were resolutions in the packet. Two updated resolutions are on their desks this evening. He asked for clarification from the City Attorney on the proper order for passage or consideration of these resolutions. Attorney John Dean agreed that the correct order would be to consider the Comprehensive Plan Resolution first and the Zoning Resolution second. Attorney Dean addressed the Mayor stating there needs to be a little bit of a diversion on the action on the matter that was before her on the Public Hearing and requested she go to the Comp Plan piece (Item A) under Additional Matters. Bruce Chamberlain addressed the Council stating that the overall Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the City of Mound was passed along to the Metropolitan Council. They have been in the process of reviewing that plan. Bruce Chamberlain read one component of the resolution: "On December 18th, the Metropolitan Council granted approval to a Minor Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the subject property, prior for the Metropolitan Council completing its review of the City's entire comprehensive plan." That essentially gives the ability for the City Council to proceed on action for zoning. It also requires the City Council grant final approval to this component of the Comprehensive Plan and that is the Resolution before the Council this evening, which is item A. Bruce Chamberlain handed out an attachment that is being suggested with that Resolution. Basically defines that is in the Comprehensive Land Use plan submittal to the Metropolitan Council. It essentially shows the larger open space portion or the field portion of the site would be guided as downtown residential and the commercial portion of the site (old school building) would be guided as auto destination district. 10 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT Chamberlain went on to explain Lots 18, 19, and 20 are not suggested for rezoning. There is no commercial building that would be constructed over those lots. It is staff's belief and opinion that rezoning is not required nor is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment required for those three lots in order to proceed with the approvals necessary for this project. They are excluded from any comp plan review or zoning amendment. John Dean wanted to make sure there was clarification regarding the question asked regarding the process of approving the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Planning Commission held their hearings and adopted a recommendation for this approval. The City Council then had public hearings in April or May and approved the Comprehensive Plan at that time and referred it to the Met Council in the Spring for its review. This is the approval that we have now received from Met Council. What is being done tonight is that there is a further provision in the statute that says once the plan is returned from Met Council, the City Council has to give final approval to the plan. It doesn't require a Public Hearing, the City has already gone through that process. It's simply reviewing what is there which is exactly what the Council sent the Met Council. By giving approval to this resolution, the Council will simply be confirming that this is the Amended Comprehensive Plan as it relates to this site. MOTION made by Bob Brown to approve the Resolution by granting final approval of a Minor Comprehensive Plan/Use Plan Amendment for the old school site, including the athletic fields at 5600 Lynwood Blvd. The motion was seconded by Andrea Ahrens. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion AYES 5 NAYES 0 MOTION carried Zoning issue was brought before the Council by John Dean. Mayor Meisel asked if there were any questions on the Zoning Resolution 00-66. Mark Hanus commented that one of the common themes mentioned by a number of people had to do with the draining issue in that area. He stated the Water Shed tends to not go soft on these types of corrections. He also stated he believes the drainage situation will be better after the development than it is today. It was pointed out that there are future approvals that will be required. Among the two that are critical are the Conditional Use Permit and a Plat. Both drainage and site line issues, traffic issues, etc. are appropriate considerations for both of those additional approvals. They are more of a design issue than a zoning issue. 11 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT MOTION made by Bob Brown to approve the resolution of the City Council, granting approval for rezoning of a grouping of properties consisting of roughly 19 acres, including the old school site at 5600 Lynwood Blvd. and the associated athletic fields. The motion was seconded by Mark Hanus. DISCUSSION: Leah Weycker commented that she always had been in favor of saving the field but when the previous referendum that the City had did not pass, she felt she needed to move on and do what the votes were telling her to do. She stated some are now calling her a trader for that but her job as an elected officer is to represent the voters and as much as she wanted to see those fields stay, she believes there are still opportunities to do things for children and green space in our downtown area. This is not an end all/be all. She wished the new Council the best of luck. ROLL CALL VOTE: Council Member Brown Council Member Weycker Mayor Meisel Council Member ltanus Council Member Ahrens Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye MOTION Carried Unanimously CUP AND VARIANCES MOTION made by Mark Hanus to continue the CUP and variances to January 23, 2001. The motion was seconded by Andrea Ahrens. MOTION made by Mark Hanus to also continue the Preliminary Plat to January 23, 2001. The motion was seconded by Bob Brown. Call for Vote: Ayes 5 Motions Carried CITIZENS PETITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORK SHEET Bruce Chamberlain addressed the Council that this was already filed with the Environmental Quality Board. The Environmental Quality Board has determined that the City Council of 12 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT Mound would be the responsible governmental unit to the RGU and responsible for preparing the AEW should one be determined to be prepared. The recommendation in the agenda is to authorize City Staff' to review the AEW petition and provide a report for the January 9, 2001 Council Meeting on that petition and the warrants of it. MOTION made by Andrea Ahrens to direct staff to review the EAW Petition in accordance with State Statutes and any other guidelines and bring a report back to the City Council on January 9th. The motion was seconded by Bob Brown. DISCUSION: There was no discussion Call for Vote: Ayes 5 Nayes 0 MOTION carried unanimously ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by Andrea Ahrens to adjourn the meeting It was seconded by Bob Brown. Call for Vote: Ayes 5 Nayes 0 MOTION carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Hawks. 13 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING KANDIS HANSON, CITY MANAGER, ACTING CITY CLERK FOR 2001 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Kandis Hanson, City Manager, as the Acting City Clerk for the year 2001, if the City Clerk is disabled, incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation. If both the City Clerk and the Acting City Clerk are disabled, incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation then Len Harrell, Police Chief, is hereby appointed as Active City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Council Member __ Council Member and seconded by The following Council Members voted in the affirmative: The following Council Members voted in the negative: January 9, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Kandis Hanson, Acting City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2001 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Gino Businaro, Finance Director, as the Acting City Manager for the year 2001, if the City Manager is disabled, incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation. If both the City Manager and the Acting City Manager are disabled, incapacitated, away on city business or away on vacation then Len Harrell, Police Chief, is hereby appointed as Acting City Manager. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: January 9, 2001 Mayor Attest: City Clerk January 9, 2001 RESOLUTION NO; RESOLIYrION DESIGNATING THE LAK'F.R OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2001 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby designate The Laker the official newspaper for the City of Mound for 2001. 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: none Mayor Attest: City Clerk 1 January 11, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ~ PURCHASE OF AT T.~.AST A $20,000 BOND FOR ~ .. CITY CI.~K BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Clerk, · ' The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative The following voted in the negative: January 9, 2001 Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk January 9, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ~ PURCHASE OF AT I.F. AST A $20,000 BOND FOR ~ CITY TREASURE~ANCE DIRECTOR BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby authorize the purchase of at least a $20,000 bond for the City Treasurer/Finance Director. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember . The following voted in the affirmative The following voted in the negative: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Ganuary 9, £001 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING ~ OFFICIAL DEPOSITORW. S FOR 2001 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby designate the following banks and financial institutions as official depositories for the City of Mound in 2001: Marquette Bank (Bank Services) USBank Firstar Wells Fargo Dain Bosworth, Inc. Salomon Smith Barney Minnesota Municipal Money Market Funds Crow River Bank BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City's deposits shall be protected by Federal Deposit Insurance and/or collateral in accordance with MSA Chapter 118. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Treasurer is hereby authorized to open or continue an account or accounts with said institutions on such terms as required by said institutions in the names of the City, and to deposit, or cause to be deposited in such account or accounts, any monies, checks, drafts, orders, notes or other instruments for the payment of money, upon compliance by said depository with this resolution and the law in such case provided. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the designation shall continue in force until December 31, 2001 or until written notice of its revision or modification has been received by said institution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: January 9, 2001 RESOLUTION# RESOLUTION APPOINTING ACTING MAYOR FOR 2001 BE 1T RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint Acting Mayor for the year 2001. The foregoing resolutiOn was moved by Councilmember by Councilmember and seconded The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk January 25, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING · TO ~ PARK COMM/SSION_ (POSC); TO ~ PLANNING COMMISSION; '- TO ~ ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMI,~SION (EDC); AND TO THE~ DOCK & COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION (DCAC) AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2000 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby appoint the following Councilmembers as Council Representatives to the following City Commissions for 2000. 'to the Park Commission to the Planning Commission .'to the Economic Development Commission to the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Brown. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk PAYMENT BILLS DATE: JANUARY 9, 2001 BII,LS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE BATCt I # #0122 #0123 AMOUNT $214,131.02 $ 48,058.40 TOTAL BILLS, $262 ,189. 42 - 'P U R C H A S E' J O U R N A L " AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER A0062 2965 58.58 VEHICLE DOOR GRAPHICS 01-4140-3810 12/26/00 12/26/00 58.58 JRNL-CD 1010 ADVANCED GRAPMIX INC VENDOR TOTAL 58.58 A0333 001122 ................ 189~g7---THRU~I~=OO--~*~-S-OL~-NE--~*R~k~ ~3~3~---221g 12/26/00 12/26/00 189.97 JRNL-CD 1010 COMPANY ....... VENDOR-TOT-A1. [~9.97 A0338 25355 315.34 PAGER REPAIR 22-4170-3200 ---12/26/00 12/2'6-/0~ 31~.3~---~NL-CD 1010 9056 79.35 PAGER REPAIR 22-4170-3200 ~2726/00--'12726-/00 F9.5~ JRNL-CD 1010 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 394.69 B0549 20234300 112.50 L[OUOR 71-7100-9510 12/26/00 12/26/00 112.50 JRNL-CD 1010 20513700 2,538.37 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 12/26/00 12/26/00 2,538.37 JRNL-CD 1010 33-89900 189.46 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 12/26/00 12/26/00 189.46 JRNL-CD 1010 33143200 19.16 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 12/26/00 12/26/00 19.16 JRNL-CD 1010 33143300 157.20 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 12/26/00 12/26/00 157.20 JRNL-CD 1010 20369900 2,606.10 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 12/26/00 12/26/00 2,606.10 JRNL-CD 1010 BELLBOY CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 5622.79 B0600 10069854 .... 17.~76 ll~O-~tTB%-GE--PiCKUP,'-CTrP'~-8'5 12/26/00 12/26/00 17.76 JRNL-CD 1010 BLACKOWI-AK -AND SON - " VENDOR-TOT~,I.i I?.70 B0611 001208 458.99 THRU 12-08-00 SAND FOR SALT 01-4280-2340 12726/00-12726~0~ 458.99 JR~I1.-CD i0i0 00~220 1,544.14 SAND FOR SALT MIX 01-4280-2340 ....... 12/26/00 1212670'0 ........ ~,---5~-4--.~%--~RNIZ--~CD 1~ 001214 945.08 SAND FOR SALT .... 12/26/00 12/26/00 ....... 94~.~8--JRNL~CD BOB WINKLER VENDOR TOTAL 2948.21 B0705 001211 5,705.15 THRU 12-01-00 12/26/00 12/26/00 5,705.15 JRNL-CD MIX 01-4280-2340 1~ .... TRAFFIC STUDY 55-5877-3100 1010 PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE MOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 5705.15 914.77 BULK ICE 01-4280-2340 914.77 JRNL-CD 1010 486.31 BULK ICE 01-4280-2340 486.3! JRNL-CD 1010 BRASLAU, DAVID AND ASSOCI* VENDOR TOTAL____ COB20 20712588 12/26/00 12126100 20731071 12/26/00 12/26/00 i 20731654 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,433.62 BULK ICE 01-4280-2340 1,433.62 JRNL-CD 1010 20718630 12/26/00 12126/00 809'.91 BULK ICE 01-4280-2340 809.91 JRNL-CD 1010 CARGILL SALT DIVISION VENDOR TOTAL C08~9-D~9061 ................... 12/26/00 12126/00 -~-070050 12/26/00 12/26/00 D70611 12/26/00 12/26/00 3644.61 4~.7~ roLEs, B£~MS, EYe. ?~-r3uu-k31u 45.74 JRNL-CD 1010 1.~9 MiNi 5-PACE 1.59 MINI 5-PACK 78-7800-2310 3.18 JRNL-CD 1010 42.56 SNOW BLADES 01-4340-2310 42.56 JRNL-CD 10. D71882 12/26/00 12/26/00 11.17 MISC AUTO SUPPLIES 01-4280-2310 11.17 JRNL-CD 1010 CHAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL C0875' ~30889 ......... 12/26/00 12/2e/00 CMESLq~Y' TRUCK'-SALES ...... VENDOR TOTAE-- C0920 001215 ............. 12/26100'12/2'6,'00----- CITY OF MOUND C0960 001130 102.65 26.4? JRNL-CD lOlO --~ b-;-~T 30.21 11-00 WATER AND SEWER 71-7100-3740 3'-0.21 jRNL-CD I-~'Z'D----- VENDOR TOTAL 30.21 62.56 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 85.51 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 40.59 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 137.93 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 5~-2-----M'I~'E"L-L--ANEuub ~uPPLtE$ 6.38 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 64.18 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES ........ ~.32 --~IS-CEL~A'NEuu~ SUPPLIES 143.08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78.71 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES .......... 78;71--'MI~CEL~NE-OLIS SUPPLIES 78.71 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 93.25 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-2300-0500 01-4340-2200 Oi-~Tau-2~O0 01-43&0-2300 01-4280-2300 U1-4~U-k~IU 73-7300-2200 73-7300-2300 78-?800-2300 01-4280-2250 78-7800-2250 22-4170-2200 VENDOR INVOICE DUE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE i2/26/00 12/26/00 COAST TO COAST VENDDR TOTA% C0970 61311072 ........ 12/26/00 12/26/00 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF HOUND HOLD STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 951.34 JRNL-CD 1010 .... ~51-.34 181.I2 MIX 71-7100-9540 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL C1019 1386 12/26/00 12/26/00 CONCEPT LANDSCAPING, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 --CHADW~CK-KNO-MERTZ~ ~ ~A ..... ~ENDDR-TOT~L Dl170 1179567 12/26/00-1~Y2~700' DALCO INC VENDOR TOTAL Dl172 334083 12/26/00 12/26/00 336234 12/26/00 12/26/00 181.12 400.00 DORCHESTER TREE REMOVAL 01-4280-4200 400.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 400.00 ~,~.O0 5,283.00 111.55 11~.~ 111.55 JRNL-CD 01-4110-31~0 1010 STRAPS, ETC. 22-4170-2200 JRNL-CD lOiO 120.00 LENS FOR FACE PIECE 22-4170-2270 120.00 JRNL-CD 1010 182.20 HOOD AND CLEANER 22-4170-2200 182.20 JRNL-CD 1010 1,863.75 BLOWER 22-4170-2200 1,863.75 JRNL-CD 1010 55.40 RINGS, SPRINGS, ETC. 22-4170-2200 55.40 JRNL-CD 1010 336235 12/26/00 12/26/00 337563 12/26/00 12/2b/00 DANKO EMERGENCY E~UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL -D1200 117835 12/26/00 12/26/00 ...... 117851 ................ 2221.35 6?0.~0---B'E"ER 670.80 JRNL-CD 41.25 ~iX N~ik-X~131=~ 7£-/luo-gb30 1010 7i-7i00-95~0 ....... 117852 ..... 118913 ......... 12/26/00 12/26/00 41.25 JRNL-CD 12/26/00 12/26/00 416.00 JRNL-CD 12/26/00 12/26/00 ~ .--~O---BEI~I~ 1~1~5 66.00 JRNL-CD - 118540 ......... 12/26/00 12/26/00 624.~0 JRNL-CD 1010 1010 71--~7 i 00 -9~""30 1010 7 i~-~i-O 0---9'53 0 1010 119251 ....... 1-,-811 .-~-85 -- -B E1~1~' 71~-~ i O0 ~-~531~- 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,811.85 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 4 AP-C02-0/ VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 119265 12/26/00 12/26/00 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDDR TOTAL D1322-001227 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND PRE' AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER Al 59.65 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 59.65 JRNL-CD 1010 3689.95 75~.0~E1M~.TRS~f'NT'~OOT--A-CL-Og-A-NTE' 12/26/00 12/26/00 ~ONR%~-~EITZ ............... VENDDR~OTA~ E1420 719118 720~57 720722 12726/~0-12/26700 ~2126100'"1212670~ 12126/00~2/26~00' 722086 .................. 12/26/00 12/26/00 724211 75.00 JRNL-CD 1010 76.00 SEER 71-7100-9530 fb. UU J~NL-C~ 1010 40.95 BEER 71-7100-9530 ~0.~ J~NL-CO 1~10 1,876.50 BEER 71-7100-95~0 l,~?b. Sg jRNT.-CD lUlU 76.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 7~.00 J~NL-[~ lulu - 81.70 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 ................. 12/26/00 12126/00 724213 ..... 12/26/00 ~2/2~/00 722977 .................. 12/26/00 12126/00 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR TOTAL E1450 17503 12/26/00 12/26/00 8L.70-----JRNL-CD luau 2,320.45 BEER 71-7100-9530 Z7',~2'0;~ jRI~L~'L"D iOiu 777.60 BEER 71-7100-9530 777.--6~ 'JR'NL~-CD iOiO 52~9.20 187.50 10-00 LANGDON DISTRICT SERVICE 55-5882-3100 187.50 JRNL-CD 1010 17505 12/26/00 12/26/00 187.50 10-00 AUDITORS ROAD SERVICES 55-5883-3100 187.50 JRNL-CD 1010 17507 12/26/00 12/26/00 17745 12/26/00 12/26/00 17746 12/26/00 12/26/00 17816 12/26/00 12/26/00 17817 12/26/00 12/26/00 17818 12/26/00 12/26/00 950.00 09-00 OPEN SPACE REFERANDUM 01-4020-3100 950.00 JRNL-CD 1010 107.00 09-00 AUDITORS REDEVELOPMENT 55-5883-3100 107.00 JRNL-CD 1010 5,968.75 09-00 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5879-3100 5,968.75 JRNL-CD 1010 3,312.50 3,312.50 187.50 187.50 187.50 187.50 10-00 POST OFFICE RELOCATION JRNL-CD 10-00 LANGDON REDEVELOPMENT JRNL-CD 10-00 AUDITORS RD REDEVELOPMEN JRNL-CD 55-5879-3100 1010 55-5882-3100 1010 55-5883-3100 1010 PAGE 5 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTIDN JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER 17747 12/26/00 12/26700- 17819 12/26/00 12/26/00 17820 ........................ 32126/00 12126/DD 17902 17903 I2/26/00 12'726/0ff 12/26100-12/'267I)0 17904 ................... 12/26/00 12726700 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC VENDOR TOTAL E1477 5459 12/26/00 12/26/00 93.75 09-00 METRO PLAINS DEVELPMENT 01-2300-1096 P3.-75---2RNL-CO 101~-- 1,125.00 10-00 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT l~-125-:O0~RNL:CD---- 01-2300-1096 250.00 10-00 STORM SEWER Q g A 01-4280-3100 Z50.00 JR~L-CD 1010 5,828.25 11-00 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5879-3100 lO1O 1,781.25 11-00 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 1,781.25 J~NL-¢D 01-2300-1096 1U1U 312.50 11-00 STORM SEWER OPEN HOUSE 01-4280-3100 31~.~0 JRNL-CD lO1O 20479.00 1,667.27 ENGINE 24 FOAM SYSTEM REPAIR 22-4170-3820 1,667.27 JRNL-CD 1010 [RGENCY APPARATUS MAINT. VENDOR TOTAL 1667.27 ~BOSB2 ................ v~.13 KE~AI~ UN UN1! 12/26/00 12/26/00 95.13 JRNL-CD 12/26/00 12/26/00 103.50 JRNL-CD E~UIPMENT' SUPPLY INC VENDOR*TOT~ 19B~63 F1641 14961 76.80 MIX ................. 12/26/00-12726/0~ ?6~SO----2RNL-LU FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYME VEND3R TOTAL 76.80 ul-43~0-'2330 1010 1010 71-7100-9540 lOlU Fl710 001129 12/26/00 12/26/00 .... 001226 .......... 12/26/00 12/26/00 FRANCENE CLARK G1750 487788 21.78 11-07-00 MILEAGE 28.43 03-25-00 THRU 04-24-00 CELL PH 83.56 JRNL-CD 478.44 50.18 528.62 REiMBORESEMENT MEDICAL EXPENSE 10-24-00 THRU 11-24-00 CELL PH JRNL-CD 01-4060-3720 01-4040-3220 ul-~u-4-O-~2u 1010 Oi-2USO-Ouou 01-4040-3220 1010 VENDOR TOTAL 612.18 ................. 2~:76 i~2B-O0 U~iF'DRMS 24.76 11-28-00 UNIFORMS 24.76 11-28-00 UNIFORMS 20.11 11-28-00 MATS 20.11 11-28-00 MATS 0i-~280-224u 73-7300-2240 76-7800-2240 01-~2~0'225u 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 PAGE 6 P U R C H A 5 E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 12/26/00 12/26/00 134.61 JRNL-CD 1010 -- 400021 12/26/00 12/26/00 29.58 JRNL-CD 1010 ..... 400020 ..... PRE- AM 12/26/00 12/26/00 34.83 JRNL-CD 1010 .... ~06-63 99.?B 1~-19-00 MAIb U1-45ZO-~210 12/26/00 12/26/00 99.78 JRNL-CD 1010 5OO372 ........ 12~26/00-12~26/00 500373 500371 - 500~7~ Zf.O~ 1Z-lg-O0 -M-AlS 71-TlOO-&210 ~2/26/00 12/26/00 27.04 JRNL-CD 1010 -49~6T .............. Z~."~6 1g-uS-g0 UNIFUNM~ Ol-~ZSO-gg~O 24.?6 12-05-00 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 24.76 12-05-00 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240 11.4T ~2-OD-OU MAIS O~-&ZSO-Z~bO 11.47 12-05-00 MATS 73-7300-2250 11.&8 12-05-00 ~ATS 78-7800-2250 10~0 JRNL-CD 1010 37.24 12-12-00 MATS 01-4340-2330 3~.24 JRNL-CD lUlO 30.&3 12-12-00 MATS 22-4170-2230 24.77 12-12-00 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 24.77 12-12-00 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240 21.59 12-12-00 MATS 01-~280-2250 2i.~9 ~E--12-00 MATS 73-~uo-225u 21.58 12-12-00 MATS 78-7800-2250 139.07 JRNL-CD 1010 12/26/00 12/26/00 506662 G' ~--'K--GER¥~CEG 12/26/00 12/26/00 YE~DOR--TOTAL 24.77 12-19-00 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 24.77 12-19-00 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 24.77 12-i9-00 UNiFORM~ 78-~u0-2240 11.71 12-19-00 MATS 01-4280-2250 11.71 12-19-00 MATS 73-?300-2250 109.45 JRNL-CD 1010 750.73 G1800 49785 .................... 12/26/00-'-12126/00- GARY'S DIESEL G1880 001128 001222 SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 3.63 VEHICLE E@UIPMENT 78-7800-3810 3.63 35.00 35.00 REIMBURESMENT EYE GLASSES 01-4280-3140 JRNL-CD 1010 15.01 REIMBURSEMENT BOOT ALLOWANCE 73-7300-2240 15.01 JRNL-CD 1010 P AGE 7 AP-C02-O/ P U R C H A S E .J 0 U C!TY OF HOUND R N AL VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD PR NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER GIESE, LEROY VENDOR TOTAL 50.01 G1886 001228 26.61 COMPUTER CABLE 01-4095-2200 43.88 REIMBURSEMENT MILEAGE 01-4095-4110 ............. %6';3B--REIMBDRSEMENT~,,FIL~A~E O~-~4-OVO=3~3&O 12/26/00 12/26/00 86.87 JRNL-CD 1010 ~NO~U'S'INARO VENDDR-~OTAL G1887 7655 86.87 195.18 INSTALLED '--~2/26/00-12726-/00 195-:-1-8---J~RNL-CD GLASS PLUS VENDOR TOTAL 195.18 DOOR CLOSURE. 71-7100-2200 1010 G1890 001226 15.46 11-00 WATER #32345800 22-4170-4100 12/26/00 12/26/00 15.46 JRNL-CD lOlO GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL 15.46 12/26/00 12/26/00 HER STATE ONE-CALL, INC VENDOR TOTAL 70~01~08 .............. 5~.--B1)---~'I'-;-OD LOCAIk~ 52.80 11-00 LOCATES 10~.60 JRNL-CD 105.60 78-7800-3125 1010 ~'6.6F ZLI-MB1DRSLNLN! EYE ~LASbE) U~-4~O-~140 16.67 REIMBURSEMENT EYE GLASSES 73-7300-3140 16.66 REIMBURSEMENT EYE GLASSES 78-7800-3140 .................. 12/26;00-1~Y26700 50.--O0'~L-CU 1010 GREG SKINNER VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 G1972 307557 753.31 WINE 71-7100-9520 12/2~/00 12/26/00 753.31 JRNL-CD 1010 308477 599.41 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 12/26/00 12/26/00 599.41 JRNL-CD 1010 310994 1,928.79 WINE 71-7100-9520 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,928.79 JRNL-CD 1010 ~10995 159.80 WINE 71-7100-9510 12/26/00 12/26/00 159.80 JRNL-CD 1010 311906 287.81 LIQUOR 12/26/00 12/26/00 287.81 JRNL-CD GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3729.12 G1977 001210 ......... ~7%~0-- THRU-%~-I~O-'~?2~-06~- 12/26/00 12/26/00 17.90 JRNL-CD ..... O01210-B- '- 17'3;22 TH'RD'-'i2~ID~~}~bb 12/26/00 12/26/00 17~.22 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9510 1010 1010 1010 PAGE 8 AP-C02-0L PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR NO. IqVOICE NMBR G T E MINNESOTA INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION VENDOR TOTAL 191.12 ACCOUNT NUMBER H2040 1793' 12/26/00 12/26/00 *IgTT~.l r 'OV*AI--STROI~'[--[I~ T H F A D 194.39 JRNL-CD 1OlO HATCH, JIM SALES COMPANY VENDOR-TOTAl: l~FT39 H2061 DM50149 ...................... 12726/00--12/2-6/00' 35.00 CHARGE FOR SEVEN CONTAINERS 3b.O0 'OR'NE-CD 73-7300-2260 1010 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT VENDOR TOTAL 35.00 H2080 28494 12/26/00 12/26/00 125.50 HOSE WITH FITTINGS 125.50 JRNL-CD 01-4280-2310 1010 28526 12/26/00 12/26/00 35.79 STORM GRATES 35.79 JRNL-CD 01-4280-2310 1010 2853a 12/26/00 12/26/00 102.24 TUBES 102.24 JRNL-CD 01-4280-2310 1010 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP VENDOR TOTAL H2135-20117034 ................ 12/26/00 12/26/00 263.53 ----3'6-~76----ll-~ETwuR~ SU?PuK~ 36.76 JRNL-CD ul-4095-Ouuu 103 HENNEPIN'~TY;- INFO TECH .... VENDOR-TOTAL 36.76 H2139 001218 ~6,605.66 2000 ANNUAL RADIO LEASE 12/26/00 12/26100 .......... 01-4140-3950 1OlU 001219 .................. 12126/00 12126100 1,785.43 2000 ANNUAL RADIO LEASE 1,--'7B5.43 J~qqg:-CD 22-4170-3900 1u1u HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF VENDOR TOTAL 8391.09 H2140 001120 12/26/00 12/26/00 720.87 720.87 09-00 SERVICE BOOKING FEE JRNL-CD 01-~140-4250 1010 HENN CO SHERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL H215i 001202 ........... 12/26/00 12/26/00 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER --'VENDOR TOTA~ H2160 002950 HENN CO TREASURER H2180 001219 12/26/00 12/26/00 VENDOR TOTAL HENN COUNTY TREASURER 12/26/00 12/26/00 VENDOR TOTAL 720.87 5-4~6-'--~A-[I.-0T'S~--P~r~."M~K¥ AND ~AL 540.06 JRNL-CD 01-4060-3)00 1010 S-4~.-'06 369.50 10-00 ROOM AND BOARD 36~;SO--ORNt:-~D 369.50 01-4110-4250 iuzo 694.68 NOTICES TRUTH IN TAXATION 01-4020-3100 694.68 JRNL-CD 1010 694.68 AP-E02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOI£E DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER H2241 001206-A 4,192.50 11-00 MISC PLANNING SERVICES 01-4190-3i00 12/26/00 12/26/00 4,192.50 JRNL-CD lOlO 001206-B 3,6B4.94 ll-O0 MISC PLANNING SERVICES 01-4190-3100 12/26/00 12/26/00 3,6B4.94 JRNL-CD lOlO 001206-C 1,963.50 ll-O0 MISC MOUND VISIONS 55-5B80-3100 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,963.50 JRNL-CD 1010 001206-D 1,400.00 11-00 TIF RELATED WORK 55-5882-3100 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,400.00 JRNL-CD 1010 001206-E 1,?00.00 11-00 TIF RELATED WORK 01-2300-1O96 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,?00.00 JRNL-CD 1010 001206-F 825.00 11-00 TIF RELATED WORK 55-5879-3100 12/26/00 12/26/00 825.00 JRNL-CD 1010 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP,m VENDOR TOTAL 13765.94 H~2B3--DD0912 ........... 12/26/00 12/26/00 54.33 JRNL-CD 1010 --'- 00102~ 12/26/00 12/26/00 3~'~'---~001) LATH 01-4340-2310 34.94 JRNL-CD 1010 12/26/00 12/26/00 ~37.~2 F~'I-BUY PACK, ETC ~-41F0-2~00 537.92 JRNL-CD 1010 .... 9042723-A ........ 2~.-~ WIRE ?3-r3u0-2mLu 12/26/00 12/26/00 28.45 JRNL-CD 1010 ' -' 9043723-B ............. 39;~----1~0~K LiGH1 12/26/00 12/26/00 39.94 JRNL-CD 1010 .... O01~09-A 12/26/00 12/26100 30;-30' WiRE 73-2SU0-2500 30.30 JRNL-CD 1010 '" O01~09-B ....... ~.~4 W'D~KLi~'~% 0i-~280-2300 12/26/00 12/26/00 42.54 JRNL-CD 1010 .... O0102~-~ 12/26/00 12/26/00 1~.87 L~H 01-4140-2i00 11.87 JRNL-CD 1010 ...... 001024-B .......... 12/26/00 12/26/00 2~7 LA~ 80-8000-220U 23.07 JRNL-CD 1010 .... L001213 .............. 2D.~--~¥E FEE 12/26/00 12/26/00 20.00 JRNL-CD 1010 HOME DEPOT/GECF VENDOR TOTal_ ...... ~23;36 H2290 001227 14,000.00 LEVY BALANCE 2000 96-9600-4100 ...... 12/26/00 12/25/00 ...... -1-4 ~-0 O O ~'0-~ Rq~I.'~--CO 1010 HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT AUT* VENDO~ TOTAL 14000.00 PAGE 10 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE MOLD ND. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER PRE' Al' I2309 23798139 .................... 12/26/00 12/26/00" 23798142 ........... 12/26/00 12/26/00 333.20 11-10-00 THRU 12-10-00 33~RNL-ED 01-4320-3800 10-1-0 48.60 11-10-00 THRU 12-10-00 ~,'8-~-O----JR NI:~-CO'- 01-4320-3800 ~-0-10 IKON OFFICE SOLUTION5 VENDOR TOTAL 381.80 I2384 359842 12/26/00 12/26/00 INTERSTATE-BRTTERIES VEND3~-TOT~L I 2~,00 6500 '12/26/00 -12/26100 6588 .... 12/26/00 1212-6 I0'0 6&62 12/26/00'~2/2-6~00 6595 12/26/00 12/26~00 6596 ................... 12/26/00 ISLAND mARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL J2480 001211 12/26/00 12/26/00 45.40 BATTERIES (2) 01-4280-2310 45.40 BATTERIES (2) 73-7300-2310 ~.41 BA]TL~ILb tEJ 136.21 JRNL-CD 1010 136.21 504.45 P/B BOOSTER, FLUID, ETC 73-7300-3810 504.~5 JRNL-¢D LuzO 38.0& BRAKE LIGHT, ETC. 73-7300-3810 36.--Oa jRNL-¢D zulu - 25.86 OIL CHANGE 01-4140-3810 25.'~86 jRNL-CD t01u 43.86 WHEEL ROTATION 01-4140-3810 43.86 JRNL-CD 196.00 BRAKE JOB 01-4140-3810 19b.U0 jRNc-¢D IOZU 808.21 205.35 REIMBURSEMENT CLOTHING ALLOWAN 01-4340-2240 205.35 JRNL-CD 1010 JAMES FACKLER J2579~1~3958' VENDOR TOTAL 12/26/00 12/2o/00 205.35 1,521.~u Li~UuR 1,321.40 JRNL-CD 1010 1193959 .... 12/26/00 12/26/00 ~.-~00 W1NL F1-F100-95ZO 124.00 JRNL-CD 1010 1~939'6g ............ 12/26/00 12/26/00 2,09b.~5 LI~UUN [1-FIUO-gblo 2,695.55 JRNL-CD 1010 ..... 119396~ ............ 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,--'872-785 W~N£ Tl-/lOO-¥bZO 1,872.85 JRNL-CD 1010 1196762' ............... ~%6~--%T{~OOR-- 12/26/00 12/26/00 49.60 JRNL-CD - 1196763 56~.~5--'-VI~E 12/26/00 12/26/00 560.75 JRNL-CD ~-9510 1010 71-71~O-vozo 1010 PAGE AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE 1196764 12/26/00 12/26/00 1196765 12/26/00 12/26/00 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR VENDOR TOTAL J~585~OO122T 12/26/00 12/26/00 -~ON SUTHERLAND ............. VENDOR IOTA~ K2699 35795-A --'~2/'26/00'~2/2~700 35795-8 ................... 12/26/00 1~/26100 35795-C 35795-E 35795-E 35795-F 12/26 / 00 ..... '- 12126/00 12126100 .................. 12126100 35795-G .... 12126/00 12126100 35795-H .............. 12/26/00 12/26700 35795-I ...... 12/26/00 12/26/00 35792-A ............... 12126/00 12/26/00-- - 35792-B .............. 12126100'~2126100 35792-C ............. 12/26/00 12/26100 35792-D ......... 12/26/00 35792-E ........ 12/26/00 1212'6700' P U R C H A S E J'O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND DUE HOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 1,492.24 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 1,492.24 JRNL-CD 1010 1,939.25 WINE 71-7100-9520 1,939.25 JRNL-CD 1010 10055.64 2~--~-O-O---'BUI~-I)I~JG--~E-RTIFICATION RENEWAL 20.00 JRNL-CD 01-=-2[1-'g'0:4130 1010 20-=O0 444.00 11-00 COMMUNITY CENTER CLAIM 55-5884-3100 44~*00 JRN[;CD 1010 717.58 11-00 STREET VACATION MORTON 240.00 11-00 DEVELOP REX ALWIN PROPER 01-2300-1089 01-2300-1095 __ 1,351.95 11-00 BECKER PERMIT REeUEST 01-2300-1098 1,3~1.95 JRNL-CD lOlO 1,061.50 11-00 EXECUTIVE LEGAL SERVICES 01-4110-3100 1'Y061..5 o JRNI=~Cl) lOlO 223.00- 11-00 ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SER 01-4110-3100 223'~0~--- JR NE---CD' llTI-O 1&4.00 11-00 PUBLIC SAFETY LEGALS 01-4110-3100 1~-4 .--1)D---2RNE - ¢ D 101 888.50 11-00 P/W MISC LEGAL SERVICES 01-4280-3100 85'8.50 JRlqE-CD luau 582.00 11-00 P/Z MICS LEGAL SERVICES 01-4190-3100 5~2.00 J RNL---C'O 10.LO 385.40 11-00 MISCELLANEOUS BILLALE 55-5880-3100 355~-0 J R N~-~1) i 0 i 0 1,337.52 11-00 REDEVELOP PROJECT'AREA 55-5880-3100 1 ,~ 3"?. 52 JR N L --Cl) i 01'0 66.00 11-00 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5879-3100 2,176.18 11-00 METRO PLAINS CONTRACT 01-2300-1096 12 / 26 / O0 ........ 2 ~17 B-.q_I~R'NL -~1)' -1_-0~1-0 KENNEDY & GRAVEN VENDOR TOTAL 27.50 11-00 MISC TIF PROJECT 55-5880-3100 27.-'5-0 J RN1.---C1) 1-0-10 9645.13 PAGE 12 AP-C02-01 VENDOR 1NVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS K2702 001208 KENNETH BECK K2705 001226 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER PRE- AM 12/26/00 12/26100- VENDOR TOTAL 6.50 REIMBURSEMENT LUNCH 12-06-00 6%30--JRt~E-~ C g 6.50 01-4140-4110 1010 12/26/00 12/26/00 75.00 75.00 REIMBURSEMENT BOOT ALLOWANCE JRNL-CD 73-0073-0224 1010 KESTNER, ALBERT VENDOR TOTAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 12126/00-12126700' LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL L2880 001226 12/26/00 12/26/00 LEONARD HARRELL VENDOR TOTAL 292'6-"01-8343 017465 75.00 ~7.-T~;--'~ERr-GROMMEI 37.74 JRNL-CD 112.15 112.15 336.40 MISC~LLAN~UU5 E~UX?MENI MISCELLANEOUS E~UIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS E~UIPMENT JRNL-CU 374.20 50.00 REIMBURSEMENT EYE GLASSES 50.00 JRNL-CD 50.00 6~.-g"53 CHAiN~W 12/26/00 12/26/00 665.53 JRNL-CD ....... 12/26/00 12/26/00 871.13 JRNL-CD f~7800-2310 1010 O1-4Z~O-ZZ~O 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 1OlO 01-4140-3100 1010 1010 22 ---'4-ITO~':ZO 0 1010 ...... 01'8484 .............. 12/26/00 12/26/00 -L-O1NG'~ RKI~--P 0 WER' E'~U I p-M ENT-- 'V EN DOR-TOT-A L L2930 5-306004 12'/26~00 5-306854 ................. ~2/26/00 -12/25700 5-301864 '12126100 -121261'00 5-301863 .............. 12 ~26/00-12/2610'0 5-304494 5-304789 5-304989 1-0-0-; ~F5 ---Ll~Ol~ --C-A R B l 100.45 JRNL-CD i6~7 3.15 COOLANT 3.1'5 11B.$2 DISK PAD SET 63.37 FLOOR DRY -63 ...sT jR NL-(.D 8.51 BEAM 8. ~ JRrNL-~ 102.38 STD MOTOR 12/26/00 12/26/00 ........ 47.99 TOGGLE 12/26/00 12/2'6100 .......... 47.9~--3R'NU--CD- 4.26 MAINTENANCE 22-~zlO---'2'2'Ou 1010 73-7300-2310 iOiO - 01-4140-3810 LulO - 22-4170-2100 ~U~U 22-4170-2100 ~uio 22-4170-2200 22-4170-2200 ~lO 22-4170-2200 PAGE 13 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 12/26/00 12/26/00 ....... 5~$05421- ............... 12/26/00 12/26/00 PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBER PR 4.26 JRNL-CD 1010 22~¥~ uRgER ZZ-41TO-ZZUO 22.98 JRNL-CD 1010 .... 5-30?74 12/26/00 12/26/00 ...... ~-3 07895- ........ 12/26/00 12/26/00 LOVEL~I$--AUTOMOTI VE/ZITEO~ VENDOR-*'TOT AL 12935 11031 ............. 10-~ OO--~OG GL~.-Si~T~CH 10.00 JRNL-CD 12/26/00 12/26/00 LUBES UNLIMITED, INC. VENDOR TOTAL M3016-~472 12/26/00 12/26/00 ..... ~507 ............. 12/26/00 12/2b/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 ....... 8538 12/26/00 12/26/00 .... 8553 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 ...... BSB~ ..................... 12/26/00 12/26/00 8605 - 12/26/00 12/26/00 M ARL-IN1 S--TRUCKING ....... -VENDO~--TOT-A L M3025 001212 1010 z~u.12 AL/~NATuR Ol-4ZSU-E$10 190.12 JRNL-CD 1010 21.67 PICKUP USED OIL FILTERS 01-4280-2250 21.66 PICKUP USED OIL FILTERS 78-7800-2250 65.00 JRNL-CD 1010 MARK HANUS M3030 224580 65.00 2~5.~0 11-16-0~ D~LIV~KY LHAHb~ 245.70 JRNL-CD 11.ZO ll-z2-oo D~LIV~RY CHAR~ 11.20 JRNL-CD I./O--'].}---"2T--*O*'O'-D~LIVLR¥ ?.?0 JRNL-CD 115.50 JRNL-CD 11.20 12-04-O0--D~LIVkH¥ 11.20 JRNL-CD 151.zu 151.20 JRNL-CD 13.30 JRNL-CD ............. I~8~TO~-I~I)--DELIV~MY LHA~t 168.70 JRNL-CD 72~.50 930.97 REIMBURSEMENT 12-00 NLC CONFER 12/26/00 12/26/0~ 9~-0-.~97 JRNL--CD VENDOR TOTAL 930.97 865.95 BEER 12/2~/00 12/26/00 865.95 JRNL-CD 39.25 MiX 39.25 JRNL-CD 224581 12/26/00 12/26/00 ?i-F1UU-W&OO 1010 1010 ~l-/1UO-VbUU 1010 ?l-flOO-9OOO 1010 Yl-TiOO-W600 1010 1010 /1-T1UU-W6UO 1010 1010 01-4020-4110 lulO 71-7100-9530 1010 71-7100-9540 1010 PAGE 14 AP-C02-OL VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS ........... 12/26/00 12/26700 226178 12/26/00 12/26700 226946 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 152.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 1T2.--OD JHNL-CD 1010 1,123.13 BEER 71-7100-9530 l',-123~3---2Rh~L-~D' 1010 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL 2180.33 PRE- AM M3171 001116 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,800.00 10-00 BUILDING INSPECTIONS 01-4190-3100 1,800.00 JRNL-CD 1010 METRO WEST INSPECTION 5ER~ VENDOR TOTAL M3206~6T57M~ 12/26/00 12/26/00 MIDWEST- ASPHALT--CORP ........ VENDOR-TOTAL----- M3330 001201 MINNESOTA GFOA M3382 001211 1500.00 1,0~6.¥& W1NIbK MiX 1,086.9& JRNL-CD 1010 '-' 12/26/00 52/26700 30.00 MEMBERSHIP 01-4090-4~30 VENDOR TOTAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 MN RECREATION & PARK FOUN* VENDOR TOTAL M3470 '67029 ....................... 12/26/00 12/26/00 30.00 20.00 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 01-4340-4130 20.00 JRNL-CD 101r 20.00 72.'~5~'-"'-l~T~-T'E'"STS (i0) 73-7300-~2'15 72.50 JRNL-CD 10~0 MN ~ALLEY TESTING-LABORATO VENDDR-'TOT~L- ~3490 O01222 12/26/00-~2/26~00 72.-'50 5,652.00 SALARY ADJUSTMENT 22-4170-1390 6 ,--b62 .--O0---J RN~---C D J, U i 0 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT VENDOR TOTAL 5652.00 N3740 TI-0060054 12/26/00 12/26/00 79.82 DOG CLEAN UP SIGNS (6) 01-4340-2310 79.82 JRNL-CD 1010 TI-0059939 12/26/00 12/26/00 11.25 EXEMPT SIGNS 01-4280-2360 11.25 JRNL-CD 1010 NEWMAN SIGNS VENDOR TOTAL N3752 001226 ................................. 12/26/00 12/26/00 NORTH MEMORIRL HEALTH CARE VENDOR TOT'A~ N3BO0 001130 91.07 2/,-O~-01T---P T-A'C--F ~'CL--21TO-O--'rl~ A-TN i '~ G 01- ,~ 1 ~* 0 - ~ i i 0 2~0.00 JRNL-CD 1010 89~.26 11-00 #2245-301-939 363.84 11-00 #1914-601-425 2,551.06 11-00 #0217-606-329 01-4320-3710 71-7100-3710 73-7300-3710 ~P-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND /ENDOR NO. INVOICE DUE HOLD INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 12/26/00 12/26/00 ACCOUNT NUMBER PR 424.75 11-00 #2184-&07-147 213.08 11-00 a0047-005-229 93;77'-- 93.?7 11-00 #0864-508-832 93.7? 11-00 #0864-508-832 i-;248~47 294.25 11-00 #0009-604-935 SIGNALS 6,293.01 JRNL-CD 22-4170-3710 01-4340-3710 0Y;-4~81~?Y0 73-7300-3710 78-7800-3710 78---'780-0;3710- 01-4280-3710 1010 001130-B 12/26/o0 12/26/oo 4,907.45 11-00 #0542-505-000-336 4,907.45 JRNL-CD 01-4280-3710 1010 ~ORTHERN STATES POWER CO VENDOR TOTAL N380'I--001205-- 12/26/00 12/26/00 qORTHEI~N--TOOU-AND-EI~UIPMEN~ENDOR'-TOTAL ~3824 16327 ~2/26/00-12726'/00 NORWEST CORPORATE TRUST S* VENDOR TOTAL 00.46 Lr7;63---BTND-ERS'--ANS--STRAP~ 112 27.63 JRNL-CD -'- '27;63 375.00 06-01-00 375-2.00 --JRN~'-C D 375.00 1010 THRU 11-30-00 54-5600-6120 1010 115122077001 154.89 PAPER, GREEN 12/26/00 12/26/00 154.89 JRNL-CD 01-4090-2100 1010 OVENS :ICE DEPOT VENDOR TOTAL 154.89 0389~ 001113 ................................... '-1..90.6~- 1 I~2'~AK TREE 12/26/00 12/26/00 190.64 JRNL-CD 3TTEN-BROTHERS ............. VENDOR-TOT'AL ...... -].90;6~ 03895 3938-40480 319.45 BLOWER DELAY 127267'00~2726'Z~0 319.-~5--- 3RNL~L"D' SERVICE ONE VENDOR TOTAL 319.45 1010 RELAY, ETC. 22-4170-3830 1010 P3952 001204 PETTY CASH P3~56 0007650'87-- 12/26/00 12/26/00 VENDOR TOTAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 PAGENET-OF MI~NESOTR ....... VENDOR-TOTA~ P4021 672275 ....................... 12/26/00 ~2/26/O0 672276 .................... 12~26~00 12/26/00 672277 25.82 REPLENISH PETTY CASH MISC ITEM 25.82 JRNL-CD 71-7100-2200 1010 25.82 16~-~2---12~1-5~"13'0-1'1tRU 0 i--'I~-~O~1-PAGERS 162.12 JRNL-CD 0i-4i40-395u lOlO 162 .!2 566.30 LIgUOR -566g30 JRNL-CD .... 71-7100-9510 654.55 WINE 654.55 -'JRNL~CD 71-7100-9520 49.50 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-7100-9550 PAGE 16 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR 674561 674562 PHII~LI PS' WINE P4038 37933 INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 SPiRITS~-* VENDOR"TOTI~L 12/26/00 '12/2-6'/00 37728 ......................... 12/26/0'0-1'2-/2-6100 PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION J 0 URN A L ACCOUNT NUMBER 12/.26 /00 -1'2/'26 ?0'0 37729 49.50 JRNL-CD 843.90 JRNL-CD ~,~bS.LO WINE 2,165.10 JRNL-CD 533.37 CIGARETTE5 b33.~ 3RNL-CU 760.99 CIGARETTES z60.9¥ JRNL-CU 31.95 MIX TAXABLE ~l.¥b JRNLTM 1010 ~1-71u~-~10 1010 1010 71-7100-9550 lO1O 71-7100-9550 lO1O 71-7100-9540 lOlg PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 1326.31 P4105 02517648 12/26/00 12/26/00 106.20 11-13-00 & 11-20-00 CLASSIFIED 106.20 JRNL-CD 01-4190-3510 1010: PRESS AND NEWS PUBLICATION VENDOR TOTAL @~150-'00121~ .................. 12/26/00 12/26/00 gUALITY COMPOTER SOLUTIONS YENDDR-TOTAL 106.20 120.00 JRNL-CD 12'0~-00- 1010 ~4171 907528-00 12126/00 '12/2 6/00 907529-00 12-/26/00-1~72-6T00 908040-00 '1-2 '! 26-1'00-1212 '6/. O0 910314-00 12/26/00 12/26/00 910494-00 ....................... ~2/26/00-~272~70'0 910661-00 ............. 12/26/00 12/26/00 910794-00 12/26/00 12/26100---' 910888-00 12/26/00 12/26/00' ~UALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 127.49 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE 2,701.61 LIQUOR 2,?Ul. O1 J~NL-LU 488.12 WINE 1,371.78 LIgUOR I;371LTB JRNL~-CD'- 2,787.83 LIQUOR 2~787.~3 J~mc-¢b 656.12 WINE 65~.~2 JRaL--C'D 52.42 WINE $2.~2 --- URN1J--CD- 89.12 8274.49 MISCELLANEOUS NON-TAXABLE JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 lOlO 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 1OlO 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9510 1~1~ 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9520 1~1~ ..... 71-7100-9550 10~-0------- PAGE 17 AP-C02-Oi PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS A~DUNT DESCRIPTION PRE .............. _A C_C__O _U N~T _N. U~H B E___~R ......... ~ R2681 11001192 12/26/00 12/26/00 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO VENDDR TOTAL R4209 1509 12/26/00 12/26/00 RANDY'S SANITATION VENDOR TOTAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 RON'S--]C~ COMPANY ........... VENDOR~OTAL 21.73 AIR AND OXYGEN 22-4170-2200 21=73'--- ~R~C~ 1010 21.73 112.43 12-00 TRASH SERVICE 01-4320-3750 112.43 JRNL-CD 1010 112.43 --i~6.88 ICE 126.88 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9550 1010 S4349 02-2018292 12/26/00-12/267~0 02-2017558 12/26/00--12/2~/0~ 22947 ............... 12726/00-~2/2'6/00 & SONS VENDOR TOTAL 34380 001117 12/26/00 12/26/00 SHIRLEY HAWKS VENDOR TOTAL 54400 2337 12/26/00 12/26/00 SIGNS OF-THE'SEASON ..... VENDOR TOTR~ 29.10 TIRE FOR SNOW BLOWER 01-4340-3820 29~-O--~NL-CD 1010 15.68 LOVER, INSULATOR, ETC 01-4280-2310 13=-6~--JRrNL-CD 1010 80.97 GASKET, ETC. 01-4280-3810 8~.'~97---g~ 1010 125.75 15.00 REIMBURSEMENT EYE EXAM 01-4140-3140 15.00 JRNL-CD 1010 15.00 6~.T?--WETtTCL~?C-ALS 61.77 JRNL-CD 61.77 O1-42~O-2"_rOu 1010 54430 62456 ................. ~'2Z26/~0 ~72'6-?00~ SOS PRINTING VENDOR TOTAL 54490 85898 12/26/00 12/26/00 24.76 DOCK NOTICES 81-4350-2300 2~.76 JRI~-CD iulO 24.76 891.39 CENTER BUSHING, ETC 01-4280-3810 891.39 JRNL-CD 1010 261.32 SPRING LEAF, ETC. 01-4280-3810 1010 86051 12/26/00 12/26/00 261.32 JRNL-CD STANDARD SPRING CO VENDOR TOTAL i152.71 54499 %51-172 ............ ~>~3~L~3---AUTO--REPAIR 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,039.03 JRNL-CD STAR-WEST CHEV/OLDS VENDOR TOTAL ..... 1039%~3-- S4580 6728 235.00 LIGHT POLE, PELICAN POINT 0i-4i40-3~i0 1010 01-4280-3710 PAGE 18 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 6729 - "6730' 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 7257 ......... 12/26/00 12/26/00 ACCOUNT NUMBER 235.00 JRNL-CD ~010 .... 33I.~80----55~3--5HDRE[INE--DRIYE 331.80 JRNL-CD 1010 4~l.~91--~5-03--SHOR~RTVE 01-42~0---*'37'I-~ 441.91 JRNL-CD 1010 2b/.lU IEMPORrA~y ~LNVICL 01-42~u---'3TlO 267.10 JRNL-CD 1010 12/26/00 12/26/00 154.25 H~LL~/A-CL~ HUL1DAY LlbHlb 154.23 JRNL-CD Ui-&ZBU-3TlO 1010 7311 ....... 12/26/00 12/26/00 210.00 JRNL-CD 1010 12/26/00 12/26/00 lOv.uo Pu.P HOubE #o COAL FS-/)UU-&ZUO 109.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~TERNE-ELECTRIC-CO .............. VENDOR-'TOT-AL 54600 190482.1 ...................... 12'/26/00 12Y26~O0 194599.1 ~2~26/00'-~2/2'6~00 664.84 AMMUNITION DUTY/PRACTICE 01-4140-2270 6~.84 JRNL-CO 1010 440.75 SHELLS AND TARGETS 01-4140-2270 44u.?~ JRNL-CD Zulu 198088.1 ...................... 12/26/00- 12/26Y0~ 240.50 TRAFFICE VESTS 01-4140-2270 STREICHER'S VENDOR TOTAL S4605 211923 12/26/00 12/26/00 1346.09 6,561.06 THRU 11-11-00 PROFESS SERVICES 6,561.06 JRNL-CD 55-5878-3100 1010 STS CONSULTANTS LTD VENDOR TOTAL T%703-'~01~28 ........ 12/26/00 12/26/00 'T-CHE~"SYSTEMS-LL~ ..... VENDOR'TOTA~ T4730 311 .................. 12/26/00 ~272610~-- ~12 ................. 12/26/00 12/26/00 ........... 12/26/00 12/26/00 314 0X25 6561.06 2 5. u'O---l.'2- 0 0 wEB-bilE 25.00 JRNL-CD 25-.-00 24.34 11-18-00 CHESTNUT ROAD '2 Z~-- J~NL-C~ 22.47 11-1~-00 CHESTNUT ROAD 22~T---JRNt.--l-D- 22.47 1].-18-00 1800 COMMERCE BLVD. -- 22~7--~RNL'~CD- 22.47 11-18-00 5200 LYNWOOD BLVD. 12/26/00 12/26/00 138.60 11-25-00 BUDGET/PROPERTY TAXES ].010 01-2300-1113 lO 1'0------ 01-2300-1113 1010 01-2300-1115 01-2300-1096 1 o ~-O-------- 01-4020-3510 AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS 12/26/00 12/26/00 ..... 326 ............................ i2/26/00 12/26/00 - 329 - 12/26/00 12/26/00 ....... 330 ...... 12/26/00 12/26/00 ....... 332 .................... 12/26/00 12/26/00 337 ...................... PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT JOURNAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 - -- 338 12/26/00 12/26/00 ~6T ........ 268 12/26/00 12/26/00 T&7?0 213154 213361 12/26/00 12/26/00 VENDOR-TOTaL 12/26/00 12/26/00 138.60 JRNL-CD 2~.34 12-00~0 5000 LYNWO0U PLAT 24.34 JRNL-CD 16 .~5'---1~'~9--00--ClqES~0T--RO~ D 16.85 JRNL-CD ~6-~2'~--'-'J~2~9--00 CHESINUI ROAD ZONIN~ 26.21 JRNL-CD 24.3a JRNL-CD. JRNL-CD 1Z-09-Ug COMP PLAN LYNWOUg JRNL-CD 10-2~-00 ANNUAL CIIY ELECTIONS JRNL-CD 10-28-00 PUBLIC ACCURACY ILSI JRNL-CD NUMBER 1010 1010 oi_zToly~i-l-r3----- lOlO o1-z3oo-i113 lOlO lOiO 01-z5oo-io96 1010 01-2300-1096 1010 01-4060-3510 1010 01-4060-3510 1010 ..................... 12/26/00'I2/26/00 213362 ................. 12/26/00 12/26/00 212775 ..................... ~2/26/00 12/26/00 212776 ................ 12/26/00 12/26/00 182325 .................... 12/26/00'12/26/O0 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL T4790 41717 12/26/00 12/26/00 THURK BROS CHEVROLET 29.96 2~.OB 41=ZO 41.20 11.24 11.24 375.00 375-Z'00- 12.10 BEER 71-7100-9530 JRNL-Lu lOlg BEER 71-7100-9530 240.00 240.00 7552.90 43.84 43 VENDOR TOTAL 43.84 '12 .~-o~-c D ioio 4,35i.35 BEER 71-7100-9530 4-, 331. ~ 5~%i~L-~CD IIF1 U 12.10 MISCELLANEOUS TAXABLE 71-?100-9550 12~0 J~-CD 1010 2,562.35 BEER 71-T100-9530 ~; 562~--~L-C D 1010 BEER KEGS 71-7100-9530 J~NL-CD 1010 CONNECTOR AND PUMP 01-4280-3810 JRNL-CD 1010 T~951 072992 .... 8%~'---MOLlOAY~COR~TlONS OI~TO0-0500 12/26/00 12/26/00 8.24 JRNL-CD 1010 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HOUND PAGE 20 AP-C02-OL VENDOR NO. INVOICE NMBR 072147 072503 INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 12/26/00 12/26/00 26.59 HOLIDAY LIGHTS 26.59 JRNL-CD 12/26/00 12/26/00 TRUE VALUE VENDOR TOTAL 40.77 5.94 HOLIDAY LIGHTS 5.94 JRNL-CD T4985-.~83817=0 .............. i~~'S-CELLANEOU5 OFFICE SUP'PLIES 18.51 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 18.51 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 18.51 MISCEC~EOU5 OFFICE SUPPLIES 18.51 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.17 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES b.l! MISCLLLAN~UU5 UFFICE 5UPPLILS 9.26 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 9.25 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES ..... 12/26/00'12126100 279509-0 84.15 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES .................... 12/26/00'12/26/00 B4.1~ 279509-! 6.28 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES .................. 12126100'12126/00 6'j28--~Rl~L-CD 283025-0 139.23 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 282818-0 12/26/00 88.04 CALCULATOR 12/26/00 ............. 38;O~----~RNL'CO 283398-0 ...................... 12/26/00 12/26/00- 283521-0 282668-0 282668-1 282817-0 12/26/00 12/26/00 93.66 PRINTER CARTRIDGES --~3.~ jRI~CD 17.62 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1T.-%2 HI'S'CE'L-1.~U5 OFfiCE SUPPLIES 17.62 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.61 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 17.6i M~$CELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 5.8? MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 5.87 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 8~ HiSL"E'L~%lEOU5 OFTTTE~PLiE5 6.80 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 117.42 JRNL-CD 12/26/00 12/26/00 1,374.35 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,374.35 JRNL-CD 337.79 LOCKERS 12/26/00 12/26/00 337.79 JRNL-CD 10.11 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE 10.11 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE .............. i~.-~..~~ANEOU5 10.11 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE 10.11 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-2300-0500 1010-- 01-2300-0500 1010 01-4040~2100 01-4090-2100 01-4140-2100 01-4190-Z100 01-4340-2100 01-4280-2100 T1-TIOO-ZiO0 73-7300-2100 78-7800-2100 1010 22-4170-2100 lOlO 22-4170--2100 1010 01-4140--2100 01-4140-2100 22-4170-2100 1010 01-4040-2100 0i-4-~90-2i00 01-4140-2100 01-4190-2100 0i-43~0-2100 01-4280-2100 71-7100-2100 73-7300-2100 78-7800-2100 1010 01-4140-2100 1010 01-4140-2100 1010 01-4040-2100 01-4090-2100 01-4140-2zD0 01-4190-2100 01-4340-2100 PURCHASE' JOURNAL AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 271704-0 12726 / 00~1'2 F26700 12'/26 / 00 '1-2/2 -6-700 ACCOUNT NUMBER 3.37 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4280-2100 3.37 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2100 5-.~---MI'SC'E1Z~A'N~II~CI~-~31~PL~ ES T~-T3OO---'2ITJO 5.04 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 78-7800-2100 16.17 CALENDAR 01-4280-2100 16-C-IT---C~EENDA~' ~~'I'00 16.17 CALENDAR 78-7800-2100 110.40 CABINET KEYS 01-4320-2100 220.28 J~NL-CD lo10 127.80 CALCULATOR 01-4090-5000 L27.~O-----Jl~'NL-'~CD solo P; TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 2718.40 U5050 49129 12/26/00 12/26/00 131.90 RESERVE UNIFORMS 01-4150-2200 151.90 JRNL-CD 1010 29354 12/26/00 12/26/00 13.45 GARRISON BELT, ALDEN, SCOTT 22-4170-2200 13.45 JRNL-CD lOlO 44344 12/26/00 12/26/00 45016 12/26/00 12/26/00 308.85 PATCHES 01-4140-2240 308.85 JRNL-CD 1010 723.99 RESERVE E~UIPMENT 01-4150-2200 723.99 JRNL-CD 1010 UNLIMITED 'V5160 001~30 ..... VENDgR TOTAL 1178.19 ....................... I?6-.-Tg--RWA~DS--~'IT~--E'NGRAViNG OZ-4020~-4£Ou 12/26/00 12/2§/00 176.79 JRNL-CD 1010 94.84 94.84 94.84 V -E-$'JEWELER~ ............ VENDDR-TOTA~ W5320 00522 ~ACONIA BUILDING CENTER VENDOR TOTAL MAIL BOX 01-4280-2300 JRNL-CD LULU W5443 277243 13.31 OIL,FUEL, AND AIR FILTERS 01-4280-2250 13.31 OIL,FUEL, AND AIR FILTERS 73-7300-2250 ............... 15.3'2 O'IL,F'I:~EL, A-NO--PaR FILTERS 12/26/00 12/26/00 39.94 JRNL-CD 1010 ..... 278878 ......... 6.79--Al~--F-ILTE~S Oz-42~u-2250 6.79 AIR FILTERS 73-7300-2250 6.78 AIR FILTERS 78-780Q-2250 ........... 12/26/00 ~2/26/00 20~36-'-JR'NL-~O 1010 WATERTOWN PARTS CENTER' VEND3R TOTAL 60.30 W5444 25890 BO0.O0 TREE AND ~IRT 01-2300-0000 12/26/00 12/26/00 800.00 JRNL-CD 1010 WESLEY BENDICKSDN VENDOR TOTAL 800.00 PAGE 22 AP-C02-01 VENDOR NO. IWVOICE NMBR W5600 5981 INVOICE DUE MOLD DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND JOURNAL 12/26/00 12/26/00 ~ESTONKA SEWER & WATER VENDOR TOTAL W5630--3835 12/26/00 12/~6/00 ...... 3837 ~- ......... 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 '- -- 3898 ................ 12/26/00 12/26/00 ---' 3900-- ----'3902 -390T WIDMER INC W$~90-GO?~3 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 12/26/00 ....... 3889 ................. 12/26/00 12/2b/00 VENDOR TOTAL 31000 ..... 3138§ 12/26/00 12/26/00 AMDUNT DESCRIPTION 150.00 3125 HIGHLAND NEW CURBSTOP 150.00 JRNL-CD 150.00 -1-;~9'5'~'01}---'11-25-00 R~PAI~ LOUNTY--Ru 12 1,295.00 JRNL-CD kBO.UO i1-07-00 kEPLALEU ~iANU PIF~ 280.00 JRNL-CD 420.00 11-00 ~NUW~LUWINb &26.00 JRNL-CD i42.00 il-00 142.00 JRNL-CD ~-~'3-0-~'00 i2---0~-00 V-A¥~RMAIN UR~AZ 1,536.00 JRNL-CD [,-2~b. UU 12-12-00 1~ & ~A~ILtll ~N~AR 1,296.00 JRNL-CD 1,--~4.00 12-O0=~--WE~iED~E & 15 B~EAz 1,144.00 JRNL-CD 4~0.00 i2-O4-00-1)15C0~£CT w/$ 490.00 JRNL-CD 1~,66'---1~-00 SmOW PLOwiN~ 3.62 11-00 SNOW PLOWING 14.50 JRNL-CD 6623.50 255.27 11-02-00 BLACKTO~ 255.27 JRNL-CD --- 12/26/00 12/26/00 497.77 .......................... &13.-'53 12/26/00 12/26/00 418.53 31611 ................................... 12/26/00 12/26/00 li-09--O-O~CRETE JRNL-CD ii~15--1TO--COl~CRDTE JRNL-CD 1~12.0~ ii-~-2D--T0-CONC~'TE 1,812.06 JRNL-CD 31823 ....... 1T?.-~18 ii-27-~0~-~~ 12/26/00 12/26/00 177.18 JRNL-CD 31954 12/26/00 12/26/00 l'02~27---1~-30-O0-SLACKTOP ............ 102.27 JRNL-CD PRE- ACCOUNT NUMBER A~ 73-7300-4200 1010 1010 1010 1010 40-60uo-~zuO 1010 1010 1010 101 1010 40-6000-4200 1010 1010 73-7500-2340 1010 01-~280-23~0 1010 0i-~280-2340 1010 01-~280-2340 1010 1010 aM MUELL'ER g SONS 16086 001128 VENDDR TOTAL ......... -326'3~'8' 42.75 AUGER POWER 01-4280-4200 AP-C02-01 VENDOR NO. INVOICE N~BR CITY OF MOUND INVOICE DUE MOLD DATE DATE STATUS 12/26/00 12/26/00 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 42.75 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER .......... VENDOR-TOTAL A-i-RENTAL 76773 001205 ......... 12/26/00 12/26/00 LYNN AND ASSOCIATES VENDOR TOTAL 76792 001219 12/26/00 12/26/00 DOSSETT, CINDY VENDOR TOTAL 365.00 CONSULTING SERVICES 365=O0--~RN[~CD 1010 01-4040-3100 Z6793-20729 12/26/00 12/26/00 365.00 20.00 12-04-00 HRA MEETING 01-4030-3100 20.00 JRNL-CD 1010 20.00 SU NR'I SE--P-AINT "ING- AND' 9,~J, 75.uu PREP AT,TI)--P~SLDINb ZZ-41FO-SB~O 9,175.00 JRNL-CD 1010 76794 001215 GAR~/I C K, DAVE VENDOR-~I'OT~L--------gl-~5-=-O0 65.00 05.00 !2/26/00 ~].2 ~'26700 REIMBURSEMENT, COURSE JRNL-CD 01-&150-4110 VENDOR TOTAL 65.00 76796 1110 12/26/00 12/26/00 330.15 GENERAL CLEANUP DEPOT 330.15 JRNL-CD 01-4340-2330 1010 RESTORATION COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL Z6797-'00111~ .............. 12/26/00 12/26/00 MN ~TATE FIRE ~DEPART-'ASSO~"VENDDR-I'OT~L Z6BO0 001227 ................ 12726700 12/26700 BAXTER, CAROLEE VENDOR TOTAL 330.15 25~'O0--~'O~12001-~'EMB'El~SHI~'-DtTES 250.00 JRNL-CD 250.00 22---A~-70-4i30 1010 13.91 FINAL BILL #22-2022-212 13.91 214,131.02 79-3895-0000 lOlO TOTAL ALL VENDORS Engineering ° Planning ° Surveying January 2, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Municipal Parking Lot Building Demolition and Parking Lot Construction Partial Payment MFRA #12544 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is Diamond 5's Payment Request No. 1 for work completed through December 31, 2000 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $19,735.30. We have reviewed this request, find it in order, and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, John Cameron, City Engineer JC:rth Enclosure s:kmain :kmou 12544kspecskpart-pay 1-2 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.com oo 0 ~o~ ~0 oooo o~mooo~oooo~ oooo · ~PP? ............ b o oooo b oooooooooooo · . oooooooooooo ~ ............. o o oooo o ooooooooo~oo oooo oooooooooooo 9 9 9999 9 999999999999 o o oooo o oo~ooo~ooo o o oooo o oo~ooo ooo ~ ~ ~ooo bbbbbbbbbbbb ooo oooooooooooo 0 ~Z~TM mm Or~ cz 0 RESOLUTION #01- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DETERMINING THAT PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THE METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE FORMER HIGH SCHOOL SITE WHEREAS, a citizen's petition requesting preparation of an EAW for the MetroPlains project was filed with and certified by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB); and WI-IEREAS, the EQB designated the City of Mound as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in the matter and as such delivered the petition to the City; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the RGU, conducted a factual review of the concerns raised in the petition and evaluated the proposed project against mandatory EAW, ElS and exemption thresholds; and WHEREAS, as the governing body of the City of Mound, the City Council reviewed the matter on its merits and makes the following findings of fact in regard to the matter: a. According to MN rules, the MetroPlains project is not summarily exempted from the EAW process. b. According to MN rules, the project does not meet any of the mandatory EAW or EIS category thresholds. c. The concerns raised in the citizen's petition represent ordinary issues associated with development projects of this type; issues that will be addressed and resolved through the typical and established governmental permitting process. d. The project, as currently proposed, does not pose the potential for significant environmental effects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the MetroPlains project is not warranted and preparation of an EAW shall not be imposed. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Memorandum Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. illla TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: City of Mound Staff & Council Bruce Chamberlain, RLA Loren Gordon, AICP January 5, 2001 Review of a citizen's petition for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the MetroPlains Development project NW comer of Lynwood Blvd and Commerce Blvd BACKGROUND: MetroPlains Development Company has submitted applications for approval of a residential/commercial development project on the old Westonka High School property. The residential portion of the project, "The Village by Cook's Bay", is proposed to include 99 townhome and condominium units. The 67,000 square foot retail development called "Mound Marketplace" is proposed for the Commerce/Lynwood corner. On December 21, 2000, the Environmental Quality Board designated the City of Mound as the "Responsible Governmental Unit" (RGU) in regard to a citizen's petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the MetroPlains project. As the governing body of the City of Mound, the RGU responsibility falls to the City Council. Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410 set out the requirements for environmental review. Among other things, the rules state that no final governmental approvals may be given to the project until the need for an EAW has been determined. The rules state that a first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. The rules also state that if preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the option of whether or not to prepare an EAW. Through this report, City Staff has reviewed the project from two perspectives. First, the proposed project has been compared to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories. Secondly, the merits of specific claims made in the petition have been reviewed. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 EAW petition review - MetroPlains Development project Page 2 of 5 January 5,2001 DISCUSSION Minnesota rules indicate numerous "mandatory" and "exemption" categories in regard to EAW preparation. The categories identify thresholds that, when met, either trigger a mandatory EAW or an automatic exemption from EAW preparation. The chart in "Exhibit A" compares the MetroPlains project with the mandatory and exemption thresholds identified by Minnesota rules. The citizen's petition submitted to the Environmental Quality Board on December 4, 2000 is very brief in its assertions (made in item d. of the petition) that the project will have significant environmental effects. In order to conduct a comprehensive review of the citizen's petition, both the petition submitted to the Environmental Quality Board and a letter dated December 19, 2000 to the City of Mound from the attorney representing the petitioners have been used in determining the petitioner's assertions for significant environmental effect. The topics highlighted below represent the concerns identified by the petitioners. Traffic Congestion: The City of Mound and Hennepin County recently had a traffic study completed by David Braslau Associates, a professional traffic engineer. The study conducts traffic projections through the year 2020 for County Roads 15 and 110, taking into account all contemplated development in downtown Mound including the MetroPlains project. The purposes of the traffic study are to determine roadway design for the realignment of County Road 15, design for the future 15/110 intersection, and other roadway alterations warranted on County Roads 15 and 110 resulting from increased traffic. Hennepin County is currently preparing a preliminary design for the roadways based on the traffic study. Preliminary plans submitted to the City by MetroPlains indicate that their project takes into account the possibility of roadway alterations. Since the vast majority of traffic generated by the MetroPlains project is brought directly to either County Road 15 or 110, the recently completed traffic study is sufficient in addressing traffic issues surrounding the project. The EAW process is intended to bring out potential traffic concerns caused by projects of a sufficient size or type. Minnesota rules determine sufficient size and type through the definition of mandatory EAW thresholds. The MetroPlains project does not meet and is not close to meeting any mandatory EAW thresholds for residential, commercial, or mixed-use developments. Noise. Light, and Visual Impacts to Neighboring Properties: The MetroPlains project proposes typical residential and commercial development with nothing out of the ordinary in the way of lighting, noise generation or visual impacts. Light and noise levels generated by the residential portion of the MetroPlains project will at times be less than the current use of the site as a high school football field with evening games. The commercial portion of the site is oriented to the downtown core with commercial buildings and landscape buffers blocking most opportunities for light conflicts between residential and commercial uses. EAW petition review - MetroPlains Development project Page 3 of 5 January 5, 2001 The MetroPlains project proposal does not meet and is not close to meeting any mandatory EAW thresholds that would suggest the potential for extra ordinary levels of light, noise, and visual impacts. Increases in Impervious Surface: The MetroPlains project will represent an increase in impervious surface over existing conditions. The residential portion of the project is proposed to have an impervious surface area of 36% of the site. Typical residential lots in Mound average between 30% and 40% impervious surface not including public streets. Therefore, the MetroPlains development proposes slightly less impervious surface than the community average. Additionally, shoreland management regulations require residential developments to have a minimum of 50% open space. The MetroPlains development proposes 64%. Lack of Dedicated Open Space: The MetroPlains project proposes the dedication of 11% of the total site area as parkland. This is consistent with the 10% rule of thumb typical to most communities. Stormwater Runoff Problems: The MetroPlains project proposes stormwater ponding sufficient to accommodate all stormwater generated by the project as well as stormwater entering the site from adjacent neighborhoods. Since the MetroPlains property is generally lower than the surrounding neighborhood, the project, especially with the proposed ponding, is not at risk of pushing stormwater to other areas. Air, Water, and Soil Quality Impacts: The MetroPlains project proposes typical residential and retail development with nothing suggesting significant impacts on air, water and soil quality. Water quality will be improved by the project through the construction of stormwater ponds. The developer has conducted extensive geotechnical testing to determine that the proposed development can be supported by the soils on the site. There are no wetlands on the site. The MetroPlains project proposal does not meet and is not close to meeting any mandatory EAW thresholds that would suggest the potential for extra ordinary impacts on air, water and soil quality. Phased or Connected Actions: Even though the question was not raised by the petitioners, in determining the need for an EAW, it is important to determine whether the MetroPlains project is a phased or connected action according to Minnesota rule. Phased actions are defined as future actions by the same proposer. Connected actions are defined as actions by any proposer that are closely connected to the initial project in the following specific ways: · one project induces the other; · one is a prerequisite for the other; · neither is justified by itself, the two projects are interdependent parts of a larger whole. EAW petition review - MetroPlains Development project Page 4 of 5 January 5, 2001 Since MetroPlains Development is not proposing the current project as one of multiple phases, the project is clearly not a phased action. The question of connected actions requires a more detailed analysis. The MetroPlains project is certainly a development activity within a downtown district where other development activities are anticipated to occur. Staff makes the following suggestions in regard to connected actions: 1. The project area is not physically connected to any other contemplated redevelopment projects. 2. The MetroPlains project is directly inducing one other project - certain roadway improvements near the future intersection of CSAH 15/110. 3. No other project is directly inducing the MetroPlains project. 4. The MetroPlains project is a prerequisite for one other project - the above-mentioned roadway improvements. 5. No other project is a prerequisite for the MetroPlains project. 6. The MetroPlains project is not justified without certain CASH 15/110 roadway improvements. 7. Certain CSAH 15/110 roadway improvements are not justified without the MetroPlains project. Therefore, according to Minnesota rule, Staff believes tm-lane improvements on CSAH 15/110 into and out of the MetroPlains development should be identified as connected actions with the MetroPlains project. The above threshold evaluation chart includes the assumed connected actions. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the factual review made herein, the MetroPlains project is not summarily exempted from the EAW process. The project does not meet any of the mandatory EAW or EIS thresholds. The project does not appear to pose the potential for significant environmental effects. Many of the concerns raised by the petition are typical issues of typical magnitude, which are worked-through and resolved in the development approval process. Therefore, Staff suggests that preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the MetroPlains project is not warranted. Staff recommends that the City Council, acting as the RGU in this matter, take the following actions: 1. Adopt the enclosed resolution stating the absence of merit in preparing an EAW for the Metroplains project; and 2. Read aloud, the findings of fact made in the enclosed resolution supporting that decision; and EAW petition review - MetroPlains Development project Page 5 of 5 January 5, 2001 3. Direct Staff to notify, in writing, the proposer, petitioner's representative and the EQB of its decision within five working days. M: ~IO UND~O0-1 [metro plains EA W pet review, doc sluompunodmi pug suoB~JdoJddv < sH~gd AH pug spuno~dm~ ~ ;uamdolana smals~S a~aSpue alse~ pHos als~ snop~ezeH u°~lnllOd lgUOilnlilsuI pug aa~ammoD 'imalsnpui o · · · 0 ~ , · o ~ ~ v ¥ Environmental Assessment Worksheets chapter Environmental Assessment Worksheets The EAW is a "brief document, which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an ElS is required for a proposed project" (part 4410.0200, subpart 24). Its primary, legal purpose is to provide the information needed to determine whether the project has the potential for significant environmental effects; it also provides permit information, informs the public about a project and helps identify ways to protect the environment. The EAW process consists of four steps: Step 1. Project proposer supplies completed data to the RGU. Step 2. RGU prepares an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Step 1. The public can comment during a 30-day period. Step 4. RGU makes a decision about the need for an ElS, based on the EAW, comments received and comment responses. Process details are covered in a companion booklet, EAW Guidelines, available from the Environmental Quality Board. 1997 rule amendments to EAW process Content. An EAW must include information about the project's purpose, and if a public project, an explanation of its need and beneficiaries. This information helps reviewers identify appropriate mitigation measures and alternatives. Substitute form. The RGU can use a federal environmental assessment document in place of the regular form without prior approval from the Environmental Quality Board. Alt requirements of the EAW process must be followed when an environmental assessment document is substituted for an EAW. Preparation. Procedures and timeframes are identical, regardless of how the review was initiated, replacing separate provisions for an EAW initiated by petition. The rule amendment also added further detail about how the RGU handles the proposer's data submittal. ElS need criteria. The fourth such criterion (at part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item D) reads: "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs." Only information already available can be taken into account. PETITIONS FOR AN EAW The purpose of the petition process is to provide a standard mechanism by which citizens can bring to the attention of the government projects which may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Some projects that do not fall into any mandatory category or are below the EAW threshold nonetheless need review because of their location or unusual features. Steps in the petition process (part 4410.1100): Step 1. Citizens prepare a petition, which to be valid must contain all of the following items: · A description of the proposed project. · Identification of the project proposer. Petitioners must notify the pro- poser in writing that they have filed a petition with the EQB; a copy of the petition need not be supplied. · Identification of a representative for petitioners, including mailing address and telephone number. · A brief description of the project's potential environmental effects, including an explanation of how unusual or unique characteristics or the location create a need for an EAW even though no mandatory threshold is exceeded. · Material evidence of potential for significant environmental effects because of the project's nature or location. · Signatures of at least 25 individuals, with no restriction on location of residence, age or any other factor. Signers must provide a complete mailing address and should certify that they are familiar with the peti- tion content. Petitioners must present a case for why the project should have an EAW prepared even though it does not exceed mandatory thresholds, by doc- umenting unusual features relating to its nature or location. Material evidence can take many forms -- maps, site plans, existing reports, letters from experts, testimonial letters from citizens, photographs -- but it must be a factual documentation of potential for significant envi- ronmental effects. To be successful, petitioners must do more than express their opposition or raise questions and concerns. Step 2. Petitioners file the petition with the Environmental Quality Board. If a petition fails to contain all of the required items, it will be returned by board staff to the petitioners' representative. When the petition is complete, the board will assign the appropriate Responsible Governmental Unit and forward the petition to that unit. Once the petition is accepted, no final decisions to grant approval to the project may be given until environmental review is complete. The EQB is merely the clearinghouse for all petitions, and does not make any recommen- dations about the need for review, however it does advise the RGU of the major steps and criteria for review. Once the petition is sent to the RGU, petitioners should contact the RGU directly to check the petition's status and to provide further input before a decision is made. Environmental Quali~. Board at Minnesota Planning 7 Environmental Assessment Worksheets The RGU is almost always the unit with the greatest responsibility for approving the project: it makes no difference whether the unit is the sponsor of the project, or is in favor of or opposed to the project. Step :3. The RGU reviews the petition and determines the need for an EAW. The RGU has up to 30 working days from the date the petition is received to make a decision. The rules require only that the RGU con- sider all known evidence, compare that evidence to the standard "there may be potential for significant environmental effects," and document the findings and decision in writing. A hearing or testimony is not required. Once a decision is made, the petitioners' representative and the Environmental Quality Board must be notified within five working days. Any aggrieved party may appeal the decision in district court within 30 days of the date the RGU made the decision. Occasionally, the RGU cannot act on a petition because the project is not yet officially proposed for approval or because the project is with- drawn by the proposer. A petition remains valid for up to one year from its filing date with the Environmental Quality Board. If the petition expires, the citizens must file a new petition for review. DISCRETIONARY REVIEW Regardless of whether a petition is filed, any government unit with approval authority can order a discretionary EAW if it determines that the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects, unless the project is exempt (part 4410.4600). A discretionary EAW is particularly appropriate for public projects with some possibility of significant adverse environmental impacts or with the perception of such. By preparing a discretionary EAW, the govern- mental unit can systematically identify adverse impacts and their severity, forestalling potential delays if a petition is filed. A discretionary EAW may be used to jointly review projecLs, which inde- pendently do not exceed a mandatory threshold but collectively may impact the same geographic area. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET PROCESS RGU I determines ! EAW is necessary 30 CALENDAR DAYS EAW PREPARATION Proposer RGU promptly reviews /Data submittal submits EAW's I submittal for ~ complete /completed data lcompleteness; returns to portions to RGU Ipr°p°ser if incomplete RGU RGU completes /RGU distributes EAW .RGU notifies I EAW and It° distribution tist I ~ssues /press proposer lapproves it for Irelease Idi~ibution ~ PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ElS NEED DECISION Notice published in EOB Monitor 7 to 21 days after receipt of FAW; 30-day comment period begins continued I 30-day RGU decides if project 30 calendar day 1RGU distributes Notice published in EQB comment needs ElS, prepares I judicial appeal I notice of Monitor7 to 21 days period findings of fact; and [ period beings decision after receipt of decision ends responds to comments ~f · * Can vary depending on RGU. NOTES Time frames are diagramed as prescribed in the rules and should be considered minimum estimates. Day can mean either calendar or working day depending on the timeframe listed for a specific event. If the text lists 15 or fewer days, they are working days; calendar days are 16 or more days (4410.0200, subpart 12). Working days exclude Saturdays, Sundays and legal state holidays. How to count a period of time. The first day of any time period is not counted but the final day is counted (part 4410.0200, subpart 12). The last day of the time period ends with normal business hours, generally at 4:30 p.m. No time period can end on a Saturday, Sunday or legal state holiday. The 30-day period for EAW comments begins on the biweekly publication date of the EQB Monitor, which is always on Monday. Thirty days from a Monday always falls on a Wednesday, so the comment periods end on Wednesday unless it is a legal holiday. 8 Guide to Minnesota Environmental Review Rules .Jam (~SE) ~71-0007 NO · PD~2/004 SVOBODA ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ll~~ Providing the Sharper Edge in Natural Resources & En~,iro~r~zer~t~Z Consulting ! January. 5, 2001 Mr. La.Verne I-{anson, Jr. Metro Plains Developrnent, LLC 1600 University Avenue Suite 212 St. Paul, Mb," 55104-3825 SER'Project Name: The Villagd at Cook's Bay / Mound Marketplace ' SER Project No:' 2001-001-03 Project Location: SE, 1/4 of Section 14, T11TN, R2aW, Cit'y of Mound, Hermepin cO .unry, Minnesota Project Description: Winter Delineation of al~proximalely 19 acre~ Dear Mr. Hanson: As requested, Svoboda Ecological Resources (SER) visited the above referenced property on January 5,.2001, to identify areas m~eting wetland criteria as specified in the .1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delinehtion Manual. "Though the examination and delineation process was performed in thc winter with snow cover, basically what cxis~ on' the site is a park a. nd athletic field complex, a ~ports center and ice re'eno, and a few small homes which will remain on the south.. The project will be transformed With commercial retail space, a pa:ldng lot, and 99 townhomes and flats. The Rout/ne On-Site. Delineation Method was used for this analysis, and on-site inspection .waS deemed un.necessary.' In this method, the follo~4.ng procedures were use~5 :o determine the wetland bou_nd ~->,: I) ]-he vegetative community was observed along with the site topog'raphy during a site visit on January 5, 2001. The site was nearly flat. 2) Soil Survey maps were studied to look for possible hydric soil substrates. No hydric soils were prese.nt on the site. 3) Signs of wetland hy~ology were looked for in !he form' ofv,'euan~s on National Wedaad Inventory Maps, marsh symbols on the USGS Nlmmd, MN Qu,..-z -=~n,.e,~-~ &nd by 'looking for wetland signatures on 1980, 1987, 1991, a~d 199'/aerial photographs. No $igng of wetlands or of wetland hydrology wi~r· noted in these sources. Wetland 'classification follows the methods used' by the National Well,ds Inventory. 'The Circular 39 classificari6n is also given, but in this case no wetlmads were found. (952) 471-1100 (Office) £xceksior, MN 55331 (952) 471-0007 (Fa.x': 35' 81/05/01 J~n 05 O1 lO:5~a METROPLAINS DEUELOPMENT -~ 9524?20620 NO. S50 P005×004 p.3 Res~l~ and Di$cu~$ign The Natiorml Wetland Inventory (Mound Quadrangle) had not mapped srO' wetlands on the site as wetland according to Figure I. The soil survey of Iqennepin County, indicates four different soil series on the site according to Figure 2, none of which are hydric. Fig-are 3 is the Mirmesota Department of Natural Resources Protected Waters map ofHermepin Co'anvj which depicts no protected waters' on the site. Climatological data in the form .ora WETS table analysis may prove users! if this wetland bounds, O, is contended, but at this time WETS is not provided in our letter reports. Figures 4, .5, 6, and 7 are historical aerial photographs of the site arm wh./cl~ appear as upland in each year with site conditi'om changing very little over the past 20 years. Two residents' were interviewed and they confirmed that the site was used entirely as a recreational park in the past, with a school building on the southeast portion of the Property. The.residents have lived in the neighboorhood since 'the 1.960's. They had'never obserVed wetland ~onditions on the site property. .. R~comm_et!d ation s Activities which impact or potentially impact wetlands are currently r%",2!ted at several levels of govermnent. In Minnesota, the three primary jurisdictions are covered at the state a.nd federal levels by the following: State of Mirmesota jurisdiction by the Wetland Conservation Act cf i 991 (WCA) administered by the WCA Local Governmental Unit (LGU') w~cL in this case is the Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Minnesota DN'R. jurisdiction over inventoried protected waters, wEJch do not exist on the property. Federal jurisdiction by the Clean Water Act of 1972 and subsequent amendments. Wetland permitting and protection is implemented by T. he U.S.A.,-my Corps of Engineers (USCOE). No grading or filling in Wetland basins should commence .until ali necessa_?.; permits have been obtained. Violation of wetland regulations has resulted in. subst~tiai civil and crimin',d penalties. Local ordinances may regulate wetland modifications such as brt/sh and tree removal and burning in addition to grading and filling. J~m 05 O1 11: 44 METRQPL¢~ I NS DEUELOPHENT a 9S2472~62G lO:SSa Svo~o~a Ecol.Re~ou~ce5 [B58) ~?1-0007 P804/004 p,~ Alt. hough a site visit may be required on this site in Spring 2001 by the Mirmeh~a Creek Watershed District, in my professional opinion' it is urmecessary for th.is site sinc'e all data sources and the field examination show that it is entirely upland in all 3 wetland paxaxneters o£ vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Thank you for the o?ponunity to provide wetland services to you on ti'ds impo.rt~t project. Please call me at (952) 471-1100 ill Can answer any question.5 on t~h. is project. Sincere!y, Svoboda Ecological Resources Wayne E. iSacobson, PSS, PWS Biologist Frarddin 3. Svobod~o C~rB, PWS President Attaci'maents: Figure 1 , Eigure 2 Fig~e 3 Figure 4 .Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 National Wetlands Inventory Henneph/County Soil Survey DNR Protected Waters Map April 5, 1980 Aerial Photogragh April '6, 1987 Aerial Photograph Spring 1991 Digital Aerial Photograph, April 14, 1997 Aerial Photograph MINNESOTA PLANNING Il/ ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD December 21, 2000 Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 RE: Citizens petition for an EAW for Metro Plains project Dear Ms Hanson: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that Mound is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: No fmal government approvals may I.,.. ,.;iven ~c tne project named m the pctition, nor. may construction on the project bc ~';a., ted until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an 658 Cedar St. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart 1,st' Paul, MN SSlSS page 353 lelephone: 651-296-3985 :\ first step in makhtg the dec-,-~,',a regarding :he nrze~ for an EAW would 0e to, Facsimile: compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EI$ and Exemption categories ]~ted ~65~-296-3698 parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall rpt: under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or 800-627-3s2~ prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly, www. mnplan. state, mn.us 100% post-consumer recycled con*ont If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days flit will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. o You must notify, in writing, the proposer, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on January 8, 2001. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. The phone number is (651) 296-8253, or you may dial my direct number at (651) 296-3865. Sincerely, ~,,3n Larsen Principal Planner; Environmental Review cc: Christopher Dietzen, petitioners' representative Dec,mb,r 4, 20f~) (612) BD6-3265 LAR~N, ]'IOFF~A~, DAt. Y & T...INDGR~.N.~ LTl). AYTORNEYS AY I. AW Minnesota Environmemal Quality Board 300 Cenlcnmal Building 658 Cedar Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 551 Re: Petition for EAW Gentlemen: Pumuant to kimn. Stat. § 116D,01, et s~_.~q., and Minn. R. 4410,1100, e2 .qe_g..q., the trader%mod hereby petitions for an Bnvironmcntal Asscssmcnt Work, eot staling as follows: a. D~..cripfion of thc proposed proj~t: Applications of Metro Plains dated O~mb~ 22 and October 22, 2000, for a r~idcntial/commm ~;i~d i ~d¢ v clopment p~oj cot of fl~c old Wc~ton_ka I Ii gl: School property located at the northwost comer of Lynwood Boulevard and Commerce, Mound, Minnesota, The reside~rtial proj¢cl will include 99 units in townhome and row house buildings on 2.27 acres. Approximately 3~ percent of the property will becomc impervious surface,. The commercial project will be 67,000 square feet of retail u~e on 6.7 acres md will result in hard eov~ ~,'face of 92 percent. b. The proposer of the project: Metro PlainB Devclopmcn! LLC Sprucctre¢ Ccntre 1600 University Avenue Suite 212 Saint Paul. Minnesota 55 ,~,~,,,, LARKIN HOFF},¢.N DALY (6[21890-sx~5 (MON!i2. 4'00 1ff:49/ST. !5'45/N-0 4260872~07 P LAR.K~N. [-ic~-'v.~ ^N, DALY & LINDGRF'N., i.TD. Mb'me,ma Environmemal t~uaIity Bo~rd December ,1. 2000 Page 2 c. Name, address, m')d telephone number of the representative of petitioners: Christopher J. Diemen Larkin, Hoffrnan, I)aly & l,indgn'en, I.td. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota $$431 Brief' description of the potential environm~tal effects which may rcsul: fzom tl~e project: The project will have significant eft'~ts on translnortalion and access on adjunct streets in the City of Mound. Also, it will have adverse effects on the quietude of the nei~:borhood by causing significant increases in noi.se and lighting. It will also cause nm. off issues because o ~' the .qi~mi ficant increase in impervious surfaces. The environmental effects on thc air, water, and soils of the property should be completed betbre final consideration of the zoning applications. Material evidence indicating that, bvcau~ of the nature or location of thc proposed project, there may be potemtial for significant envi ronmental effects: Investigation is ongoiv, g. At this pein! the p~ition would direct the MEQB to the order o£ Hennc-'pin Coimty daled November 22, 2000, which is attached hereto a.q Exhibit A Attached are the signatures in support of the petition are attached hereto as Exhibit B. If you have any ques~ons, please do not hesita,e to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Christopher J. Dietzen, for LAR_~IN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cc: Bob ?olston Pailla Larson Ken Berres :;ODMA~2DOCSXI. II~ ! ~636303\1 Henne ]D_C.. ktnty Kand~,~ M. Hanson, City Mana$~ Nc-.'r:':,~c: Ci~ of Momd $341 Me~o~ R~ CSAIt-i $ Cynwo~l Blvd.) / CSA.H-110 (Com~.,.vce Blvd) Preliminary Plm Submitu! No. 2546 Merro?llilBs Properties, In;. - Villai¢ Dear Ms. '4u, son: This preliminary pi~t review is performed m a~.a~ ~du Mi~mesom Statute, ~ ..~ ma S0~.0~, md S~ys, ~nd MS 4~2.~58, Coun~ ~i~ of P~. Since last ~pnng, we im.,-~ }~ a numb~ of discua~ ~h ci~ s~ff md the dev~o~ c~ ~s ~o~d dcvclopm~t, Th~s ~o~os~ is a el~t of M~d'~ do~town redevelopment ~ ~d it i~ also ~f~;t~d ~y ~ru~ ~ h~rovement~ being ~i~c~ by H~in Coun~ a~ p,~ of~ CS~*I~ ~H~men~ project 5chcdul;g fo; )'c~r 2002 ~ o~n ~ppcn~ ruth ~esc %~cs of proposals, a n~r of changes have occu~ed s:r~:e the development ~opo~l w~ first presented [o th~ ;fly ~ld di~i~, were firsi hem '&'~th thr .:c,_r,?~. 5~c p;oposcd developm~t has undergone n numb~ of al~i~, ~ ci~ ~; re~,~d th.:.: '.'isbr.: f ?'.~'.',' :h:s ~uld fit ~in thc ovcr~l do~mto~ ~iu~ ~6 ~ Com~r: h::s ,. ::~ ~.~ x. r :~ z'.f.e: ~-.cr:~ cf what ~s of rol~w~7 improvcmc~u ~Y be xe~U~ ~ ~on the propos,¢ rcdex'Z ~ere still ~ a ~umb~ of issues ~at r~ain ~Ned. A waffle stud) ha:: bc;n ruqucstc~ b, our Division and initiated by the ci~', t~t would c~i~ ~c ch~cterbga~ mid g~"'e ~,me ff;,donee d~i~ for ~e iut~ae:hon and madwa~ ~h~ of CS~I-13 (I,~w*'aod Blvd.) ' ~ (Coverer Blvd.'). The results ofth~, ~mdy ~¢ ~t ~ttci~m3 ;o %, avadab',~ ~ril :k/ ~r. 3 of :h~ ':'car Wc bel~eve the i&quet ~ebtefl m ~e flesi~ of ~ ~o x~d~'ay~ ~; dire:tO' li~;:e:; :,; :h:i ,~l~on of the t~ut~ ~om ~ ~ffic ~or t~ rcaloll, we recommend that th, el~ d~ ~ ~r, lim~' plat approval a'.ffl completion o/lite If tb~ eib' ,hould' det~ine ~aI leis c~ Of lCfi~ ~ hot ~ ,iable elt~at{,'e, our r~zun~,~tion~ ha;ed on the info~att~ c~m'~tly ~v~iiubl¢ to us am ~ following: Right-of-Way De~dication both CSAI-I-15 and CSAI-I-110. A comer right-of-way triangle sho~ldbe provid~t on the nor~hwcl; corr,~: o! CSA.H. ~ 5 ~ CSA:q- i 10 (20 I%¢I back fi-em thc c~m~' along e~ch roadway). 2'hi~ i.; for ~b: ~c~r:';cr ra,[i'.'.~ and ~igna; =ppurter~nces. Thc pmpo~d pl~za apt~'.L'~ ;o ~ri~P.,' th~; r;~.~:e;':,~..: ];,:,'.' -' .~: ::-:~:.ge.~ in :he ;orner r,dius (mm~ionc$ b¢iow)might necessitate tun}',er mod;:';:a;ior.,~. Access , . · ' · It is our undcrstm:ding thatfl~ ci~envisjm~ both the north ~;~i',raacr, approach of CSAI-I-15 to rc~ain ~ ~divide~ roadways. In corer=s:. channclizatio~ ncc& to be a comt~otimt of these roadway designs in traffic flow and to &ccomm~ate the d~elop~r's proposed ~c;~s ¢onfigar&tior'. /,..,,/2 ~A~KIN HOFF~N D~LV.. · ~6~21~a~-~~.~ ~ t~uN) ~ Z. 4'00, 5'50'~.,~. .1 5:4>'Nu 4z~,~$72907 !~ L~e roadway approaches remain tm~anndized, ¢ounD' agees~ sp;,cing Su:fl;-lines c~: for =.~ mile ~oing for ~&vld~d ~n~ ~ ~ays. T~ei~r~, we r~o=~m~r;~ no ~eee~ b~ ~ng the Ice ~a would ~1~o n~ ~ ~ ~1~. The p~sefl ~ce onto CS~.IS ~om ~ ~'el~ment also would not maet co~:y a:ces~ ~ac~g ~idelines, howe~r, ~e ~o~ ]~ti~ is aee~table as ~ro~oged. %e log~ volumes ~ CS~-lf, ~c ma~l ~fit~ 0es~ ~aftlc f~ced L%'O'cgh the CS.~H-15 / e~-110 hot,section), and ~e e~ public ~lley acee~ in g~ vtem:~' ~nd to ~u~po~ ~e prc~=d location ** ~ reas~sble ~fi~ We un:Jet, and the city's desire lo ~vide ~g on CSAH-I 5 ~o comT;e.=i.:.: t% ~opo~8 d~'elopm~t ~mre~. Ho~v~, ~e prov:~mn for safe roadway ~mewMt limi~ ~e ~mom~ of ~r~ ~ ~n te~li~cally ~e ~ro-~=~ No eonflim ~i~ ~i~ mo=~t~ ~ C$~-110. Since CS~H-i~ ~ :r, iy back into the int~eetion of C$~-15 I C$~-110. T~,e na-~a:~7,~ z~;.c ~Lo:Id profab!y cover ~.e lengl~ of at le~t ~ ~.~ plus g covple of au<,mcmle~ (:.~'.)- ~om CS~-I5 to the flevelo~t ea;tbound I~ ~s m lhe ~ite. To improve =~ flow, ~ e~s ~ ~e site to CS~I- l 5 ~houM pro',~d= ac~o~odate left ~d ngh~ ~s, l~hs at ~e w~smfly acccu ffm ~.15 m ~ ~vclopm:nt. Tile re. solution of t,hasc opera~onal mhd ~i~n i.~'u~ will require some ~-ddiao;,al tim:, thou.~ht, and di~sion, Thc re~ul~ of ~¢ ~c ~mdy ~ll ~ ~cd ~farc thc complete pi;rare of me roadway op~tiona g~ b~ assembled. Wc bclic,'~ ~t ~ co~i~ruion~ ~upp~ C~= ,.~c3 := :e:~-. :X, u~ro~',~ of thc prcliminao' pla: prior to ~ plat'~ final approval by ~c c~, W~ ~d Mso rcconfid~r other Pka~¢ oonta, t ¢ith~ Dave Zenera=om (763) ~45-7643 or B~b l~yers (763) 7:5.76'33 :c, ~c: u? a meeting or if you h~tvc any f'twther questions. Thank you for your consideration. Jam~ lq. Ctrub= Director, Tr~nspo~uon Deparrrnen~ JoO~n Cam~a.~n - City.' Enifi,'~et (MYKA Ir~,) l.,i%rme W~ns,~n Jr. - M~trol~'~mln~ D~'clopmcnt Z I (NO~) %, DRAFT MINUTES, MOUND JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 27~ 2000 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Pat Meisel with the Pledge of-Allegiance at approximately 7:30 p.m. Those present from the City Council: Mayor Pat Meiset; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Leah Weycker, and Bob Brown. Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson and City Attorney John Dean. Those present from the Planning Commission: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Orvin Burma, Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Bob Brown, and Frank Weiland. Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland. APPROVAL OF AGENDA WITIt ANY RELATED AMt;NDMENTS John Dean proposed the actions portion of the agenda beginning with ~4A, the Minor Comprehensive Land Use Plan Amendment: Lots 18, 19, & 20, Lynwood Park; Action on Resolution, be removed from the agenda. Dean also recommended the CLIP and Variances under the second bullet in 4B, be set for a public hearing to occur on January 23, 2001 instead of taking action on it tonight. He directed the official public notice of that heating also be made. With respect to Items C, which is the Preliminary Plat approval, he recommended that matter also be continued to January 23, 2001, and it also be set on for public hearing and notice of that hearing be published as required by law. Under Additional Matters, Dean recommended they remain as they are currently in the draft of the agenda packet. MOTION by Bob Brown to approve the agenda as revised, seconded by Mark Hanus. Mayor Meisel called for a vote: Roll Call Vote: Council Member Brown Council Member Weycker Council Member Hanus Council Member Ahrens Mayor Meisel: MOTION carried aye aye aye aye aye The meeting was turned over to the Planning Commission Chairman Geoff Michael for continuance of the public meeting. This portion of the meeting began at approximately 7:40. Michael thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Chairman Michael announced they had two kerns on the agenda. He explained that the reason for tonight's Planning Commission Meeting was because it was decided on the November 27' 2000 meeting, to hold another meeting on November 30th. There was a difference of opinion as to whether k was held in violation of the Open Meeting Laws. He stated the Planning Commission has always had open meetings, but to be sure everything is done legally, they are re-doing the meeting. Chairman Michael stated the first item on the agenda is Case #00-66, which is a zoning amendment for MetroPlains Development regarding the northwest comer of.Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. Chairman Michael opened the meeting for a motion. MOTION made by Bob Brown to go ahead and approve the plan as stated. Bill Voss seconded the motion with a discussion as to what the motion actually is. It was explained that the Planning Commission took action at the November 30t~ meeting in reference Case 00-65 on page 7 of today's packet. He requested the Commission to review the motion made by Mr. Brown. We are also making amendments with Case ~00-66 on page 8 of today' s packet. DISCUSSION:. What we are doing is accepting the residential three PDA and the Destination District rezoning per the Plat and Development Plan that has been submitted. We will be dealing with Case #00- 66 tonight and #00-65 at a later meeting. As stated on Page 8, there was a motion by Voss and seconded by Brown to recommend to the City Council to accept Zoning Amendment and/or Rezoning per 00-66. This was to include the current R-1 District to R-3 Planning Development Area and the R-2 and B-1 to the Destination District. Lots 18, 19, and 20 are included in the minor land use plan revision as a destination district PDA consistent with the rezoning 2 City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting 12-27-00 DRAFT It was requested that staff clarify ~f anything needed to be dealt wkh this everfing regarding the logistics of thc Comprehensive Plan Amendment. John Dean answered that that was not on the agenda for the Planning Commission and the City Council removed it fi-om consideration tonight as well. John Dean was asked if a public hearing was needed in respect to that issue and he replied that if it were to ever come back, we would need one, yes, but at this point, no. Call for Vote: Ayes 8 (no call of names) Nayes 0 Show of hands requested: Ayes 8 Second item on the agenda was Case #00-71, the Street Easement Vacation, MetroPlains Development, northwest corner of Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. found on page 9 of the draft minutes. Call for a motion regarding Case #00-71: MOTION made by Voss to recommend the City Council accept the Street/Easement Vacation. Motion was seconded by Weiland. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion. Ayes 8 Nayes 0 Motion carried. Show of hands not ADJOU'RNMENT: MOTION made by Mike Mueller and seconded by Orv Burma to adjourn. Motion passed. The Planning Commission portion of the meeting adjourned at 7:45 P.M. The continuation of the Public Hearing was mined over to Mayor Meisel and the City Council at approximately 7:46 P.M. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30; 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent' Excused: Orvin Burma, Absent: Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. The following public were present: Ken Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Rod and Virginia Mac Charles Diane Rowe, 5733 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road, Mound Klm Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Jeff Vanault, 5717 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Peter Johnson, 3140 Pdest Lane Kathy L. Anderson, KKE Architects Lawrence W. Olson, Metro Plains Development Chair Michael welcomed the public and offered refreshments. He then called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Council Liaison Bob Brown said the Monday night was a very ugly meeting at the end. This is a volunteer commission. Everyone here is freely giving of their time. I an~ going to single out Mr. Johnson for coming here and shaking his finger at this group of people and antagonizing them. None of these people deserve to be hostile talked to like that and it is not fair to these people who give their time. In the future, when people come up here with this hostile attitude toward these people who volunteer their time to ask this person to leave the chambers. Thank you. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PAGE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2000,MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to accept the November 15, 2000, Planning Commission meeting Minutes. Ayes 7 (no call of names) Nayes 0 (no call of names) Motion Carried Unanimously AGENDA CASE #00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYINWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDMENT METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT ~ .-. ~COMMERCE / CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION "~ ~ METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT "~ ~. NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE _'~ Staff has compiled a list of items regarding the Metro Plans development project raised at Planning Commission meeting Monday night. TRAFFIC AND CIRCUI..A TION ISSUES It is somewhat a coincidence that the downtown traffic study and this development proposal are on the same time schedule. Although there are traffic impacts because of this development, the traffic study has accounted for retail commercial on this comer. A number of revisions have been made to the plan to make the traffic and circulation acceptable to staff. NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 9 Commissioner Hasse does not agree with 'piece meal" zonings"'"~~ CASE #00~1: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION -'~ // METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT ~ ,( NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE _ J City Planner Loren Gordon stated to above information is staff's information. This is the ~ alley behind the homes on Lynwood. Lots 18, 19, and 20 were just rezoned in your ~ motion. The idea is to vacate this, rebuild the utilities, move a storm sewer access and a '~ manhole back onto Lot 22 and get this whole system to work. The easement is not longer needed so we think we should get rid of it. Commissioner Weiland asked if Lots 18, 19, and 20 were owned by Metro Plains Development? Mr. Olson explained they are under a purchase options and there are purchase agreements. MOTION by Voss seconded by Weiland to recommend to the City Council to accept the Street/Easement Vacation (Planning Department #00-71) as per all staff recommendations. DISCUSSION ' Ayes 7 (no call of names) J -- Nayes 0 (no call of names) ~ Motion Carries unanimously ...... Chair Michael indicate all correspondence in packet has been read. MOTION by Voss seconded by Weiland to adjourn meeting at 9:00 p.m. Ayes 7 (no call of names) Nayes 0 (no call of names) Motion Carries unanimously Submitted by Sue Schwalbe Date Approved by Chair Geoff Michael, Date MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2000 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staffpresent: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Son Sutherland, and Kecording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. The following public were present: Ken Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Rod and Ginny MacCharles Josephine Sicheneder, 2318 Fairview Lane, Mound Marlin Sicheneder, 2318 Fairview Lane, Mound Lorna Norling, 5969 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Bob Schwiderski, 5969 Lynwood., Mound John Babler, 2235 Langdon Lane, Mound Karen Babler, 2235 Langdon Lane, Mound Janelle Danielson, 6020 Chestnut Road, Mound Betty Davis, 5925 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Jo Soderlund, 5945 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Ferol Andersen, 5935 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Diane Rowe, 5933 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Brad Johnson, 5789 Elm Road, Mound Wayne Davis, 2248 Langdon Lane, Mound Mark Heeser, 5826 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Thomas, 5212 Waterbury Road, Mound Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge Blvd., Mound Terri, 6001 Lynwood Blvd., Mound Chair Michael welcomed the public and offered refreshments. He then called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. Council Liaison Bob Brown thanked Council Member Mark Hanus for filling in for him at the November 13, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 18 CASE #00-64: PRELIMINAKY PLAT, PUBLIC HEAKING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COlVlMERCE CASE #00-65: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA, CLIP PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT NW CORNER OF LYNW00D AND CONhMERCE CASE #00-66: ZONING AMENDENT, PUBLIC HEARING METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT ~/~~~ CO~RNE~R OF LYNWOOD AND COMMERCE CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION, PUBLIC HEARING ~_~.,CASE #00'71: ~TRO PLASNS DEVELOPMESNT'UBLIC HEARING ( '"-" . NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD AND COiVhMERCE Since the last Planning Commission meting, the developer has submitted additional information to complete the submittal package. The deficiencies outlines in the Planning and Engineering reports at last meeting have been addressed with this submittal. MOUND MARKET PLACE The locations Of the grocery store and smaller retail shops have been flip-flopped since the last meeting based on conversations the developer has had with two potential grocers. This arrangement alleviates almost every issued raised by staff during the last review including circulation, building orientation, facade treatments, driveways alignments with Church Road, loading docks, and relationships with adjacent residential homes along Lynwood Blvd., By having the smaller retail shops along Lynwood Blvd., there are opportunities to have entrances from the street and the parking lot. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 25 5. Indicate how the private streets will be lighted. 6. Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Commerce and Lynwood to address landscaping, fagade, and other improvements complementary to the development and the Mound Visions Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission rec ~Y~m~ Council approve vacation of the alley easement as requested. Commissioner Brown questioned if there would be an easement or an agreement with the developer to allow spots for overflow parking for the Pond Area. Gordon Hexplained that the idea is that the developer will work out some arrangement for the use of the parking spaces~ Maybe deed the land to the Pond Arena. The parking at the Pond is a bad situation and this does not completely correct it. Veto anson of Metro Plains explained that they are in discussion with the Pond Arena /--in regards to parking. A letter of intent will be issued at the appropriate time. Peter Johnson, 3140 priest Lane, representing Pond Arena. They are continuing conversation with developer. The Lot directly west of the pond arena will be joint use parking. They are now working out the details. He is very favorable with the idea of diagonal parking on the Aider Road side of there property. Mueller: Asked Peter Johnson, the planning commission likes to "plan". The 20 feet owned by the Pond arena. This is the total green space. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING '~"~ PAGE 26 Bob Polston, 5784 Lynwood Blvd., Mr. Polston is a resident of the area. He and his neighbors are asking for this project to be put on hold because a number of items are not yet addressed. For example the safety issues. Mr. Polston proposes to wait for traffic study to be completed by Hennepin County. Mr. Polston also questioned if TI1e is it to be used, has it been approved, are the correct soil readings taken, has the Livable Communities Act grant been approved and what about the cell phone tower? Mr. Polston is requesting this be tabled until all these issues have been addressed. City Manager Kandis Hanson explained that The Livable Communities Act Grant has been applied for administratively. It is intended to be spread across all of Mound Visions and downtown redevelopment projects to different degrees for different portions of the project. The application was for $900,000 but it is spread across various pieces of the projects. To my knowledge it is not dedicated in any way to soil corrections. There is a piece of it dedicated to this portion of the project should it be awarded but not to soil corrections. Tom Casey, 2854 Cambridge Lane. Mr. Casey agrees with Bob Polston. Mr. Casey then read Section 330.25 in subdivision code, #7. Mr. Casey believes the traffic sig-nal should be completed before moving ahead with this project. Beverly Payne, 5709 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Payne is very concerned with the parking issue and does not believe the Planning Commission is addressing this issue. Ms. Payne asked what are the conditions of rezoning? Chair Michael explained two (2)'public heatings. Ms. Payne asked what is the definition of R-3 Zoning? Gordon explained that R-3 Zoning is multiple housing units. Ms. Payine recently paid for a very expensive survey and she is concerned about property values. Ms. Payne doesn't feel any of these issues have been addressed. Ms. Payne also agrees with the issues raised to Bob Polston. Ms. Payne then asked how high are the trees going to be? Diane Rowe, 5733 Lynwood Blvd. Ms. Rowe would like to address the rezoning issues as well as the traffic issues involved and the effects it may have on her property. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~'~,GE 27 Ms. Rowe property is Lot 49 and the ELY 25 feet of Lot 48, Lynwold Park Lake Minnetonka. This is on the south side of Lynwood Blvd., almost directly across from the proposed entry to the development. Ms. Rowe's concerns are involving traffic and feels this portion on Lynwood Blvd. is fairly quiet for a county road. When backing out of her driveway and her vision is that it will be a ni~htmare in the future. Also Ms. Rowe is concerned that she will be getting headlights directed at her home which never happened before. Also she feels the developer is not only purchasing portions of her neighborhood but are also taking away the quaintness that drew her to this property, in the first place. Ms. Rowe asked why the entrance has to be on Lynwood Blvd., and would suggest to the developer that they consider an entrance on the opposite side of the development near Alder and Bellaire. She feels this would allow new residents to enter into an immediate neighborhood setting without driving behind a docking station and grocery store and would also eliminate the destruction of a couple of homes. If the entrance is necessary for the delivery trucks then make it as such; deliveries only which would eliminate the heavy traffic at that entrance. Ms. Rowe is a lifetime resident of Mound and has also felt the need to make improvements to the community; however, her property values will decrease because of the proposed placement of the entrance of the development. She is willing to pay that extra tax dollar to improve the city but does not agree with a decrease in the one investment in property that she owns. Ms. Rowe is a single parent and has put a lot of time, effort, and money into making her home just what it is ..... an investment. She would hate to see it take a major dive financially. Ms. Rowe doesn't feel it is justified that she personally should bear the burden of a decrease in property values as well as the inconvenience of traffic issues for the sake of improving the community. She is hopeful the developer as well as the city can assist her in arriving at a solution to this dilemma. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Paula Larson, 5713 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Larson has lived here almost 30 years. Ms. Larson is appalled at what is going on across the street and what is the Commission trying to do to your long term residents. Ms. Larson asked if there is a map of 100 feet or so of the properties located around this property. Gordon answered that there is an updated survey of the topography. Ms. Larson is concerned that her quality of life will be greatly reduced by the traffic and headlights. Ms. Larson questioned if we are aware of what the additional residences and grocery store effect will have on the sewer system? Cameron explained that the sanitary sewer is sized to handle this project. Also Ms. Larson asked if there will be any assessments to the property owners? Cameron explained that the City of Mound cannot guarantee what Hennepin County will do and that all the additional right-of-way will come off the north side. This is 25 feet the developer must provide to Hennepin County for a turn lane to go north. Ms. Larson questioned what are the store hours? Chair Michael explained the City cannot dictate what the store hours will be. Ms. Larson stated that Mr. Ban'is said the developer might be purchasing his property. Ms. Larson then called Kemax Realty and the realtor told her the value of her property is $155,000-165,000; however after the development it will be $95,000. Ms. Larson would like to know why do the long-term residents of Mound have to take a hit in the pocketbook and whose responsibility to maintain the pond? Gordon explained the pond is the responsibility of the Homeowners association. Judy Marshcheck, resident of Mound and is also a realtor. SEE HANDOUT. MOTION to discontinue public hearing and nm meeting until 11:30 p.m. seconded by Brown for discussion purposes only. Motion to discontinue public meeting and nm until 11:30 p.m. Brown second only for discussion purposes. MOTION by Voss seconded by Hasse to continue public hearing until 12:00 p.m.. Commissioner Mueller stated that there are issues that probably will not be addressed so he would like to see the public hearing and meeting be continued until the next meeting and is uncomfortable with extending meeting at this time. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PAGE 29 BROWN call for vote: AYES 8 NAYES 1 (Mueller) Motion Carried Bob Johnson, Lives in the Highlands. Mr. Johnson stated that the most important fact is that half of the Mound registered do not want to see this project. Tom Casey. Mr. Casey asked not to close the public hearing tonight because further information is forthcoming. For example the traffic study. Ken Berris 5724 Lynwood., Mr. Berris examined Chair Michael list for non- repetitives. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. Mr. Meyer appreciates what the Planning Commission does here but note there is a common theme here tonight. More and more questions and less certainties. Mr. Meyer feels the development is too abrupt. Three out of ten residents of Mound are under 17 years of age and there is a lack of attention to this group. Chair Michael instructed Mr. Meyer to direct his comments to the items on the agenda; not the football field or soccer field etc. Mr. Meyer supports the commercial portion of the development. He is looking at the balance especially the townhomes issues. Mr. Meyer is very opposed to the rezoning and the street vacation. There is no benefit to the community. Mr. Meyer is against the preliminary plat. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Ken Ben'is, Lynwood Blvd. Mr. Ben'is is asking the Planning Commission for a mm around in the alleyway. The loading dock is less then 50' fi.om his property and directly in his v/ew. Mr. Berris questioned how the storm sewer is going to be managed in the pond area and could a fence be considered along the east side of his property. Also there are 100 year old trees are along the north side. Are these trees coming down? Hanson responded no the trees are not coming down. Mr. Berris is also concerned with the pond because it is a kid magnet. This is a safety issue. Mark Hayes, 5826 Lynwood Blvd. Mr. Hayes asked how tall are the townhomes? Hanson responded 2½ stories, lVlr. Hayes is questioning the buffer and believes this to be too abrupt. It should be a ~adual effect in density. Linda Skorseth, 4648 Alder Road. Ms. Skorseth asked what is the rush? To rezone the property required 4 out of 5 council members to approve. There will be a new city council in January, 2000. Klm Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd., Ms. Anderson requested the traffic study needs to be completed first and how far does the traffic study include, what areas, what roads? Gordon responded that the traffic study is basically for the downtown area. Cameron added that the traffic study was ordered because of the relocation of County road 15. City Manager Kandis Hanson explained they met with County Engineers at Hennepin County to request some clarifications as per the Letter. Th/s meeting was completed tonight at 5:00 p.m. therefore another memo could not be included at this time. Ken Berris, Mound evangelical Free Church. Mr. Berris stated the Church does have an agreement with the Library for parking and what does the council recommend for parking because there will be people parking on the streets fi.om the Pond Arena all the way down to the 2020 building. Chair Michael stated the Pond has had parking problems since the beginning and the chruch has always had parking issues. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ' Yf:. PAGE 31 Bob Polston, Lynwood Blvd., Mr. Polston has other concern in the development with the width of the street at 24 feet wide and believes there is a 28 feet wide minimum. This is a standard to comply with the city standards. Mr. Polston also stated to downsize the zoning is taking away the fights of two residents. Peter Meyer. Stated any project that you review should solve problems not create problems. Public Hearing Closed at 11:53 p.m. Commissioner Voss asked staff if we make the motion of staff recommendation do we just make a motion on the preliminary plat or would the preliminary, plat include rezoning, conditional use permit and the easement vacation. Gordon suggested that the Planning Commission vote on the individual cases. Staffis recommending approval of preliminary plat, rezoning the CUP that goes with the zoning and the easement vacation with those contritions. MOTION by Voss let me explain why I am making the motion after I make the motion staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the prelim/nary conditions 1. Determination of right-of-way by Hermepin County. That is a big issue and would determine whether the preliminary plat would be approved if the county would go along with it. There are a number of other issues that I am alSO concerned with 1. Being the tower. However if the tower cannot be relocated than the developers cannot do anything about. There are a number of things to stop the project fi.om going forward. If they don't meet the preliminary plat by the time it gets to city council. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Brown to recommend City Council approval of preliminary plat as per all of staff's recommendations. DISCUSSION Commissioner Mueller would like to see another planning commission meeting due to the late hour and numerous questions he would like discussed. NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING '~/t~g~PAGE 32 VOTE ON THE CALL OF THE QUESTION by Brown ~ (5, Burma, Glister, Wetland, Voss, Brown.) Nayes (3 Mueller, Michael, Hasse) Motion carried Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Mueller seconded by Commissioner Glister. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Oroup Inc. mH TO: City of Mound Staff; Planning Commission and Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: November 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Mound Visions 1't Addition Preliminary Plat (#00-64), Rezoning (#00-66), PDA (#00-65), and Easement Vacation (#00-71) - Supplemental Report APPLICANT: MetroPlains Development OWNER: Westonka Public School District LOCATION: NW comer ofLynwood Blvd and Commerce ZONING: Currently R-l, R-2 and B-1 proposed to change to R-3 PDA and Destination District PDA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Downtown Residential, Destination District, and Low Density Residential This report is intended to supplement to the November 8, 2000 Planning Report Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the developer has submitted additional information to complete the submittal package. The deficiencies outlined in the Planning and Engineering reports at last meeting have been addressed with this submittal. Mound Marketplace The locations of the grocery store and smaller retail shops have been flip-flopped since the last meeting based on conversations the developer has had with two potential grocers. This arrangement alleviates almost every issue raised by staff during the last review including circulation, building orientation, fagade treatments, driveway alignments with Church Road, loading docks, and relationships with adjacent residential homes along Lynwood. By having the smaller retail shops along Lynwood, there are opportunities to have entrances from the street and the parking lot. The building will not need to be as tall and massive which will create a more intimate feel along Lynwood. It is also demonstrated that on-street parking can be accommodated along with a boulevard and sidewalk. Architectural Design Guidelines for Mound Marketplace detail how design will be addressed. 123 North Third S~eet. Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Preliminary Plat, CUP, Rezoning, and Easement vacation November 20, 2000 determination from the County can be made. This often times comes after approval of the preliminary plat and is handled as a condition of final plat approval. Staff would like the developer to dedicate an pedestrian access easement between the right-of- way and building edge to further protect public access along Commerce and Lynwood. Parks and Trails The multi-use trail will be 8 feet in width and easements will be provided to allow public use. A suggestion that was raised at the last meeting was to route the trail along the south side of the pond. The developer has indicated this is acceptable. Alley Vacation The plans show the alley on lots 18, 19 and 20 will be vacated. The preliminary plat indicates vacation of a portion of an alley to accommodate the access drive on Lynwood. All on and off- site utilities in the alley will need to be rebuilt consistent with the City Engineer's specifications. Parking A total of 313 parking spaces are shown in the commercial area at a 10 feet width. This equates to almost 1 space per 200 square feet of retail, a common standard among most metropolitan communities. The Mound code is set at 1 per 150 square feet which would require 440 spaces. Staff would concur with the developer's request. Staff would recommend isle spacing be a minimum of 62 feet. Two 90 degree parking areas are proposed in the residential area to accommodate staff's concerns regarding visitor parking. Staffwould suggest the that spaces adjacent to the rear of the grocery store be relocated around the clubhouse to better accommodate visitor parking. Pond arena parking lot is reconfigured and provides 40 parking spaces. Lighting The City code requires that commercial development lighting not exceed 0.4 foot candles at the property line. Building lighting is proposed as discussed in the Architectural Design Guidelines for Mound Marketplace. Lighting for the private pedestrian street system should be indicated. Combinations of street lights and building lighting could be used. Common Interest Community_ The Villages at Cook's Bay will be platted as a Common Interest Community (CIC). A CIC is permitted by State Statute and acts similar for platting purposes to a condominium. There will not be dedicated lot lines for the townhomes or Big Houses. Rather, a lot line will be created at interior walls for each unit. The building exteriors and land will be owned and maintained by an association. For platting purposes, the Preliminary Plat will receive approval from the Planning Commission and Council and final plat will receive Council approval. Upon final locations of the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 #00-64, 65, 66, and 71 - The Villages by Cook's Bay and Mound Marketplace Preliminary Plat, CUP, Rezoning, and Easement vacation November 20, 2000 Developer work with the City in developing a streetscape along Commerce and Lynwood to address landscaping fagade, and other improvements complementary to the development and the Mound Visions Plan. Easement Vacation Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve vacation o£ the alley easement as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 ME M 0 R A ND UM DATE: November 9, 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning FROM: John Cameron, City EnLfineer SUBJECT: City of Mound Metro Plains Mound Visions 1 st Addition Preliminary Plat Case No. 00-64, 00-65, and 00-66 MYRa. #12252 As requested, we have reviewed the materials submitted by Metro Plains for a major subdivision of the School District property, at the comer of Commerce Boulevard and Lynwood Boulevard and have the following comments and recommendations: Preliminary Plat The name suggested for the plat is "Mound Vision 1st Addition," with Vision singular. The plat for the new True Value Hardware site was called "Mound Visions Addition" with Vision plural. Th/s plat should also use Visions. Hennepin County will most likely require this plat to be the 2nd Addition; however they do not have a requirement that the addition number be numerical, it can be spelled out. The City should decide with this plat how they would like to see the addition number identified and continue the procedure on all future plats for the downtown redevelopment. The documentation submitted suggests that at least some of these units will be platted as townhomes, wi'rich require separate platted lots. The preliminary plat as submitted shows only one large lot for the entire residential area. If the intention is to plat individual lots, the plat will need to be revised to show such. Jori Sutherland, Planning and Zoning November 9, 2000 ?age 2 The preliminary plat does not show any additional right-of-way to be dedicated to Hermepin County along both Commerce t~toulevard (CSAH #110) mad Lynwood Boulevard (CSAH #15). Hennepin County had indicated they will definitely require additional right-of-way on Lynwood Boulevard and possibly along Commerce Boulevard. The City is currently working with Hermepin County on a redesig~ of the intersection, which will undoubtedly affect this property. The City Code, Section 330, requires that all existing conditions within 100 feet must be shown. This has not been done; therefore it is very difficult for Hennepin County or Mound staff to review the submittal for the affects on adjacent property. The preliminary plat shows the east end of the existing alley to be vacated. This will require additional action by the City Council and Planning Commission and requires public hearings. The City. has utilities located within this alley, for which easements will need to be retained. There is also an ex/sting City of Minnetrista sanitary sewer forcemain and a City of Mound storm sewer line, which traverse the site between .alder Road and the alley, for which easements will be required. Prelitninary Grading and Utility Plan 1. The preliminary, grading and utility plan generally met the City's requirements. The streets within the development are proposed to be private. The grading plan indicates two different methods of collecting stormwater. The main north/south street that connects to the commercial area shows street drainage with catch basins on only one side. The looped street along the north and west side has an inverted crown with catch basins located in the center of the street. These desig'ns will function adequately; however they do not meet Mound's normal City street design where the street is crowned w/th catch basins located on both sides at the curb line. Since the City does not have an approved Stormwater Management Plan, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is still the permitting agency for the stormwater permit. Application must be made directly to the MCW'D and any approval by the City of the preliminary plat must be conditional upon MCWD's ultimate approval. MCWD pohcy requires that the applicant receive preliminary approval from the City before they will take action on the request. We have reviewed the proposed watermain system with the Public Works Superintendent and are in general agreement with the proposed plan; however before final plans can be prepared the applicant must provide a fireflow analysis for our review. It appears there may be a shortage of hydrants, especially in the residential area. The hydrant spacing should be reviewed by the Mound Fire Department. The plan does not show any valves on the proposed watermain. Locations for valves will need to be discussed with Public Works and the City Engineer and added when final plans are prepared. Mound requires valves on all hydrant leads. .Ion Sutherland, Planning and Zoning November 9, 2000 Page 3 The sanitary sewer system as presented also appears to be in general compliance with City requirements. Utility easements must be provided on the final plat for both the watermain and sanitary sewer, which will be public utilities. The sanitary sewer mains providing service for the two individual commercial buildings should remain as private lines. The entire storm sewer system, including the stormwater pond will be priv.ate, to be maintained by the Homeowner's Association and Commercial entity. The only exception will be'the existing catch basins located at the southwest side of the intersection of Betlaire and Alder. These catch basins should remain on the City's present system. The most easterly sanitm-y sewer manhole in the alley is located in the portion of the alley proposed for vacation. It is also very close to a proposed r&taining wall and therefore we are recommending that a'new manhole be built over the existing main approximately 20 feet. The unused section main and old manhole would need to be removed as part of this construction. Streets anti Acces$ The narrative accompanying the application calls for private streets 24 feet wide with no parking on either side. The plan does not specifically identify concrete curb and gutter, however this is a standard requirement of the City whether the streets are private or public. The off street parking areas shown on the "Development Plan" do not match those shown on the "Preliminary, Grading and Utility Plan." It appears the Grading Plan may be more correct, since it shows more off street parking, which will be required with no on street parking allowed. The Development Plan needs to be revised to reflect the correct layout. 3. Any approval of the preliminary plans must be conditional upon Hennepin County's approval of the three entrances shown on the Grading Plan and Development Plan. The Grading Plan indicates new off street parking on the west side of Bellaire Lane between Aider Road and the new private street entering the site at the northeast comer of the property. The Development Plan also shows off-street parking on the south side of Elm Road. All costs associated with widening of the City streets to provide additional park/rig should be the responsibility of the developer. The parking stalls for the Commercial area are not dimensioned; however they scale approximately 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep, which does not meet the City's required width of 10 feet (Section 350:760, subd. 2.A). The dimension of 60 feet as shown between the parking bays is at low end of the accepted standards for this distance. Our recommendation would be to look at these two distances together. If the stalls are change to ten foot wide, as required by code, then the 60 feet is acceptable; however if nine-foot wide stalls are used (which will require a variance) then a rain/mum of 62 feet or 63 feet should be required between the parking bays. crn' oF uouND Bill ilolrn, being drily sworn Y NOTICE 0 ~ p~'BLIC HEARING TO CONSJ[ , THE VACATION OF iS a,Iauthorized agent and employee of the A ST~ rlEASEUE~ publisher of the newspaper known as THE ~ s2oo~ ~w~o s~vo. ~E ~LL~ ~ kl~owledge ol the facts which are stated below: ~ p CASE 00-71 · ~ ~ " J~.2.~'gy' G~EN, that the NOTICE 15 .c.cu m commi~l~ °l ~e Ci~ of M~nd, plan' g ...... ~- ~- coun~ Ch~bers. ~nnesota wttl~ ~0 o . ~ ~day, November 27, 2000 t~ consider vaCation s~eet/e-sement- ~.. , Cop' , Cl Hall All persons: · u on request at ty · public .p ,~ ,-.--.I-~ eafm at sato .vo..,. app g ll~e ,~e above w,I be given .... heard al thru mae ng.-: : ...... ~.. A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Street/Easement Vacation - 5200 Lynwood which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for _ 1 _ successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the 18th_ day of --November 2000 , and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the ~ day of 20 ; Suscribed and sworn to me on this _ l_.8_~_-hday of t/i!_/~, embez: .... 20 00... By: tary Public Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users tot comparable space: $13.45 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $13.45. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.49 per inch· Each additional successive week: $5·44. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 00-71 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE VACATION OF A STREET/EASEMENT AT 5200 LYNWOOD BLVD, THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOTS 18, 19, AND 20, "LYNWOOD PARK" LAKE MINNETONKA, LOCATED GENERALLY AT 5200 LYNWOOD BLVD P&Z CASE 00-71 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000 to consider vacation of a street/easement. Copies of the plans are available to the 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. Inspections Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on November 17, 2000. Published in the Laker, November 17, 2000. u s i ETROPLAINS METROPLAINS PROPERTIES INC F'IETROPLAINS DEVELOPI"IENT LLC n g t h e It e a · t I a n d " November 17, 2000 City of Mound Planning Conmfission Redevelopment of Westonka School Sile Mound, MN MetroPlains Development is submitting the additional enclosed information at the request of the Planning Comnfission and city staff in anticipalion of presenting it to the Planning Commission for approval of the preliminary, plat at the November 27 meeting. Enclosed please find: * Revised site plan · Revised prelinfinary plat ' · Revised survey · Revised grading/drainage plan · Landscaping plan · Detail of residential courtyard · Detail &right-of-way condition at Lynwood Blvd. · Exterior building material minimums for both conunercial and residential structures · Truck turning radius diagram · Narrative addressing private street management We believe these items will satisfy the requests of the Platming Conmfission and city staff. Please let us -know if you would like additional information. Si erely, ~vfichelle Kaiser SPRUCE TREE CENTRE · 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE. 'l SUITE 212 ST. PAUL I"IINNESOTA $51CH~3825 651 646 7848 · FAX 651 646 8947 · www. metroplains.com 11/09/00 Il:Z5 FAI ~1'1'~ U~' ~UU~U ~uuo NOV Application for STREET / EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: C eNo. ;z/ Application Fee:~ ////~//0 t) City Engineer '~'/F/U/~nO Public Works ////.~,/~)~Minnegasco //! / 5/~'~ O _Police Dept Fire DepL t/./,,~ /.,~-GT~ /~///;~//.~'._Parks :rint the followin information: MetroPlains Development LLC APPtJCANT Name 1600 University Ave. - Suite 212 St. Paul, MN 55104 Adare~s Phone (~) n/a 0~ 651-646-7848 ,(~) Lynwood Blvd. Adjacent .N:lclm~ ADJACENT PROPERTY Name of (APPLICANT'S (S) 18 19 20 Block Plat # PROPERTY) Lot ' Subdivision Lynwold Park ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA (~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 DISTRICT DESCRIPTION please see attached OF STREm-T TO BE VACATED FOR REOUEST I$ THERE A please attached see PUBLIC NE-=D FOR THIS LAND? Print AoDiicant's Name Date Print Applicant's Name Applicant's Signature Date ~,evised 07-11-00) ATTACHEMENT TO STREET/EASEMENT VACATION APPLCIATION DESCRIPTION OF STREET TO BE VACATED The street to be vacated is a portion of the public alley located directly north of the homes located along Lynwood Blvd. The legal description of the area to be vacated reads: "The north 30.00 feet of Lots 18, 19 and 20, "Lynwold Park' Lake ~Xfmnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota." Lots 18, 19 and 20 are owned by MetroPlains Development LLC. REASON FOR REQUEST This area, in conjunction with the residential lots 18, 19 and 20, will be re-zoned commercial in order to facilitate the new entrance into the commercial and residential development being proposed for the site. IS THERE A PUBLIC NEED FOR THIS LA.~? No - The alley is not a through alley and curremly dead ends at Lot 18. The vacation of the will move the end of the alley to behind lot 21. The owner will coordinate with the city the relocation of any public utilities right-of-ways which may be required, such as manholes over the existing sanitary sewer. EFFECTS OF PROPOSED USE The proposed development will impact the vicinity in areas such as traffic, noise, parking, etc. Following are the steps to be taken to mitigate the impact: ARRANGEMENT · The commercial area is positioned on the existing intersection of Lynwood and Commerce Blvds. This is being done to minimize the effects of traffic, people, noise, etc. on the surrounding neighborhood. o There will be two loading docks for the commercial development. Both docks are located close to the commercial entrance off Lynwood Blvd. They will be screened from the neighborhood by both landscaping and screening walls. The docks are located in these areas to minimize truck traffic through the neighborhood and development. · The proposed residential is centered in the redefined residential property. It is bounded by Bellaire Lane on the east, a public alley along the south, residential along the west and Elm Road along the north. The residential area is being positioned 'inward' so as to provide open green space between itself and the existing neighborhood. The scale of the housing is situated in footprint and height so as to integrate with neighborhood scale. Two access points are available for the residents. Both are positioned to provide minimum impact on the existing neighborhood. · Parks are arranged along the north edge of the residential property on Elm Road and along the east edge of the residential property along Bellaire Lane. The parks are placed in these locations to offer a direct connection to the existing neighborhood and the greater community for ease of access. The parks offer access to the whole community by being located along the perimeter so as to not feel internal to the new development. The parks also allow the new residential area to integrate into the existing:neighborhood. LOCATION AND WIDTH OF STREETS · Ail existing public streets will remain and will not be improved by the developer. · All streets internal to the property will be private. · Private streets are 24' edge-to edge or back-to-back. A standard city street in the community of Mound has a 28' back-to-back with parking one side. Thereby, a 24' with no parking gives equal or greater accessibility for emergency, fire and general use. · Private streets will connect to Bellaire Lane and Lynwood Blvd. DRAINAGE · All drainage for both the commercial and residential portions of the site will be contained within the site property boundaries. This w/Il be accomplished will the construction of a storm water pond along the south edge of the site. · The pond is to be approximately 34,000 sq.ft. · Required dead-storage (standing water below the pond outlet elevation) volume for this development is 2.6 acres/ft. The proposed pond size meets these requirements "hous ~ ETROPLAINS~ I'4ETROPLAINS PROPERTIES INC /~IETROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT LLC g t h · h e a r t I a n d November 10, 2000 City of Mound Attn: Rhonda 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RFCFIVFF MOUND PLAigi\iii~JG & INSP. Street/Easement Vacation Redevelopment of Westonka School Site I am enclosing the following for publishing and filing of the alley vacation at the above site: · Copy of application · $250 application fee · 24' x 36' copy of site plan ~ · 24' x 36' copy of survey · 24' x 26' copy of preliminary plat · reduced versions of site plan, survey and preliminary plat As I indicated in my phone message to you, please let me know if 15/16 copies of this application is needed for distribution to the appropriate parties. Please contact me with any question at (651) 523-1238. MetroPlains Development, LLC SPRUCE TREE CENTRE · 1600 UNIVERSITY AVE. · SUITE212 SE. PAUL MINNESOTA $5104-3825 651 646 7848 · FAX 651 646 8947 1 t ] 1! IIi Hd~dh.,jllh l lllllli]lllllll i, I 11 I1111111111111111111111111111111111 -g (IbIflOl~ ~0 X, LID 3an 05 01 02:45p p.1 December 26, 2000 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1. 627 SUBJECT: City of Motmd Alder Road - Diagonal Parking MFtL& #13127 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is a sketch showing how Alder Road could be widened to the s,:,..::i~ to providz' diagon~.! parking. At the present time, the parallel parking along this side of the str¥~:t accommodatcs ten :o eleven cars. The diagonal parking as proposed using ten foot wide stalls would double the capachy. If nine foot wide stalls were to be considered the new total would be approxin~ately 24. The relocation of the curb line to within six feet of the existing Pond Are?. building is lnade more difficult than nomml because of the gTade difference between the buitdin~ and the existing curb line, especially at the x¥cst end. A retaining wall will need to be construcled no more than 18 inches behind the back of the new curb. This will provide the minimum 3.5 feet of fi'ost protection necessary for the building footings. A minimum of three islands as shown on the sketch are necessary to protect the streetlight, power poles, and some building equipment. These islands could also be landscaped to break up the long expanse of continuous parked cars. A very rough estimate of the construction cost for these improvements as described and shown on or the sketch is approximately $.>,..,000. This estimate does not include any elmineering administrative costs or any costs that may be associated with relocation of existing streetlights overhead power lines, or any underground utilities such as gas or telephone. The site plan and survey furnished by Metro Plains Development with their development application were used as base information to prepare the sketch and cost estimate. ?505'3 25r.,,4i, e':¢ue ,.'~,:: · fli;;?~,~ 76': 476-60~0 ' L'.,: ..... "'"' e-;~Ia//. [n!i'fi~ r~ ih'a.co,q7 Ms. Kandis ldanson, City Manager December 26, 2000 Page 2 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JR:pry Enclosure cc: Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.. · ,mam.~,Mou 13127 \Corresp,,n~cr~.c\hanson 12-2: 3an 05 O! p.3 ....... I ............. ~::-- .......... eOJSt~O',O i .......... I '(ii '":, C 0 U N T Y ~ i ¥ii " .......... ,-,.¢:"':'~' F"[" ~ I I 1 >< .0.. cITY 6~'I~)UND ~= =¢ / ................ _:.. ......... << / CITY OF MINNETRIS]:A'.. '" .... / / I ¢/ I I / / ~ / I .~ ~ I '....>.~ / .~ lI / / I I I I ,/,[,/ ....- I I I I ii I I t I / I I IIii/i/I / / DRAFT Combined Agreement ~ ~ m~ 1/4/01 JOINT AND COOPERATIVE ~ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of the day of ,2001 by and between the City of Minnetrista, an Minnesota municipal corporation ("Minnetrista"), and the City of Mound a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Mound"). BACKGROUND 1. The purpose of Agreement, made in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes § 471.59, is to control the public infrastructure impact of development of land in Minnetrista and in Mound in a manner that is in the mutual best interests of both communities. 2. Minnetrista and Mound are each authorized by law to carry out numerous governmental functions within their respective corporate limits, including the construction, operation and maintenance of public streets and roadways, sanitary sewer facilities and municipal water utilities (the "Local Improvements"). 3. Minnetrista and Mound share a common border along the east corporate limit of Minnetrista and the west corporate limit of Mound. 4. A portion of the common boundary is located on or near the centerline of Westedge Raad Boulevard. 5. Minnetrista and Mound each expect that residential development will occur along the common boundary; and that the development will necessitate the construction of new or modified Local Improvements. 6. In order for Mound to supply water service to the new residential developments within Mound, it is necessary and convenient for the water service lines to be located on land lying within the corporate limits of Minnetrista and shown in Exhibit A (the "Property"). 7. Location of the service lines in Minnetrista will also provide the opportunity for Minnetrista and Mound to have access to the other's water service for emergency purposes. JBD-191352v2 MU200-85 8. In order for Mound to adequately provide for the transportation requirements of the new residential development, it is necessary and convenient that existing roadways, including a portion of Westedge Rcad, Boulevard be improved. The portion of Westedge to be improved is shown on the attached Exhibit B CWestedge (North)"). 9. The portion of Westedge Read Boulevard straddles the boundary between Minnetrista and Mound; and it is necessary that the roadway improvements take place in both cities. 10. Mound holds and utilizes a public utility easement over certain lands lying within the corporate limits of the City of Mound, which easement is described in the attached Exhibit C, (the "License Area"). 11. The easement area abuts upon the corporate limits of the City of Minnetrista. 12. Minnetrista anticipates that as residential development occurs in Minnetrista, it will be expanding and upgrading its sanitary sewer system. 13. In order to accomplish such activities it is desirable that space be made available within the License Area for a portion of its sanitary sewer lines; and 14. In order for Minnetrista to adequately provide for the transportation requirements of anticipated residential development in Minnetrista of lands abutting on the common boundary, it is necessary and convenient that existing roadways, lying partially in Minnetrista and also including a portion of Westedge Read Boulevard lying within the corporate limits of Mound (the "Portion") be improved. The improvement includes, without limitation, the realignment of the roadbed, the construction of permanent surface, and curb and gutter (the "Project"). The Portion is shown on the attached Exhibit D. 15. Minnetrista understands that the need to improve the Portion is largely the result of the Development, and is therefore willing to make certain assurances to Mound regarding the Project. 16. Minnetrista ordinarily requires that developers be responsible for the construction, in Minnetrista, of any necessary public improvements caused by a development. II. RECITALS NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto do stipulate and agree as follows: JBD-191352v2 2 MU200-85 I. WATER SERVICE 1.10 Grant of Easement+._ Minnetrista agrees to deliver to Mound temporary and permanent easements and/or licenses necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of the Mound water service lines over under and across the Propei'ty. The descriptions of the areas of the Property covered will be prepared by Mound and reviewed by the Minnetrista. The dimensions of the easement and/or license areas will conform to standard practices. Minnetrista agrees to deliver such instruments within a reasonable time, but not later than 60 days following the date that Mound furnishes Minnetrista with the proposed legal descriptions. Minnetrista represents to Mound that it has the full power and authority to grant such easements and/or licenses. 1.20 Interconnection. Mound agrees to design the water line to include an interconnection with the Minnetrista service lines at a location, and utilizing structures that shall be mutually acceptable to the parties as reasonably determined by their respective engineers. 1.30 Proiect Costs and Permits. Mound shall be responsible for 100% of the project costs and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. Minnetrista shall cooperate, as necessary in any applications. 1.40 Use of Interconnection. The interconnection shall have a valve which shall be opened only in emergencies. In the event of an emergency in Mound, the valve may be opened to supply water to Mound by Mound employees upon the direction of the City Manager, the Public Works Director or the Police or Fire Chief of the City of Mound. In the event of an emergency in Minnetrista, the valve may be opened by Minnetrista employees at the direction of the City Administrator, the Public Works Director, or the Police or Fire Chief of Minnetrista. The City opening the valve shall make every reasonable effort to notify the other City as soon as possible. The City opening the valve shall be responsible for closing it. If the water is needed for more than 24 continuous hours, it can be supplied only upon the approval of the Mound City Manager and the Minnetrista City Administrator following consultation, if possible, with the Public Works department. 1.50 Charges for Water Usage. The volume of any water used shall be calculated according to the length of time the valve is open and the water pressure flow. Charges for each volume unit of water used will be based on the water rate charged by the City supplying the water. 1.60 Repair and Maintenance. Mound shall be responsible for repair and maintenance of the interconnection, the valve and its lines. Minnetrista shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of its lines beyond the valve. Mound, except in the case of emergency repair or maintenance, give Minnetrista 24 hour advance notice of any repair or maintenance activity. The City performing the repair or maintenance activity shall be responsible for the restoration (and the cost of such) of property or improvements that are disrupted as a result of such activities. JBD-191352v2 3 MU200-85 II. WESTEDGE ROAD (NORTH) 2.10 Grant of Authority, Design, Minnetrista hereby grants to Mound the authority to enter into the City of Minnetrista for the purpose of constructing the improvements to Westedge Roadway Boulevard in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Mound and approved by Minnetrista. The plans shall include all utility lines that are to be constructed by Mound within the right-of-way as part of the project. And shall include, without limitation, the construction of a water service stub to the east lot line of the parcel located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Westedge Read Boulevard with Lynwood Boulevard (the Waterline Stub"). Mound agrees that it will pro;vide the owner of such lot with a reasonable opportunity for review and comment as to the location of the Waterline Stub. Promptly upon the execution of this agreement, Mound shall cause to have prepared detailed plans and specifications of the construction of the roadway. Upon completion, such plans and specifications will be presented to Minnetrista for approval. Such approval shall be not be unreasonably withheld, and will be given within a reasonable timeframe, but in no event more than 60 days from the date of submission, unless, during such period, Minnetrista notifies Mound of its disapproval of the proposed plans and specifications. Such notification shall state the reasons for such disapproval, and the steps necessary to correct the plans and specifications. 2.20 Construction, Warranty and Insurance. Once approved, Mound, will let the project. Any contract for construction of the improvements to the portion of Westedge lying in Minnetrista must contain a standard warranty of work that runs to Minnetrista, and must also contain insurance coverages running in favor of Minnetrista of an amount that Minnetrista would require on similar projects. Mound will coordinate with the residents of properties in Minnetrista to keep them informed and updated on construction activities. 2.30 Project Costs and Permits. Mound shall be responsible for 100% of the project costs, including any necessary easements, and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. Minnetrista shall cooperate, as necessary in any applications. 2.40 Inspections. Mound will be responsible for the construction management of the Project including necessary inspections. Minnetrista shall have the right to make inspections of the construction at any time. Mound shall provide Minnetrista with a construction timetable at the beginning of the project, and any revisions to said schedule. 2.50 Acceptance Upon Completion. Upon completion in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, Minnetrista shall accept the portion of Westedge Read Boulevard lying within its corporate limits. Such acceptance shall constitute a full release and satisfaction of Mcm-:~: Mound's obligations to construct the roadway, except for defects discovered after acceptance by Minnetrista which were not or could not be discovered before acceptance. III. SANITARY SEWER LICENSE. JBD-191352v2 4 MU200-85 3.10 License Granted. Subject to the provisions of this agreement, the Grantor grants to the Grantee, and the Grantee hereby accepts a license to construct, operate and maintain sanitary sewer facilities within the License Area. 3.20 Consideration. Consideration for this agreement is the mutual promises and agreements made herein, and also is the full and faithful performance of the mutual promises of the parties contained in those separate agreements entitled: [Road Agreement] and [Water Agreement]. 3.30 Grant of Authority, Design, By such license, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee the authority to enter into the License Area for the purpose of constructing the improvements to Grantee's sanitary sewer system at locations acceptable to Grantor and in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Grantee and approved by Grantor. Promptly upon determining the need to construct a sanitary sewer line within the License Area, the Minnetrista City Engineer shall cause to have prepared detailed plans and specifications of the construction of the sanitary sewer. Upon completion, such plans and specifications will be presented to the Mound City Engineer for approval. Such approval shall be not be unreasonably withheld, and will be given within 30 days from the date of submission, unless, during such period, Grantor notifies Grantee of its disapproval of the proposed location, plans and specifications. Such notification shall state the reasons for such disapproval, and the steps necessary to correct the plans and specifications. 3.40 Construction, Warranty and Insurance Once approved, Grantee, may let the project. Any contract for construction of the improvements to the portion of the sanitary sewer lying in the License Area must contain comprehensive public liability insurance coverage running in favor of Grantor of an amount that Grantor would require on similar projects. 3.50 Project Costs and Permits. Grantee shall be responsible for 100% of the project costs and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. Grantor shall cooperate, as necessary in any applications. 3.60 Maintenance. Grantee shall be exclusively responsible for repair and maintenance of its sanitary sewer lines located within the License Area. Grantee shall, except in the case of emergency give the Grantor 24-hour advance notice of any repair or maintenance activities. IV. WESTEDGE ROAD EXTENSION (SOUTH) 4.10 Development Approval. Minnetrista agrees that it will not give final approval to permit the construction of the Development until the developer has entered into an agreement with the City of Mound containing the following elements: 4.20 Design Responsibility The Developer shall cause to have prepared detailed plans and specifications of the construction of the roadway. The design will be consistent with the standards of Mound for Collector Streets, and shall, in addition, provide for a realignment of the JBD-191352v2 5 MU200-85 Portion necessary to clearly separate Westedge from Halstead Lane. Upon completion, such plans and specifications will be presented to Mound for approval. Such approval shall be not be unreasonably withheld, and will be given within a reasonable timeframe, but in no event more than 60 days from the date of submission, unless, during such period, Mound notifies the Developer of its disapproval of the proposed plans and specifications. Such notification shall state the reasons for such disapproval, and the steps necessary to correct the plans and specifications. 4.30 Construction Responsibility, Warranty and Insurance. Once approved, the Developer will let the project. Any contract for construction of the improvements to the portion of Westedge lying in Mound must contain a standard warranty of work that runs to Mound, and must also contain insurance coverages running in favor of Mound of an amount that Mound would require on similar projects. The Developer will coordinate with the residents of properties in Mound to keep them informed and updated on construction activities. 4.40 Project Costs and Permits. The Developer shall be responsible for 100% of the project costs, including, without limitation, all construction costs, all City reviews and inspections, and any necessary easements (the "Project Costs"), and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. Mound shall cooperate, as necessary in any applications. 4.50 Security. As security for its obligation to construct the Project, the Developer shall provide Mound with a Letter of Credit in an amount equal to 125 % of the Project Costs as estimated by the Mound city engineer. The Letter of Credit shall be posted with Mound prior to the letting of any contracts, and shall remain in place until the Project has been accepted by Mound. 4.60 Inspections. The Developer will be responsible for the construction management of the Project including necessary inspections. Mound shall have the right to make inspections of the construction at any time. The Developer shall provide Mound with a construction timetable at the beginning of the project, and any revisions to said schedule. The Developer shall notify Mound in advance of any inspection required under the construction contract so that Mound can be present at the time of such inspection. 4.70 Acceptance Upon Completion. Upon completion in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, Mound shall accept the portion of Westedge Road lying within its corporate limits. Such acceptance shall constitute a full release and satisfaction of the Developer's obligations to construct the roadway, except for defects discovered after acceptance by Mound which were not or could not be discovered before acceptance. 4.80 Other Requirements. Mound shall also be entitled to require of the Developer that it comply with the terms and conditions customarily imposed upon developers who are developing land within Mound. 4.90 Completion. Mound and Minnetrista shall cooperate and coordinate their obligations hereunder in such a manner that the Portion will be completed by the time that the Development is completed. JBD-191352v2 6 MU200-85 V. RIGHT OF ENTRY 5.10 Right of Entry. Effective upon the date hereof, Minnetrista hereby grants to Mound, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees the right to enter upon the Property, for the purpose of making surveys, inspections, investigations, soil borings, drilling, and testing relative to Mound's construction of public improvements on portions of the Property, should such construction be authorized by further agreement of the parties. 5.20 Consideration. In consideration for such right of entry, Mound agrees to: (a) Notify Minnetrista of the date and time that work by Mound on the Property will commence under this Agreement which notice shall be at least five (5) business days prior to doing any work on the Property in order to permit Minnetrista's employees or consultants retained by Minnetrista to be present during the time any work is being done by Mound or its consultants; (b) Provide a copy of all test results, surveys and reports prepared by their employees or consultants evaluating the conditions present on the Property to Owners as soon as reasonably possible following final completion thereof. (c) Dispose of all solid waste generated during the course of Mound's sampling activities and other work on the Property in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. (d) Do the work in the shortest period time reasonably necessary to complete such activities authorized under this Agreement as Mound, in its sole discretion, shall elect to undertake; (e) Use the Property only for the purposes described herein and not park or store any equipment on the Property, except during the limited periods of time when the work on the Property which is contemplated by this Agreement is actually in progress; (f) Do no unnecessary damage to the Property and restore the Property to substantially the same condition as the condition in which it was found by Mound at the time of Mound's entry upon the Property pursuant to this Agreement. (g) Hold Minnetrista harmless from and indemnify it from any and all claims, damages, judgments or obligations, including the cost of defense of suit, arising out of damage to Property or arising out of injury to anyone incurred or alleged to have been incurred in connection with or as a result of any work done pursuant to this Right of Entry, or as a result of Mound's intentional torts or negligence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mound shall not be responsible for the timeliness of any submission or application for further investigation or feasibility analysis of the proper methods of removal, treatment or disposal of any pollutants, contaminants or hazardous substances present on the Property, it being the sole responsibility of Minnetrista to perform these tasks if required; JBD-191352v2 MU200-85 7 (h) Mound or its contractors or invitees which enter the Property pursuant to this Agreement shall carry insurance during the time any work is done on the Property in accordance with the following minimum requirements; Workers' Compensation Insurance with limits as provided by statute, with all necessary statutory elections to provide coverage for and/or claims made by any person doing work on the Property pursuant to this Right of Entry; Employer's liability insurance (often included as coverage) (b) in the Workers' Compensation policy) with limits of $100,000; Comprehensive Auto (and truck) Liability Insurance with minimum combined single limits of $1 million per occurrence; Comprehensive General Liability Insurance (including coverage for contractual liability, products and completed operations liability, liabilities arising out of explosion, or underground related incidents) with minimum combined single limits of $1 million per occurrence. (i) If Mound removes a sample or portion of the Property for investigation, monitoring or testing or obtains any data or issues any report, it must give Minnetrista an equal amount of the sample or portion and a copy of any data or report, and must permit the Minnetrista to perform an independent investigation, monitoring, or testing of the sample or portion. VI. MISCELLANEOUS. 6.10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. 6.20. Notices and Demands. All notices, demands or other communications under this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and shall be sufficiently given and deemed given when delivered personally or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows: If to Minnetrista: JBD-191352v2 8 MU200-85 With a copy to: If to Mound: With Copy to: John B. Dean, Es.cI. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Or to such other persons as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and forward to the other persons entitled to receive notice as provided in this section. 6.30 Indemnification. Mound agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless Minnetrista, its officers agents and employees from any claims or causes of action, of whatever nature, occasioned by or arising out of Mound's activities under this Agreement, including without limitation, construction, repair, maintenance and operation by it of the Local Improvements within Mound. Minnetrista agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless Mound, its officers agents and employees from any claim or cause of action, of whatever nature occasioned by or arising out of Minnetrista's activities under this Agreement including, without limitation, repair, maintenance or operation the Local Improvements located in Minnetrista, and of the interconnection. Such undertakings shall not extend to acts that are the result of the intentional or negligent conduct of the other party, nor shall such undertakings be deemed to waive any limitation of liability available to either party. 6.40 Connection to Waterline Stub. In lieu of any other hook-up, connection or area charge, Mound is authorized to charge a fee of $1,200 for connection to the Waterline Stub. 6.50. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by the parties hereto only by written instrument executed with the same procedures and formality as were followed in the execution of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and pursuant to authorization of their respective City Councils, the Cities of Minnetrista and Mound have entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. JBD-191352v2 9 MU200-85 CITY OF MINNETRISTA CITY OF MOUND Mayor Mayor City Administrator City Manager This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : J:~DMS\JBD\43NC02!,DOC and revised document: J:\DMS\JBD\43NC03 !.DOC CompareRite found 13 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold+Dbl Underline text JBD-191352v2 10 MU200-85 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC TO: From: Subject: Date: Kandis ltanson, City Manager Jim Prosser Review of Storm Sewer REF Classification for Churches December 22, 2000 Ehlers & Associates has completed a review of tile REF classification for churches within the storm sewer rate structure. Churches had been originally classified with an REF of 3.00. This storm sewer class also included nmlti-family residential. Representatives from churches attended thc storm sewer open house on November 30 and raised several objections to this classification. A meeting was subsequently scheduled lbr l)cccmber 13 to review these objections. Tile issues raised at the December 13 meeting included the following: Most churches within Mound have a hard surface (including building and parking) to total ground arc ratio of 25% or less. ' Some churches have installed storm water pond areas within their'groUnds. Representatives of churches o(iected to being classified diff~nti~ th~ "InstitutiOnal'' uses. They noted that other than the fifilh based activities their uses were more similar to institutional. One church. Our Lady of the Lake, noted that their storm water emptied into Lake Langdon and therefore had no impact on tile storm water system. Based on a review of these issues Ehlers & Associates makes the following findings; Tile land use characteristics of churches within Nlound more closely resembles public and private schools and institutional churches. Tile ratio of hard surface to total land area of most churches within Mound more closely resembles public and private schools and institutional uses. 3. City staffhas administratively excluded the area designated for storm sewer ponding from the total area to be assessed for storm sewer charges. Based on these findings it is recommended that the Residential Equivalent FaCtor (REF)ifor ;, churches should be revised to 1.25. The financial impact of this change is projected to reduce mmual revenues by an estimated $2,000. This will not have a material impact.on Storm sewer capital improvelnent financing or operations budget. N:\Minnsota\Mou,~d\Storm WaterXrate rev. 12.26.00.wpd LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive 65!.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 Roseville, MN 55 ! ! 3- ] ! 05 jim@ehlers-inc.com December 28, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 0l- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING STORM SEWER RATES FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 444.075, authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer facilities ("charges"), and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has determined that the establishment of a storm sewer facility charge will help provide funding to develop and maintain a storm sewer system, and WHEREAS, the city of Mound, in June of 1998, adopted Section 650 of the Mound city Code which provides for the establishment of storm sewer system including fees to support the development and maintenance of the storm sewer system and, WHEREAS, the City of Mound has completed a "Storm Sewer Rate Study". This study provides a system of rates to recover cost of storm sewer development and maintenance, and WHEREAS, the City Code provides for the establishment of storm sewer fees after a public hearing regarding the proposed fees, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has mailed information to residents information regarding the storm sewer fees, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has conducted and Open House regarding the storm sewer fees, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has conducted a public hearing regarding the storm sewer fees, and WHEREAS, the Mound City Council adopted a resolutions establishing storm sewer fees for all categories of users except for churches, and WHEREAS, the Mound City Council directed that storm sewer fees for churches be reviewed, and WHEREAS, the city staff and representatives of churches met to review the proposed fees, and WHEREAS, representatives of churches provided additional information regarding the storm water characteristics of their property, and WHEREAS, this information was reviewed and a report and recommendation issued to the city Regarding appropriate storm sewer fees for churches NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound that the following rates are hereby established as follows: Churches $10.20/Acre/Monthly BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these rates shall be effective for bills issued February 1,2001 and thereafter until such time as rates are modified by the City of Mound in a manner as authorized by the City Code. Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk C:\WlNDOWS\Temporary lntemet Files\Content.lE5\WFAZID8XSrate.res.2.12.28.00.wpd AGREEMENT It is hereby agreed that the State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Trails and Waterways Unit will provide 40 concrete planks and connecting hardware to the City of Mound, hereinafter referred to as the City, for installation at a City owned water access site on Lake Minnetonka/Cook's Bay providing the following provisions are met: 1. The DNR will provide the concrete planks and technical assistance with the ramp installation. 2. The DNR shall also provide a make ready dock for use at the site. The City shall be responsible for removal, installation and maintenance of the make ready dock. 3. All additional construction materials (gravel, rock, filter fabric) will be provided by the City according to the attached specifications (DNR sheet 14a) and at no cost to the State. 4. The City shall be responsible for applying for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to work in protected waters and for complying with any State and Federal laws, regulations, rules and ordinances which may apply to them in connection with the development of the public access ramp. A DNR waters permit is not needed if the criteria in MN Rule No. 6115.0210, Subpart 4, item C are met (see attachment A). No work shall proceed until the necessary permits are obtained. 5. The access must be open and free to the public for at least 16 hours a day between the hours of 4:00am and ,..midnight, except in emergency situations, or with the prior written consent of the State. Further it is understood that the City will not undertake any activity which may restrict the launching or retrieval of watercraft in anyway without the express written consent of the DNR> 6. The City shall erect a sign stating that the ramp was a cooperative project with the DNR. 7. The State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources, Trails and Waterways Unit reserves the right to reclaim the concrete planks if the ramp is not installed or maintained in a manner consistent with DNR standards and practices. It also reserves the fight to reclaim the dock if it is not maintained in the same manner. 8. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any of its officers, agents, or employees shall be liable on account of any claim, demand or cause of action made or brought by reasons of any alleged act or omission of the City. This policy shall be in force for the duration of the project and subsequent use of the facility. 9. No work shall proceed until this agreement is signed by the appropriate City and Department of Natural Resources personnel. CITY OF MOUND Name Title Date NalTle Title Date STATE OF MINNESOTA-DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Date Area Trails and Waterways Supervisor Date Regional Trails and Waterways Supervisor cq4 50' (VARIES) i RITUMINOUS OR (A 50' RAMP REQUIRES ,,'58 PLANKS) ~D, GREGAllE 5' 2o' 2' SURFACE AS. F START VERTICAL = = '-' J"- SPECIFIED -x /CURVE AT FOURTN _ -- ' EDGE OF ~W~ '~'~-2" - 2-1/2" IF BITUMINOUS, THICKEN TO 6" ~WATERS EDGE GEOTEXllLE CRUSHED (3" LIFTS) AS ROCK SHOWN ~ /--MAX. GRADE "' \ I ~ / II, ANSI'liON SHALL \ I v~.~CAL ~ .. /.~ s= ~OUT A ~ ~ ~U.N LAST .I~:u.V~ ~:--~/--~L, / V~CAL CU~V~ \ ~LANKS DOWN ANg ~NTO ~'RANSITIONI II y~_z~ 2~. \. BOTTOM-~ FOR RAMP I II ,u~. I ~u~ ~-~ ' APPROACH; ,iii,,~;~c~c~...__ . = 'L-~~. 20' k GRADE FOR ' -~-- ~ so' NOT =o .A - A' ~ ' EXCEED 10% ~ GEOTEXTILE ~, l~=~.'-_¥- , MN/DOT TYPE IV ~ ~z~---___~ 1(6 ON I , ROCK BASE BOTTOM J I DOCK SIDE)I ~ . ~'~' B - B' JD_~ ~_L~.---,-,-,-,-,-,-,-_~t t..-..~ ~'N \ PLANK NOTES: 'CO EAK-AWAY DETAIL CONNECTOR * REINFORCED PRECAST CONCRETE PLANKS - 12' LONg, 12" ~DE AND 5" THICK (APPROX. 750 POUNDS) ~LL BE FURNISHED BY ll-lE DNR, HOWEVER, ll-lE CON1RACTOR MUST LOAD AND TR~ISPORT TO ll-lE SlllL * CRUSHED ROCK, 2" - 2-1/2" DIA. SHALL BE USED FOR ll-tE RAMP BASE, SHOULDERS, ~l-tE SPACE BE'rWEEN PLANKS, AND, IN ll-lE CASE OF A DOUBLE: RAMP, l~-tE AREA BEI'~/~EEN ll-lE RAMPS. BUREAU OF ENGINEERING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCR,q ~ll~gner Date JAN 90 I',CKE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL '~lI~,~n Unit/Region Supr. (InUe) SITE DEVELOPMENT Revision Dote(e) DEC 99 (S.B.) Dote INCH CONCRETE BO AT RAMP Digital ~ Hardcapy ~ Assistant Administrator Sheet No.1 4-al File No.. SD(; . 000 DRAFT LETTER Attachment A The (Local Unit of Government), intends to construct a public boat ramp at (lake, or dyer and County) located at (legal description). Because of recent changes in state regulations governing work in the bed of public waters, this project will not require a DNR Waters Permit. MN Rule No. 6115.0210, Subpart 4, item C relating to the construction of boat ramp in public waters states as follows: No permit shall be required to construct or reconstruct a boat launching ramp provided: 1. Privately owned ramps shall be not exceed 12 feet in width, and extend more than ten feet beyond the ordinary high water mark Or into water more than four feet in depth, whichever is less. Excavations five cubic yards or less, and placement of up to five cubic yards of crushed rock, gravel, clean sand, or small stone shall be allowed in order to provide a stable base or maintain use of the ramp. 2. Publicly owned ramps shall not exceed 24 feet in width and extend more than 20 feet waterward of the shoreline or into water more than four feet in deptl~i which is less. Excavations of 60 cubic yards or less, and placement of up to 30 cubic yards of crushed rock, gravel, clean sand, or small stone shall be allowed in order to provide a stable base or maintain use of the ramp. 3. The ramp shall be constructed of gravel, natural rock, concrete, steel matting, or other durable inorganic material not exceeding six inches in thickness. FAX ¢OVERSHEET TO: CiTY OF MOUND i ~341 M.A YWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 PHONE: 612-472-0600 FAX: 612-472-0620 FAX: FROM: DATE: 12-1... O0 TOTAL _ Tak~ aPm'~prim:e sander 12-08-00 03:19pm From-KENNEDY & GRAVEN +337gSlO T-ZO8 P.02/02 F-986 Jim: I looked at the DNR contract you sent me. I agree that the only issue is the section dealing with hours of operation. I leave it in your capable hands to decide if and how to approach that. Mound City Code Section 615:00 Section 615 - Citer Parks Section 615:00. Park Hours. To protect the peace and quiet of persons residing near public parks and to protect public property from vandalism, all public parks shall be closed to public use from-lO;00 o'clock p.m. until 5:00 o'clock a.m. the next day. Public parks shall be open for public use from 5:00 o'clock a.m. until 10:00 o'clock p.m. of each day. Any person convicted of violating this Section 615:00 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 615:05. Public Gatherings - Permit Required. Use of a public park or commons by any group consisting of 15 or more individuals gathering together or by any organization'which brings 15 or more persons on to public lands to meet, picnic, or conduct a group activity shall require a permit from the City Manager. The City Manager may issue said permit if he or she determines that the area to be used for said meeting or group activity is available and that its collective use will not interfere with traffic and general use of the park or commons, and that said activity is not beyond the ability of the police in maintaining order. The City Manager may impose other reasonable conditions including a requirement that said group remove all litter and trash and provide a cash deposit to clean up the park area, and he or she may obtain the advice of the Police Chief and other staff personnel before issuiDg said permits.- The City Manager may deny said permit or refer it to the City Council for consideration. Any permits issued by the City Manager or the City Council shall be subject to reasonable conditions to protect the public's investment in its public parks and to protect the general public's use of their park and common areas. Section 615:10. Driving Restrictions. No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle in any ~ublic park in violation of Section 700:70 of this Code. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 January 4, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: From: Ref: Mayor/City Council Jim Fackler, Park Director { Adoption of a city standard ~r rip-rapping of public lands. There has been discussion at the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) level on the city having a standard for rip-rapping of public lands. This would apply to city projects and a resident who applies to do rip-rapping on public lands. The DCAC concern was that the red rock applications used in the past twelve years are showing rock failure due to winter conditions. Red rock simple is not as hard as field stone and breaks under repeated freezing. The older areas are now in the need for repair and to replenishing them with red rock would mean returning again to do maintenance in ten years. DCAC recommendation is to adopt a policy as noted on the attachments that meet Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications with field stone as the rip-rapping material. cc: DCAC prmteci on recycled paper Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commis~flS)n~'% '~'~''~ j ~ December 21,2000 8. REVIEW: STANDARD FOR RIP RAP INSTALLATION ON PUBLIC LANDS Park Director Fackler reported on previous conversations regarding an abutting property owner who would like to replace, repair, or add dp rap to public lands. No policy was in place regarding this request, and enclosed in the packet is a draft of a policy with a quote for fieldstone dp rap which the City would like to use, as it lasts much longer. Commissioner Ahrens questioned what should be done with areas that now have red rock and need to be repaired. Does the red rock have to be pulled out and redone with field stone, or can it be left underneath. Park Director Fackler stated that different areas would have to be managed differently. In many areas the red rock could be kept in place for a base layer. A good contractor is the main factor in making sure that the projects are done dght. Commissioner Goldberg stated that there should be more discussion on the use of red rock versus fieldstone. A cost analysis as'well as the upkeep costs and longevity issues need to be looked at further. Park Director Fackler stated that there may be some applicants in January to install dp rap, and a standard should be in place before they come. Fackler stated that his understanding from a previous meeting was that the fieldstone option was agreed upon. Most Commissioners agreed with his recollection. Councilmember Hanus addressed the issue of assistance, as someone may aPproach the City wanting to dp rap a public area, and pay for part or most, and want some assistance from the City. This issue should be addressed in any policy or ordinance as well. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the rip rap specifications as outlined on page 64, to be placed in a policy. Motion carried unanimously. CiTY OF MOUND December 13, 2000 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 47243620 Subject: Standard Set For Rip Rap Installations On Public Lands. In the 2001 Budget there is $43,000.00 in the Dock Fund for rip rapping of shoreline. In discussions at prior DCAC meetings there was a request for staff to bring forward a recommendation of a standard for rip-rapping using granite/field stone. Please find the specifications for Class 4 Quarried Field Stone; RIP-RAP SPECIFICATION DESCRIPTION .. Rip-rap is a term for the control of erosion along the shoreline of a lake which incorporates DNR standards. STONE ........ MnDot Spec Class 4 (6" to 24" diameter with 1/2 the weight of the stone being 12" diameter or less) Quarried Stone. BASE ROCK .... Filter blanket material layer of M~/DOT 3601-B. FILTER FABRIC ....... Geotextile Filter Fabric Mirafi 500X or equivalent. PLACEMENT .... Sort and lay all rock to achieve a flat smooth 3:1 top slope. The toe rock shall be placed so as to create a sharp edge so that ice can slide over it. (~ pr~'q~d on McycI~ p~F~r CROSS SECTION: CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 56364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM January 2, 2001 To: Mayor/City Council From: Jim Fackler, Park Director and Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector Ref: 2001 Dock Location Map As required by City Ordinance Section 437:10, Subd. 2 "The Annual Review of Map" the 2001 Dock Location Map has been reviewed by the Dock & Commons Advisory Commission (DCAC) at their December 21, 2000 meeting. The DCAC recommendations are as follows; 1) Remove Site $00030 for setback. 2) Remove Site #00050 for setback. 3) Change Site #10220 from Non-Abutting to Abutting due to new construction. 4) Change Site #22990 from Non-Abutting to Abutting due to new construction. 5) Remove Temporary Slip Site #23200F due to non-renewal. 6) Remove Site #41020 due to location being incorporated in the Pembroke Multiple Slip Dock. 7) Remove Site #41080 due to location being incorporated in the Pembroke Multiple Slip Dock. 8) Remove Temporary Slip Site #42800H due to non-renewal. 9) Remove Temporary Slip Site #42800I due to non-renewal. 10) Remove Site #42990 due to location being incorporated in the Amhurst Multiple Slip Dock. printed on recycled paper 11) Add Multiple Slip Site ~60765E (24'x 10' slip) at the Twin Park Multiple Slip Dock. Note this is limited to LMCD approval for setback restrictions. 12) Remove Temporary Multiple Slip Site #60900G (18'x 8') Note this will be based on the LMCD allowing this slip to be added to the Twin Park Multiple Slip Dock. Without LMCD approval for the addition to the Twin Park Multiple Slip Dock this site will remain a Temporary slip site location. 13) Change Temporary 2nd Slip #60900H for small watercraft to permanent 2nd slip site. Attachment: Addendum for Dock Location Map 2001. REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 00010 00030 00050 00070 00115 00125 00145 00155 00195 00215 00235 00255 00275 00295 00315 00335 00355 00385 00490 00550 00580 00610 00640 00670 00700 00730 00760 00790 00820 00850 00880 00910 00940 00970 01000 01030 01060 01090 01120 01150 01170 01200 01530 01560 01600 01650 01880 01900 01920 01940 01960 01980 D Avocet Lane D Avocet Lane D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D C C C C C C C C C C D D D D D D Avocet Lane Avocet Lane Bluebird Lane Bluebird Lane Canary Lane Canary Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Dove Lane Wawonaissa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawona;ssa Common Wawonaissa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawonalssa Common Wawona;ssa Common Wawona~ssa Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 53 02000 54 02020 55 02040 56 02060 57 02080 58 02100 59 02180 60 02200 61 02220 62 02250 63 02280 64 02310 65 02340 66 02370 67 02400 68 02430 69 02460 70 02490 71 02520 72 02550 73 02605 74 02635 75 02665 76 02695 77 02720 78 02750 79 02810 80 02840 81 02870 82 02900 83 02930 84 04070 85 04110 86 10020 87 10050 88 10070 89 10090 ~90 10220 91 10250 92 10280 93 10310 94 10340 95 10370 96 10400 97 10430 98 10460 99 10490 100 10520 101 10550 102 10580 103 10610 104 10640 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Waurika Common Pebble Beach Comm Pebble Beach Comm Pebble Beach Comm Pebble Beach Comm Pebble Beach Comm Pebble Beach Comm Three Pts. Blvd. Three Pts. Blvd. Three Pts. Blvd. Three Pts. Blvd. Three Pts. Blvd. Beachside (North) Beachside (North) Shorewood Lane Beachside (South) Beachside (South) Beachside (South) Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park Crescent Park REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 10670 10700 12430 12460 12490 12520 12550 12580 12610 12640 12670 12700 12730 12760 12790 12820 12850 12880 12910 12940 12970 13000 13030 13060 13090 13120 13150 13180 13210 13240 13270 13300 13330 13360 13390 13420 13450 13480 13510 13540 13570 13600 13630 13660 13690 13720 13750 13780 13810 19950 20130 20160 D Crescent Park D CrescentPark D Wren Road D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Wiota Common D Peabody St. D Water Bank Common D Water Bank Common REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 2O0 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 20190 20220 20250 20280 20310 20340 20370 20400 20430 20460 20490 20520 20550 20580 20610 20640 20670 20700 20730 20760 20790 20810 20830 20860 20890 20920 20950 20980 21110 21140 21170 21200 21230 22180 22200 22220 22240 22260 22330 22360 22390 22420 22450 22480 22510 22540 22570 22600 22910 22990 D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Water Bank Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Centervlew Lane Centerview Lane Centervlew Lane Centervlew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centerv~ew Lane Centervlew Lane Centervlew Lane Centerview Lane Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common Waterside Common 23050 23070 D D Morton Lane North Park North Park North Park REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 209 23090 210 23150 211 232OOA 212 23200B 213 23200C 214 23200D 2 15 23200E 16 23200F 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 23275 23325 30020 30030 30100A 30100B 30100C 30100D 30100E 30100F 30100G 30100H 30100I 30100J 30100K 30100L D Lake Blvd.. D Lake Blvd. D Multiple Lake Blvd. D Multiple Lake Blvd. D Multiple Lake Blvd. D Multiple Lake Blvd. D Multiple Lake Blvd. D Multiple Lake Blvd. D Chateau Lane D Arbor Lane D Norwood Lane D Norwood Lane D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park D Multiple Carlson Park 30250 D 30270 D 30300 D 30330 D 30350 D 30370 D 30450 C 30510 C 30590 C 30670 C 30710 C 30950A C 30950B C 30950C C 30950D C 30950E C 30950F C 30954A C 30954B C 31210 D 31240 D 31270 D 31300 D 31330 D 31360 D 31390 D 31420 D 31450 D Inwood Road Inwood Road Avon Drive Emerald Drive Emerald Drive Emerald Drive Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Longford Road Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Kenmore Common Temporary Slip 27.5 x 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 27.5 X 10 18 X 8 18 X 8 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Siz~ 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 31480 31510 31540 31570 31600 31630 31680 31710 31740 31770 31800 31830 31860 31890 31920 31950 31980 32010 32040 32070 32100 32130 32160 32190 32220 32250 32280 32310 32340 32600 32670 32760 32790 32820 32940 33287 33347 33407 33447 33487 33525 40550A 40550B 40550C 40550D 40550E 40550F 40550G 40550H 40550I 40550J 40550K D Kenmore Common D Kenmore Common D Kenmore Common D Kenmore Common D Kenmore Common D Kenmore Common D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Excelsior Lane D Kells Road D Stratford Lane D Stratford Lane D Stratford Lane D Stratford Lane D Stratford Lane D Stratford Lane D Stratford Lane D Stratford Lane C Stratford Lane C Stratford Lane C Stratford Lane D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park D Multiple Avalon Park 2nd Small W/C Slip 2nd Small W/C Slip Temporary 2nd W/C 35.5 X 10 32 X 10 32 X 10 32 X 10 32 X 10 35.5 X 10 32 X 10 32 X 10 75 sqft 75 sqft 75 sqft REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 313 40550L 314 40820A 315 40820B 316 40820C 317 40820D 318 40820E 319 40820F 320 40820G 321 40820H 322 40820I 323 40820J 324 40820K 325 40820L 326 40945 327 40995 {328 41020 329 41050 (330 41080 331 41110 332 41140 333 41170 334 41227 335 41272 336 41319 337 41377 338 41437 339 41650 340 41750 341 41854 342 41933 343 42008 344 42059 345 42091 346 42121 347 42172 348 42227 349 42277 350 42314 351 42351 352 42406 353 42461 354 42511 355 42556 356 42586 357 42626 358 42691 359 42791 360 42800A 361 42800B 362 42800C 363 42800D 364 42800E D Multiple Avalon ,Park B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common D Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common Temporary 2nd W/C 75 sqft 35.5 X 10 24 x lO 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 x 10 24 X 10 24 x 10 24 X 10 18 X 8 18 X 8 18 X 8 27.5 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Siz~ 365 42800F 366 42800G C 67 42800H '68 42800I 369 42931 370 42961 (371 42990 372 43020 373 43080 374 43120 375 43180 376 43235 377 43300A 378 43300B 379 43300C 380 43300D 381 43300E 382 43420 383 43450 384 43520 385 43575 386 43647 387 43727 388 43770 389 43800 390 43840 391 43882 392 43942 393 44002 394 44097 395 44160 396 44193 397 44243 398 44408 399 50238A 400 50238B 401 50238C 402 50238D 403 50400 404 50430 405 50460 406 50490 407 50520 408 50550 409 50580 410 50610 411 50640 412 50670 413 50700 414 50730 415 50760 416 50790 B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common B Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Multiple Devon Common B Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common C Devon Common D Multiple Waterbury Road D Multiple Waterbury Road D Multiple Waterbury Road D Multiple Waterbury Road Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Blvd. Brighton Common Temporary Dock Site ~ 27.5 X lb J1 18 X 8 Temporary Slip 27 5 X 10 Temporary Slip 18 X 8 D D D D D D D C D D D D D D Temporary Slip 27.5 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 27.5 X 10 18 X8 24 X 8 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 8 REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 417 50820 418 50850 419 50880 420 50910 421 50940 422 50970 423 51030 424 51105 425 51135 426 51195 427 51315 428 51375 429 51435 430 51495 431 51555 432 51675 433 51705 434 51735 435 51795 436 51850 437 51885 438 54970 439 55000 440 55030 441 55060 442 55090 443 55120 444 55150 445 55180 446 60640 447 60685 D D C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C D D D D D D D D D D Brighton Common BrightOn Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Brighton Common Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Lost Lake Park Idelwood Road Idelwood Road 448 449 450 452 453 454 455 456 457 (458 (459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 60765A 60765B 60765C 60765D 60900A 60900B 60900C 60900D 60900E 60900F 60900G 60900H 60900I 60940 60965 60985 61010 61030 61050 61070 61090 D Multiple Twin Park D Multiple Twin Park D Multiple Twin Park D Multiple Twin Park D Multiple Highland Park D Multiple Highland Park D Multiple Highland Park D Multiple Highland Park D Multiple Highland Park D Multiple Highland Park more slips possible in future at this dock. 27.5 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 27.5 X 10 27.5 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 24 X 10 27.5 X 10 D Multiple Highland Park Temporary Slip 18 X 8 D Multiple Highland Park ~ Temporary 2nd W/C 75 sqft D Multiple Highland Park~ \ Temporary 2nd W/C 75 sqft D Highland Park X D Highland Park ~ D Ridgewood Park~ D Ridgewood Park~ D Ridgewood Park D Ridgewood ParK\ \~ ~J ~u3 ~uO ~- o~ D Ridgewood Park D Ridgewood Park / ~ REC# Site_# Shore_Type Land_Name Misc._Info. Slip_Size 469 61110 470 61150 471 61190 472 61215 473 61240 474 61265 D Ridgewood Park D Ridgewood Park D Lagoon Park D Lagoon Park D Lagoon Park D Lagoon Park Medi 14162 Commerce Ave., Suite 100 Prior Lake, 3IN 55372 E, tail: tbordwell(~mediacomcc, com Phone: (952) 440-9680 ext. 222 Toll Free: (888) 591-8062 ext. 222 Fax: (612) 440-9661 Tom Bordwell Director of Government Relations December 29, 2000 Dear Mr. Meisel, On behalf of the Mediacom North Central Division employees, I would like to extend our greetings and wishes tbr a prosperous New Year to you and your community! Mediacom has had an exciting year and is very proud of the accomplishments made to improve our products and services. On a corporate level, our Chairnmn and CEO, Rocco B. Commisso has successfully guided the financing and management needed lbr Mediacom to grow into 22 states, passing over 1.2 million homes! Mediacom is now the nation's ninth largest cable television company and is positioned to succeed in our plan to deliver broadband services to our customers. In our North Central Region, we have also made significant changes to benefit our customers. We have converted our billing system, launched additional programming channels, added high speed Internet services and Digital Television products in many markets, and have completed over 1000 miles of plant upgrades and fiber interc{mnects! Over $40 million in capital expenditures were made this year to accomplish our goal of providing more customers with access to broadband services. In addition, year 2001 plans include extending our fiber optic interconnect program and upgrading/rebuilding even more of the communities we serve! We have also added additional senior management, including two new Area General Managers, to provide Mediacom leadership and to assure performance as we continue to roll out new services and compete successfully in your cmnmunity. Our new Regional Vice President, Mr. Charlie King, will begin early in January and has a proven track record of success in our industry and brings excitement and enthusiasm to our Region as we move forward. I have enclosed a copy of the latest customer notification that describes changes to our rates and or programming begimfing in February 2001. Mediacom appreciates the opportunity to provide service to your community and looks forward to continuing our operation in 2001! Sincerely, Tom Bordwell r~uot~uU!l~/e~e3 ZLI'06~; E609S NI61 'eoaseAA '3S 3aaJlS puZ ~'0g [ ~[~~]~ VOL XVI]::Z NO 1 ~.r~l~~ .._ ,TANUAP, Y - 2001 HI-NOTES December 20, 2000 PRESIDENT' S MESSAGE Dear Members and Friends, Our new Center is on schedule. You can really see the shape of the building now. The framing and shell should be complete by mid-January. Temporary heat is already on in the basement. You probably have noticed the security, safety lights on in the lower level. Underground utility work continues. When the shell is enclosed, they will begin the construction heating on the interior of the building. Then, the interior walls, mechanical and electrical work will begin. Lowell Swenson, the Project Director for Yanik and Associates said the schedule is going well. He again emphasized the importance of not coming onto the site. It is still very dangerous. As soon as they make it safe to walk, they will be conducting a "look-see" meeting. We will let you know in this newsletter when that time comes. In the meantime, we are sending "cookie-treats" to the hungry construction workers. All of you who have worked construction know how fun it is to get treats. If you would like to contribute to this over the next few months, please drop off a dozen or so with our receptionist in the Fellowship Hall. I would like to wish you a Happy New Year! Marilyn Byrnes President JIM RAMSTAD THIRD DISTRICT, MINNESOTA WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE TRADE SUBCOMMITTEE HEALTH SUBCOMMI'I-rEE December 12, 2000 9ou e of epre entati e ~taSl~ington, ~B~ 20515-2303 WASHINGTON OFFICE: 103 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 1202) 225-2871 DISTRICT OFFICE: 8120PENN AVENUE SOUTH, 8152 BLOOMINGTON, MN 554.~1 {612) 881--4600 Chief Leonard Harrell Mound Police Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Chief Harrell: On behalf of all the people of our area, please accept my heartfelt congratulations on the Mound Police Department's selection as recipient of the 2000 Community Policing Award by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. ChiefHarrell, please pass along my very best wishes and sincerest thanks to your entire department. The Mound Police Department's remarkable performance and comprehensive approach to fighting crime make you truly most deserving of this tremendous honor. Congratulations again, Chief Harrell, on this fine tribute to your leadership and your team's hard work and public service on such efforts as Juvenile and Adult Citizens Academies, DARE, Bike Patrol, Crime Watch, TRIAD, Juvenile Conferencing, Offensive Behavior Corrective Curriculum, Safety Days, Open Gym Night, School Liaison Officers, Juvenile Safety Camps and many partnerships with crime-fighting community organizations. Please let me know ifI can ever be helpful in any way. Member of Congress JR:lo PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Metropolitan Council Improve regional competitiveness in a globa[ economy Environmental Services December 12, 2000 Dear City Administrator: Good News! MCES has followed through on its commitmem to reduce $20 million from our base 1998 budget and correspondingly reduce the wastewater rate you pay to us. The rate for your January bill is based on $118 per hundred thousand gallons. This is the third decrease since 1998 when the rate was $135--a cumulative decrease of 12.6 percent. 1998-2001 Rate/ 100,000 $130 Wholesale Rates $110 $90 $70 $50 1998 1999 2000 2001 MCES has worked hard to cut its budget and reduce wholesale rotes over the last three years. This has moved us closer to our goal of being in the top five in the nation among wastewater treatment operations of similar size and treatment requirements when comparing rates, cost of service, and overall value. Since competitive utility costs are important to maintaining the economic vitality of a region, we will continue our efforts to assure that our region remains one of the best places to live, work, raise a family and do business. More information on how your community charges compare within the region and how the region compares nationally is available in the Study of 2000 Municipal Wastewater Rates report sent last week to your finance director. Additional copies of this report are available by calling our Data Center at (651) 602-1140. We will begin planning for 2002 early next year and invite you to participate by calling me at 651-602-1106 or attending one of our Budget and Planning Breakfast meetings in March. Our focus for 2002 includes prudent fiscal management in response to rapidly rising financial pressures and emerging environmental issues within the context of smart growth principles. We look forward to receiving your input and concems. Sincerely,~er, u ~ MCES Division Director cc: City Finance Directors www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street * St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-1626 · {651) 602-1005 ° Fax 602-1138 * TrY 229-3760 An Equal Opportunity Employer PATRICK D. McGOWAN HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF ROOM 6 COURTHOUSE 350 SOUTH FIFTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415 (612) 348-3740 FAX ,348-4208 December 15, 2000 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF Chief Leonard Harrell Mound Police Department 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Chief Harrell: This past September a letter was sent to you announcing that the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office would be discontinuing prisoner transports on the night shift. At that time we were looking at other ways the Transport Unit could continue to function in the most effective and efficient manner and still meet our 2001 budget restrictions. In reviewing our Transport Unit activity for the past 12 months, the demand for transports is highest Monday through Friday. The numbers drop significantly on Saturdays and Sundays, and they drop even more on holidays. In an attempt to schedule the largest number of staff Monday through Friday, when demand is the highest, and to comply with labor contracts and keep overtime costs down, we have made the decision that we will discontinue prisoner transports on Hennepin County-observed holidays. Simply put, the number of inmates transported on holidays does not justify the cost. Therefore, effective January 1, 2001, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office will no longer be providing prisoner transportation services on these holidays: January 1 September 3 January 15 November 12 February 19 November 22-23 May 28 December 25 July 4 I apologize for the late notice and any inconvenience this may cause. As we struggle to address scheduling needs and budget constraints, we ask for your continued understanding. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me at 612-348-9650. Sincerely, William R. Wilen Inspector, Enforcement Services w~w:jk Recycled Paper 20% Port- Consumer Fiber General Fund $649,947 CDBG 2,048 Area Fire Protection Services 320,654 MSA 20,627 Sealcoat (46,381) PW Facility 90,833 Capital Improvement 317,378 CDB 4,275 Commerce Place TIF (20,629) Downtown TIF 1-2 (820,544) Grant Revolving 7,725 Co Rd 15 7,783 Recycling 91,630 Liquor Store 464,622 Water 829,052 Sewer 781,079 Cemetery 2,318 Dock 243,957 Fire Relief (75,975) HRA 1,891 Note: The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment balances by fund for the months indicated as recorded in the General Ledger. The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 12/13~2000 CashReportCouncil Gino CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Nov. 2000 9'1.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Nov. 2000 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,344,330 0 702,444 (641,886) 52.25% 4,210 0 3,515 (695) 83.49% 116,200 12,788 166,429 50,229 143.23% 963,800 0 562,339 (401,461) 58.35% 85,700 2,076 106,273 20,573 124.01% 100,000 7,082 103,469 3,469 103.47% 63,500 152 56,365 (7,135) 88.76% 47,500 0 0 (47,500) 0.00% 13,000 1,681 13,944 944 107.26% TOTAL REVENUE 2,738,240 23,779 1,714,778 (1,023,462) 62.62% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 377,470 40,247 400,034 22,564 105.98% 115,600 7,214 118,264 2,664 102.30% 1,750,000 143,690 1,673,757 (76,243) 95.64% 500,000 46,172 429,710 (70,290) 85.94% 960,000 79,393 895,007 (64,993) 93.23% 6,200 800 4,530 (1,670) 73.06% 86,000 15 68,493 (17,507) 79.64% 12/14/2000 rev00 Gino CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Nov. 2000 91.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers Nov. 2000 BUDGET EXPENSE 77,620 4,000 26,000 198,750 12,450 68,000 175,400 22,100 146,980 1,049,650 12 150 208 250 485 990 76 890 208 050 39 570 106 780 166,120 YTD PERCENT EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 7,142 92,038 (14,418) 118.58% 0 4,000 0 100.00% 0 18,535 7,465 71.29% 24,079 189,104 9,646 95.15% 4,696 9,616 2,834 77.24% 28 71,372 (3,372) 104.96% 19,147 163,714 11,686 93.34% 400 7,842 14,258 35.48% 4,930 98,235 48,745 66.84% 105,659 902,337 147,313 85.97% 22 7,708 4,442 63.44% 19,615 206,420 1,830 99.12% 39,787 474,704 11,286 97.68% 2,353 66,522 10,368 86.52% 11,576 192,200 15,850 92.38% 0 0 39,570 0.00% 0 650 106,130 0.61% 13,844 152,277 13,843 91.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,084,750 253,278 2,657,274 427,476 86.14% Area Fire Service Fund 411,520 TIF 1-2 0 Recycling Fund 124,980 Liquor Fund 238,920 Water Fund 441,360 Sewer Fund 939,410 Cemetery Fund 8,190 Dock Fund 80,640 35,327 282,047 129,473 68.54% (75,466) 624,940 (624,940) 8,084 89,925 35,055 71.95% 31,330 249,615 (10,695) 104.48% 32,517 391,355 50,005 88.67% 59,804 769,826 169,584 81.95% 876 7,245 945 88.46% 4,117 62,194 18,446 77.13% Exp-00 12/14/2000 Gino CITY OF MOUND INSPECT/It~ NOTICE M T ~,.W,~/ TN F -- ~ PHONE ~ __ CO~RACTOR ~ PHONE ~ -- FOO~NG ~ PLUMBING ROUGH-IN ~SITE INSPECTION ~ING ~ PLUMBING FINAL '~ ~GRADIN~XCAV. INSU~TION D MEC~NICAL ~ _~OMP~I~ W~OARD D RREP~CE AT ~ROAT ~OLLOW-UP PROGRESS D RREP~CE RNAL ~ ~ FINAL ~ DEMOLITION ~ I~ -~J-~, I~~' c~,r~ ~RRECT WORK & P~CEED r I CORRECT WORK. C~ FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE ~OVERING ~RRECT UNS~E ~NDITION W~HIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL R~RN STOP ORDER ~S~D. CA~ INSPECTOR INSPECTION REQUIRED. C~L TO ARRANGE ACCESS Call for ~ ~ i~on 24 houm in a~ance. ~er/Con~act~ on ~ ~ White Copy/lnst:mclo~'s File Page 1 of 1 file ://A:LMVC-00 I'L.JPG 12/13/2000 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT '?' MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 24, 2000 ,. The City Council of the C~7 of Mound, I-Ieanepm County, ~eso~ met m regul~ semon on ' '~ ~e/~/ Tuesday, October 24, 2000, at 7:30 p.m, in the Council Chambers-a15341 Maywood Road, in City. Those present were: A¢fiag Mayor Mark Hanus; Council Members: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, and Leah Weycker. Absent and excused: Mayor Pat Meisel. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planng Loren Gordon, City Building Official Jori Sutherland, md Recording Secretary Diam Mestad. The following interested citizens were also present: Jerry Marelq Steve Coddon, lenrfiCer and Der~a-" ugg, Peter C. Meyer, Carol Weber, StefMitchelk Steve and Sue Cathers, Stac ~ ~,icelise, [',t - Ed Mauer, ]'tm Brand, Frankand Betty Weiland, Lois VmDyke ~~ ~hy, Olson, Tom Ecctes, Tom Casev ~' I-Fmrichs, Kick & Deb Perry, K -~ .o. *Consent Age _r~d_ ~: .,iff iterr~ li~ ~ .. ae routine 53' the Council and will be enacted t ~zaarate disc'u~on of these items unless cz Council Member o~ ..,ac/~ event the item will be removed ;from the Consent Agenda and corn . ,,~zz sequence. OPEN M~EETE~'G - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Acting Mayor Hanus'opened the meetin_g at 7:30 p.n~ and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. 3. FRED JOE[bISON - 4925 ISLAND VEEW DRIVE: CITY CODE 320 VIOLATION. The City Building Orificial stated that this was an after-the-fact permit. The applicant has done damage to the fire lane during construction. The applicant was unable to be present at the meeting. The City Building Official stated that he has put the contractor on notice that a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the neighbor is happy with the restoration. Staff has requested the applicant propose a restoration plan, but this has not yet been provided. Staff'is suggesting trees be planted on the common. Council Member Brown pointed out that Staffis asldng for one tree, but at least three appear to have been cut from the pictures. The City Building Official stated that at least one-half dozen trees were cut on the commons. He stated that no citations have been written at this time as St~. prefers to work with the applicant. He further stated that shoreline management does allow 11 Mound City_ Council lVfimutes. October 24, 2000 % / -',. opening up property and that the applicant might have received approval for this if it: had requested. He started that the request of one tree was the starting point suggested by -.- .---- ,,~ ~, but the City Council could change this, ,lSc,; Council Member Weycker asked what the size trees were cut. The City Building Official stated · that some of the trees were six inches in diameter. Ed Maynard, who is the neighbor involved, stated that he has been working with the City Building Official on this. He stated that the applicant has encroached on his property. He stated the fire lane is a buffer and he would like to see a si~ificant number of trees replanted. He stated that the sod that was installed on his property is not level and drains toward his house. He stated that the fire lane is only half sodded. Council Member Weycker asked if Mr. Maynard knew what types of trees were cut. Mr. Maynard stated these were maple, oak, sumac, and cottonwood. The City Building Official stated that the contractor has been difficult to work with and the City Prosecutor is ready to take action. Mr. Maynard stated that the applicant is willing, but there is a time issue as the silt fence is gone. Acting Mayor Hanus asked if the silt fence was included in the restoration plans. The City Building Official confirmed it was. Council Member Weycker stated that Staff's report made it appear this was an accidental situation, but in reviewing the photographs she felt it was intentional and should be mined over for prosecution. Council Member Ahrens stated that she was against prosecution because it would cost the City too much money. Acting Mayor Hanus pointed out that the most the City could recover is a $700 fine. The City Attorney stated that the court could order restitution, but that a fine and a jail sentence would also be possible. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that the cost of prosecution is substantial and that the money would be better spent to resolve the issue. Council Member Brown stated that he felt the applicant should be asked to replace at least six trees, fix the sod, and satisfy the neighbor in terms of the nm off issues. If these terms were not complied w/th, he felt the Certificate of Occupancy should be withheld. Acting Mayor Hanus stated that including approval by the ndghbor would make the situation too messy. Council Member Brown suggested changing it to approval by the City Building Official. 12 Mound City Council lVlinutes, October 24, 2000 - The City Attorney pointed out that this condition could net be tmposed atter the butldmg penmt,:, .,~.~., had been issued. Council Member Ahrens stated the goal was to restore the buffer with the adjacent neighbor and felt the City should work with the applicant. She suggested anaag~g a meeting between the applicant and the neighbor. The City Building Official stated that a meeting might not work out, but he can give d~cllines for compLiance. He stated that he has already issued stop work orders twice. He stated the project is far enough along to do the replanting at this time. Council Member Ahrens stated the applicant should be given the benefit of the doubt and the chance to work with the City. Acting Mayor Hanus asked what the chances were that the applicant would comply with the requests. The City Building Official stated that with clear guidelines and Staff approval of the landscaping he felt that it would be successful and that prosecution could be the backup plan_ The City Attorney suggested that no action be taken tonight and that the City Building Official bring back a detailed plan. Council Member Weycker added that she wanted to know the size and type of trees cut. The City Building Official suggested requiring the applicant to replace six trees a miniruum of 2.5 inches and to prepare a landscape plan to be approved by the Park Director. He felt it was important to get the new trees in before winter. He stated that he would bring the issue back to the Council if it could not be resolved. ' Acting Mayor Hanus asked why this needed to be done immediately. The City Building Official stated that he felt he could get this accomplished and that the grading and drainage issues were covered by the building plan The City Manager stated that she could be involved in the resolution of this to a greater extent. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to approve Staff recommendation of the planting of six trees of 2.5 caliper or larger with a deadline of November 30, 2000 or legal action would be taken. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 4-0. B_.:. REPLACEIVfENT OF STAIRWAYS AT WIOTA COMMONS. $'ma Fackler, Parks Director, stated that this was requested several years ago and that there is a wide variance in the quotes for this project. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens, to use AH Seasons for the replacements. 13 Page 1 of 4 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> To: <kandishanson@msn.com>; Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 1:36 PM Subject: westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 9 westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 9 December 1, 2000 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten @weston ka. kl 2 .mn. us. Contents 1. News Briefs --City of Mound and Westonka School District Reach Key Agreement --Expanded District Web Site Launched Today --December 8 Early Release Day --School Start Time Options to be Shared with School Board on 12/11 2. Focus Topic: Referendum Research, Technology Evaluation Reports 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **City of Mound and Westonka School District Reach Key Agreement** Earlier this week, the Mound City Council and the Westonka School Board reached agreement on the amount of reimbursement the City would make to the School District for costs incurred by the District in readying the old school site at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard for reuse as a community center. Westonka's expenditures were approximately $797,000; the City has agreed to pay the School District $300,000 to cover its share of those costs. 12/12/2000 Page 2 of 4 The agreement represents the conclusion of nearly two years of discussions, which were aided recently by the services of a mediator selected by both parties. The agreement was recommended by the legal counsel for Mound, as well as the legal counsel for Westonka. Both parties are pleased to have this issue finally and fairly resolved. Editor's note: the above is excerpted from a joint press release submitted for publication in next week's Lakeshore Weekly News and Laker newspapers. **Expanded District Web Site Launched Today** The Westonka School District has launched an expanded and updated Web site for District news and information. Set your browser to http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us to see dozens of all new pages. Just a sampling of the new content includes: curriculum, test dates and scores, school year calendar, maps and directions, frequently asked questions, human resources postings, staff directories, and much more. Links to the Web sites for individual schools, along with comprehensive information about community education class offerings and programs, can be found through the "Schools/Community Ed" button on the home page. Additions to the Web site were made in order to make it a more useful learning resource for parents, students, staff, and prospective residents. The district Web site will serve as a frontline information resource, offering up-to-date information on issues such as weather-related school closings, breaking news, and events and activities. Mark http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us as the home page for your Internet browser, and bring school-related news right to your home more easily than ever! **December 8 Early Release Day** Friday, December 8, will be an Early Release Day for grades Kindergarten through 12. Mound Westonka High School will release students at 12:15 p.m.; Grandview Middle School at 12:27 p.m.; and Hilltop and Shirley Hills Primary Schools at 1:10 p.m. There will be no afternoon kindergarten. Buses will bring students home two hours earlier than usual; all students will be served lunch before they go home. Westonka teachers will use the planning time for a range of activities, including: training by a reading specialist; collaboration within subject area teams; work related to state graduation standards; curriculum review; and focusing on school improvement goals. **School Start Times Options to be Discussed by School Board on 12/11'* As requested by the Westonka School Board, district administrators have researched four options for adjusting future school start times. The four options will be discussed by the school 12/12/2000 Page 3 of 4 board at its December 11 regular meeting (7:30 p.m., media center, Shirley Hills Primary). If the Board decides to continue to consider a change in start times, it is expected to narrow the list down to fewer options for further analysis. After the board chooses which options to explore, two action steps will be taken: 1) administrators will research the program implications and total cost impact of any change 2) feedback on those remaining options (and their associated program implications and costs) will be solicited from parents, students, staff, and other interested community members. Options for registering opinions and asking questions will be publicized widely, and all feedback will be welcome. FOCUS TOPIC **Referendum Research, Technology Evaluation Reports** Preliminary reports on two major areas of interest were presented at the Special Study Session of the Westonka School Board on November 27. Representatives from Decision Resources, Inc., shared preliminary findings regarding community support for a possible Westonka Public Schools bond referendum for routine maintenance and technology early next calendar year. Earlier this fall, Decision Resources did a random, scientific survey of 400 households in our community. The firm is highly regarded for its ability to accurately gauge the "referendum pulse" of a community. Key findings from the survey include: --district taxpayers expressed substantial conceptual support for a bond referendum for routine maintenance and technology. --taxpayers were guarded about supporting a referendum in the amount the School Board originally proposed. --in order to present a proposal taxpayers will be likely to support, the Board will carefully examine the amount of the bond and consider whether to defer some of the district's maintenance and technology needs. Later in the meeting, a representative from Elert & Associates reported findings from the company's review of the District's current five-year technology plan and its implementation. The primary goal for the external review was to determine whether the district is "on track" with technology with regard to its use with learners. Key findings from their research include: --Westonka has been "nearly standing still" with regard to technology since the purchases made with bond funds in 1993-1994. --there are "islands of innovation" at all grade levels. Using antiquated hardware and software, many teachers labor diligently to provide students with meaningful experiences using technology as a tool. --in general, the teaching and administrative staff are forward-looking and would like to do more with technology to better prepare students, but have faced a shortage of up-to-date systems and software. --to bring the district up to date, it will need to boost spending for technology, not just via a one- 12/12/2000 Page 4 of 4 time purchase, but also as an annual expenditure, not only for hardware and software but also for support and training. UPCOMING EVENTS --6th Annual Holiday Boutique, Westonka Senior Center, through December 3. Hours: Dec 1, 8 a.m. - 8 p.m.; Dec 2, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m.; Dec 3, 9 a.m. - 3 p.m. --Grandview Grade 6 Choir Concert, December 4, 7 p.m, Grandview Middle School --Grandview Grade 7 Band Concert, December 5, 7 p.m, Grandview Middle School --Shirley Hills Grade 2 Music Program, December 7, 6:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School --Shirley Hills Grade 4 Music Program, December 7, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary School --Mound Westonka Symphonic and Concert Bands, December 7, 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School gym, admission at the door: $4/adults; $2/students. Coffee/punch/cookies reception afterwards, courtesy of the Band Boosters. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or anything other school- related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 wel isten @westo nka. kl 2. mn. us http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara ©lson, editor. 12/12/2000 Page 1 of 3 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" To: <kandishanson@msn.com> Sent: Friday, December 2:2, 2000 11:22 AM Subject: westonka.newsVol. 1, No. 12 westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 12 December 22, 2000 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. **This is the last issue of westonka.news for 2000. We will resume publication the second week of January. Enjoy the holidays!** Contents 1. News Briefs --MWHS National Honor Society Tutors --Office Hours During Winter Break 2. Focus Topic: Update on Sale of 5600 Lynwood Boulevard 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **MWHS National Honor Society Tutors** Mound Westonka High School's National Honor Society (NHS) Tutoring Program, now in its third year, is experiencing its best year ever. Principal Gene Zulk reports that there are 19 NHS students who are available to tutor before school, 15 tutors available after school, and 20 tutors available during the regular school day. Peer tutors assist fellow students with study skills, organization, course concepts, and test 12/26/2000 Page 2 of 3 preparation. According to Zulk, "This is the largest group of students we've ever had available to help others with subject area needs, and it's noteworthy of both our students and our NHS faculty advisors: Mary Jo Blanchard, Marc Doepner-Hove, and Brian Gersich." **Office Hours During Winter Break* During winter break (December 25-January 5), the following office hours will be in effect: Hilltop Primary School: open December 29, January 3 & 4, 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Shirley Hills Primary School: open December 27-29, 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Grandview Middle School: closed Mound Westonka High School: closed Superintendent's office: closed week of December 25; open January 3-5, 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Community Education and Services: open December 27-29 and January 3-5, 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. Westonka Area Learning Center: closed Early Childhood Center: closed, but will check voicemail box (491-8044) Transportation: open January 3, 4 & 5, 6 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. FOCUS TOPIC **Update on Sale of 5600 Lynwood Boulevard** At its meeting on December 19, the Mound City Council had planned to act on several items that had been recommended by the Mound City Planning Commission. The action items are all related to the building permit for the property, and they need to be approved before the developer and the school district will close on the sale. However, due to a technical error in the posting of the Planning Commission meeting at which those recommendations had been made, the Mound City Council chose to postpone action on the items. The Council did open the public hearing on the building permit for the buyer, and began to hear public comment. In order to have a properly posted Planning Commission meeting to make a recommendation on the building permit, the City Council called a joint meeting with the Planning Commission for 12/27, for the continuation of the public hearing, and the action items, on this topic. The buyer and the school district have set a new closing date of 12/29. Closing on the sale of the Lynwood site on 12/29 would enable the District to begin immediately to develop a timeline, and to review the scope of the projects to be funded by this sale: the new Haddorff football/soccer (and possibly track) stadium at Mound Westonka High School, and providing office space for district staff currently in school classrooms at Hilltop, Shirley Hills, and Mound Westonka High School. 12/26/2000 Page 3 of 3 UPCOMING EVENTS --Winter Break, December 25-January 5, No School. School resumes on January 8. --School Board Meeting, Monday, January 8. 7 p.m. Share the Success; 7:30 p.m. regular meeting. Shirley Hills Primary School Media Center, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka, k 12. mn. us http://www.westonka, kl 2.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. 12/26/2000 HANDBOOK FOR MINNF.5OTA CITIES Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 2. Although anyone can attend council meetings, citizens cannot speak or otherwise participate in any discussions unless the mayor or the presiding officer recognizes them for this purpose. The decision to recognize speakers is usually up to the presiding officer, but the council can overrule this decision. The council itself can. through a motion, decide to hear one or more speakers from the audience. The council should not sample public opinion by asking for a show of hands at the meeting. The majority opinion of those attending the council meeting does not necessarily represent general public opinion. It is likely to express only the opinion of a special group. c/Maintaining order Although meetings must be open to the public, individuals who are noisy or unruly do not have the right to remain in council chambers. When individuals abuse their right to be present in the council chamber, the mayor, as presiding officer-subject to overrule by the council--should order their removal from the room. If the presiding officer fails to act. the council may. by motion, issue such an order. The council has authority to preserve order at council meetings. The council can use necessary force, including use of the marshal or police, to carry out the mandate. If a person is excluded from a meeting, the council should provide an opportunity for the excluded person to give his or her side of the exclusion to a designated city staff member to satisfy any due process questions. If the entire audience becomes so disorderly that it is impossible to carry on a meeting, the mayor should declare the meeting continued to some other time and place if necessary.. The council may also move for adjournment. No matter how disorderly a meeting may be. it is a legal meeting and any action the council takes in proper form is valid. Questions have arisen as to whether city councils can issue contempt citations against individuals whose disorderly conduct disrupts or interferes with the transaction of city business. The council cannot issue such contempt citations. Rules of procedure The city council has the power to regulate its own procedure. While many councils have operated without written rules or regulations. written rules facilitate the conduct of city business and reduce the risk of mishandling important matters. 154 Clt^m'F.R 7 Council bylaws usually cover the place and time of regular council meetings, the order of business, parliamentary rules governing council procedures, minutes, and standing and special committees and their powers. Many councils also include other provisions in their bylaws. Agendas The bylaws should establish an order of business and a process for placing items on an agenda. Many councils have found the following order of business convenient: · Call to order · Minutes of previous meetings · Consent agenda · Presentations of petitions and complaints · Reports of officers, council committees and citizen committees · Reports from standing committees · Reports from special committees · Reports from administrative officers (including, in Plan B cities, the manager) · Notices and communications · Unfinished business · Presentation of claims · New business (including the introduction of ordinances and resolutions) · Announcements · Adjournment Consent agenda By council resolution or through its bylaws, a council may establish a consent agenda containing routine, non-controversial items that need little or no deliberation. The clerk or person responsible for placing items on the agenda prepares the consent agenda. By a majority or higher vote, the council can approve all actions on the consent agenda with one vote. 155 HANDBOOK FOR M[NNE.5OTA CITIES Tips for shortening meetings In addition to the consent agenda, councils may consider the following suggestions to shorten meetings: Council bylaws may set a closing date for the agenda. For example, the clerk must receive all requests to include items on the agenda five days before the meeting. This is especially important if councilmembers need to review written material before the meeting. The council might make an exception in emergency situations by a unanimous vote, for example. The council should set a definite time for adjournment and observe this rule. When the council is going to discuss a major public issue, the bylaws or the council, by resolution, may allot a limited, specific amount of time for each side to express its views. The council may also follow this procedure for all items on the agenda. x/Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary, procedure is a system of rules that make it easier to transact business. Parliamentary, rules can be very simple or very complex. The complexity of rules should vary in direct ratio to the size of the ~oup: i.e., as the number of people in the group increases, the complexity of the rules should increase. Accordingly. the rules for city councils should be simple. Any attempt to introduce a high degree of formality into the proceedings of a city council will probably reduce its ability to operate effectively. The rules of parliamentary procedure apply to council proceedings only if the council formally adopts such rules in its bylaws. A council, however, can informally follow these rules while conducting meetings. An informal application of these rules, together with the common sense of the councilmembers, may be the only guidelines many councils need in order to conduct their business in an orderly manner. The following discussion introduces a few rules of parliamentary procedure that can simplify the work of the council. These rules are contained in Roberts Rules of Order. The council can adopt them by inserting the following clause in the bylaws: "In all points not covered by these rules, the council shall be governed in its procedure by Roberts Rules of Order (or some other similar code of parliamentary, procedure)." 156 Motions The council transacts business through motions made by councilmembers. These motions are seconded, at times, and subsequently passed or rejected by council vote. Each motion has different rules. For example, councils can debate some motions, while they must vote on others immediately. Some motions require a simple majority for passage, others need a two-thirds majority. (See Chart V for a summary of the motions councils use most frequently and important information relating to them.) These are the typical steps to make and act on a motion: · A member of the council addresses the presiding officer. The presiding officer recognizes the member. The councilmember states his or her motion. (Usually in the following form: "I move.., text of the motion.") A motion should always be in positive, rather than negative, terms. For example, if the motion is to deny X a permit and the council defeats the motion, there may be some confusion as to whether or not X has been granted a permit. Even if the consensus of the council is to deny the permit, the motion should be to grant the permit and the council should then vote it down. The councilmember making a motion does not need to favor it or vote for it. If necessary, another councilmember then seconds the motion by saying: "I second the motion." (Seconds are not needed for meetings of small bodies like city councils unless required in the bylaws.) Neither the making of a motion nor the seconding of a motion places it before the council. Only the presiding officer can place the motion before the council by stating the motion. The presiding officer repeats the motion or states the question to the council. (When the presiding officer has stated the question, the motion is pending and it is then open to debate.) A discussion follows, if the motion is debatable. A councilmember may make subsidiary motions in the same form as the original motion. (See Chart V.) The council votes on the original motion or on any of the subsidiary motions. The presiding officer announces the result of the vote on each motion immediately after the vote count is complete. 157 HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES A councilmember may not make a second main motion while the council is discussing the first one. Any councilmember may, however, make a privileged motion even if a main motion is currently before the council. A privileged motion is one to adjourn, to recess or to ask a question of privilege--such as to restate the motion or ask for order. In this case, a vote on the privileged motion precedes the one on the main motion. v/Simultaneous motions When several motions are before the council at the same time, the council should vote on them in the following order: · Adjourn · Recess Question of privilege · Postpone temporarily (lay on table) · Vote immediately (previous question) · Limit debate · Postpone to a definite or indefinite time · Refer to committee · Amend · Substitute · General main motion v/Role of the presiding officer In any group or assembly, the presiding officer has an extra measure of power. As the chair of the meeting, the presiding officer has the responsibility to guide the group toward the conclusion of pending business in good time, while also giving major issues enough consideration. To accomplish this, the presiding officer has two special powers. The first power is to interpret and apply the rules of procedure. The presiding officer must decide whether or not motions are proper;, whether motions are in order; whether the body should grant questions of special privilege; and what procedure is proper in any given instance. The presiding officer should maintain order and expel disorderly individuals from the meeting. 158 5/45 CHAPTER 7 The presiding officer does not have complete freedom in exercising this authority. Any member of the council may appeal the decision of the chair. To do this, a councilmember must say: "I appeal the decision of the chair." immediately after the chair announces the decision. (Recognition from the presiding officer is not necessary when making an appeal.) The appeal must be seconded, is debatable, and cannot be amended. After the debate, the assembly votes on the 6hair's decision. A majority of"yes" votes upholds the decision of the presiding officer, and a majority of "no" votes overrules the decision. A tie vote sustains the ruling. The presiding officer may vote to uphold his or her own ruling. If no one appeals a ruling as soon as the presiding officer makes it, it becomes the rule of the council. The presiding officers's second power is to recognize speakers. The presiding officer may not. however, refuse to receive a motion after recognizing the maker, nor refuse to call for a vote on any motion that has been properly made and seconded. The power to recognize speakers still gives the presiding officer considerable influence over the course of the discussion and consequently over the eventual decision on any matter. When the council invites comments from the audience, the presiding officer continues to recognize speakers. In statutory cities, presiding officers play a dual role. They preside, make and second motions, and vote on all questions before the council. The presiding officer usually steps down from the position as chair in order to make a motion. To do this, the presiding officer tums over the duties of presiding officer to another member of the council. The mayor or other presiding officer may then make a motion, and should not assume the duties as presiding officer until the council has taken a final vote or postponed the motion until another time. Special motions Several motions deserve special consideration. They include the following: The motion to reconsider This motion enables a council to set aside a vote it previously took, and to consider the matter again as though it had not voted on the issue. If the council uses Roberts Rules, only a person who originally voted on the prevailing side may move to reconsider. Otherwise, any member may make the motion by saying, "I move to reconsider... 159 REgOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND DETERMINING THAT PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THE METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE FORMER HIGH SCHOOL SITE WHEREAS, a citizen's petition requesting preparation of an EAW for the MetroPlains project was filed with and certified by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB); and WHEREAS, the EQB designated the City of Mound as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) in the matter and as such delivered the petition to the City; and WHEREAS, the City, acting as the RGU, conducted a factual review of the concerns raised in the petition and evaluated the proposed project against mandatory EAW, EIS and exemption thresholds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Rules, section 4410.1100, subp. 6 requires that an RGU deny a petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, as the governing body of the City of Mound, the City Council reviewed the matter on its merits, including consideration of the memorandum dated January 5, 2001 prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. and makes the following findings of fact in regard to the matter: a. According to the Minnesota Rules, the MetroPlains project is not summarily exempted from the EAW process. b. According to the Minnesota Rules, the project does not meet any of the mandatory EAW or EIS category thresholds. c. The concerns raised in the citizen's petition represent ordinary issues associated with development projects of this type. Those issues will be addressed and resolved through the typical and established governmental permitting process. d. The City Council adopts the report and findings contained in the memorandum dated January 5, 2001 prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. e. The evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the MetroPlains project is not warranted and preparation of an EAW shall not be imposed. M: IMOUNDIOI-O I Imetro plains eaw res. doc ~ANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIF5 stating the motion to be reconsidered..." The council may debate this motion. If the council passes the motion to reconsider, it must then reconsider the original motion and take another vote. If the council defeats a motion to reconsider, no further action is necessary. A motion to postpone indefinitely There is an important difference between the motion to postpone indefinitely and the motion to postpone temporarily. The motion to postpone temporarily is more commonly called a motion to "lay on the table" or "to table." The motion to postpone, postpones consideration of the motion until some undetermined future time. The council may consider a tabled motion whenever a majority of the members decide to do so. A motion to postpone indefinitely, however, is the equivalent to a negative vote on the main motion. A motion to postpone indefinitely, permanently suppresses any future consideration of the main motion. A motion to limit debate A council may limit debate by: placing a time limit on debate, such as a limit of 15 minutes to consider a particular motion: limiting the number of people who may speak for and against a certain motion, such as a limit of three speakers in favor and three speakers opposed. The motion to amend Councilmembers may offer amendments to a main motion at any time. In addition, it is possible to amend an amendment currently under consideration. Beyond this, councilmembers can offer no further amendments. When a member has made a motion to amend, the vote on the amendment must precede the vote on the original motion. After the council has accepted or rejected the amendment. another vote on the original motion is necessary. The motion to substitute This is a motion to replace one motion with another on the same subject. A councilmember may move to substitute a main motion or an amendment to a main motion. One form for making a substitute motion is to say. "I wish to introduce the following substitute motion ·.. present the substitute motion..." When a substitute motion is before the council, the council must decide which of the two motions, the original motion or the substitute motion, it wishes to consider. The council must vote on this question. A "yes" vote favors considering the substitute motion. A "no" vote favors considering the original motion. The council must then discuss and vote upon the selected motion. 160 CHAPTER 6 Minn. Stat. § 415.1 I. Minn. Stat. § a,15.10. Minn. Stat. § 21 lB.10, subd. 2. In many cities, it is routine for the council to automatically approve a committee's recommendations if the committee has done a thorough and competent job. The council's final decision, however, and not the committee's recommendation, binds the city. To illustrate, committees may not enter into a contract or employ workers even if a specific motion of the council delegates such power to them. Salaries of mayor and councilmembers The city council in Second. Third and Fourth Class cities fixes the salaries of the mayor and councilmembers by ordinance, in such amount as the council deems "reasonable." No change in salary shall take effect until after the next succeeding regular city election. Salaries may be on an annual or monthly lump sum or on a per diem basis. The per diem may be payable for each regular meeting, for each regular and special meeting, or for each day's service. Unless the ordinance provides otherwise, a lump sum salary covers special meetings. Iron Range cities have special legislative authority to make per diem payments to councilmembers up to $25 per day, not to exceed $250 per year, for absences from the city while on official city business. An employer must allow a city councilmember to take time off from regular employment to attend council meetings. The time off may be without pay, with pay, or made up with other hours as a~eed between the employee and the employer. When the councilmember takes time off without pay, the employer must make an effort to allow the employee to make up the time with other hours when the employee is available. No retaliatory action may be taken by the employer for absences to attend meetings necessitated by reason of the employee's public office. Citizen involvement One way to increase positive feelings about government is to promote citizen involvement. Citywide or neighborhood committees, special project review committees, and even block organizations are some of the committees cropping up in many cities. In many cases, the council has formed or encouraged these citizen committees. They have saved time for public officials and have made contributions that could only occur through citizen participation. 133 J"JANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES Minn. Stat. § 412.621. Councilmembers have found that ignoring citizen concerns can result in their removal from office at the next election, or in the defeat of a pro~m~am or activity as a result of citizen opposition. Although city officials cannot, in most cases, delegate decision-making authority to citizen groups, they can use citizens in advisory roles. This technique works, however, only if the council listens to the advice. If the council does not follow the advice of the committee, it should give understandable reasons for taking other action. When a council forms a citizens' advisory body, it should lay out the ground roles for its activities. The council should also stress that in the absence of clear statutory authority to delegate responsibility, the council must, by law, make the final decisions. State law allows, and in some cases requires, city councils to delegate decision-making power to certain independent boards and commissions. Independent citizen boards and commissions Independent citizen boards and commissions can help alleviate the council's workload. The amount of discretionary power the council can give to such bodies varies. In some instances, such as a utilities commission, the statutes give the commission all discretionary authority necessary to operate the utilities. In other instances, such as the airport board, the council may determine the board's discretionary authority in the enabling ordinance or resolution. Administrative boards may not exercise any powers or duties which the council could not give to an individual officer. All of these boards, however, can receive any or all ministerial powers necessary to execute their programs. In Plan B cities, with the exception of civil service boards..special boards of review, and possibly the housing and redevelopment authority, there shall be no administrative board or commission. except for the administration of a function jointly with another city or political subdivision. The council itself shall perform the duties and exercise the powers of the board of health and shall govern and administer the library., parks and utilities as fully as any other municipal function. The council may, however, create boards or commissions to advise the council with respect to any municipal function or activity, or to investigate any subject of interest to the city. 134 CHAPTER 6 Minn. Stat. § 360.038, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 412.221, subd. 16. A.G. Op. 1001-H (Apr. 11, 1961). Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subds. 1, 2. Minn. Stat. § 469.003, subds. 5, 6. The statutes specifically authorize various independent boards and commissions in other statutory cities. The following is a list of the most common boards and commissions: Airport board The council may establish an airport board by ordinance or resolution which shall prescribe the powers and duties of the board. The board shall be vested with authority for construction, enlargement, improvement, maintenance, equipment, operation and regulation of the airport. Civil service board and commission Civil service commissions can take several different forms depending on the state statute under which the council establishes them. (See Chapter 9 for more information on civil service commissions.) Hospital board The council has the power to provide hospitals and, by ordinance, establish a hospital board. Hospital boards may exercise any hospital management powers that councils confer upon them. The council may abolish the board by a vote of all five members of the council. The board shall consist of five members appointed by the mayor with council approval for overlapping five-year terms. The council may remove members for cause. Housing and redevelopment authority A housing and redevelopment authority (HRA) has been created in each city by the Legislature. The HRA may not transact any business or exercise any powers until the city council, by resolution, finds that the city: (1) has substandard, slum or blighted areas that cannot be redeveloped without government assistance, or (2) has a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary low income dwellings. The council may consider such a resolution only after a public hearing is held and publication requirements are met. An HRA consists of five members who may be officers and employees of the city. The mayor appoints members with the approval of the council for overlapping five-year terms. In many cities, the city councilmembers serve on the HRA, so the council becomes the HRA. 135 HANDBOOK FOP, MINNESOTA CITIES Minn. Stat. § 471.59. Minn. Stat. § 134.09. Minn. Stat. § 134.10. Minn. Stat. § 134.11; Minn. Stat. § 134.13. Minn. Stat. § 412.501. Minn. Stat. § 412.501; Minn. Stat. § 412.521. Intergovernmental boards and commissions The council may create intergovernmental boards and commissions. A mutual agreement of the cooperating governments will set up the organizational format, powers and duties of such boards. (See Part IV.) Library board When a public library is established, except in First Class cities operating under a home rule charter, the mayor of the city, with council approval, shall appoint a board of five, seven or nine members from among the residents of the city. The number of members shall be determined by a resolution or an ordinance adopted by the council. The board members shall serve staggered three-year terms and may be removed for misconduct or neglect. Board members serve without pay but may be reimbursed for actual and necessary traveling expenses. Once established, the board prescribes its rules of procedure, selects its officers and controls the library fund. Besides appointing new members to the board, the council must approve all purchases of land and proposals for the erection of buildings. The board must file an annual report each year with the city council and the Department of Education. Park board The council of any city of more than 1,000 population may. by ordinance, establish a park board. The board shall consist of three, five, seven or nine members as determined by resolution or ordinance of the council. The board members are appointed by the mayor with council approval. Members serve three-year overlapping terms and may be removed by the mayor, with the council's consent, for cause after a heating. No compensation is received by the board members unless the council authorizes compensation. The board may be dissolved by a unanimous vote of the council. The park board shall maintain, beautify, and care for park property, and perform all other acts necessary to carry out its statutory powers. The board must make quarterly reports of its activities to the council and file an annual statement of receipts and disbursements with the city clerk. 136 Minn. Stat. § 471.15. Minn. Stat. § 471.16. Minn. Stat. § 412.321, subds. 1, 2. Minn. Stat § 412.331; Minn. Stat. § 412.341, sub& 1. Minn. Stat. § 412.341, subd. 2; Minn. Stat. § 412.351. Minn. Stat. § 465.70; A.G. Op. 824-A-3 (May 7, 1968). Recreation board Recreation is usually a function which the city council, the park board or the local school board administers. Any city may operate and expend funds for a public recreation program and playgrounds; acquire, equip and maintain land, buildings or other recreational facilities, including swimming pools. Generally, a recreation board refers to an independent commission that the city council, school board and park board establish cooperatively. The statutes specifically authorize the formation of an intergovernmental commission with representatives from all three bodies. Utilities commission Any statutory city may own and operate facilities for supplying utility service. No gas, light, power or heat utility may be operated until approval by five-eighths of the voters voting on the proposition at a regular or special election. By ordinance, a city may establish a public utilities commission. Utility commissions must have three council-appointed members who serve overlapping three-year terms. The council may appoint no more than one of its own members to the commission. City residence is not a qualification for membership on the commission unless the council so provides. The commission shall adopt rules for its proceedings, but must hold at least one regular meeting each month. The council may prescribe a salary for the commissioners and decide, by ordinance, which of the following municipally owned public utilities shall be within the commission's jurisdiction: · Water, · Light and power, including any system for the production and distribution of steam heat; · Sanitary or storm sewer, or both; and. · Public buildings owned or leased by the city. Additionally, some Third and Fourth Class cities may own and operate a television signal distribution system which shall be considered a public utility. 137 I'{ANDB00K FOR MINNF30?^ Crrlg3 Minn. Stat. § 412.361. Minn. Stat. §§ 453.51-.62. Minn. Stat. §§ 453A.01-.12. Minn. Stat. § 274.01, subd. 2. Minn. Stat. § 412.111. Minn. Stat. § 462.354, subd. 1. The commission may exercise all of the discretionary administrative authority necessary for the management of the utilities. Municipal power agencies · Any two or more cities may form a municipal power agency if each city passes a resolution authorizing an a~eement. The purpose of the agency is to secure an adequate, economical and reliable supply of energy for cities that own and operate a utility for the distribution of electric energy. All agency powers lie with its board of directors, and include constructing and acquiring generating and transmission facilities, the power of eminent domain, and the authority to issue bonds and notes. Any city council may, by resolution, exercise any of these powers as if it were a municipal power agency. Municipal gas agencies Any two or more cities owning or operating a utility for the local distribution of gas may form a municipal gas agency if each passes a resolution authorizing the agreement. The purpose is to secure an adequate, economical and reliable supply of gas for utility customers. The board of directors exercises all agency powers. Any city may, by resolution, exercise any of the powers of a municipal gas agency as if it were an agency. Special board of review The governing body of any city may appoint a special board of review. This special board of review serves at the direction and discretion of the city council. The council determines the number of members, the compensation and expenses to be paid. and the term of office of each member. At least one member of the special board must be an appraiser, realtor or familiar with property valuations in the assessment district. (See later chapters in the Handbook for more information on these boards and commissions.) Advisory boards and commissions Another important link in city governing activities is the work of advisory boards and commissions. These entities are much like the independent or administrative boards and commissions. The city council may create and dissolve them by resolution, appoint people to serve on them, and exercise other powers of general supervision over them. The council must, however, pass an ordinance to create a planning commission. 138 Minn. Stat. §§ 462.351-.364. C.^rrr.~ 6 There are several differences between independent boards and advisory boards. State statutes establish most independent boards and commissions and give them some discretionary powers. Advisory boards conduct studies and investigations on behalf of the council, and submit reports and recommendations for council consideration. Advisory board decisions do not take effect until the council has accepted the decision by passing an ordinance or resolution. The council may organize advisory groups in any manner it deems appropriate. The council may find it wise to appoint people who represent various special interest groups in the city. An advisory commission may be an ad hoc body created by the council for a special purpose, such as for conducting an investigation, and which ceases to exist once the purpose of the commission has been achieved. Some mayors appoint these bodies informally to act as advisory groups without official powers. Planning commissions Cities can establish these bodies by passing an ordinance describing their organization and powers. City officials, such as the mayor, attorney and engineer, are frequently advisory members. Other advisory boards and commissions Other advisory boards and commissions that city councils commonly establish include: industrial commissions, which have power to study the ways and means of attracting more commercial and industrial development to the city; safety councils, which advise the council on safety programs; and intergovernmental agencies, such as a joint planning commission which the city sponsors in cooperation with other units of government. As government has become increasingly complex, cities have used fewer independent or administrative citizen boards and commissions. Instead of diffusing authority for government administration over a number of different agencies, many cities place all authority in the city council. This decision centralizes responsibility for the proper direction of local government affairs and increases voter understanding of government. Frequently, this trend leads to pressures for greater simplification and centralization in administration as well. The council-manager form of government (Plan B) is an answer to this pressure. Administrators, whose duties and functions lie somewhere between those of a manager and those of a clerk, may also help to centralize government. 139 CITY OF MOUND DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION DECEMBEE 21, 2000 DRAFT Present were: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Greg Eurich, Gerald Jones, and Frank Ahrens, and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park Director Jim Fackler, and Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. MINUTES Motion made by Funk, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the minutes of the November 16, 2000 DCAC meeting as amended below. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES Mike Savage, 3125 Highland Boulevard, brought up the subject of last years permit to have a personal watercraft on a lift at the dock, and questioned if it is appropriate to continue this use this year, at Highland Park. Chair Funk replied that this issue would be addressed when discussing the dock location map, which would be discussed first. Motion made by Funk, seconded by Goldberg to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 3. DISCUSS: ABUTTING DOCK SITE 5975 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, DAVID MAGEN Park Director Fackler reported on his conversation with David Magen. He explained that the bottom line is that all the City can allow is what the LMCD allows. If it is a matter of not meeting setbacks, the City cannot allow him to go out farther with his dock. The City has to work under the guidelines of the LMCD. Commissioner Goldberg asked if another person needed to be pulled off the multiple dock program to accommodate all the people in this area. Park Director Fackler stated he believes there is room there now for all the existing dock sites. Councilmember Hanus stated that since Mr. Magen could not be here tonight, and did not send a letter or contact staff to make his wishes known, the best the Commission can do is proceed with the information they have. Commissioner Goldberg reiterated that staff needs to be proactive in making sure that all people putting docks in understand the exact configuration in order to accommodate all docks going in at this site, before anyone actually puts their dock in. 5'/53 Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to approve the revised Highland End dock configuration for the multiple and the 2 abutting dock site holders. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS: RECONFIGURATION OF THE MULTIPLE SLIP DOCK AT TVVlN PARK ACCESS Park Director Fackler summarized the necessity to move a site from Highland End to Twin Park. The site holder is agreeable, if her site can then become permanent at Twin Park But this change will have to be approved by LMCD. Commissioner Ahrens stated that Mr. Byron Peterson, the owner of the private lakeshore to the right of the location, is objecting to the size of the dock the City is putting in. Park Director Fackler confirmed that Mr. Peterson was notified of this meeting. Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Goldberg, to add a fifth permanent site to the multiple dock at Twin Park. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Savage again addressed the Commission in regard to his personal watercraft. Last year the use was granted as temporary, hinging upon no problems with the neighbors or anyone else. Mr. Savage requested this personal watercraft site become permanent, as there were no problems last year. Commissioner Ahrens pointed out that at Avalon, there was one year of temporary Dtestingl'l of the personal watercraft sites, and then both sites there were made permanent. Ahrens suggested following the same procedure for this site. Councilmember Hanus suggested making only the one site permanent. The other temporary site could remain temporary until someone uses it, and then requests that the site be made permanent, thereby keeping the one year I'ltestingl'l time to make sure there are no objections. Consensus was reached to make dock site H permanent, and I would remain temporary until further notice. At this point, discussion of the dock site location map was resumed. 5. REVIEW: 2001 DOCK LOCATION MAP CHANGES Dock Inspector McCaffrey summarized the changes that had been made resulting from last month's meeting. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission DR A~'¥cember 21,2000 Discussion followed, with consensus being reached for the following changes: 1. Eliminating 42800-H & 42800-1 at Devon Common, which were designated temporary anyway and have not been used. 2. Changing site 22990 at North Park to abutting, as a new subdivision was created with a new home to be built. 3. Remove 23200F on Lake Blvd. as this was a temporary site and is now vacant. 4. Change site 10220 at Crescent Park to an abutting site. 5. Eliminate 41020 & 41080, as these sites were overlooked when the multiple went in and should have been eliminated earlier. 6. Eliminate 42990, same situation as #5. Chair Funk tabled the discussion at this point, until after the Twin Park discussion since that may cause additional change (as this item was discussed first to accommodate Dock Inspector McCaffreyl'ls schedule). Following discussion of the previous agenda items, this item was brought back for further discussion. 7. Insert an additional permanent site 60765E, 24 x 10. 8. Remove site 60900G, and change 60900 H to G, and I to H 9. Change 60900H from temporary to permanent Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to approve the dock location map as amended above. Motion carried unanimously. 6. REVIEW: 2001 APPROVED BUDGET Park Director Fackler reported that the 2001 budget has been approved, although some adjustments will be made when some figures are finalized. Discussion took place by all regarding changes in prices for multiple docks, and the necessity of maintenance in some areas. No action was taken regarding these discussions. 7. DISCUSS: REQUIRED DOCK/SLIP USE AND LIMITATION OF BOAT LENGTHS Park Director Fackler summarized the information from other cities regarding their policies for dock use, and for limitation of boat lengths. The issue of use it or lose it for the dock sites could be noticed for the next season, so people expect some action on it, and in 2002 action could be taken. Commissioner Goldberg suggested writing some stages into the policy, so that it is not simply use it or lose it, but there are some stages. Councilmember Hanus stated that would be fine, but at the point where they will lose their dock site, the policy must be black and white in order for staff to enforce the policy. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission DP AF cember 21, 2000 Commissioner Ahrens stated that there needs to be much more discussion regarding how this policy should be utilized. When there are some definite ideas on what the Commission plans, a policy can be written and passed along to the City Council. There is a long waiting list for people who want to put in a boat and use a dock, so the sooner a policy can be implemented, the better for these people. Commissioner Jones suggested using the other cities policies and simply changing any points that the Commission does not agree with. Councilmember Hanus stated that the right to appeal would have to remain in any policy, and some of the policies have a fairly short time limit for appeal. Commissioner Goldberg suggested putting this item on the agenda for January, to decide on' some issues and give the City Attorney a direction in order to draft a new policy. Park Director Fackler stated that regarding boat size limitations, this issue has been decided, as the slip size is now listed in the dock location map. 8. REVIEW: STANDARD FOR RIP RAP INSTALLATION ON PUBLIC LANDS Park Director Fackler reported on previous conversations regarding an abutting property owner who would like to replace, repair, or add rip rap to public lands. No policy was in place regarding this request, and enclosed in the packet is a draft of a policy with a quote for fieldstone rip rap which the City would like to use, as it lasts much longer. Commissioner Ahrens questioned what should be done with areas that now have red rock and need to be repaired. Does the red rock have to be pulled out and redone with field stone, or can it be left underneath. Park Director Fackler stated that different areas would have to be managed differently. In many areas the red rock could be kept in place for a base layer. A good contractor is the main factor in making sure that the projects are done right. Commissioner Goldberg stated that there should be more discussion on the use of red rock versus fieldstone. A cost analysis as well as the upkeep costs and longevity issues need to be looked at further. Park Director Fackler stated that there may be some applicants in January to install rip rap, and a standard should be in place before they come. Fackler stated that his understanding from a previous meeting was that the fieldstone option was agreed upon. Most Commissioners agreed with his recollection. Councilmember Hanus addressed the issue of assistance, as someone may approach the City wanting to rip rap a public area, and pay for part or most, and want some assistance from the City. This issue should be addressed in any policy or ordinance as well. Mounds Dock and Commons Advisory Commission .~,~,,--, .,r December 21, 2000 Motion made by Funk, seconded by Ahrens, to approve the rip rap specifications as outlined on page 64, to be placed in a policy. Motion carried unanimously. DISCUSS: JANUARY DCAC AGENDA To be included on the January agenda are: 1. Discuss: Required dock slip usage on multiple slip docks 2. Discuss: Possible sites for winter repair/replacement of rip rap 3. Review: 2001 Calendar 4. Election of officers 5. Review: Work Rules 6. Discuss: Possible sites for new multiple slip docks (Councilmember Hanus asked for information regarding the Centerview Beach area, and the Idlewood area) DECEMBER CALENDAR 10. 11. HRA & City Council Minutes December 28, 2000 Special City Council Minutes December '11, 2000 Park & Open Space Advisory Commission Minutes November 9, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes November 30, 2000 Municipal Dock Program Site Breakdown FYI l) 2) 3) 4) s) REPORTS A) B) CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE Regarding the Woodland Point settlement, the original City contribution was anticipated to be $45,000. It could now be more in the range of $55,000. PARK DIRECTOR No report at this time. DOCK INSPECTOR No report at this time. c) 12. ADJOURN Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Funk, to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. 10. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY DECEMBER 11, 2000 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Absent: Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jori Sutherland and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. No Public present. Chair GeoffMichael opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PLANNING COMMISISON MEE TING APPROVE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 30, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEE TING MOTION by Mueller, seconded Clapsaddle by to approve the minutes of the November 27, 2000 Planning Commission and the minutes of the November 30, 2000 Planning Commission. AYES: 8 NAYES: 0 Motion carried. Presentation by Loren Gordon describing the plans for the Mound Post Office. The City of Mound now owns the site. At this level, what we need to work on is some of the site issues in regards to building, landscaping, parking, etc. This comer at Belmont and Lynwood was identified preliminary as part of the Destination District of the Downtown Zoning Districts. With the proposal here we would take those two parcels and rezone them to the Destination PUD District that would guide its use and performance. The destination classification allows the public buildings as a permitted use. would fit for a Post Office in terms of its use. This~~ The Post Office Plans at this point are preliminary and are the design they would like to use. In January 2001 this will come back to the Planning Commisison for rezoning the parcel. MOTION by Mueller seconded by Glister to adjourn meeting at 8:45 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Sue Schwalbe Chair Geoff Michael Dec 28 2088 12:24:24 Via Fax -> ~an&is Hanson AMM FAX lie December 25, 2000 Page 881 Of 881 Association Hctropolitan unicipalities Governor Informs Legislators of Tax Proposal On December 22, 2000 Governor Ventura sent a letter to all legislators regarding his 2001 tax proposal. In the letter the Governor recommends the following: · State takeover of the K- 12 general education formula. The takeover is estimated to cost :$900.0 rr, illion annually. · Reducing the property tax on business and rental housing · Broadening the sales tax base to services. · Reducing overall reliance on the property tax. · Reallocating some existing general purpose aids to formulas that more clearly reflect local needs and re- sources. · Exempting local governments from the sales tax. While the letter does not give specif- ics the Governor notes that "To be clear, I am not looking at reductions at Local Congress Increases Housing Tax Credit and Tax Exempt Bond Allocations During the final negotiations on the federal budget Congress agreed to in creases in the federal Iow income tax credit and the tax exempt private activity bonds. The agreed to increases will occur over a two year period beginning in 2001. Each state receives a tax credit allocation equal to $1.25 per capita. Minnesota's current allocation approximates S5.8 million. The bond authority is also allocated on a per capita basis (S50). Based on a population of approximately 4.7 million the state's bond allocation is S238.7 million. The state's tax credil allocation will increase by :$1.2 million for each year of the phase-in (:$0.25 per capita each year). The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) estimates that the additional credits could fund six to eight additional developments. At the end of the phase in the tax credit allocation will be :$$7.2 million. The bond allocation increases of S12.50 per year for each of the two phase-in years will result in :$58.7 million in additional allocation each year. At the conclu- sion of the phase iff the allocation will approximate :$356.0 million. Government Aid (LGA). But I will propose that we look at undesignated aids such as the Homestead Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA)." The Governor further writes that HACA could be used for education prope,ly tax relief. He does not comment on lev~,, limits or if the loss of revenue from the sales tax exemption would be offset. A copy of the letter is available at the Governor's web page (www. 9overnor. state.mn.us) or calling the AMM office at 651 215 4000. Legislative Coordinating Commission's Subcommittee Recommends Salary Cap Change At its Monday December 18, 2000 meeting the subcommit- tee recommended that the local government salary cap increased to a'.!ov,, a ma× irr, urr, salary of 125% of ti~e Governor s salary. The current ma×imum is 95%. If enacted the legislat,on would set the maximum at approximately Sl 50.000 a year. AM.~f .~e,,'s Fax is faxed to aX AMM city managers and administrators, legislative cotttacts and Board members, Please share this fax with your mayors, councHmembers and staff to keep them abreast of impor- tant metro city is$,es. 145 University Avenue H/est St. Paul M.¥ 55103-2044 Phone: (6519 215-4000 Fax: (6519 281-1299 E-mail: amm~amm14 5. org Metropolitan Council Holds Two Public Meetings Regarding Housing Affordability Criteria The Metropolitan Council has held two public meetings regarding the update to the housing affordability performance criteria Representatives of housing advocacy groups, AMM. and Dakota County discussed the criteria with the committee. While the advocates supported the criteria (100 points) AMM and others suggested changes to the criteria and options that link transpodation funding to housing. The committee will meet in early January to review the testi- mony and possibly redraft the proposed criteria. A public hearing is scheduled for late February to solicit comments on the revised proposal. AMM will keep you informed of the proposal's progress. DVISOR Leaders in Public Finance Since 1955 December 2000 Tools for Schools School districts are constantly facing long lists of needs for capital expenses - including equipment, textbooks, technolog% building repairs and maintenance, site improvements, renovations and additions. And there never seems to be enough money to meet all of the needs. What do districts do when the list of unmet needs gets so long that it impairs the quality of education? Years ago, districts had few choices. In fact, usually the was to schedule a bond referendum, hope the give their approval, and sell general obligation bonds to finance the projects. In recent years, the state and federal governments have made available to school districts a wide variety of other options for financing capital projects. In fact, it seems like one or two new options are added almost every year. Following is a list of just some of the financing options or tools available to Minnesota school districts. · Building Bonds · Operating Referendums · Down Payment Levy · Alternative Facilities Aid and Levy · Qualified Zone Academy Bonds (QZABs) · Capital Facility Bonds · Capital Notes · Lease Purchase · Lease Levy · Health and Safety Aid and Levy · Tax or Aid Anticipation Certificates . E-Rate Discounts · Maximum Effort Capital Loans Cooperative Secondary Facility Grants Continued on Page 6 From everyone at Ehlers & Associates, best wishes this Holiday Season. We hope that your 2001 is filled with lower tax and interest rates, higher bond and approval ratings, successful projects, thriving communities and no dimpled chads! PIRfect Meet Elizabeth Solution .... ~ 2 Johnson ..... 3 Larson Leads National Association ... 3 Really Smart Growth ...... 4 New Services .... 4 www. ehlers-inc.new 4 TIF Seminar ..... 6 A PIRFect Solution Minnesota cities are constantly looking for better means to finance public improvements. While not quite perfect, a permanent improvement revolving fund (PIRF) offers several advantages over more traditional approaches. These advantages bring greater financial management responsibility, making the PIRF a tool to be understood before it is used. Take a look and see if a revolving fund is a solution for your improvement plans. Statutory Authority Not all permanent improvement revolving funds are created equal. If your city has an existing PIRF, make sure you know its foundation. Some revolving funds come from city charters. Other revolving funds reflect nothing more than the name in city accounting records. The statutory authority for a PIRF comes from Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.091. This statutory authority conveys the ability to issue general obligation bonds secured by revenues of the revolving fund. These bonds do not require an election and are not subject to the statutory debt limit. The Concept The problem with the traditional approach to improvement funding is the link between assessment revenues and bonds. Special assessments get locked into debt service funds. State Law requires all revenues from special assessments to be paid into the debt service fund for the bonds issued to finance the improvements. Prepaid assessments create large balances in many debt service funds. These resources cannot be used until the bonds are retired. Another, more subtle issue, involves compliance with arbitrage regulations. The flow of assessments often makes it impossible to maintain a "bona fide" debt service fund (more on this issue later). The PIRF breaks this link. Special assessments (and other revenues) are paid into the revolving fund. Monies are disbursed fi'om the revolving fund, as needed, for other purposes. This approach offers several advantages: (1) Since money accumulates in the revolving fund, not in debt service funds, the issuer can comply (2) (3) (4) with arbitrage regulations. Monies in the revolving fund are also available to finance the costs of public improvements. Improvement projects can be pooled into a single bond issue, minimizing the costs of issuance. Assessments from healthy projects can be legally used to support lagging cash flows or deferred assessments. These advantages create additional financial management responsibility. Ongoing cash flow projections are essential to the use of a PIRF. Using monies in the PIRF to finance improvement costs may remove revenues needed to pay debt service. Without a plan to replenish these funds by the issuance of bonds or from future revenues, shortfalls may occur. A good cash flow model shows the future financial condition of the PIRF and minimizes the potential for unintended outcomes. Arbitrage Considerations All tax-exempt bonds are subject to certain arbitrage regulations, regardless of whether you are required to rebate. An important and often overlooked requirement is the bona fide debt service fund. In simple terms, a bona fide debt service fund contains only the amount needed to pay principal and interest over the next year. If the fund balance exceeds this amount, then the investment of the fund balance must be restricted to the yield on the bonds. Limiting the investment of debt service funds poses financial problems for improvement bonds. When the fund balance comes from prepaid assessments, the investment income is needed to offset the loss of interest payment on the assessments. The arbitrage restricted rate may be 1.5% to 2.5% lower than the assessment rate. The Structure The revolving fund is established as a special revenue fund (although a capital project fund works as well). The revolving fund receives all revenues and bond proceeds. L balance accumulates in this fund. All interest income is credited to the revolving fund. Larson Leads NAIPFA Ehlers & Associates is proud to announce that Steve H. Larson of the Illinois Office was elected President of the National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors (NAIPFA) at the October meeting in New York City. Steve has also served as the Central Time Zone Director and Annual Conference Committee Chairperson. NAIPFA's membership includes eighteen firms who represent municipal clients around the country. Ehlers has been a Charter Member of NAIPFA since 1989. NAIPFA member finns must be completely independent of the underwriting of municipal securities by banks and securities dealers. The purpose of the Association is to promote the common interest of independent advisory firm members. NAIPFA seeks to develop and promote rigid lal and professional standards for firms and their oyees and to respond to legislative needs on behalf of the member firms and the public agencies they serve. Since 1991 NAIPFA has provided a certification program for its members. Members passing the certification testing and meeting the necessary requirements are granted the designation of Certified Independent Public Finance Advisor ("CIPFA"). For more information on NAIPFA, visit the Association's website at www. naipfa.com. annual budget, financial statements and audit, along with Tax Increment, development and bond related issues in that growing city. She worked for the Office of the State Auditor, where she was on the audit team that audited the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Community Development Agency. She also was on the audit team for certain county audits. Elizabeth is a licensed Certified Public Accountant. Her skills and experience will be a valuable addition to Ehlers work in TIF reporting and compliance. Her educational background includes a Bachelor of Arts from the University of St Thomas in St Paul, where she graduated Cum Laude. PIRF from Page 2 Monies in the revolving fund are transferred into capital project funds as needed to support individual projects. In making expenditures remember: PIP-d: projects are subject to the same 20% assessment test as other improvements financed under Chapter 429. Don't forget to declare the intent to reimburse with bond proceeds. Failure to comply with reimbursement regulations will prevent you from issuing tax-exempt bonds to restore monies advanced from the'PIRF to improvement projects. Monies in the revolving fund are transferred into debt service funds as needed to pay principal and interest on bonds. Conclusions Meet Elizabeth Johnson Ehlers & Associates is very pleased to welcome Elizabeth Johnson as the firm's newest employee. Elizabeth joins Ehlers' TIF Team as the Tax Increment Financing Compliance Coordinator. Elizabeth's background is perfectly suited to this position. : recently, she has worked for the City of Cottage Grove Director. At Cottage Grove, she tackled the For many cities, the permanent improvement revolving fund is the perfect solution for managing improvement finance. The flexibility to make broader use of assessment revenue creates new options for financing improvement projects. This flexibility requires careful and ongoing cash flow projections. Call an Ehlers financial advisor for more information on a permanent improvement revolving fund or any other aspect of improvement finance. 3 Really Smart Growth Thewind whistles around the suburban mall. aging strip "If you plan it, we will build." Is someone there or was it just the wind? "If you plan it, we will build." Who's there? Slowly, the mall disappears. In its place appears townhomes, new stores, loft offices, green space and transit facilities. Blink. The vision is gone. The bleak suburban landscape returns. "If you plan it, we will build." While the voice prompted Kevin Costner to plow up his corn field, Smart Growth should not lead suburbs to bring out the bulldozers. The Smart Growth planning initiatives underway by the Metropolitan Council are to be applauded. These projects advocate good, sound concepts --- mixed and integrated land uses, public spaces, lessen automobile orientation, plans that reflect local desires, a public actively engaged in the process. Planning is an important step, but it is only the first step. Smart ideas need to produce smart solutions. Planning alone is not enough. Fiftieth and France will not recreate itself at any intersection simply because a planning process says it is a good idea. Redevelopment plans rarely succeed without careful consideration of implementation. Implementation means more than identifying action steps. Implementation deals with a variety of factors that will influence if the plan goes from pretty pictures to bricks and mortar. Ehlers staff has been privileged to work on many successful redevelopment projects across the Twin Cities. These projects show the keys to really smart growth. Business Sense. Unless redevelopment solutions are economically viable they will not occur or sustain. Redevelopment must create a setting that will attract private investment. Office and retail space must be leased. Housing units must be sold or rented. Economic Barriers. Redevelopment faces a variety of economic barriers. Developed land is more expensive than vacant land. Smaller parcels must be assembled in practical development sites. Existing structures must be demolished and removed. Higher density leads to structured parking. Public plazas, streetscape and other enhanced infrastructure rarely fit into a developer's proforma. Few redevelopment projects can bear these costs and build a quality facility and be economically viable. Public Funding. The public finance implications of Smart Growth is often missing in the discussion. Look at all of the significant redevelopment projects in Twin Cities suburbs. It is impossible to find one that occurred without the assistance of public funding. Public funding is needed to remove the economic barriers to redevelopment --- to produce an economic playing field that is level with other locations. Redevelopment requires a clear understanding of the potential uses and sources of public financial support. With limited funds, planning must consider how to invest public monies to achieve the best results. First Steps. Planning shows us the end, but not always the beginning. Redevelopment tends to be not one large project, but a collection of smaller ones. It is easy to wander around looking for the best place to start. A redevelopment planning process needs to look for practical first step projects. A successful planning process creates an anticipation for change. Any momentum can quickly stall without specific steps to begin the redevelopment process. Communications. The Smart Growth approach makes the public an active participant in the planning process. The public should not (and will not) disappear simply because the plan is complete. The public, especially property owners in the redevelopment area, will have a keen interest in the what and when of development. Newsletters, the Internet, and open houses are all useful tools for keeping the public connected during implementation. Patience. Redevelopment will not occur overnight. Attracting developers, shaping development proposals, negotiating agreements, and acquiring land all take time. With a series of projects, the time seems longer yet. Patience and commitment are perhaps the greatest assets a city can bring to the redevelopment process. We can make Minnesota cities better places to live, work and play. Smart Growth calls on us to explore the possibilities. Really Smart Growth shows the way to make it happen. 4 New Services www. ehlers-inc.new As of Ehlers & Associates part continuing commitment to meeting client needs two new services are being offered to communities. Both services were developed after interviews with government officials in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Key Financial Strategies (K'TS) is a unique comprehensive financial planning process that helps communities to identify and plan for both short-term and long-term operating and capital needs. KFS helps communities: Confirm and prioritize community goals. Review current financial position. Develop an inventory of capital needs and program requests beyond traditional capital improvement plans. Identify future capital funding and operating needs. Present financing and operating options. Prepare and affordable, comprehensive financial plan Develop a framework to review future capital projects. Redevelopment Management Services are comprehensive services designed to assist communities to achieve their redevelopment goals. The services include assistance with: Project planning Assessment of project market and financial feasibility Identification of potential funding sources Alternative redevelopment options Identification of qualified developers Marketing of redevelopment plans to developers Preparation of TIF plans and documents Financial analysis of development proposals including proof for the "but for" test Conduct pro-forma analysis Negotiate developer agreements Maintain TIF project finance reporting and case records Four years ago, Ehlers & Associates became the region's first financial advisor on the Internet. With the electronic distribution of official statements and Internet bidding, the Internet is an integral part of our business. We are now in the process of updating and enhancing our website. The goal is to make Ehlers site attractive, useful and functional. Here's what you can find at www. ehlers-inc.com: Intemet bidding. Ehlers is the only financial advisory firm to make Internet bidding an option for every issue. Bond Sales. Check out Ehlers bond sales page to get information on current and past sales. Disclosure documents for every Ehlers sale are available through our website. Offices. Each Ehlers office (Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin) has a separate page, giving you quick and easy access to information you need. At these locations, you can learn more about Ehlers staff and services. Under Projects, you can view summaries on how other communities have successfully tackled financial issues. The page contains links to other sites relevant to local government finance in Illinois. Information. This part of the site will be consistently evolving as Ehlers seeks new ways of providing useful and timely information. Current resources include public finance news, interest rate indices and Ehlers newsletters. New information items will be added over time. Seminars. Get information and register for any El'tiers seminar over the Internet. Tools. In early 2001, Ehlers will provide the first of a series of interactive financial tools on the web. Tools under development include debt projections and tax increment calculations. 5 Tools for Schools from Page I With this expansion of options, the role of Ehlers as a financial advisor to school districts has evolved. In the past, we often served primarily as "bond consultants," helping districts through the complexities of bond referendums and debt issuance. Now we truly serve as full service financial advisors to school districts. When we work with district staff and school boards, we start by listening to the needs and issues of the district. Then we explore multiple options for meeting those needs, and analyze the impact of each option on the district. Then we help local decision makers to understand each of the options and its impact, so that they can make informed decisions. When we go to work with a school district, we come with a full tool box, not just a single tool. At Ehlers, we welcome and enjoy the challenges that come with this expanded role. Being a full service financial advisor means: We are committed to keeping abreast of changes in state and federal laws and regulations and changes in market conditions that affect all of these financing tools. We have developed simple informational materials on all of the tools listed here, so that we can make them more readily understandable to decision makers. We welcome the opportunity to brainstorm - among ourselves and with local officials - and seek out the best options to meet your needs. Sometimes a traditional bond issue is still the best solution to a district's problems. But by creatively using all of the available tools, we can often come up with a plan that uses a different tool or combination of tools that will better meet the district's needs. For more information on how to finance school district capital needs, contact any of the financial advisors on the Ehlers Education Team- Carolyn Drude, Kristin Hanson, Gary Olsen, or Joel Sutter. Publicor_D Inc. Seminar Set aside your calendars for February 1 ,&,. 2, 2001, for tt(e Publicorp Public Finance/TIF seminar The Public Finance Game Show" at the Earle Brown Heritage Center. The seminar will present different aspects of general and administrative tax increment practices, the current bond market and finance strategies, as well as the planning and development of individual projects. If you are new to public finance, would like guidance on administration of municipal projects or are looking for new ideas, this seminar is for you. Last year's Publicorp seminar was a record success with a the most participants ever. This year, we are including with the seminar a legislative session that will look into upcoming issues like the Governor's Property Tax Reform proposal. There will also be a session by the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) which will concern resources available to assist with redevelopment projects and how to access funding for projects. For more information, call Tony Reichenberger at 651-697- 8523 or email at tony@ehlers-inc.com. Ehlers & Associates is committed to helping local governments better understand the issues that shape public finance. Roseville (MN) Office 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, MN 55113-1105 651.697.8500 Brookfield (WI) Office 375 Bishops Way, Suite 225, Brookfield, WI 53005-6202 262.785.1520 Naperville (IL) Office 1001 East Chicago Avenue, Suite 135, Naperville, IL 60540 630.355.6100 On the Internet at www. ehlers-inc, corn I MEMO 0 F F i C E I To: From: Subject: Date: Hickory Tech User Group Me.mbers } Software Review .~/~ ~ January 2, 2001 As you are all aware, based on the information from Hickory Tcch that wc have approximately 12 - 24. months of support left fi-om them, at the last user group meeting we discussed reviewing the software products of ACS and CMS in St. Cloud sometime in January. I have scheduled a demonstration of ACS's software at their offices in Waite Park (Behind the Fleet Building in St. Cloud - see enclosed map) on Wednesday afternoon, January 24, 2001 fi-om 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Then on Thursday morning, January 25th, starting at 8:30 a.m. at thc HoLiday Inn, we will see a demonstration of CMS software. Both combanies have indicated a willingness to work with us as a block in thc pricing and training costs. Please RSVP to me (218) 828-2307 before January 19th so I can let them know how many terminals/training stations they will need. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Kandis Hanson ChiefLen Harrell Monthly Report for December, 2000 STATISTICS " The police department responded to 533 calls for service during the month of December. There were 16 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 burglary, 1 vehicle theft, and 13 larcenies. There were 59 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses 2 child abuse, 2 forgery/NSF check, 2 criminal damage to property, 3 narcotics, 12 liquor law violations, 4 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 8 domestics (4 with assaults), $ harassment, and 18 other offenses. The patrol division issued 65 adult. Parking violations accounted for an additional 73 tickets. Warnings were issued to 88 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 1 adult for a felony and 22 adults and 17juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were 9 misdemeanor adult warrant arrests and 1 misdemeanor juvenile arrest. The departmem assisted in 19 vehicle accidents; 2 with injuries. There were 44 medical emergencies and 61 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 15 occasions in December and requested assistance 9 times. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - December, 2000 II. III. IV. INVESTIGATIONS The Investigators worked on 3 child protection issues in December. Other cases included burglary, assault, theft, narcotics, absenting, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, possession of stolen property, fleeing a police officer, counterfeit money issue, intent to evade taxes, domestic assault, damage to property, harassment, trespass, vehicle theft, forgery, and NSF checks. Formal complaints were issued for gross misdemeanor criminal damage to property, disorderly conduct, gross misdemeanor worthless check, underage consumption, gross misdemeanor DWI, theft, possession of a controlled substance, and dog at large. PERSONNEL/STAFFING The department used approximately 144 hours of overtime during the month of December. Officers used 28 hours of comp-time, 168 hours of sick time, 18 holidays, and 99 hours of vacation. Officers earned 41 hours of comp time. Officer Ewald continues to recover from shoulder surgery and will be out at least until February 9th. TRAINING Officer Christenson attended the Problem Oriented Policing Conference in San Diego. All officers received training in the new DWI statutes, processing of order for protection violations, and defensive tactics. Three officers attended a course on officer liability, three attended a course on domestic assault, and Sgt. McKinley completed certification training in Emergency Preparedness. Vo COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER CSO Salter had 72 calls for service; 36nimal complaints, 31 ordinance violations, and 5 miscellaneous contacts. Two citations were issued. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - December, 2000 VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 88.5 hours of community service in the month of December. The officers continue to work sporting events for the school district. The unit consists of seven members currently. Nuclear Fuels and Nuclear Waste Electric Generating Facilities Petroleum Refineries Fuel Conversion Facilities Transmission Lines Pipelines Transfer Facilities Underground Storage Storage Facilities Metallic Mineral Mining and Processing Nonmetallic Mineral Mining Paper or Pulp Processing Mills Facilities Air Pollution Hazardous Waste Solid Waste Wastewater and Sewage Systems Residential Development Campgrounds and RV Parks Airport Projects Highway Projects ~ Barge Fleeting Water Appropriations and Impoundments Marinas Streams and Ditches Wetlands and Protected Waters Forestry ~ Animal Feedlots Natural Areas Historic Places Mixed Residential and Industrial- Commercial Projects Communication Towers ~ports or Entertainment Facilities Release of Genetically Engineered Organisms Land Use Conversion, including Golf Courses OlxOgxO1 15:~9 METROPLAINS DEUELOPMENT a 95~47~06~0 N0.974 P00~×00~ ETROPLAINS __ METR, OPLAINS PROPERTIES [NC METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT LLC JanuaiT 9,2001 City of Mound Atm.: Kandis Hanson 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Via Fa.x: 952-472-0620 Dear Ms, Hanson, Tlfis letter is to request that the Public Hearing for Case #00-71 Street/Easement Vacation for MetroPlains Development be continued from the Januaryvath, 2001 City Council Agenda to the January 23rd.. 2001 agenda so that certain details regarding the case can be completed. Sincerely, DICTATED BUT NOT ,SIGNED OR REVIEWED BY AUTHOR TO EXPiDITE MAILING Lawrence W. Olson m:\larry ~vo\mkm\01091005.1tr SPRUCE TREE CENTRE 651 646 7545 · · 1600 IJNIvERSITY AvE. · SUITE ST PAUL P'IINN~-SOTA $510~r-3825 DRAFT Combined Agreement !?./~a ! 1/9/01 JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into as of the __ day of ,2001 by and between the City of Minnetrista, an Minnesota municipal corporation ("Minnetrista"), and the City of Mound a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Mound"). BACKGROUND 1. The purpose of Agreement, made in accordance with the authority of Minnesota Statutes § 471.59, is to control the public infrastructure impact of development of land in Minnetrista and in Mound in a manner that is in the mutual best interests of both communities. 2. Minnetrista and Mound are each authorized by law to carry out numerous governmental functions within their respective corporate limits, including the construction, operation and maintenance of public streets and roadways, sanitary sewer facilities and municipal water utilities (the "Local Improvements"). 3. Minnetrista and Mound share a common border along the east corporate limit of Minnetrista and the west corporate limit of Mound. 4. A portion of the common boundary is located on or near the centerline of Westedge Boulevard. 5. Minnetrista and Mound each expect that residential development will occur along the common boundary; and that the development will necessitate the construction of new or modified Local Improvements. 6. In order for Mound to supply water service to the new residential developments within Mound, it is necessary and convenient for the water service lines to be located on land lying within the corporate limits of Minnetrista and shown in Exhibit A (the "Property"). 7. Location of the service lines in Minnetrista will also provide the opportunity for Minnetrista and Mound to have access to the other's water service for emergency purposes. JBD-191352v2 MU200-85 8. In order for Mound to adequately provide for the transportation requirements of the new residential development, it is necessary and convenient that existing roadways, including a portion of Westedge Boulevard be improved. The portion of Westedge to be improved is shown on the attached Exhibit B ("Westedge (North)"). 9. The portion of Westedge Boulevard straddles the boundary between Minnetrista and Mound; and it is necessary that the roadway improvements take place in both cities. 10. Mound holds and utilizes a public utility easement over certain lands lying within the corporate limits of the City of Mound, which easement is described in the attached Exhibit C, (the "License Area"). 11. The easement area abuts upon the corporate limits of the City of Minnetrista. 12. Minnetrista anticipates that as residential development occurs in Minnetrista, it will be expanding and upgrading its sanitary sewer system. 13. In order to accomplish such activities it is desirable that space be made available within the License Area for a portion of its sanitary sewer lines; and 14. In order for Minnetrista to adequately provide for the transportation requirements of anticipated residential development in Minnetrista of lands abutting on the common boundary, and currently refered to as Saunders Lake North (the "Development"), it is necessary and convenient that existing roadways, lying partially in Minnetrista and also including a portion of Westedge Boulevard lying within the corporate limits of Mound (the "Portion") be improved. The improvement includes, without limitation, the realignment of the roadbed, the construction of permanent surface, and curb and gutter ~.r,~ ,,r~;~.,,~ 'm,~ r),,,~;~,~, all as is shown on the attached Exhibit D (the" Westedge Boulevard South Project"). 15. Minnetrista understands that the need to improve the Portion is largely the result of the Development, and is therefore willing to make certain assurances to Mound regarding the Project. 16. Minnetrista ordinarily requires that developers be responsible for the construction, in Minnetrista, of any necessary public improvements caused by a development. II. RECITALS NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto do stipulate and agree as follows: JBD-191352v2 2 MU200-85 I. WATER SERVICE 1.10 Grant of Easement. Minnetrista agrees to deliver to Mound temporary and permanent easements and/or licenses necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of the Mound water service lines over under and across the Property. The descriptions of the areas of the Property covered will be prepared by Mound and reviewed by the Minnetrista. The dimensions of the easement and/or license areas will conform to standard practices. Minnetrista agrees to deliver such instruments within a reasonable time, but not later than 60 days following the date that Mound furnishes Minnetrista with the proposed legal descriptions. Minnetrista represents to Mound that it has the full power and authority to grant such easements and/or licenses. 1.20 Interconnection. Mound agrees to design the water line to include an interconnection with the Minnetrista service lines at a location, and utilizing structures that shall be mutually acceptable to the parties as reasonably determined by their respective engineers. 1.30 Proiect Costs and Permits. Mound shall be responsible for 100% of the project costs and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. Minnetrista shall cooperate, as necessary in any applications. 1.40 Use of Interconnection. The interconnection shall have a valve which shall be opened only in emergencies. In the event of an emergency in Mound, the valve may be opened to supply water to Mound by Mound employees upon the direction of the City Manager, the Public Works Director or the Police or Fire Chief of the City of Mound. In the event of an emergency in Minnetrista, the valve may be opened by Minnetrista employees at the direction of the City Administrator, the Public Works Director, or the Police or Fire Chief of Minnetrista. The City opening the valve shall make every reasonable effort to notify the other City as soon as possible. The City opening the valve shall be responsible for closing it. If the water is needed for more than 24 continuous hours, it can be supplied only upon the approval of the Mound City Manager and the Minnetrista City Administrator following consultation, if possible, with the Public Works department. 1.50 Charges for Water Usage. The volume of any water used shall be calculated according to the length of time the valve is open and the water pressure flow. Charges for each volume unit of water used will be based on the water rate charged by the City supplying the water. 1.60 Repair and Maintenance. Mound shall be responsible for repair and maintenance of the interconnection, the valve and its lines. Minnetrista shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of its lines beyond the valve. Mound, except in the case of emergency repair or maintenance, give Minnetrista 24 hour advance notice of any repair or maintenance activity. The City performing the repair or maintenance activity shall be responsible for the restoration (and the cost of such) of property or improvements that are disrupted as a result of such activities. JBD-191352v2 3 MU200-85 II. WESTEDGE ROAD BOULEVARD (NORTH) 2.10 Grant of Authority, Design, Minnetrista hereby grants to Mound the authority to enter into the City of Minnetrista for the purpose of constructing the improvements to Westedge Boulevard in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Mound and approved by Minnetrista. The plans shall include all utility lines that are to be constructed by Mound within the right-of-way as part of the project. And shall include, without limitation, the construction of a water service stub to the east lot line of the parcel located at the southwest comer of the intersection of Westedge Boulevard with Lynwood Boulevard (the Waterline Stub"). Mound agrees that it will provide the owner of such lot with a reasonable opportunity for review and comment as to the location of the Waterline Stub. Promptly upon the execution of this agreement, Mound shall cause to have prepared detailed plans and specifications of the construction of the roadway. Upon completion, such plans and specifications will be presented to Minnetrista for approval. Such approval shall be not be unreasonably withheld, and will be given within a reasonable timeframe, but in no event more than 60 days from the date of submission, unless, during such period, Minnetrista notifies Mound of its disapproval of the proposed plans and specifications. Such notification shall state the reasons for such disapproval, and the steps necessary to correct the plans and specifications. 2.20 Construction, Warranty and Insurance. Once approved, Mound, will let the project. Any contract for construction of the improvements to the portion of Westedge lying in Minnetrista must contain a standard warranty of work that runs to Minnetrista, and must also contain insurance coverages running in favor of Minnetrista of an amount that Minnetrista would require on similar projects. Mound will coordinate with the residents of properties in Minnetrista to keep them informed and updated on construction activities. 2.30 Project Costs and Permits. Mound shall be responsible for 100% of the project costs, including any necessary easements, and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. Minnetrista shall cooperate, as necessary in any applications. 2.40 Inspections. Mound will be responsible for the construction management of the Project including necessary inspections. Minnetrista shall have the right to make inspections of the construction at any time. Mound shall provide Minnetrista with a construction timetable at the beginning of the project, and any revisions to said schedule. 2.50 Acceptance Upon Completion. Upon completion in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, Minnetrista shall accept the portion of Westedge Boulevard lying within its corporate limits. Such acceptance shall constitute a full release and satisfaction of Mound's obligations to construct the roadway, except for defects discovered after acceptance by Minnetrista which were not or could not be discovered before acceptance. 2.60 Right of Entry_. Mound hereby grants to Minnetrista, its agents and employees the right to enter onto the right of way to Westedge Boulevard lying within the City of Mound for the purpose of constructing the interconnection of the portion of Westedge Boulevard described above with improvements to Westedge Boulevard to be JBD-191352v2 4 MU200-85 constructed by Minnetrista to the south. It is understood that such improvements are to be made without cost to Mound, and are to be based upon designs prepared by Minnetrista. III. SANITARY SEWER LICENSE. 3.10 License Granted. Subject to the provisions of this agreement, the Grantor grants to the Grantee, and the Grantee hereby accepts a license to construct, operate and maintain sanitary sewer facilities within the License Area. 3.20 Consideration. Consideration for this agreement is the mutual promises and agreements made herein, and also is the full and faithful performance of the mutual promises of the parties contained in those separate agreements entitled: [Road Agreement] and [Water Agreement]. 3.30 Grant of Authority, Design, By such license, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee the authority to enter into the License Area for the purpose of constructing the improvements to Grantee's sanitary sewer system at locations acceptable to Grantor and in accordance with the plans and specifications to be prepared by Grantee and approved by Grantor. Promptly upon determining the need to construct a sanitary sewer line within the License Area, the Minnetrista City Engineer shall cause to have prepared detailed plans and specifications of the construction of the sanitary sewer. Upon completion, such plans and specifications will be presented to the Mound City Engineer for approval. Such approval shall be not be unreasonably withheld, and will be given within 30 days from the date of submission, unless, during such period, Grantor notifies Grantee of its disapproval of the proposed location, plans and specifications. Such notification shall state the reasons for such disapproval, and the steps necessary to correct the plans and specifications. 3.40 Construction, Warranty and Insurance. Once approved, Grantee, may let the project. Any contract for construction of the improvements to the portion of the sanitary sewer lying in the License Area must contain comprehensive public liability insurance coverage rurming in favor of Grantor of an amount that Grantor would require on similar projects. 3.50 Proiect Costs and Permits. Grantee shall be responsible for 100% of the project costs and for acquiring any and all permits from applicable state agencies. Grantor shall cooperate, as necessary in any applications. 3.60 Maintenance. Grantee shall be exclusively responsible for repair and maintenance of its sanitary sewer lines located within the License Area. Grantee shall, except in the case of emergency give the Grantor 24-hour advance notice of any repair or maintenance activities. IV. WESTEDGE ROAD EXTENSION (SOUTH) JBD-191352v2 5 MU200-85 4.10 Development Approval. Minnetrista agrees that it will not give final approval to permit the construction of the Development until the developer, at no cost to Minnetrista or Mound has entered into a binding agreement to construct that part of Westedge Boulevard South in accordance with the ~' ........ .~; ................. ;.~..s.~ C:.ty ^c~,,~ .... '~ containing fh,~ f,-,,11 ,-,,,, r; ~ ,-,- ...... ~, ...... v .......... j .......... r ......... ans an snecificatlons,...... ~c ,~ ..... .~.~,;~,., ~,c ,~,~ roa'%.'a-'.~j Th~ ,-1~o: ..... ill b, ..... ;~+~--f ,xr;fh fha such construction shown on the attached Exhibit D -- 4.20 Grant of Authority, Plans. Mound hereby grants to Minnetrista, its agents and employees, the authority to enter into the City of Minnetrista for the purpose of constructing the improvements to Westedge Boulevard South Proiect in accordance with the plans and specifications '";~ ~' .......*~ *^ ~ ....~ *'~" approval. ~,,"~- appmva! ok-~ ~ --* and ~contained in Exhibit D. 2. Construction Res?cnsibi!ity 4.30 Modification of Plans and Specifications. The parties acknowledge that it may be necessary to modify the Plans and Specifications from time to time to address such issues and soil conditions and drainage and tree relocation matters. The agreement contemplated in section 4.10 shall also obligate the developer to the construction costs necessitated by such modifications. 4.40 Construction, Warranty and Insurance. c~..~ ........... ~r~-~ · ~,'~ ~r,~,..~ De;'e!e.p~r Security. As part of the approval process for the Development, Minnetrista, or at Minnetrista's option, the developer will let the project. Any contract for, or which includes, the construction of the improvements ~ of Westedge !y:.ng :.n Mar:nd Boulevard South must contain a standard warranty of work ,~,~,...~..~..~ .... ,~..~ ---~-~,~ .... ~ ...~"-"~ ...~.* ~.~v~l~' centain,_insurance coverages . ..... ~-~----~,;~' ...;~ .~c ...... ~. of Mound, and performance security all of an amount o-~ nature that Mound Minnetrista would require on similar projects. T~,~, r~ .... ~ ....... ;~ .... m..o, .... ;*~' *~'~ residents s all be designated as an additional enencia or all such warranties, coverages and securities. ~.4.50 Proiect Costs and Permits. The Developer shall In accordance with the provisions of Section 4.10 above, Minnetrista shall obligate the developer of the Development to be responsible for 100% of the project costs, including, '::itko',:t limitation, al! .... · .... ~; .....,o ~, ,~;~ ...... : ....... '~ inspections, '~-~ any necessary easements~ ~o.o,,~o,o ~, ~d for acquiring any and all pe~its from applicable state agencies. Minnetrista and Mound shall cooperate, as necessary in ~y applications. JBD-191352v2 6 MU200-85 -~. -..~r--..v..-.t ..... ,;^..~ m,.~..., r~_. · -.vr-.~ .... 4.60 Inspections. Minnetrista, or at its option, the developer, will be responsible for the construction management of the Project including necessary inspections. Mound shall have the right to make inspections of the construction at any time. ~ ~ Minnetrista, or the developer, shall provide Mound with a construction timetable at the beginning of the project, and any revisions to said schedule. & 4.70 Acceptance Upon Completion. Upon completion in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, Mound shall accept *~-'~ '-~"~:^- ^~ nr~o,~.~..,, r~ ^~ · ..,:,~,:. .... v ................ ~ ...... lying limits WestedEe Boulevard South. Such acceptance shall constitute a full release and satisfaction of ~ Minnetrista's, and/or the developer's obligations to construct the roadway, except for defects discovered after acceptance by Mound which were not or could not be discovered before acceptance. V. RIGHT OF ENTRY 5.10 Right of Entr~. Effective upon the date hereof, Minnetrista hereby grants to Mound, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees the right to enter upon the Property, for the purpose of making surveys, inspections, investigations, soil borings, drilling, and testing relative to Mound's construction of public improvements on portions of the Property, should such construction be authorized by further agreement of the parties. 5.20 Consideration. In consideration for such right of entry, Mound agrees to: (a) Notify Minnetrista of the date and time that work by Mound on the Property will commence under this Agreement which notice shall be at least five (5) business days prior to doing any work on the Property in order to permit Minnetrista's employees or consultants retained by Minnetrista to be present during the time any work is being done by Mound or its consultants; JBD-191352v2 7 MU200-85 (b) Provide a copy of all test results, surveys and reports prepared by their employees or consultants evaluating the conditions present on the Property to Owners as soon as reasonably possible following final completion thereof. (c) Dispose of all solid waste generated during the course of Mound's sampling activities and other work on the Property in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. (d) Do the work in the shortest period time reasonably necessary to complete such activities authorized under this Agreement as Mound, in its sole discretion, shall elect to undertake; (e) Use the Property only for the purposes described herein and not park or store any equipment on the Property, except during the limited periods of time when the work on the Property which is contemplated by this Agreement is actually in progress; (f') Do no unnecessary damage to the Property and restore the Property to substantially the same condition as the condition in which it was found by Mound at the time of Mound's entry upon the Property pursuant to this Agreement. (g) Hold Minnetrista harmless from and indemnify it from any and all claims, damages, judgments or obligations, including the cost of defense of suit, arising out of damage to Property or arising out of injury to anyone incurred or alleged to have been incurred in connection with or as a result of any work done pursuant to this Right of Entry, or as a result of Mound's intentional torts or negligence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mound shall not be responsible for the timeliness of any submission or application for further investigation or feasibility analysis of the proper methods of removal, treatment or disposal of any pollutants, contaminants or hazardous substances present on the Property, it being the sole responsibility of Minnetrista to perform these tasks if required; (h) Mound or its contractors or invitees which enter the Property pursuant to this Agreement shall carry insurance during the time any work is done on the Property in accordance with the following minimum requirements; Workers' Compensation Insurance with limits as provided by statute, with all necessary statutory elections to provide coverage for and/or claims made by any person doing work on the Property pursuant to this Right of Entry; Employer's liability insurance (often included as coverage) (b) in the Workers' Compensation policy) with limits of $100,000; o Comprehensive Auto (and truck) Liability Insurance with minimum combined single limits of $1 million per occurrence; Comprehensive General Liability Insurance (including coverage for contractual liability, products and completed operations liability, liabilities JBD-191352v2 8 MU200-85 arising out of explosion, or underground related incidents) with minimum combined single limits of $1 million per occurrence. (i) If Mound removes a sample or portion of the Property for investigation, monitoring or testing or obtains any data or issues any report, it must give Minnetrista an equal amount of the sample or portion and a copy of any data or report, and must permit the Minnetrista to perform an independent investigation, monitoring, or testing of the sample or portion. VI. MISCELLANEOUS. 6.10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota. 6.20. Notices and Demands. All notices, demands or other communications under this Agreement shall be effective only if made in writing and shall be sufficiently given and deemed given when delivered personally or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows: If to Minnetrista: With a copy to: If to Mound: With Copy to: John B. Dean, Esq. Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Or to such other persons as the parties may from time to time designate in writing and forward to the other persons entitled to receive notice as provided in this section. JBD- 191352v2 9 MU200-85 6.30 Indemnification. Mound agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless Minnetrista, its officers agents and employees from any claims or causes of action, of whatever nature, occasioned by or arising out of Mound's activities under this Agreement, including without limitation, construction, repair, maintenance and operation by it of the Local Improvements within Mound. Minnetrista agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless Mound, its officers agents and employees from any claim or cause of action, of whatever nature occasioned by or arising out of Minnetrista's activities under this Agreement including, without limitation, repair, maintenance or operation the Local Improvements located in Minnetrista, and of the interconnection. Such undertakings shall not extend to acts that are the result of the intentional or negligent conduct of the other party, nor shall such undertakings be deemed to waive any limitation of liability available to either party. 6.40 Connection to Waterline Stub. In lieu of any other hook-up, connection or area charge, Mound is authorized to charge a fee of $1,200 for connection to the Waterline Stub. 6.50. Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by the parties hereto only by written instrument executed with the same procedures and formality as were followed in the execution of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and pursuant to authorization of their respective City Councils, the Cities of Minnetrista and Mound have entered into this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF MINNETRISTA CITY OF MOUND Mayor Mayor City Administrator City Manager This redlined draft, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - original document : J:\DMS\JBD\43NC04!.DOC and revised document: J:\DMS\JBD\43NC05!.DOC CompareRite found 30 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions appear as Bold+Dbl Underline text JBD-191352v2 10 MU200-85