Loading...
2001-06-26PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOUND C~ CO~CIL TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001 7::50 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AGENDA *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these iten~s unlessa Council Member 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 APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AOENDA *A. ~PP.,O~ ~S: ~ 12, 2001 REGULAR MEETING JUNE 13, 2001 MEETING CONTINUATION JUNE 13, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. APPROVE RECOMMENDATION FOR FINANCIAL SYSTEM HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE UPDATE *D. APPROVE TREE REMOVAL LICENSE *E. APPROVE CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES WI~ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT *F. APPROVE STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR LANGDON WOODS PAGE 7814-7818 7819 7820 7821-7837 7838-7849 7850 7851-7854 7855-7856 o *G. APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH BRENSHELL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CIT~ENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON ~ AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ~ DEVELOPMENT: LANGDON BAY CASE #01-20: SLOPE EASEMENT VACATION CASE ~1-23: BUTTERNUT STREET VACATION 7857-7872 7873 PLEASE ~ OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS ~ COUNCIL CHAMBERS. PLANN~G COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS JOHN & P~ SHAUGHNESSY: 6024 CHERRYWOOD CASE #01-06: V~A~CE CASE #01-08: MINOR SUBDIVISION 7874-7921 ACTION ON OPERATIONS PERMIT - 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE: MAHOGANY BAY ACTION APPROVING RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT BID FOR WESTEDGE BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS 7922-7930 7931-7933 10. 11. 13. 14. ACTION ON COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINNEHAHA WATERSHED DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF MOUND FOR LOCAL WATER PLUG AND REGULATION DISCUSSION REGARDING FISHING DOCKS PROGRAM CONSIDERATION OF BUDGET REQUEST BY SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES ACTION ON CHAPTER V, SECTION 1000 - NUISANCE ABATEMENT EXECUTIVE SESSION: CITY MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ~ORMATION/lVHSCELLANEOUS 7934-7944 7945-7949 7950 7951-7957 7958-7975 A. LMC correspondence 7976-7981 B. ~ Fax News 7982-7986 C. LMCD commuffieations 7987-8017 D. Fi,nancial reports: May 2001 8018-8020 E. Westonka Senior Center newsletter 8021 F. Westor~a Healthy Community Collaborative communications 8022-8025 G. Hennepin County Public Safety news 8026-8033 H. F~: MetroPlains approvals 8034 15. ADJO~ This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agenda may be viewed at City Hail or at the City of Mound web site: www. cityofmound, com. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 12, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 12, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter, City Attorney, John Dean; City Planner, Loren Gordon; Jim Prosser, Carol Lindgren, Anthony Deiland, Randy Moriarty, Lisa Martin, Linda & John Verkennes, Sharon Baumel, Wayne & Jackie Davis, Frank Weiland, Lorrie Ham, Bill & Dorothy Netka, Terry Santo. Consent Agenda: Ail items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items un/ess a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m., and the Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 2. APPROVE AGENDA Kandis Hanson asked that Item 6 on the Westedge Project be removed. Klm Anderson asked that item 10e, Planning Commission communication, be added. Mark Hanus requested that 3B and 3E be removed from the consent agenda. John Dean noted that Item 12, the adjournment, should now be a continuation rather than an adjournment. Loren Gordon asked that item 5a regarding R.H. Development be added. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the consent agenda, excluding items 3B and 3E. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of the May 22, 2001 and May 29, 2001 meetings. C. Approve final payment in the amount of $5,854.50 to Diamond 5 for Coast to Coast demolition. D. Approve imprest fund for pet licensing F. Approve Verizon Wireless Lease Agreement: Chateau Lane Water Tower G. Approve setting public hearing: R.H. Development Case #01-20: Slope Easement Vacation & Case #01-03: Butternut Road Vacation: June 26th. 1 -7814- Mound City Council Minutes - June t2, 200t H. Approve Public Lands Permit: John & Linda Verkennes - 4771 Drive. Island View 3B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Mark Hanus had discussed charge in the amount of $1,144.88 for removal of trees on Woodland, with the Finance Director. This item will be pulled from the payables until clarified. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve payment of claims in the amount of $248,477.12. ($249,622.00 presented, less the above questioned amount of $1,144.88) All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3E. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Randy Moriarity, 4536 Denbigh Road (Case #00-69, minor subdivision and Case #00- 79, variance) appeared before the Council. He has two plan options that he has presented. He did not attend the Planning Commission meeting when he was on the agenda, due to a conflict. It was noted that there are 48 days left of the extension, as far as the timeframe for action on this item. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Anderson to refer this case back to the Planning Commission, and have staff and the applicant meet prior to the Planning Commission meeting to discuss options. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4.COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS Terry Santo, owner of Santo's Savannah on Commerce Blvd., appeared before the Council, inquiring as to the availability of funds for redecorating her storefront. She would like to stay with the design of the new True Value Hardware building. It was noted that there are no funds available at this time, but if some become available, she will be notified. 5. LANGDON BAY FINAL PLAT REVISIONS Loren Gordon presented mo items to the Council that need to be addressed on order to keep the final plat moving along, and the project on schedule. The first revision is a result of He additional easement along Robin Lane. Originally 10 feet was going to be gained on ea~ side, but the revision is for 20 feet on the West side. The result is the platted right-of-way wiW need to slide west slightly where it intersects with lot 28. The second re~ision is the result of a request to vacate the north/east half of Butternut Road. The re,It to rthe plat will be the lots adjacent to Butternut would gain additional land area. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the above two revisions to the final plat of-Langdon Bay, wi~ the condition that if the vacation is approved on June 26, the plat conforms, and if not approved goes back to the original approved plat. All voted n favor. Motien carried. 2 -7815- Mound City Council Minutes -JUne 12, 2001 Sa. EARLY START AGREEMENT WITH R.H. DEVELOPMENT Loren explained that R,H, Development wants to secure two building permits for model homes before the final plat is recorded, The agreement for early start will indemnify the City if anything should go wrong with safety issues, pulling permits, etc. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to approve the Early Start Agreement with R.H. Development, Inc. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 6. pULLED FROM AGENDA 7. 2001 BONDING PROJECTS The Mayor announced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals' whic~ have been received for the purchase of the City's $1,585,000 General Obligation. Bonds, Series 200tA, The City Manager presented a tabulation of the proposals that had been received in the manner specified in the Terms of Proposal for the Bonds. The proposals were as set forth in Exhibit A attached. After due consideration of the proposals, Councilmember Brown then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hanus. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO, 01-51: A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $1,585,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 2001A; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT The Mayor a~unced that the next order of business was consideration of the proposals whieh~had beenreeeived for the purchase of the City's $1,155,000 Municipal Liquor Stere Re,ven~ Bonds, Series 2001B. The City Manager presented a tabulation ef the ~eposats whie~ had been,receiYed in the ~manner specified in the Terms of Proposal ~.~e Bo~s. The pmposats were as set fo~.h in Exhibit A aEached. ~er due :~sideratien of the proposals, Councilmember Brown then introduced the following mseluaer~ and moved its ad~tion. Motion seconded by Coundlmember Har~us, These rotting, in the affirmative:. Meisel, Brown, Hanus. Those voting in the negative; A~dersen and ~Meyer.. Motion carried. RESOLUTIO;N NO. 01,$2= A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $1,1,55,000 M.UNiClPAL LIQUOR STORE REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2001B; FIXING THEIR i=ORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DEUVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT The Mayor ~~d ~t ~the .~ order of bus, ess was consideration of .the pmposats whi~had, b. ee~ ~m~eived for the purchase of the City's $780,.00.0 General 3 -7816- Mound ¢lt~/Cour=ll Mlnute~ - June 12, 2001 Obligation Iml~ovement Bonds, Series 2001C. The City Manager presented a tabulation, of the proposals that had been received in the manner specified in the Terms of Proposal far the Bonds. The proposals were as set forth in Exhibit A attached. After due censid.~ation of the proposals, Councilmember Brown then introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. Motion seconded by Councilmember Hanus. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 01-53: RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $780,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 2001C; FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS; DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY; AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT 8. ACTION ON EDC SUGGESTION TO SUNSET ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION City Manager Hanson reviewed the history of the Economic Development Committee, stating that their value over the years has been the visioning process, with the HRA having the authority to carry out redevelopment. It is the consensus of the EDC that the focus be placed on facilitating development and doing away with the ECC. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by BraWn to deactivate the Economic Development Ce.remission at t~s time. All: voted in favor. Motion carried. City Attorney John, Dean will draft an ordinance to amend the City Code with reference to the ~i= Developme~. Commission. Kandis Hanson informed the Council that the pla~,,i$ tehave a .pJaque centrally lO,ted in the new downtown center, listing the EDC members,:and~:~~i,ng their eff. or;ts~ ACTION ACCEPTING. COMMISSION RESIGNATIONS MO~ION ~ B~,'4Avr~:, sec.~e~tby Ha~us to a~ept the resignations of Bilt: Voss from the P{anr~i~qg. cemmissiof~ ar~d,~Ma~k :Brewer f~om the EDC. This a .,~c~ceptance is aec, om~ed~-by a:.~eaRy thar~ks .f~ these (~o.mmission members, Ali voted '.~ favor. S~SPECIAL MEETING, WORKSHOPS ~'~ ~ W~p ~ :~s.~e De~s ar~l COmmoP. s Pr~3g~am and ~is:,r~3be~l~ed~mm Ju~e 2~, te JuRe 28:, 200't, at 6;30 p~m, .B~ Dat~:~ meeti. '~g~.wJth .Langdor~ Lane residen{s on sewer backup .claims is set ~ ~e.' 27, 2~', at 7:00 p,m. C. ~:f~.~etim~::.~sid~afien of Muel~er~ansing proposal is July 9:, D. Da~ far mee.~r~l~ with staff ~ 2002 budget direction is Ju.~.e 27, 2001, at 6:00 4 -7817- Mound City Council Minutes - June 12, 2001 10a. PLANNING COMMISSION Councilmember Anderson forwarded to Council, the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding staff and legal representation being present at the upcoming workshop on the nuisance ordinance. Kandis Hanson informed her that the City Planner, Building Official and Police Chief will be in attendance, and that the City Attorney will review any ordinances changes before they are presented in final form. 11. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC correspondence B. AMM Fax News C. LMCD communications D. Westonka Schools commUnications E. Retirement notice: Jerry Henke F, LMC correspondence on Polston et al, law suit G. senior Center newsletter H. Acknowledge' charitable gambling donations - Councilmember Brown thanked the Jaycees for donations for the Fire Department rescue boat, AdoPt-A-Green Space, and for Mound City Days. I. Article: Institutional Integrity J. Mound Police.Department monthly report: May, 2001 K. Lake Minnetonka Association request for contribution L. FYI: Comp Plan amendment approval 12. MEETING CONTINUATION MOTION by Hanus, seconded by BroWn to continue the Council meeting to June 13, 2001, at 6:0~ p,m, All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Ming 'City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 5 -7818- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 13, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met to continue the regular meeting of June 13, 2001, at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pet Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Kim Anderson and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter Mayor Meisel reconvened the council meeting at 6:35 p.m. Mayor Meisel stated that the executive session on the Polston et al, lawsuit, is canceled. There are no new developments to report at this time. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Anderson to adjOurn the meeting at 6:36 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -7819- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 13, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a special joint workshop session with the Planning Commission on Wednesday, June '13, 200'1, in the council chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmember Present: Mayor Meisel, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson and Peter Meyer. Councilmembers Absent: Bob Brown Planning Commission Members Present: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Frank Weiland, Michael Mueller, Geoff Michael, Becky Glister Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; Police Chief, Len Harrell; City Building Official, Jon Sutherland; City Planner, Loren Gordon. The meeting was called to order by Planning Commission Chairman, Geoff Michael at 6:37 p.m. NUISANCE ORDINANCE AND ABATEMENT The workshop included discussion and suggestions on how to amend the existing ordinances relating to nuisances and abatement, along with the enforcement procedures. It was the consensus to have the ordinance enforced as it is now written. The Police Department will track the success of this procedure for consideration of ordinance amendments. Motion by Frank Weiland and seconded by Ckair Hasse to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -7820- PAGE 1 AP~C 02'~,01 VEND:OR I NVO I'GE NO~.,INVOICE NMBR ..... DAT, E ....... AO180 6806 DUE HOLD DATE STAT:US 6/26/01 6/26/0i 6/26/01 612.6/01 ALL SEASONS LANDSCAPE DESI VENDOR TOTAL 29185.40 A0201 0~45 306,23 6/26/0t 6/26/01 306,23 AL'S MASTER PLUMBING VENDOR TOTAL 306.23 A0338 10068 6/26/01 6/26101 10292 6/26/01 6/26/01 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. VENDOR TOT.AL A0349 00013789 6'/26/01 6/2.6/01 00013737 .... 6/26/01 6/26/0l ": ANOKA 'TECHNICAL INSTITUTE VENDOR TOTAL A0380 K6340931F ARCH WIRELESS A0385 04116907 46115807 ..... ~6i165.06 481.16106 6/26/01 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 6/26/01 6J26/01 6126/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6126/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 , ,481&600.3 ARTIC GLA£IER PREMIUM. ICE VENDOR TOTAL A0401 619831 ............ 6/;2.6/01 P U R C H A S E J OU R'N A L CITY OF HOUND AMOUNT-DESOR-IPT~ON ~3,250.80 STAIRS EAGLE LN/WOODLAND RD 13,250.80 JRNL-CD 15~934.60 STAIRS BLUEBIRD LN/DOVE LN ~:5,934"~:60 '"JRNL-CD REPAIR DRAIN JR:NL'CD 102.23 102.23 63~'44 63.44 165.67 150.00 PAGER REPAIR JRNL~CD PAGER REPA'IR JRNL-CD SUMMER:BASIC WLDLND FF, ALDEN 15~0~00 .',JRNL:-CD 05-14-01 RIT TEAM TRAINING JRNL-CD 450.00 .45.0.00 :60"0~00 167.13 167.13 167.13 124.20 124.20 11~.32 05-14-01 THRU 06-14-01 PAGERS JRNL-CD iCE JRNL-CD ICE JR N L-'CD 2~6,,24, 'ICE.;. 216.24 16,0-. 32 160,32 123,96 123.96 738.04 163.52 JRNL-CD ICE J'RNL-CD ICE JRNL-CD ASPHALT CUTTER 163.52 JRNL-CD ACOOUNT:~-:NUMBE: 81-4350- ; -' ~01( ~1~435~5:0.00 ..... 101~ 0.1~432-0~3830 22-4170-3200 I01~ 101, 22-4~170~4110 22-4170-4110 101 01-4140-3950 101 7.'1~ ? 1:00 -~ ) 5~0 101 7.1-7100"9550 101 71- 710'0 ~ 9550 101 71-,71.00--.-955 0 ~01 ~'.1.~.:7.100 '~:95'~ 0 101 01-.4280-2.310 ........... iO~ ASPEN E~UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 163.52 -7821 - 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 DUE HOLD NO. IN.VOICE NMBR DATE DATE 'STATUS 1549 34021800 34021900 21501600 21511100 21563600 BELLBOY CORPORATION B0580 202169 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26,/01 6/26/01 AMOUNT DESCRIPTION 283.99 MISCELLANEOUS 283.99 JRNL-CD 1B7.90 BAGS 187.90 JR'NL~CD 2,664.90 LIQUOR 2,564.90, JRNL-CD 906.95 LIQUOR 906.95 JRNL~'CD 3,886.20 LI@UOR 3,886,20 JRNL-CD 6/2.6/01 6/2.6/0t 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 B.ILL CLARK OIL COMPANY B0603 10091029 BLACKOWIAK AND SON B0631 91766893 VENDOR TOTAL 7929.94 6/26/01 243.58 OIL 243.58 OIL 243.59 OIL 730.75 JRNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 730.75 496.04 05-01 ROLL-OFF 6/,26/01 6/26/01 496.04 JRNL-CD (ROLL* VENDOR TOTAL 496.04 78.72 BULBS 6/26/01 6/26/01 78.72 JRNL-CD /OR~'ERsTA"~'E~ ELECTRIC SU*'"VENDOR TOTAl 107oSB. 05-O4'01'~WESTEDGE IMPROVEMENT A.gCOUNT..i,=NUMB~ 71-7100-9550 10~( 7~?100-2200 ~0~ 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9510 t0t( 71-7100-9510 101~ .............. 1Z52735 107.58 JRNL-CD 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 78-7800~2250 101 70-4270-4210 10t 01-4320-2300 101 $0~4280-~550: 101 10~.58 ..... 05-11~.OI.-WEST~EDGE IMPROVEMENT ........ 30-.&280~5.10-. 107.58 JRNL-CD 101 1760~57 107.58 05-18-01 WESTEDGE 3,0-4280-351.0.., .~ 107.58 JRNL-CD 101 ri!--CAHNERS CONSIRUCTION PUBLI VENDOR TOTAL 322.74 C0859 094068 5,94 FLOURESCENT TAPE ~ 6/26/01 ,6/261~01 5.94 JRNL~CD CHAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL C0887 010607 6/26/01 6/26/01 O10610-A 6/26/01 6/26/01 01"4340= 2300 t0:1 5.94 36~32 0.5~0i'952'472.1434 ~' 01-4320-3220 36.32 JRNL'CD 101 17.99 06-01 952-472-0646 01-4340-3220 17.99 JRNL-CD 101 -7822- PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L ~AP:~C02~O1 CITY OF MO,UND ,~,~ VENDOR: INVOICE DUE HOLD .... NO, INVOi~.CE NMBR . DA~E O'ATE STAYUS .AMOUNT DESCRIPTION A,~iCiOUN~.,NUMBEi 010610-B 183.32 06-01 952-472-3555 22-4170. 6/26/0~. 6/26/01 183.32 JRNL-CD .............. ~CITiZE!NS COMMUNICIATIONS VENDOR' TOTAL 237.63 C0970 67205228 134.24 MIX 71-7100-9540 6/26/01 6/26/01 ~34.24 JRNL-CD 1011 o'92 8 '. 138,54 MIX 7I- 71010~5~0 6/.26/01 6/26/01 138.5~4 JRNL-CD COCA C'oLA BoTTLING~MIDwEST VENDOR TOTAL 272.78 i~' C1020,010626 · 460.,06 07-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55.,588!-,6t00- 501.7'8 07-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55~5881-6!!0 6/26/01 6/2'6/01 961.8~ JRNL-CD CONCO, INCORPORATED VENDOR TOTAL 961.84 .,C1090 132~05 346.80 06-01 COPIER MAINTENANCE 01-.432.0~3800 6/26/01 6~26/01 346~80 J~NL~CD VSND~R,,TOTA:L ,346.8~ 5,762.40 05-01 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4110-3120 6/26/01 5~,762.40 JR.NL~CD ,,. VENDOR TOTAL 5762.40 76.82 HELMET FRONT 22-4170-2200 76.82 JRNL-CD 101 76.82 .D~2~00 135830 ~517~10 BE:ER 71~7~00~'~30 6/26/01 6/26/01 1,517.10 JRNL-CD 138294 2,584.05 BEER 7~-7100-9530 6/26/01 6/26/01 2,584.05 JRNL-CD ~38303 33..80- MI'SCELEANEOUS 6/26/01 6/26/0~ 33.80 JRNL-CD .DAYD.~STRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 4134.95 E~420 798664 ?Li. O0 BEER ?~-7~.00~9530 6/26/:01 6/26/0~ 71t.00 JR.NE-CD ' ' lO~ 800325 2,602.60 BEER 7i-7100-9530 .......... 6/26/,01. 6/26/01 2,602,.60 JRNL'CD i00505 350.50 BEER 6/26/01 6/26/0:1 350.SO JR:NL-CO l-Oi ~01276 250.00 BEER 71-7~00-9530 6/26/01, 6/26/0~ )~.~ .IRNI -Ch ~n~ "',~=.COP¥, IMAGES~ .,INC.. Cl104 010611 6/26/01 CHADWICK AND MERTZ, P.A Dl172 348008 6/26/01 6/26/01 DANK~ EMERGENCY E~UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL -7823- PAGE 4 P U R £ H A S E J 0 U R N ,.=AP'C.02--O:I CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO,.= I.NVOIC'E NMBR DA:TE DATE,sTATUS : AMOUNT DESCRIPT:ION A L ACCOUNT: NU~MBE~ ,ST E1450 SIDE BEVERAGE VENDOR. TOTAL 3914.10 18429 75.00 6/26/0t 6/26/01 ?5.00 18430 3,450.00 6/26/01 6/26/0i 3,450.00 1~431-A 375.00 6/26/01 6/26/0! 375.0'0 18431-B 675.00 6/26/01 6/26/01 675.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC VENDOR TOTAL 4575.00 F1629 27275 652.00 6/26/01 6/26/01 652.00 FIRST STATE TIRE RECYCLIN~ VENDOR TOTAL 652.00 G1750 661675 669087 669086 669088 669085 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 G & K SERVICES '! GiZ52-549238980001 GALLS INC G1875 010612 6/26/0i 6/26/D1 VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 27.28 27.28 27.28 13.67 13.67 13.67 122.'8'5 42.27 42.27 40.79 40.79 25.98 25,.98 24.95 24.95 24.95 18.99 18..99 ~9.00 131.83 363.72 277.98 277.98 27,7.98 270.00 05'01 GRAMMERCY DISCUSSION JRNL'-CD 05-01 PROJECT MANAGEMENT JRNL-CD O5-O1 FIRE STATION ISSUES JRNL-CD 05-01 BOND PROCEEDS ANALYSIS JRNL-CD CITY CLEAN-UP JRNL-CD 06-05-01 UNIFORMS 06-05-01 UNIFORMS 06-05-01 UNIFORMS 06-05-,01 MA.TS 06~05~01 MATS 06-05-01 MATS JRNL-CD 06-12-01 MATS JRNL-CD 06-12-01 MATS JRNL-CD 06-12-01 MATS JRNL-CD 06-12~01 UNIFORMS 06-12-01 UNIFORMS 06-12-01 UNIFORMS 06-12-01 MATS 06'12-O1.MATS 06~2-01 MATS JRNL-CD ,SIREN RESCUE TRUCE JRNL-CD 6264 LYNWOOD CHECK MAIN 01-2300-'1090 55-5880-3100 ..... 101.~ 22-4170-3100 - 101~ 01-4090-3100 t01~ 70-4270-4210 101 01-4-~8g-2~4'0 73-7300-2240 78-7800-2240 01-42.80,2250~ 73'7300-2250 ?'8~7800-2250 22-4170-2230 10% 01-4340-.2330 10% 71-7100-4210 lO& 01-4280~2240 -.'?~7300~24-0 78-7800-2240 01-4280-2250 ,73-7300-,2250-. 78-7800-2250 10t 22-4170-3820.- i01 78-7800-4200 -7824- PAGE 5 PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND J 0 U R N A L VENDOR IN¥Oi,CE DUE HOL, D ]]No,~i,:,I. NVOI,CE ,NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT ..... DES,~R.~PT ION A~C:,OUN~- NilMBE~ ,GIBSON.,, .SAM VENDOR TOTAL 2.70.00 G1BgO 010531 3~,28 05'~0~: ~ATE~R ~32~45'800 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL 36.28 ~935 2~769 17'9~Z0 Hi:STORY POSTERS GRAFFITI SIGN AND DESIGN VENDOR TOTAL 179.10 .G%960. 362 ~ .,..= .. 7Z~45 06~.~.0! SPRAY SID~EWALKS 0.~4280~,4~200 6/2620.~ 6/26/01 277,:45 JR NL-,:¢D 1:01 G R. EEN..~ W iT H, ENVY L AW:N: .C A RE ~ G1972 387638 399.18 WINE 6/26/01 6/26/03. 399.. 3-8 JRNL-CD 71-7100-9520 :]88382 5'50,89: :L~ QUOR ?:~-7i00-~510 r~.~ 390686 332.42 WINE 71-7100-9520 6/26/0~ 6/26/.01 332.42 JRNL~CD : 101 .... 39~48 1,95~.75 L~UOR ~'~ GRIGG5 COOPER g COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3236.24 :J~"~ H;~O;O~ 2~265 363,S4 REGISTER TAPE~ ETC. (~:~"~ ...,...:.. : ~ .. , :, ................ .... .... :..;~ : :: .: · . .: ~ ..: HAHCO DATA PRODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL 363.54 .... :: 12 ;:0'0 RE i MB:U~SE: ME:E?I NG EX PEN SE O:l'40:~O~ 4120 '" : 6t~1~ ~Z26/01 ~:6 ~ B~ JRNL~D : 0 .'~ HANSON, %ANDIS VENDOR TOTAL 36.84 '"~ H~2;151..0~0629 15.5.00 DRE:AM~Q.OD .ADDN MAIL LIST '? 6/26i0! 61~6/01 155~00 JRNL~C-:D ~"" ,HE:NNE~P:~N: COUNTy ,~[~NDoR :T:O:T:AL Z55~::0:0 H224i Oi0508-Fi 280.00 04-0~ BRENSHEL SUB-DIVISION 01-2300-I12C "~ 61.26101 6./26~0I 28.0.. 00: JBNL~CD .... ': OZOSO8-FW 280.00 04~0.~ 5HAU~HNESSE'Y ~0~-04 6/26/0Z ~i2610~ 280,00 JRNE-C.:D 010508-F3 350.00 04-01 MISC PLANNING CASES 01-4190-3100 &/2~/01 A/~%/~t '~.n.~]n ii, MI -CD ~ -7825- PA~ 6 P U R C ~ ~ S E J 0 U ~ N ^ L &P,CO2-g:L C1T¥ OF MOUND VENDOR I NVO I CE :ND.~ INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE HOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION A.CC:OUNT, NUMBE:E 010607-A :010607-~, Oi0607-C1 010607-C2 0&0607-C3 010607-C4 010607-C5 5,624.23 05-01 LOST LAKE GREENWAY CD'S 30'5640-3:1;0~,, 6/26/01 6/26/01 5,624.23 JRNL.C.D ,iOl~ 6/26/01 6/26/01 2,206,07 05-0:t, PLANNING M,I$CELLANEOUS 0t--4:i90.i3t00 2,206.07 JRNL-CD lOl( 70.00 05-01 4711 CUMBERLAND ROAD 01~,4190-3100 6/26/01 6/26/01 70,00 JRNL-CD 10i( 70.00 05-01,4525 DENBEIGH ROAD 0t-,4f90-~100 6/26/01 6/26/01 70.00 JRNL-CD 70.00 05-01 4957 EDGEWATER DRIVE 01-4190-3100 6/26/01 6/26/01 70.00 JRNL-CD 10i( 262.50 05-01 5240 LYNWOOD BLVD. 6/26/01 6/26/01 262.50 JRNL-CD IOl( 1,190.00 05-01 LANGDON BAY FINAL PLAT 0&-2300-t095 6/26/01 6/26/01 1,190.00 JRNL-CD :. 010607-C6 2t0,00 05-01 L.ANGDON W:OODS PLAT 0i-2300i~.09 6/26/01 6126/01 210.00 JRNL-CD i01( 010607-CF 010607-C8 010607-C9 010607-D 010607-E 010607-F1 010607-F2 010607-F3 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/25/01 6126/01 6126101 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/0t 6/26/01 6/26/01 HO,ISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP,~ VENDOR TOTAL ]2400 7943 6/26/01 6/26/01 7960 35.00 05-01 SLOPE EASEMENT VACATION 01-4190-3100 35.00 JRNL-CD lOl~ 280.000:5-0~ BUTTERNUT LANE VACATION 01-419'0-~100 280.00 JRNL-[D 101~ 140.D0 05-01 CARDIGAN LANE VARIANCE 01-4~90-3~00 i40.00 JRN:L-CD 101 1,258~'22 05-01 CR~15 STREET SCAPE 55-5877-3~00,- 1,258.22 JRNL-CD 101 3,535.60 05-01 MOUND VISIONS MISCELLANE 55-5880-3100 3,535.60 JRNL-CD 101 1,017.25 05-01 GRAMERY PLANKING DEVELOP 01-2300-1090, 1,017.25 JRNL-CD lO1 267.25 05-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5879-3t00 267.25 JRNL-C:D 101 1,992.25 05-01 POLSTON LAg SUIT 01-4190-3~00 1,992.25 JRNL-CD 101 19138.37 400.44 DAMPNER PULLEY, ETC. 73-7300-3810 400.44 JRNL~CD 10~ 40.36 BATTERY JUMPER 73-7300-2310 PAGE ? AP-G02 -0~ VENDOR NO.,IN.VOI:¢E NMB~R 7829 INVOI.CE DUE HOLD DAT.E DATE STA'TUS 6/26/01 6/26/0i PURCHASE JOURNAL EITY-OF MOUND kMOU NT DE SCR I'PT! 0 N AC CO U NT 'N 80.72 JRNL-CD 114.05 'BATTERY 01-~140-38,10 6/26/0! 6/26/01 t14..05 JRNL~CD .., 7839 43.86 WHEEL ROTATION 01-4140-3810 6/26/01 6/26/01 43.86 JRNL-CD lO11 7876 202.5? BR~KE JOB 01~'4,I40-381~ 6/26/01 6/26/0I 202.5? JRNL~CD 7890 29.05 OIL CHANGE 01-4140-3810 6/26/01 6/26/01 29.05 JRNL-CD lOlt 7913 25.86 OI, L CHANGE 01-4140-~8~0 ' 6/26/01 6/26/01 25.86 JRNL~CD 7961 80.72 BATTERY JUMPER 01-4140-3810 6/26/01 6/26/01 80.72 JRNL-CD 7675 225.58 AUTO HUB ASSEMBLY 0~'4340-3810 6/26/01 6/26/01 225.58 JRNL-CD 7792 80.72 BATTERY JUMPER 01-4340-2200 6/26/01 6/26/01 80.72 JRNL-CD 101 7-858 ~9.'00 TIRE REP~R. 0£~340~3.820 PAGE 6 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-O1 C!TY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE ~NO, INVOICE NMBR DATE DUE HOLO DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ,kC COUNT: NUMBE:6 010607-A 5,624.23 6/26/01 6126101 5,624.23 0t0607'~B 2,206.07 6/26/0Z 6/26/01 2,206.07 ,010607-C1 010607-C2 6/26/01 6/26/01 05-01 LOST LAKE GREENWAY CD'$ JRNL,C.D 05-01 PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS JRNL-CD 70.00 05-01 4711 CUMBERLAND ROAD 70.00 JRNL-CD 70.00 6/26/01 6/26/01 70.00 010607-C3 70.00 6/26/01 6/26/01 70.00 ., 010607~C4 262,50 6/26/01 6/26/01 262.50 010607-C5 1,190.00 6/26/01 6/26/01 1,190.00 010607~C6 6/26/01 6/26/01 010607-C7 010607-C8 010607-C9. 01'0607~D 010607-E 0106.07-F1 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/0Z 6/26/01 6/26101 6/26101 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26101 612610.1 6/26101 6/26/0L 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 3ROUP,* VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 6/26/01 010607-F2 010607-F3 HO,ISINGTON KOEGLER I2400 7943 30-5640-3100 ~ 7960 0:t-4190,3100 lOlC ~05-0114525 DENBEIGH ROAD JRNL-CD 01-4190-3100 101( 101( 05-01 4957 EDGEWATER DRIVE JRNL'CD 05-01 52:40 .LYNWOOD BLVD. JRNL-CD 05-01 LANGDON BAY FINAL PLAT JRNL-CD 01-4190-3t00 10!( 0i-2300-11!22 101( 01-2300-1095 101( 2t:0.00 05-0t LANGDON WOODS PLAT 01-2300i~1~,09 210.00 JRNL-CD 101( 35.00 05-O1.SLOPE EASEMENT VACATION 35.00 JRNL-CD 0t-4190-3t00 lOll 280.00 05-01 BUTTERNUT LANE VACATION 01-419'0,-3100 280.00 JRNL-CD 101~ 140.00 05-01 CARDIGAN LANE VARIANCE 01-4190-]~00 140.00 JRNL-CD 101 1~258.~22 05-01 CR 15 STREET SCAPE 55-5877-3~00,= 1,258.22 JRNL-CD 101 3,535.60 05-01 MOUND VISIONS MISCELLANE 55-5880-3100 3,535.60 JRNL-CD 101 1,017.25 05-01 GRAMERY PLANNING DEVELOP 01-2300~1090. 1,017.25 JRNL-CD 101 267.25 05-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5879-3100 267.25 JRNL-CD 101 1,992.25 05-01 POLSTON LAW SUIT 01-4190-3100 1,992.25 JRNL-CD 101 19138.37 400.4& DAMP:NER PULLEY, ETC. 73-7300-3810 400.44 JRNL-CD t0t 40.36 BATTERY JUMPER 73-7300-2310 ~_~A RATTF~Y IIIHPF~ 7R--TRDn-~ql A -7826- PAGE 7 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L · A P- C-.O 2 -0.l .................. CITY-OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ,NO. INVOI:CE .NMBR, DATE DATE STATUS kMOUNT DES C'R I'PT I'O N 6/26f01 6/26/01 80.72 JRNL-CD 7829 114.05 BATTERY 6/26/01 6J26/01: t14..05 JRNL?CD 7839 43.86 WHEEL ROTATION 6/26/01 6/26/01 43.86 JRNL-CD 787:6 202.9? BR~.KE JOB 6/26/01 6/26/01 202.57 JRNL-CD 7890 29.05 OIL CHANGE 6/26/01 6/26/01 29.05 JRNL-CD 7913 25.86 OI~L CHANGE 6/26/01 6/26/01 25.86 JRNL-CD 7961 6/26/01 6/26/01 80.72 BATTERY JUMPER 80.72 JRNL-CD 7675 6/26/01 6/2.6/01 225.58 A'U.TO HUB ASSEMBLY 225.58 JRNL-CD 7792 6/26/01 6/26/01 80.72 BATTERY JUMPER 80.72 JRNL-CD 7.858 zg.'o0 TIRE REPAIR 6/26/01 6/26.t01 19,0~0 JRNL-CD 7894 432.03 ROTORS, ETC. 6/26/01 6/26/01 432.03 JRNL-CD ISLAND PARK SKELLY VENDOR TOTAL 1734~60 ,J2525 010626 6/26/01 6/26/01 1.,~82.48 SP.RI:NG C~TY CONTACT 1,482.48 JRNL-CD JESSEN PRESS INCORP, ORAT.ED VENDOR TOTAL ~482.48 J2573 306247 34.08 PLANTS FOR GREENSPACE 6/26/.01. 6f26/01 34.08 JR'NL-C:D 306254 20.52 PLANTS FOR GREENSPACE '". 6/26/01 6126/01 20.5.2 JRNL-CD " 306263 4.24 DROP CLOTHS '! 6~26~0,1 6/26/~01 4.24 · JRNL-CD " JOHNS VARIETY & PETS VENDOR TOTAL 58.84 ~ J2579 1.263965 3'0~55,52 LI(~UOR '~ 6!26/D1 6./2[~/0.1 3,055.52 JRNL-CD 1263966 1,375.15 WINE 6/26/01 6/26/01 1,375.15 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT :NIIM'B~E f 01( 01-4140-3810 01-4140-3810 101~ 0'~1. ~'4,~ 40-3810 101~ 01-4140-3810 1011 01-4140-~8t0 101i 01-4140-3810 101 01-4340-~810 101 01-4340-2~00 101 101 101 01~.4020-~.t0'0 101 01-2300-0400 101 01-2300-0400 ............ 101 0t'4020-2'200 ................ ~0~ 7t~7!00'9510 101 71-7100-9520 101 -7827- PAGE B P U R [ H A S E J 0 U R N k L ^P~CO2-O1 CITY OF MQUND : ; VENDOR iNVOiCE DUE HOLD . NHBR ...... D:AT:~,: J DAtE STATus AMaUNT O E,S;'C R.:]::P T: i.O'N ;AC:~OUNT,~LN U~BE[ 1263967 138.00 BEER 71-7100-9530 6/26/01 6/26~01 138..00 JRNL-CD .... ~',~Ol( 1266740 191.7'3 ~.I~UOR 71-7100~9~5'10 6/26/01 6/26/0t 191.73 JRNL~CD ..... ~0~ 1266741 86.60 WINE 71-7100-9520 6/26/01 6/26/01 86.60 JRNL-CD ........ ~0~; JOHNSON ·BROTHERS LIQUOR V[NDOR TOTA_ J2582 010626 JOHNSON, PHYLLIS J2610 010614 JUBILEE FOODS 4847.00 6/26/01 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 669,11 60.65 6/26/01 6/26/01 60.65 VENDOR TOTAL 60.65 6/26/01 6/26/01 LARSON PRINTING,& GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL L2822 815~467 242.30 07-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6100 426.81 07-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE 55-5881-6110 669,.~1 JRNL~C..D %,01., COMM DEVEL OPEN HOUSE 01-4190-3Z00 JRNL-CD 101 12.65 FIRE.-FACILITY.,pROJECT 22~.~t70_.350~ 12.65 JRNL-CD lOi 12.65 84.26 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 0~-428.0-2250 84~.,26 MISC, E.~LANEO:US 5UPP:LIES 84.26 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250 6/26/01 6/26/0~ 252.78 JRNL-CD 101 P~,OD~CTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL .252.78 · · .... .~6,30 REPAIRED TRIMMER ....... . 01-4340_38:i~ 6/26/01 6/26/01 36.30 JRNL-CD · ........ 025.224 . ..... :: ........ ..... ~,8-.~5 .-REMOVE.-TRIGGER. INTERLOCK 0]-~4280,,2~t,0-: 6t26/01 6/26/01 ~8.i5 jRNL~cD 101; :' /LONGjLAKE~P:OiWER,E(~U!PMENT VENDOR TOT~AL 5,4.,4'5 i.:,L~ i~.:;i L2930 5-317929 107.65 ROTOR BRAKE PADS 01-4140-3810 6/26/01 6/26/0I 10,7.65 JRNL-CD ~ =, ~.01 Lo.WELL'S AUTOMOTIYE/:.ZITCD~ VENDOR TOT:AL 1:07.65 : ~ M3010 010531 327.00 05-01 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4110-3100 6/26/01 6/26/01 327.00 JRNL-CD 101 MADDEN, FRANK AND A$$OCIA~ VENDOR TOTAL 327,00 M3,030 288488 2,432.75 BE]ER 6/26/01 6/26/01 2,432.75 JRNL-CD 288489 211.75 MT~('Ft I AN~ntlR 101 -7828- PAGE 9 .A P.-C 02 -~01 , PURCHASE JO CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE.NMBR DATE DATESTATUS AMOUNT 6/26/01 6/26/01 211.75 'MA~K vii DISTRiBuTOR VENDOR TOTAL 2644.50 532.S0: 6/26/01 6/26/01 532.50 '~.MASYS CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL· · 532.50 DESCRIPTION JRNLiCD SOF~WARE.: ...... JRNL-CD U R iii M3083 7402~6 107,01 MEDICA'L SUPPLIES 6/::~6/,0i 6/26/01 t~07~0t JR,NE-cD 742964 20.92 ISOLATION KIT 6/26~0l 6~26/01 20.92. JRNL-CD i' MD$ MATRX MEDICAL INC. VENDOR TOTAL 127,93 : M3170 010430 1.35 04-01 SAC CHARGES 6/26/01 6/26/01 1.35 JRNL-CD 010531 1,138,50 05'0i SAC CHARGES '~ 6/26/01 6/26/01 1,138,50 JRNL?CD !5~ 0000723126 29,511.80 07-01 WASTEWATER "' 6/26/01 6/26/01 29,511.80 JRNL-CD · ~;M3<4:89-010615 : : 33'9605~O'i':WATER AND SEWER 6/26/01 6/26/01 33.96 JRNL-CD ;,.M,DUNDt, CIT¥ ,OF VENDOR J. OTAL 33.,,96 N A L AC.C;O UNT NUMBEi 101, 22,-4170 - 2:2;? D 22-4170-2270 78-2304-0000 101 78 '230~,0000 78-7800-4230 101 i : .. 101 ,,,;! N~TSO.io? , i · : '.4~%o:0 o~.Oi PTAC T~Ai:NiNG ADVISORY 61/i26,/~I )..;6;i, 2~:g0';1 , .:~,~;O:,~O JR:NL.CD . :.~ .~ · : ; NO~TH HEHO~IAL HEALIH CARE VENDO~ TOTAL 1.O 9.60 05-01 ~O:CAT ES .... 109.60 05-01 LOCATES :;;'~ 6/2,6'/0:~ 6/26/01 219~20 .: jRNL~CD J · ~'~ ONE CALL CONCEPTS~ INC. VENDOR TOTAL :? P4000 66448315 46.40 M'I~ '~':: 6/26/01 6/26/01 46.40 JR'NL~C!D ~:". 66448~27 7~.75 MIX ::~ 6/26/0~ 6/26/01 71.75 JRNL-CD :~?'~.~P~'{~°~' '~P~.N~ v'~DoR ~OT]A~ t18 .~5 :,; P~O2~,.z,27',28~ 57.4.70 LIQUOR.. 6/26/0[ 6/26/01 574.70 JRNL-CD 73'7300~3125 71-7100-9540 101 101 727PR? OX.firl MT c,C~'I I AM~'n[.l~ 71.?l~n-oc~;n -7829- PAGE 10 A P-C.,02 -01 ............ NO, iNVOiCE' NMBR DATE DA~E ST.ATus AMOUNT 6/26/01 6/26/01 729~61 6/26/01 6/26/01 729462 730822 PHILLIPS WINE & P4038 .43479 43694 6/26/01 6/26/01 6126/01 6126/01 SPIRITS, ~ VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 6/26/01 43473 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING Q4171 9607578-00 9664'38'00 970264-00 970672-00 970263-00 001215-00 001373-00 001387-00 001871-00 VENDOR TOTAL 6/26,/01 6/26/01 6126101 6/26Z01 6/,2.6/01 6/26/01 6125/01,6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26101 6/26/01 6/26/01 ,6/26/01 001922'00 6~26/01 6/~6/01 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE J OU ..... CITY OF MOUND DESCRIPTION 93.00 JRNL-CD 954.00 LIQUOR 954.00 JRNL-CD 1,043.70 WINE 1,043.7o JRNL-CD 910.O0 WINE 910,00 JRNL-CD 3575.40 370.45 .CIGARS 370.45 JRNL-CD 859.t6 CIGARETTES 859.16 JRNL-CD 806.03 CIGARETTES 806.03 JRNL-CD 2.035.64 122.60 MIX 122.60 JRNL-CD 18~.00 LIQUOR t84.00 JRNL-CD 3,715.98 LIQUOR 3,71.5,.98 JRNL-CD 208.11 WINE 208.:11 JRNE'CD 49.59 MISCELLANEOUS 49.59 JRNL-CD 1,382.09 LINUOR 1,382.09 JRNL-CD 79.08 MIX 79.08 JRNL-CD 2,682.29 LIQUOR 2,682.29 JR'NL-CD 1,835.16 WINE -1,835.16 JRNLICD 90.50 LIQUOR 90.50 JRNL-CD 10349.40 R N A L ACCOUNT-N:UMBEF 101( 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9520 lOl( 7i-7'100-9520 ~01( 71-7100-9550 101I 7t-7100-9550 101 71-7100-9550 101~ 71-7100-9540 101 71.7100-9510 "101 71-7100-9510 ....... 71-710~-9~20 10~ 71-7100-9550 101 71-7100-9510 10~ 71-7100-9540 10t 71-7100-~510 1'0.~ 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9510 ~10~ -7830- PA6E ll P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AR--.CO 2.-.01 .... CI ,TY 0 F:...,.MOUND VEND'O:R INVOICE NO.::.~I:NVOI:CE~:,:NMBR DATE R4238 010626 DUE HOLD DATE STAT, US .... AMOUNT~ .DESE:'RtP.T.I.ON 6/26/01 6/26/01 RELIANT ENERGY VENDOR TOT.A_ R4250 627409 ROADRUNNER TRANSPROTAT[ON* VENDOR TOTAL S4390 010626 6/26/01 6/26/01 =.S:HOR.EL~E~PLAZA VE~NDOR,,TOTAL ACCOUNT :NUM-BEJ 130.57 04-17-01 THRU 05-16-01 BARTLET 01-4340. J 140.94 04-17~.01 T, HRU 05-Z6~01, CUMBE, RL 37.'99 04-1.7~g'1 THRU 05-16~0! LI~'UgR 96~96 04='17'~':0~ THRU 05-16~01 FIRE 471.~ CITY HA 129.05 04-17-01 THRU 05-16-01 STREETS 0Z-4280-3720 73.32 04-17-01 THRU 05-16-01 WATER 73-7300-3720 90 ..92 04~7-01 THRU ..0 5-~6-01 SEWER 78-7800,]~2~- Z, 171.30 JR;NL-CD t.~? ~ .~ 0 · 6.99 06-06-0! DELIVERY SERVICE 01-4280-3100 6.99;..,.06~06~0-1 DE.LIVERY SERVICE 6~98 0.6-06.-0~ DELIVERY SERiVICE 6/26./0~ ~/~6/01 20~96 JRNL-CD 20.96 2,638.49 07-01 LIQUOR STORE RENTAL SPAC 7~:-7100-3920 2,638...49 JRNL~CD 101 26~8..49 S439i 3375 532.50 4645 ISALNDVIEW DR BY LAKE 532.50. JRNL~CD 479.25 5'9~6 GLENW, OOD REMO.VE TREES 4~9.25 JRN~L-CD 1,144.88 WOODLAND POINT/GULL LANE 1,14:4-.88 .... JRNL-.CD 3385 6/-26/01 6/26/.0.1 6/26/01 6/26/01 3348 6/26/D1, 6~2~6./01- 'SHDREW'OOD TREE SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL 37.27 ALUMINUM SIGN 6/26/01 6/26/01 37.27 JRNL-CD 81-4350-5110 0~-4~40~'110 10t 81-4350-5110 S4400 2579 22-4170-3100 .i' ~: 101 $!GN.S OF THE SEASON VENDOR TOTAL 37.2.7 ~ii,] S4~3.0:, 62905 84,4~ ICR~ii~,.:,~RINTING : 6/26/01 6/26/01 84.45 JRNL-CD 101 62887 46.59 INS,P,EC.TOR BUSINESS CARDS ..... 83.-4~5.0-2200 ' 6/26/0i 6/26/0i 4,'6.59 JR NL~,CD. ' . 6292'4 ' :: 6/26/01 6/26/01 378.23 JRNL-CD IOI 629~.0 : 95.37 NO DARKING SIGNS 01~414,0~3.500 ~ 6/26/01 6~26/01 9~,~7 JR NL-'CD 101 VENDOR TOTAL 604,64 S4434 010612 270.00 06-12-01 BRUSH DISPOSAL 01-4280-420c 6/26/01 6/26/01 270.00 JRNI -CD 1 n~ -7831 - PAGE 12 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, A~C. OUNT: 'NUMBE~ 010614-A 6~26/01 O1061&~B 6/26/01 010615-1 010615'B 22.50 06-14-01 BRUSH DISPOSAL 6/26/01 22.50 JRN'L-CD 010614-C 37,50 .,06,-t,4-01 BRUSH DISPOSAL 6/26/01 37.50 JRNL-CD 15.00 6/26/01 6/26/01 15.00 06~15'01 BRUSH DISPOSAL JRNL-CD ll.2506~I5-Oi,BRUSH DISPOSAL 6/26101 6126/01 11.25 JRNL-CD 6/26/01 6/26/01 93087MB 6/26/01 6/26/01 SOUTHERN MINNESOTA CONSTR* VENDOR TOTAL S4~48 010626 6/26/01 6/26/01 SPORTING BREED KENNELS VENDOR TOTAL 32.5006-t4-.01 BRUSH.DISPOSAL 32,50 JRNL-CD S4~98 ST4PO120 6/26101 6126/01 STAR TRIBUNE VENDOR TOTAL 1.55408 6/26/01 6/26/01 ~ST CHEV,~OLD'S VE~NDOR TOTAL S4610 149180 6/26/01 6/26/01 147336 6/26/0i 6/26/01 149791 6/26/01 6/26/01 SUBURBAN TIRE COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL- S4615 21062 6/26101 · 6/26/01 SULLIVAN'S UTILITY SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL S4620 424976 6/26/01 6/26/01 426.00 .EOM!POST 426.00 JRNL-CD 814.75 32.5,00 07~:! DOG KENNEL FEE 325.00 315..60 06-03~01 CLASSIFIED AD 31~.60 JRNL-fD 315.60 9.24.i0 BODY WORK #2180 924.10 JRNL-CD 924.10 254.28 TIRES (4) 254.28 JRNL~CD 382.72 TIRE SERVICE 660.08 T~RE-SERVICE 1,042.80 JRNL-CD 141.88 TRAILER, ETC. i4~.88 JRNL-CD 1438.96 1,187.50 CLEAN LIFT STATION 1,18~.50 JRNL-CD 1187.50 326.40 06-13-01 CLASSIFIED AD 326.40 JRNL-CD 01-4280-4200 101~ 01-4280-4200 101~ 0t-4280-,4200:.~. 101~ 101, 7~-7300-3510 101 -01-4140~3810 78-7800-2310 -lOt 78~7B00-2310 7~7300-23t0 101 01-4340-2310 101 78-7800-4200 ........ 73-7300-3510 101 -7832- PAGE 13 P U R C H A S E A.P ~,C'Q:2 '~0.~. ........ · C' IT'Y 0 F MO U N D ~ENDOR INVD ICE DUE HOLD NMBR DATE DAT:E S:TA~us AMOUNT D.ESc'R [ PTION SUN NEWSPAPER VENDOR TOTAL 326.40 T4705 TS010830 498.25 SHIRTS 6/2'6/01 6/26/01 498,25 JRNL~CD TAHO SPORTSWEAR VENDOR TOTAL 498.25 6/26/01 6/26/0~ · i.NST.IT,:..,.FOR~FORENSIC ,PSYC~ VENDOR TOTAL ~50,00' TbF30 532 547 THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL 927.58 229616 25.10 MISCELLANEOUS 6/26/01 6/26/0I 25 10 JRNL-CD 2:2'96~7 5,i~.fO BEER JOURNAL ~ceOuN'~' 35.0 -2:200 350.00 EMPL.OY..PSYCH MURRAY, WI. LLIAM 350.00 JRNL-CD 606.80 06-02-01 FINANCIAL REPORT 01-4090-3510 606.80 JRNL-CD ,:~t, 0-1 36.71 06,1:6-01 VACATION 0i-23 0i~190,35~,0 · .6126t':0i 6/.26/:0~ 36.7~ J'RNL-C~D i 36.71 06-16-01 EASETMENT 01-20 01-4190-3510 36.71 JRNL~CD .... tOl 2000 CONSUMER REPORT 71-7100-9550 101 o ..... 612:6t01 6i2~6!0i 5,154~70 JRNL~CD _05 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 6405.80 : T494Q.20141 95.85- SW.ING--FLEX DISK 78-~800-.3800:- 6/26101 6/26/01 95,85 JRNL-CD ~'0'1 TiR.I~ST:.AT;E..PUMP & CONTROL..i..;VEN:DOR TOTAL 95,.85 i ~: ...... T4945 010531 14.78 05-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4320-2300 56.48 05-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 3.23,6.6 0'5~01 'MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 0i-43~0,i2300 69,22 0~5:~~0~ MISCELLANEO~US ITEMS 0~1.4~8~0-2300 4.45 05-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 78-7800-2300 18.52 05-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 01-4320-2200 94.,5~05-:0~ M.!S'C:ELLANEOUS ITEMS 0.1.~:280-2250 94,:5~. 0~0i MISC:ELLANEOUS ITEMS 38.83 05-0~ MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 81-4350-2300 27.50 05-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 73-7300-2200 1 _TQ ~q-~l MTq~FI I A~llq TT~Mq -7833- PAGE 14 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP:mC 02 -01 ~ C I TY- OF, MO UND ,.~: VENDOR ~N'VO~¢[ DUE ~O:LD NO IN¥OICE. NMBR DATE STATUE AMOUNT DE:S:CR [PT ION 110.07 05-01 MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 22-4170-2200 6126101 6/26/0l 1,018.99 JRNL-CD TRUE VALUE MOUND VENDOR TOTAL 1018.99 T4951 082378 44.60 FENCE POST 6/26/01 6/26/01 44.60 JRNL-CD 082510 27.50 S HOOK, ETC. 6/26/01 6/26/01 27,50 JRNL~CD 082545 7.22 TAPE 6/26/01 6/26/01 7.22 JRNL-CD TRUE VALUE VENDOR TOTAL 79,32 T,4985 304215-0 304543-0 3040.61-0 304856-0 6/26/01 6/26/01 01-4340-2300 01-4340-2300 t2.I5 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EIIPPL~IES 12.15 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2100 12.15 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4140-2100 12.15 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2-t00 12.15 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-2.100 4.05 MISCELLANEOUS OF:FICE SU'PP. LI'ES 01-:4280-2100 4.05 M'ISCEL, L-ANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-71.0.0-2:t00- TWIN CITY OFFICE U5030 7450980 ?447636 US FILTER 6.09 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.09 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 81.03 JRNL-CD 94.33 PAPER, FAX, LABELS 6/26/01 6/26/01 94.33 JR'NL-CD 166.01 INKJET CARTRIDGES 6/26101 .6/26/01 t66.01.. :JRNL,CD 1,7.57 FLOPPY DIS~KS 6./26/01 6126/01 17.57 JRNL~CD 193.48 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES -6.44 .-MISCELLANEOUS .O, FFICE SUPPLIES 6.A4 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.44 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 6.,44 MISCELLANEOUS. OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.i5 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 5.72 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 3..22 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 3.22 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 233.55 JRNL-CD 6/26/01 6/26/01 73-7300-2100 78-7800-2100 22~4170-2100 22-4170-2100 ......... ~0! 01-4190-2100 ~0t 01-4040-2100 0~-4,0~0-2&00- 0t-4140-2100 01-4190-2100 01-43.40-2~00 01-4280-2100 71-7100-2100 7-3-7300-2~00 78-7800-2100 101 SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 592.49 87.20 FENCE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2300~ 87.20 JRNL-CD 101 6/'26/01 6/26/01 · 270.22. CLAMPS AND GASKETS 73-7300-2~00 270.22 JRNL-CD 101 357.42 6/26/01 6/26/D1 VENDOR TOTAL -7834- PAGE 15 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. tN:VOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS · AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT ~JIIMBE) U5050 7·6604 77328 .77331 7,7'279 .UNI,FORMS,UNLIMITED 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 25.35 HAT BAND 25.35 JRNL-CD 15.82 JNStG'NIAS 15.82 JRNL-CD 7.84 SILVER BARS 7.84 JRNL-CD 34~&34, STINGER 344.34 JRNL-CD 393.35 22- 4170-.410.0 iOi 2-:2 - 4170 -41~0'0 lOll 22-4170-4Z00 1'01 0'i-~4150-2240 101 U5102 010626 UNITED PROPERTIES 6/26/01 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 31.95 31.95 31.95 95.85 95,85 06-0l BALBOA PARKING 06'Oi BALBOA 'PARKING 06-01 BALBOA PARKING JRNL-CD 01-4280 ;'4200 7~= 730~)-4-,200 78-7800-4200 101 UStlO 18716829-00~ 6/26/01 6/26/01 UNITED RENTALS VENDOR TOTAL 164.75 5,&.,92 HOSE, POLES,, ETC. 54.92 HOSE, POLES, ETC. 5~,.91 HOSE, POLES, ETC. 164..75 JR NL-CO 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 ~ ~01 W5443 289900 25.52 NUT COVERS, ETC. 6/26/01 6/26/01 25.52 JRNL-CD ] 292651 1!,87 DRILL SET, ETC. ~! 6/26/01 6/26/01 35.61 JRNL-CD · ~/A.TERTOWN ,PARTS CENTER VENDOR TOTAL 61.13 : W5.630 4:~94 720:.00 05'28'0t WATERMAIN BREAK ~ 6/~2:6/0i 6~.~6/:01 720,~00 JRNL:,~CD 4395 ! 6/26/01 6/26/01 4396 ! WIDMER INC VENDOR TOTAL 3220.50 W5690 38092 348,36. O~iali-01 BL.ACKTOP 6/26~/0~ 6/26/01 348 ~:36 JRNL-CD 38245 307.21 05-12-01 BLACKTOP 6/26/01 6/26/01 307.21 JRNL-CD 78-7800-2310 !0.~. ~ 2 80 o :73,7300. .0 r~'8-- ZSO~O- 2250 1,703.00 05-25-01 CURB STOP SEWER REPAI 78-7800-3800 1,703.00. JRNL~.CD ~ t.01 79]7.50 05'~21.-01 REPAIRED GATE VALVE 73~7300:-380Q 797,50 JRNL-CD ~0~ 27-5800-2340 101 27-5800-2340 101 -7835- PAGE 16 A P-CO~2 -O 1 VENDOR ~NO. INVOICE NMBR 38347 38834 39165 3930i WM MUELLER & X5695 010626 SONS INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE STATUS 6/26/D1 6/26/01 6~,26/01 6/26/01 6/26/.01 6/26/01 672~/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL XCEL ENERGY i700 010618 FIRE ENGINEERING 16805 010618 CORRPOR COMPANIES, 16840 010612 BOYER BUILDING 16895 010626 BAUER, RON 16949 1-357857 6/25/0t 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 6/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 6/26/01 INC. VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/.01 6/25/01. CORPORATION VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 5/26/01 VENDOR TOTAL 6/26/01 6/26/01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTI. ON 206.59 05-15-01 BLACKTOP Z06.59 JRNL-CD 409.09 05-16-~OZ BLACKTOP 4'0 g ."09 J RNE ~C,.~D 154.95 05-21-01 BLACKTOP 154.95, JRNL-CD 113.45 05-24-01 BLACKTOP 113,45 JR NLi. CD 35.57 05-25-01 BLACKTOP 35..57 JRNL-CD 1575.22 1,211.25 05-01 #2245-301-939 21.99 05-01 #0466-607-223 424.72 05-01#1914-601-425 3,360.4.0 05-01 #0217-606-329 464.78 05-01 #2184-407-147 203.54 05-01#0047-005-229 120.57 05-01 #0864-508-832 120.57 05-01 #086~-508-832 120.57 0.5-01 #0864~508-832 1,968.88 05-01 #0.018~80~-634 305.2D 05-01 #0009-604-835 8,322.47 JRNL-CD 8322.47 19.95 SUBSCRIPTION 19.95 JRNL~CD 19.95 930.0006-01-01 THRU 05-31-02 AGREEME 930.00 JRN.L-CD 9~0.00 373.50 REPAIR MAILBOXES PELICAN PT ~73.50 JRNL-CD 37~.50 150.00 REFUND DOCK FEE 11.25 REFUND LMCD FEE 161..25 JRNL-CD 161.25 892.78 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 892.?8 JRNL-CD ~.C C-OU NT,~NU M B:E[ 27-5800-2340 1:01( 2775800~2340 ....... t01~( 27-5800-2340 lOt~ 27-5'800-2340 t-01~ 27-5800-2340 01-4320-3710 01-4150-3710 71-7100-37~0 73~7300-3710 22-4!70-'~.710 01-'4340-3710 01-42B0-3710 73-7300-3710 Z8~7800-3710 0.1-4280-371D 101 22-4170~-4130 10t 7~-7300-42:00 101 01-4280-4200 81-3260-0000 81-3200-0000 78-7800-5000 101 -7836- PAGE 17 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L V'ENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ,' PIONEER RIM AND ~HEEL COM* VENDOR TOTAL 892.78 HUDSON MAP COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 394.05 Z,695:8 1246 48.00 ...... 200t,ROTA..TRAI:NI. NG :~ RESER. VE OFFICER TRAINIiNG * VENDOR TOTAL Z6959 0106~4 SAVAGE, MIKE VENDOR TOTAL Z6960 6/26/01 6/26/01 48.00 JRNiL'cD 48.00 308.95 DAMA6E ~ATER SHUT-OFF ~08..95 UR~L~QD 308~,95 202.95 REPAIR SE~ER SERVICE 202.95 JRNL-CD 73-7300-4200 7B-7800-4200 $OZ PAULSON, ANNETTE VENDOR TOTAL 20.2.95 TOTAL..:~L,E,VE'NDORS -7837- To~ From: Re: Date: Mayor and City Council Gino Businaro, Finance Financial System June 18, 2001 Early in the year the City Manager and I shared with you a letter from the company that supports our financial system indicating that they will not be available for support services after this year. At that time we indicated that a new system would need to be procured before the end of the year 2001. Since then, I have worked with the other city users of the same system to see if we could find a vendor as a group. We did have presentations from a number of soiSware firms and we evaluated them together. We then decided that we would disband as a user group and that we would proceed each on our own. For the last two months my staff and I have had presentations from the same firms and others, visited a number of sites, and have evaluated our needs vs. what was offered to us. At the same time, We obtained two quotes for the hardware needed to run the soft-ware and the networking necessary to connect the system together. Kandis and I think that now we need to select the sof~are and hardware vendors so that we can start scheduling for conversion, training, installation and final implementation of the new financial system. The vendors that we recommend are as follows: Banyan Data Systems of Bumsville for the sol, are TMB of Deephaven for the hardware and networking Attached you will find a copy of their respective proposals. We need your authorization for the City Manager or Finance Director to sign them. We are proposing that we finance the purchase in the same way that we financed the copy machine. Ehlers and Associates will be able to facilitate the process for the equipment lease in the same manner. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have questions on this, please feel free to call Kandis or me. Cc: Kandis M. Hanson, City Manager -7838- Banyon Data Systems, Inc. 101 West Burnsville Parkway, Suite 112 Bu rnsville, Minnesota S5337 (952) 882-7730 / (800) 229-1130 / FAX (952) 882-7734 June 4,2001 Gino Businaro City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Gino: "At your request I have enclosed a revised proposal and a CD containing our most recent release of th:~ software applications and sample data for your preview. Please review this material and contact me at (952) 882-7730 or email me at banyondata~msn.com. Alternatively, you may want Chds our me to install the software and give you a quick navigation lesson. If so, please call. Again, thank you for considering Banyon Data Systems as your software vendor. Since 1981, Banyon Data Systems has been the popular choice for municipal software in Minnesota. .~ff C~dstensen~ ' JJC:mm Enclosure -7839- Banyon Data Systems, Inc. 101 West Burnsville Parlcway Burnsville, MN 55337 (952) 882-7730 - (800) 229-1130 - FAX (952) 882-7734 Name: City. of Mound Address: 5341 Maywood Rd Phone (952)472-0600 Date: 02/02/01 City/State/Zip: Mound Contact: Gino Businaro MN 55364 Fax: Windows Fund Accounting: Training 2 days on site: Annual Support: Fixed Assets Module Windows Payroll: PERA & Direct Deposit: Training 2 days on site: Annual Support: Windows Utility Billing: Meter Device/Certification Training 2 days on site: Annual Support: Total: $3,095 $800 $695 $995 $2,095 $1,390 $800 $695 $3,095 $1,290 $800 $695 $16,445 (Windows Utility billing includes receipt bar code entry module and bar code printing of post cards) Banyon Data Systems, Inc. hereby proposes to provide ~he above stated product and service in accordance with the above speckficaflon~ All Product ~nd service b guaranteed as specified. Any modification or alteration ~a~.q~lficatimm involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders and wiR bec°me an exWa charge over and above the e~~ P~PO(~I ~ .withdr.wn by Banyon D.~ ~ ff not accepted within 30 day~ Banyon Data Systems Signature: ~ '~ ~ ~, ~! fAA/~::==~ ~ , ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL- The above sm caflom ami ctmdittom are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. Banyon Data Systeum, Inc. b authorized to provide ~e ]prod~ ~mM~ aa specified, Payment sbeR be made within 30 days of product(s) delivery. Date of Acceptance__ __ Signature: www. ban¥on, com banyondata~msn, eom -7840- b. Banyon Data Systems, Inc. 101 West Bumsville Parkway Burnsville, MN 55337 (952) 882-7730 - (800) 229-1130 - FAX (952) 882-7734 Name: C_it_y o_f. Mo_un.d_. Address: 5341 Maywood Rd Phone Data: 02JO2/Ol City/State/zip: Mound Contact: Gino Businaro MN 55364 Fax: Windows Point of Sale S Annual Support: Training (1 day on site) $1,295 $395 $30O Total: $1,990 Ban~on Data Sys~.--ems, Inc. hereby propo~ to provide the above stated product and service in accordance with the above specifications. All Product service b gutranteed ss specified. Any modiflcado~ or olteratlo~.tp~m~ speyiflcntlom involving extra cm*s ~fll be executed only upon written orders and w~ beconte an exes charge over and above the esthn~te. ThM'p~ May ~e withdrawn by lhnyon Data Systen~, ln~ ff not accepted within 30 day~ Sanyon Data Systems $,gnatare'.(~ ~~V - Systen~ Xnc. Is au~ortzod to provide file produc~ as specified. Payment slmll be made within 30 days of product(s) del~. Date of Acceptance__-__ __ Signature: www. ban¥on, com banyondata~msn.com -7841- Software you expect ~rom a leader Banyon Data Systems, Inc. Since 1981 Join Minnesota's Leading Provider of Municipal Software · Windows Fund Accounting · Windows Payroll · Windows Utility Billing · Windows Fixed Assets · Windows Billing/Invoicing · Windows Point of Sale · Windows Property Tax · And Morel OVer InstallationS in 1V[i eSOttll Banyondata~rnsn. com -7842- www.banyon.com Windows Fund Accounting :Mights ~ ~Iate:Audit fonnats. Create re~g batches for easy posting. F~st Acc~/Unt Loolmg sho~ cod~ O~ d~scriptions. Bna ofmonth md; Cad ~fyear integrity. Invoices, poi/~ of sale, and fixed aase~ module integrated. User definable stats and selects in the report writer. R~int~a~ ~o Ex~l sp~adah~e~ Easy forms print/n8 to both dot matrix and lair. I-/isto~y/aud/t reporting by year and per/od. Check reconcil/ation includes Payables md Payroll Account Fund Accounting Desktop Payments (800) 229-1130 Bllnyon ]~llt~ Systems~ Into 101 w Bu_nmdlle Pkwy. Bumsville · MN- 55337 (952) 882-7730. (800) 229-I 130. F~ (952) 882-7734 -7843- hts Windows Payroll Pay Control Screen Pay Cycle ~ Checlt voiding ~//lth aatomatic enn7 ~ and r~- Fuil'int~gration~With BD8 Fund A~counting Check reconciliation module included. R~po~t Writer l~cs~you d~sign your'own repons. History retainer for inquiry a~d r'Porting. One st~p Window for leave and time card entry. Password can be s~t up to access e~rtain areas Prepares and priata atat~ retirement r~porm, 941 quarterly tax r~mr~ & W-Ts. Cat~ulat~ and keeps track of multiple types ofleaw (800) 229-1130 imm' Banyon Data Systems, Inc. Setup Screen 101 W Bum.wille Pkwy · Btm~ville · MN · 55337 (612) 882-7730 · (800) 229-1130 - Fax (612) 892-7734 -7844- Windows Utility Billing Account Screen u~ges, ~nd [.yenr end · ~Uszr:definabl~m~ and.~zl~S hi th~ rel~rt writer. ,Rcpo~t rimerfa~ to EX~I (800) 229-1130 Services ! Banyon Data Systems, Inc. ~0~ w Burmv/llePkwy-Bmmville-M1q*55337 (612) 882-7730 . (800) 229-1130 o Fax (612) 882-7734 Account Meter -7845- 3'mB Inc. PROPOSAL February 26, 2001 Ci~ of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364 At TMB Consulting, we believe the success of our company goes hand in hand with the relationship we have with our customers. We believe in building partnerships, combining excellent products with exceptional customer service. We appreciate the opportunity to establish this same type of relationship with the City of Mound. We are pleased to have this opportunity to present our proposal to you. Our proposal includes a professional grade server configuration, four workstations, cabling and implementation services. All labor is proposed at the preferred client rate of $75.00 per hour. Thank you and we look forward to being your preferred provider of networking services. If you have any question, don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Darel Gustafson Network Services -7846- OVERVIEW The City of Mound requested a proposal for the design and implementation of a network to support their financial systems. This network would also include three workstations, and associated cabling. Proposal Specifics The proposal encompasses a Design phase, Implementation phase and a Cutover phase. Detail pricing is provided where available and will be adjusted based on the approved Design phase documents. Financial Network Implementation Proposed Design Hardware Cost Breakdown QTY IBM X Series 230 Pentium 3 1.0 Ghz 1 (Includes mirrored HDs, 20/40 GB tape drive 10 tapes, BackupExec software, and UPS system) 2 - 19.2GB Harddrives Keyboard/Monitor/Mouse Switch 512 MB memory Windows Server 2000 IBM Monitor 1 IBM Workstation 4 (Pentium 4 1.3 Ghz 128 MB, 20 GB HD Windows 2000 Pro R/W CD) Monitor 4 HP Laserjet 2200DN 19 PPM 1 HP Laserjet 4100N 25 PPM 1 Sub-Total 7,713 154 6,936 780 1,232 1,672 18,491 Network Server Page 2 06/15/2001 -7847- Cabling Cost Breakdown Cabling drops t0 "network room") 100 MB Switch 5 1 1,250 250 Sub-Total Labor Cost Breakdown Hardware setup and testing Windows 2000 Server Setup and testing Configure BackupExec Sub-Total Project Cost $ t,500 4hr $ 300 8hr $ 600 2hr $ 150 $1,050 $ 21,041 Network Server Page 3 06/15/2001 -7848- 'MB Consulting, Inc. City of Mound Network - Proposal 06-June-01 Terms and Conditions: · Equipment and Software Prices are good for 30 days. · Equipment and Software are due upon placement of order. · Labor estimates are good for 30 days. I approve this proposal, as described above, and authorize TMB Consulting, Inc. to order equipment and software as required. (Authorized Signature) (Date) (T~le) When completed, return this page via fax or mail to: TMB Consulting, Inc. 18305 Minnetonka Blvd Deephaven, MN 55391 (952) 945-9724 · fax (952) 249-1223 Network Server Project Approval 06/15/2001 -7849- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER TREE REMOVAL LICENSE The following person has applied for a tree removal and treatment license. contingent upon all appropriate forms, insurance and fee being received. Rogers Tree Service 4805 island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 Owner: Roger Gatz Approval BOARD MEMBERS Bert Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lift McMillan Secretary, Orono Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Douglas E. Babcock Tonka Bay Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens Minnetonka Beach Herb J. Suerth Woodland Katy Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon Wert Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD, · DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 952/745-0789 · FAX 952/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR June 14, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Kandis: Attached is a proposed agreement between your city and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (District). The agreement describes the obligations of the District and of your city for funding of extra Water Patrol personnel for the summer of this year. An identical agreement will be sent to each participating city. If you are satisfied that your council has approved this arrangement by previous action, you need not execute the agreement. However, if you believe that there should be a contract between the District and the City, please have the appropriate officials execute the agreement and return it to Greg Nybeck at the above address. If you have any questions or comments about the agreement, please give Greg a call at (952) 745-0789. Your participation in the funding of this program is greatly appreciated! Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Albert Foster, Chair LMCD Board of Directors 50% Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd @ Imcd.org -7851 - CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES This Agreement is made this ~ day of ,2001 by and between the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("LMCD"), and the City of , Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"). I. BACKGROUND. 1.1. The parties to this Agreement have an interest in effective law enforcement on the waters of Lake Minnetonka. 1.2. The primary law enforcement agency on Lake Minnetonka is the Hennepin County Sheriff. 1.3. The LMCD has reached an agreement with Hennepin County under which two additional law enforcement officers will be assigned to Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season and the cost of such additional law enforcement officers will be paid 50% by Hennepin County, 20% by the LMCD, and 30% by participating cities around Lake Minnetonka as shown on Attachment 1, which is made part of this Agreement. 1.4. The parties agree that securing additional law enforcement officers for Lake Minnetonka would be in the best interests of the public, and the parties to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County, and other cities listed on Attachment 1, have agreed to participate in the payment for such services, as hereinafter set forth, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. II. DUTIES OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT. 2.1. The LMCD will contract with Hennepin County for two additional law enforcement officers during the 2001 boating season. Such officers will be in addition to the personnel who would have otherwise been assigned to Lake Minnetonka as a part of the law enforcement activities of the Hennepin County SherifFs Water Patrol. 2.2. The LMCD will collect funds from the cities listed on Attachment 1 and disburse such funds to Hennepin County as partial payment for additional law enforcement services provided. III. FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES. 3.1. Hennepin County has agreed to provide funding for 50% of the cost of the additional law enforcement services described above. 3.2. The LMCD will pay 20% of the cost of the additional law enforcement services described above from funds privately donated to the District. CLL- 197435v 1 LKI 10-4 -7852- 3.3. The cities shown on Attachment 1 have agreed to provide additional payment for such additional law enforcement services in the mount shown on Attachment 1, and the City agrees to pay to the LMCD the amount shown on Attachment 1. Such amount shall be paid to the LMCD by July 1, 2001, and the LMCD will be responsible for disbursement of the funds to Hennepin County. IV. TERM AND TERMINATION. 4.1. This Agreement will terminate on December 31,2001. 4.2. Upon completion of the 2001 boating season and the determination of all costs for additional law enforcement services provided under the above mentioned agreement between the LMCD and Hennepin County, the LMCD and the County will make a final accounting of the total costs. If the total costs of providing law enforcement services are less than the amount contributed by Hennepin County, the LMCD, and the cities listed on Attachment 1, the parties to the agreements described above will be entitled to reimbursement on a pro rata basis of the unused funds. Each city will be given notice of its right to reimbursement of such amount by the LMCD. Each city may elect to have the amount to which it is entitled reimbursed by check by the LMCD or leaving such funds on deposit with the LMCD for the purpose of paying for additional law enforcement services by Hennepin County in subsequent years. V. MISCELLANEOUS. 5.1. The parties to this Agreement are not hereby creating a joint venture or parmership. Hennepin County will provide law enforcement services under a contract with the LMCD as an independent contractor. Employees of the County will not be deemed employees of the parties to this Agreement for any purpose and no party to this Agreement assumes responsibility for acts or omissions of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT By ~~ Albert Foster, Chair CITY OF By Its CLL-197435v 1 LK110-4 -7853- -7854- STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT This maintena~ agreement is made this day of ,2001, by and between the City of Mound, herein~er referred to as "Mound," and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, hereinai~er referred to as "MCWD," to provide for the maintenance of the certain stormwater facilities constru~ed pursuant to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit application number 01- 039. WHEREAS, Brenshell Development has applied for a permit from the MCWD pursuant to MCWD Rule B; and WHEREAS, the property which is the subject of this Agreement is legally described as Lots 23 through 28, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mo ~. d, which will be replatted as Langdon Woods; and WHEREAS, MC~ Rule B provides, "A maimenaace agreement shall be submitted for: stormwater treatment ponds, outlet stru~ures for such ponds, culverts, outfall structures and all other stormwater facilities. This maintenance agreement shall specify methods, schedule and responsible parties for maintenance and must include at a minimum, the elements contained in the District's Maintenance Agreement Form." NOW, THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by and between the parties 1. Mound shall inspect the stormwater retention and treatment basin at a minimum of once a year to determine if the basin's retention and treatment characteristics are adequate. A storage treatment basin will be considered inadequate if sediment has decreased the wet storage volume by one-half of ks original design volume. Based on this inspection, if the stormwater basin is idemified for sediment cleanout, Mound shall restore the basin to its original design contours within one year of the inspection date. 2. Mound shall inspect the storm sewer system a minimum of once a year. Based on this inspection, if any outfall structures, sump catch basins or storm sewer lines are identified for sediment cleanout, Mound shall remove all sediment. 3. Mound shall sweep all public streets in the spring and fall of each year to remove all. debris that could otherwise enter the storm sewer system. 4. Violation ofthe inspection and/or maintenance provisions of this Agreement is a violation of the MCWD permit for.the project for which the MCWD may take action against Mound. 5. This Agreement is binding on Mound and thek representatives, heirs, successors and/or assigns. 6. This Agreement shall become null and void if a new permit is issued for the property and a revised maintenance agreement is mutually agreed upon by both parties or when this stormwater facility is replaced by an approved stormwater system. IN WI~SS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Maintenance Agreement. -7855- Date: CITY OF MOUND By: Its: City Manager State of Minnesota ) ) SS: County ofHennepin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this day of 2001, by Kandis Hanson, City Manager of the City of Mound, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota. Notary Public Date: MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By: Its: State of Minnesota ) ) SS: County ofHennepin ) The foregoing was acknowledged before me this 2001, by a watershed district of the State of Minnesota. day of on behalf of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 s:~rnain:hMou 12911 :kR~po~agrcemont Notary Public -7856- J-BD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT dated ,2001, between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("the City") and Brenshell Development Corporation ("the Developer"). WHEREAS, the Developer has asked the City to approve a plat of land owned by it to be known as Langdon Woods (also referred to in this Agreement as the "plat"). The land is legally described as follows: See attached Exhibit "A". AND WHEREAS, the City has approved the plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Development Contract and comply with its terms. Representation by Developer. The Developer represents to the City that the proposed plat complies with all City, Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulations, as amended by variance, including but not limited to: Subdivisions, Ordinances, Zoning Ordinances and Environmental Regulations. If the City determines that the plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the plat until there is compliance. The Developer further represents to the City that the plat is not of "metropolitan significance" and that an environmental assessment worksheet, environmental impact statement or the like is not required, If the City or another governmental entity or agency determines, however, that such a review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it and reimburse the City for all expenses, including staff time and attorney's fees, that the City incurs in assisting in the preparation of the review. 2. Phased Development. The plat shall be developed in one phase. 1 -7857- JBD Suggested Changes 6/1ll/01 Completion of Work The Developer shall complete the work required by Paragraph 4 of this Agreement in accordance with City specifications within 280 days from the date of this Agreement. All work shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer and, when and if necessary, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and other governmental agency having jurisdiction. public Improvements. The required improvements and estimated costs are set out in the City Engineer's memo dated May 3rd, 2001, and revised June 20, 2001 attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Within ninety (90) days after completion of the improvements, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of "Record Plans". The Developer shall retain a competent professional engineer to prepare the appropriate plans, specifications, and other instructions to accomplish these activities. The Developer shall specifically instruct his engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the Developer's engineer will be able .to certify that the construction work meets the approved City standards as a preconstruction meeting at a mutually agreeable time and place with all parties concerned including the City Staff'to review the program for the construction work. Bond Requirements. The Developer shall deposit with the City a performance, materials and labor a Letter of Credit satisfactory to the City to guarantee completion of the work required by the Developer pursuant to Paragraph four (4) of this Agreement and also guaranteeing the payment for all materials and labor costs incurred in conjunction with the work. The amount of the bond shall be for 125% of the estimated cost of the work as set forth in Exhibit "B". If Developer completes the work in accordance with this agreement and the work is accepted by the City, the Letter of Credit shall be reduced accordingly as each phase of the work performed in accordance with this agreement is satisfactorily completed based upon the recommendations of the City Engineer and the City Engineer's estimate of the cost of completion, as so long as the amount of the Letter of Credit 2 -7858- JBD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 equals at least 125% of the cost of all amounts to be paid by Developer pursuant to this agreement to complete the remainder of the work Other Costs and Contributions. Before the City signs the final plat the Developer shall pay or make arrangements satisfactory to the City for payment of the costs and contributions as set forth in the attached Exhibit "C". e Ownershiu of Imurovements. Upon the completion of the work and construction required to be done by this Agreement, the improvements lying within public easements shall become City property without further notice or action. o Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts and Warranty Letter of Credit. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer for the installation and construction of all the work to be performed under this agreement and hereby guarantees the workmanship and materials for a period of one year following the City's final acceptance of the work to be performed ~nder this agreement, public or private, and agrees to repair or replace, as directed by the City, and at Developer's sole cost and expense, any workmanship or materials that become defective, in the sole opinion of the city, within said one-year period, even though notice thereof be given by the City after said one year period. Notice of warranty performance requirements for work to be performed under this agreement must be received by the Developer within 14 months after acceptance of the work by the City. Concurrently, with the execution of this agreement by the Developer, the Developer has furnished to, and at all times thereafter shall maintain with the City 3 -7859- JBD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 a satisfactory and sufficient bond in at least 10% of the total estimated cost of the work as determined in paragraph 4, above, satisfactory to the City. Included among the obligations of the bond shall be that the Developer's shall fully and faithfully discharge Developer's obligations with respect to the work to be completed under this agreement during the installation and construction period and that may arise as a result of Developer's one-year guaranty. Erosion Control. Developer shall, at its expense, provide grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City. Such plans must comply with any erosion control method requested by the City for the prevention of damage to adjacent property and the control of surface water runoff. Such plans shall also, to the extent deemed necessary by the City, provide the temporary dams, eai-thwork or such other devices and practices including seeding of graded areas as necessary to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and streets within and outside the plat during all phases of construction. Developer shall keep all streets within and outside the plat free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction therein by Developer, its agents, employees and assignees. Prior to issuing building permits within the plat, the City shall require escrow deposits of $500 for each lot to ensure that erosion control barriers and all other steps requ~ed to be taken to control erosion have been taken and remain continuously in place. If Developer fails to maintain such measures, or if dirt, sediments,, sand, silt or debris is washed onto streets or other property, either within or outside the plat, the City shall, without further notice to Developer, have -7860- JBD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 the right to restore the erosion control measures and remove the dirt, .sand, silt, sedimentation or debris and to draw on the escrow deposit an amount equal to 125% of the cost of such work. The escrows made under this paragraph on each of the lost will be pooled into a common account and will be available generally for activities contemplated under the paragraph. Unused amounts will be returned to Developer upon completion of construction on the last lot. 10. Easement. The Developer hereby grams the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors an easement and license to enter the plat to perform all work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the development of the plat. 11. Responsibility for Costs. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the plat. The City shall have no obligation to pay such costs whether or not the City has approved the work. The Developer ~,h"~! hold holds the City harmless fc~rm from claims by third parties, including but not limited to other property owners, contractors, subcontractors and material men, for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from plat approval and development. The Developer shatl4adema~ inflemail~ the City for all costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney's fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims by third parties. Co The Developer shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the enforcement of this contract, including engineering and attorney's fees. 5 -7861 - J-BD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City within (30) days. If the bills are not paid in time the City may halt all plat development work until the bills are paid in full. The Developer agrees that the City, at its option only, can install and construct any work on improvements required herein to be made by the Developer. If the City makes any such improvements under its power to make local improvements, or if the City makes improvements due to the Developer's default as outlined in Section 13 the City may in addition to its other remedies assess its cost in whole or in part. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the Developer shall pay the entire assessment in a single installment in the year after adoption of the assessment. 13. Developer's Default. If the Developer does not satisfactorily complete the work this Development Contract requires of it, the City may at its option perform the work and the Developer or the bonding company shall reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City. The City shall give the Developer and the bonding company at least 10 days notice of the City's intention to perform any such work. However, in the event of an emergency as determined by the City, 48 hours notice is not required and the Developer or the bonding company shall reimburse the City for any expenses incurred by the City in the same manner as if notice had been given. 14. Miscellaneous. A. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs, successors and assigns, as the case may be. B. Breach of any term of this Agreement by the Developer shall be ground for denial of building permits. 6 -7862- JBD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 C. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Development Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement except that the City may elect to rescind its approval of the plat. D. No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either almr. man~,,nl~ temporary basis until: sanitary sewer and water lines have been installed, hooked up, tested and approved by the City, and the streets needed for access to the residence have been paved with a bituminous surface and concrete curb and gutter have been installed. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provision of this Development Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this development contract shall not be a waiver or release. The securitY in the form of a performance bond or an approved letter of credit shall not expire or be released until all work and improvements have been satisfactorily completed and accepted by the City. This Agreement shall run with the land and may shall be recorded bv ~ against the property on the plat. Go A~er a lot has been platted and the Developer proposes to sell the lot, the Developer may provide the City with an instrument in recordable form that relea~s the lot fi.om this Agreement. The City agrees to execute the 7 -7863- JBD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 instrument upon receipt of: (1) a written agreement by which the proposed buyer acknowledges the City's rights under paragraph 9 of this Agreement; and (ii) the escrow required by paragraph 9 of this Agreement; provided, however, that the City may refuse to execute the instrument if the Developer is then in default of any of its obligations under this Agreement. All costs of recording the partial releases shall be the responsibility of the Developer or its successors in interests or assigns. 15. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be either had delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents or mailed to the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: , with a copy to Stephen A. Can', Can- & Mankey, P.A., 5100 Eden Avenue Suite 306, Edina, MN 55436-2337. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either had delivered to the City Manager or mailed to the City by certified or registered mail in care of the City Manager at the following address: City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364. Attention City Manager. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seal: CITY OF MOUND By: (Mayor) By: 6(Citv Manager) Brenshell Development Corporation By: 8 -7864- JBD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 Its: President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this __ day of ,2001, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared and to me personally known, who being each by me duly sworn, each did say to me that they are respectively the mayor Mayor and mamag~ C_,illLManag~ of the City of Mound, the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of aid corporation by authority of its City Council and said and acknowledged said instrumem to be the free act and deed of said corporation. STATE OF ~SOTA COUNTY OF HENNEP~ Notary Public On this __ day of 2001, before me a notary public within and for said County, personally appeared to me personally known, who being by me duly sworn, did say to me that he is the President of the corporation named in the fore, going instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said 9 -7865- JBD Suggested Changes 6/21/01 corporation by authority of its Board of Directors, and said President acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public EXI-IIBIT A [Legal des.cription] Lots 23, 24, 25, 26 and that part of Lots 27 and 28, lying Southerly of the Northerly 30 Feet thereof, Koehler's Second Addition to Mound, according to the recorded Plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota This redlined drat't, generated by CompareRite (TM) - The Instant Redliner, shows the differences between - odgi,nal document · J:~DMS~D\49TK02!.DOC and revised document: J:~DMS~IBD\49TK03 !.DOC Compare.re found 11 change(s) in the text Deletions appear as Overstrike text Additions app~ as Bold+Dbl Underline text 10 -7866- EXHIBIT B '' CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S MEMO TO THE MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: CASE NO: PETITIONER: FINAL PLAT: LOCATION: May 3, 2001 - REVISED JUNE 20, 2001 01-13 Brensheli Development Corporation Langdon Woods End of Chestnut Road AS SE $ SMENT RECO~ S: N/A Yes No 1. 0 0 x 2. 0 0 x a. 0 x 0 4. 0 x0 Watermain area assessments have been levied based on,proposed Sani~ sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. The rate assessed would be that in effect at the time of final plat approval. Area assessments. Sanitary sewer area assessment based on 3 unpaid units ~ $1,000 per unit = $3,000. Watermain area assessment based on 4 unpaid units ~ $1,500 per unit = $6,000. Total due $9,000. 5. 0 X Other additional assessments estimated: LEGAL / EASEMENTS / PERMITS: 6. 0 x 7. 0 x 0 Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easements ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage easements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these -7867- N/A Yes No utilities are proposed to be installed. This item has been reviewed with the final construction plans and the following changes are necessary: Complies with ponding requirements - The City will require, the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property below the established l O0- year high water elevation and conformance with the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. 9. El xI--1 All existing unnecessary easements and fights-of-way have been vacated - It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete easements/right-of- way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. The Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to the City with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the subject property is abstract property, then this requirement does not apply. It will be necessary for the property Owner to provide the City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required easements referred to above. X All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: [-] Hennepin County N/A x MPCA [-] State Health Department Received x Minnehaha Creek Watershed District I-'] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [--] Other The Developer must comply with all conditions contained within any permit. ~SPORTATION: _9_ -7868- I2. N/A Yes x Conforms with the City's grid system for street names - The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: 13. X 14. X 15. X [5] [5] [5] Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thoroughfare Guide Plan. Acceleration/deceleration lanes provided - Acceleration/deceleration and turn lanes are required at the intersection of and All existing street rights-of-way are required width - Additional right-of-way will be required on UTILITIES: 16. [] X 17. ["-I ['-] X Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with City standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer facilities and streets to serve the development. Final utility plans submitted comply with all City requirements - See Special Condition #24. The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities as well as the proposed street system (public and private). -7869- N/A Yes No 19. Z] x [-1 Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Program, a petition must be submitted to the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer is paying 100% of the cost. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: 20. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: V1 x It will be necessary to contact Greg Skinner, the City's Public Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROl,: 22. [-'1 [--] X Have minimum basement elevations has been established. Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: Lot 2, Block 2 - minimum basement elevation is 942.00.. 23. r-] X [--] Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. Additionally, the following revisions will .be necessary: Any conditions imposed by MCWD permit. -7870- N/A Yes No SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED: :24. Catch basin and manhole castings must meet City standards. a. Change catch basin casting to Neenah #R-3067. b. Change manhole casting to Neenah #R-1733. 25. Revise crown on public street section to 3%. 26. Owner's Engineer shah provide construction, observation sufficient to certify compliance with plans and specifications. 27. No construction work shah be done between 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. nor on Sundays or legal holidays, without the approval of the City of Mound. The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed un,tH the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be installed underground. 29. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at Hennepin County. Prior to acceptance of the completed subdivisiOn by the City Council, it will be necessary to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of said ce~ification and recommendation by the City Engineer that the completed work will be accepted, the City Council will be requested to accept the completed public improvements. Acceptance will be by formal Resolution of the City Council. N/A Yes No 31. The Developer shall provide an escrow guarantee (surety bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of credit) in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost of street and utility improvements. 32. Site Improvements $ 28,609 Utilities $ 51,635 Streets $ 49,932 ESTIMATED COSTS $ 130,176 FINANCIAL GUARANTEE = $130,176 x 125% = $162,720 The Developer shall enter into a development contract with the City of Mound. Submitted by: John Cameron, City Engineer s:~aain:~Mou 1291 -7872- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364~1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bonnie Ritter RE: Public Hearings for RH Development - Langdon Bay The public hearings for Case 01-20: slope easement vacation, and Case 01-23: Butternut Street vacation, have been rescheduled for July 24, 2001. t printed on recycled paper -7873- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO DENY A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6024 CHERRYWOOD ROAD P & Z CASE #01-06 AND #01-08 WHEREAS, the applicant, has requested a minor subdivision of property that would require a variance lot and structure setback variances in order to build a residence on the proposed new lot. The variances are indicated below: Proposed Required Variance Existing residence Lot Area 8615 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 1385 sq. ft. Lot Width 50 feet 60 feet 10 feet Sideyard 8.3 feet 10 feet 1.7 feet Sideyard 2 feet 10 feet 8 feet Garage - street setback 15.6 ft. 6000 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. Garage - side yard setback 3.6 ft. 4 ft. 0.4 ft. New Lot Lot Area 8809 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 1192 sq. ft. Lot Width 50 feet 60 feet 10 feet ; and, WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 feet front yard setback, and 10 feet side yards setbacks for non-lots of record; and, WHEREAS, as proposed, the lot split would cause the existing parcel to go from a conforming to a nonconforming status. As proposed the lots do not meet lot area and width minimums for the R-1 zoning district; and, WHEREAS, the proposed lot split would also cause the conforming residence to be a nonconforming structure with side yard setbacks not meeting the district minimum; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council deny the variances as requested by the applicant; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Mirmcsota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the Minor Subdivision and Variance request based on the following findings: The proposed Minor Subdivision does not meet the R-1 District minimums for lot area and lot width. The proposed Minor Subdivision would cause the residence to be a nonconforming structure. -7874- The proposed Minor Subdivision would create an additional nonconforming setback of the existing garage. 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: Adopted June 26, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -7875- Excerpts from MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JUNE 4, 2001 2. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-06 VARIANCE CASE #01-08 MINOR SUBDIVISION JOHN SHAUGHNESSY 6024 CHERRYWOOD ROAD Mueller spoke with a previously interested party. There is no further interest in the project. Weiland thought we should postpone consideration tmtil the end of the meeting. CASE #01-06 VARIANCE CASE #01-08 MINOR SUBDIVISION JOHN SHAUGHNESSY 6024 CHERRYWOOD ROAD MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland, that it be withdrawn from the agenda until the applicant requests it be put back on. Loren indicated that staff sent out a letter a couple of weeks ago to deal with the 60-day issue. It expires in mid-July. Our recommendation is for denial. I have no confidence in the applicant to carry this through. Jon affirmed that denying eliminates risk and reduces expenses. Mueller felt we should just let this die. If we send it to Council without approval it's another pack of paper and the chance that they will do something we don't know about. Loren restated that, at the end of the 60 day period, we need to have the applicant agree to its expiration. They are not communicating and if they don't we are stuck. Jon pointed out that a lack of response or attendance is essentially an answer. Mueller felt we may be setting precedence for someone else that doesn't show up we deny it. We need an opinion from the City Attorney. Burma said we have given him plenty of opportunity to respond. He could have hired council to represent him. -7876- Planning Commission Minutes June 4, 2001 Loren thought that, assuming Mr. Shaughnessy was schooled as to what the 60 day rule means, he could be waiting it out. Mueller said we haven't been just ignoring him. We have had him on the agenda. I don't remember it being that easy. I rescind my motion. Mr. Weiland rescinds his second. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Anderson, to deny the application according to staff recommendation. Voting for: Anderson, Burma, Glister, Michael, Weiland. Voting against: Hasse and Mueller. MOTION passed. Hasse wanted to restate his position. Ninety percent of the lots in the area are 50 feet. It is 2 lots and has been assessed sewer/water units. What good would that sewer be if you couldn't build on it. Mueller added that, because this lot is a through lot, it is a detriment to the property. Someone on Denbigh Road with no boulevard is given a variance where this one is conforming. 2 -7877- MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MAY 21, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, and Council Liaison Klm Anderson. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. No members of the public were present. Chairman Michael called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. 2. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-06 VARIANCE CASE #01-08 MINOR SUBDIVISION JOHN SHAUGHNESSY 6024 CI-IERRYVv'OOD ROAD The applicant was not present. MOTION by Commissioner Mueller, seconded by Commissioner Glister, to table and reconsider at the Chair's discretion. Weiland and Michael voting against. Anderson, Hasse, Glister, Burma and Mueller voting for. MOTION carried. -7878- Excerpts from MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY MAY 7, 2001 CASE #01-06 CASE #01-08 VARIANCE MINOR SUBDIVISION JOHN SHAUGHNESSY 6024 CHERRYVVOOD ROAD Mueller asked to be excused because of prior involvement with the property. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to appoint Mr. Weiland as temporary chairman. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Burma, to move Cases 01-06 and 01-08 to the end of the agenda to allow the applicant time to appear. MOTION carried unanimously. Weiland gave the Chair back to Mueller. CASE #01-06 CASE #01-08 VARIANCE MINOR SUBDIVlSION JOHN SHAUGHNESSY 6024CHERRYVVOOD ROAD Applicant is still not in attendance. Some discussion ensued regarding the time requirements for these cases. MOTION was made and seconded to table consideration of the variance and subdivision requests. MOTION carried. -7879- Excerpts from MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY APRIL 9, 2001 CASE #01-06 VARIANCE CASE #01-08 MINOR SUBDIVISION JOHN SHAUGHNESSY 6024 CHERRYWOOD Commissioner Mueller offered to step down for the consideration of these cases because he was involved with the sale of the property last year and his name is on a letter that was submitted to the city included in the packet. Weiland didn't see any reason why he should step down. Glister concurred. Chairman Michael informally polled the commission and saw no ethics problem as the consensus of the commission. Planner Gordon introduced the cases. The property is two lots previously combined, zoned R1 and is a through lot. The house sits on the east parcel. Property owners are asking to divide the parcel down the center, both halves being 50 feet in width. The owners would build a new house on the westerly parcel. The lots are shown at 8,615 SF for the existing residence and 8,809 SF. Both are short square footage to meet minimum requirements. Lot width is also short. Sixty feet is required; 50 feet is proposed. There are other things that happened with the subdivision. The existing garage is only 15 feet off Hawthorne. It is a difficult parcel to look at and give a recommendation because it is not close enough to the zoning requirements to be comfortable. This request was at the action of the owner and not a pre-existing condition. Staff recommends denial. Engineer Cameron has conditions in his memo if an approval is granted MOTION by Commissioner Voss, seconded by Commissioner Glister, to deny the request. Discussion Mueller said that they were both separate lots and have paid sewer and water. In 1978, approval was given to build as separate lots. If we look at the boulevards as part of lot area it fits into the 10,000 SF, or very close. We could look at the entire green space, including the boulevard. John Shaughnessy, owner 6024 Cherrywood Road said he bought the property as 2 separate lots with the intent of building on the other lot. In 1992, he was going to build a garage on other lot and was told he couldn't because it wasn't his primary property. He also couldn't store his boat on that parcel. The property got combined at some point and he is not sure how it happened. The county was willing to split it back to 2 parcel identification numbers. He purchased 2 lots when I moved into this town and now there being taken away. There are people interested in the property and he is willing to cooperate to do whatever is needed. There are a number of very -7880- Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 2001 small houses on Hawthome and somebody needs to start the improvements to get the neighborhood to clean up. Chairman Michael wanted to know how 2 parcels could be combined without the property owners knowledge. Gordon thought the owner would have to initiate something. He asked the property owner if the lots were combined so he could build the garage and store the boat. John Shaughnessy indicated that he didn't pursue any issues. He couldn't afford to build a house on the second lot. Sutherland said that the city uses various tools over a long period of time to help enforce conformance to the ordinance. For example, if street or utility projects went down the street they look at the properties and combine some to gain control of parcels and conformance to zoning requirements at that time. Owners generally ask for combinations like this. He could have gotten bad information from someone and thought that splitting later would be possible. The problem is that regulations get more restrictive over time, as a general rule. Unfortunately, sometimes you do lose rights later. Mueller asked if separate sewer and water assessments were paid on the parcels. Also, in 1978 another building permit was given on this property. Mr. Shaughnessy said it was his personal opinion that the city would have more control if there was a house on the property rather than trying to deal with a vacant lot. He restated that he didn't sign anything with the city to combine the lots and he wouldn't sign away his buildable lot to store a boat on the property. It makes no sense. Hasse believes that as long as the city shows that there is 2 lots he sees no reason why we need to split something that is already split. Gordon objected that this is one property with one pid. Building Official Sutherland referred to his letter to the county on page 62. He stated that Mueller was assisting with the separation of the parcel and the county asked for our approval. He denied the request because the parcels didn't meet requirements for the zoning area. Over time many things change and city has a right to say "no, you can't develop that parcel because it doesn't meet requirements". We established another section of code to speed up the process. That's the process that was used but the parcel didn't meet zoning criteria. Burma asked if separate parcels would be assessed differently than a combined parcel if a street project came through. Sutherland indicated it would be. Burma asked if it would be required to combine 2 parcels before building a garage on the vacant one. Sutherland said an accessory building cannot be built before the primary residence or on a parcel without a primary residence. Mr. Shaughnessy restated that Hermepin County split the parcel into 2 parcel identification numbers in October, 2000. Sutherland reminded him that the city objected and the county rescinded the action. Burma feels that, if there was no authorization to do it in the first place, someone should back it out and allow it to be split. Mueller said that last year we allowed a 50 foot width lot to be built upon in the same area. Michael told Mr. Shaughnessy that it would serve his interests to have it reconsidered at a later time and go to the county and find out where the combination occurred. Mueller thought that, since it was the city that refused to allow the split, the city should rectify it. Clapsaddle felt it doesn't matter whether they split it or not, it still doesn't meet code. -7881 - Planning Commission Minutes April 9, 2001 Burma thought that it falls at the feet of the city to prove that the owner requested the lot combination. Jim Clark of 1665 Bluebird Lane asked if, in 1992, the city changed code to the 10,000 SF minimum in R1. Gordon said no, that R1 district was split into R1 and R1A Tom Gang, 1001 Wildhurst Trail, felt it was ridiculous to ask Mr. Shaughnessy to hire an attorney when he's just spent $25,000. Referring to combining property as a city tool to maintain order was taking without compensation. Councilmember Anderson wanted to know if it was reasonable to ask staff to find proof. Sutherland said he needed direction from the city attorney before staff can pursue it. Clapsaddle thought we should table this and check it out so the property owner doesn't have to go through another process. Gordon thought that if someone were to come in and buy three parcels and combine them into 1 there would be no process. He doubted that we would find anything and thought that we would find a request by the property owner. We aren't going to find a letter saying "I didn't request this". He wants to be realistic. Sutherland said that if the Planning Commission was interested in providing the applicant time so he can investigate at the county, staff could research the issue again and come back with a recommendation. Clapsaddle wanted to know if the county could provide something that can prove the process as it took place. Burma thought the burden of proof should not be on the applicant. MOTION DENIED 6 to 2. Those in favor were: Glister and Voss. Those opposed were: Burma, Hasse, Clapsaddle, Weiland, Michael and Anderson. Abstained: Mueller. MOTION by Commissioner Weiland, seconded by Commissioner Clapsaddle, to table action. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Mueller abstained. -7882- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. iml, i ln TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: April 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variance APPLICANT: John and Pam Shaughnessy CASE NUMBERS: 01-06 and 01-08 HKG FILE NUMBER: 01-05 LOCATION: 6024 Cherrywood ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The applicant has submitted an application for a minor subdivision to modify parcel line to allow for two buildable lots. Variances of 9 feet for improved street frontage and 1192 square feet for minimum lot area are also requested. Approval of both minor subdivision and variance requests would be required for the project to move forward. Proposed Required Variance Existing residence Lot Area 8615 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 1385 sq. ft. Lot Width 50 feet 60 feet 10 feet Sideyard 8.3 feet 10 feet 1.7 feet Sideyard 2 feet 10 feet 8 feet Garage - St. setback 15.6 ft. 6000 sq. ft. 500 sq. ft. New Lot Lot Area 8809 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 1192 sq. fi. Lot Width 50 feet 60 feet 10 feet As held today, the parcel encompasses 17,424 square feet which exceeds the R-1 district minimum of 10,000 square feet. The proposal would reduce both lots below the minimum area and lot width standards. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -7883- p. 2 Shaughnessy Minor Subdivision and Variance April 9, 2001 The existing residence is a lot of record and has two existing building nonconformities. The east sideyard would be a third building nonconformity with the subdivision. The new lot does indicate a buildable footprint with a proposed 26 feet by 60 feet house that maintains setback minimums. Drainage and utility easements are not shown on the preliminary plat and would need to be provided for review by the City Engineer if approved. This would also be a requirement for drainage plans. DISCUSSION: In order to subdivide the property, the applicant needs to demonstrate a hardship is present in order for the Council to find reason to grant variance approvals. Without hardship, the minor subdivision cannot be approved. Staff cannot find a reason to recommend approval of variances for this site. There are no unusual property conditions that qualify it for special considerations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the minor subdivision and variance with the following findings: 1. The property has no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances as the result of lot shape or topography which would necessitate the granting of a variance. 2. The variance request is the result of proposed actions by the property owner. 3. The granting of a variance would confer special privileges not afforded to other lands and structures thereon with a non-lot of record status in the R-1 zoning district. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -7884- Engineering e Planning . Surveying APR 2001 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 3, 2001 TO: FROM: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer ~ SUBJECT: City of Mound Shaughnessey Minor Subdivision Case #01-06 MFRA #13224 Comments The survey submitted with the application shows a tentative house location with proposed ~levations; however a final grading and drainage plan will be required when application is made for the building permit. 2. This is one of the older plats in the City, which typically did not provide drainage easements along the lot lines; therefore drainage easements should be provide along all new lot lines. 3. It appears from City utility records that Lot 4 is served by sanitary sewer with a service from the main in Cherrywood Road; however it appears there is no existing water service for this lot. A new service will need to be installed from the watermain in Hawthorne Road. There is no Watermain located in Cherrywood Road. 4.~ Our records show that these two lots were separate parcels and paid the full assessments for the 1979 street improvements; therefore there would not be any deferred charges due upon subdividing back to the original lots. 5. The original Sanitary. Sewer and watermain assessment records should also be checked for any deficient charges. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 o fax 763/476-8532 e-marl: mfra@mfra, corn -7885- Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning April 3, 2001 Page 2 Recommendations 1. Final grading, drainage, and erosion control plan to be approved by the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. 2. Provide drainage and utility easements along all new lot lines, five feet wide on side lot lines and ten feet in width along both street sides. 3. The new water service either be installed or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as cash escrow or performance bond. cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. s:\main :'uM ou 13224:\Correspondence~sutherland4-3 -7886- JAN,- ~ Ol (THU) 09:49 GDA TRACTOR TEL:667 1919 P. OO3 C['FY C'[: '/C': .r,~D VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472..0607, Fax: 472-0620 JAN 200 Application Fee:. $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: / SUBJECT PROPE~'Y LEGAL DESC, PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT 0F OTHER lrHAN owNER) Address City Engineer Public Works B$ock c~ P D# 25-117- q- q- -IIo ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA DNR PARK Other R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Name Address [~'"~c.~ ~ ~,~q~x'~., ,-~ ~~ ~r~.~-~ Phone Name Address Phone ~,// (H) _ (W)_ , (M). Has an a }plication ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use pemli[, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resoluUon number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 07-11-00 -7887- IAN. - I t', 01 (THU) 09:49 CDA TRACTOR TEL:66? 1919 P, O04 fce A~ollcatiort. P. 2 Do the existing structures cemply with all area, height, bulk. and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is 'loCated? Yes (,~, No (). If no, specify each non-cenforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, Itt area, etc.): REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or e~isling) Front Yard: (N~)~W) _ ~3 ff. . 7~' ft, Side Yard: ( N S(~.~/V~) . .~O ~. Side Yard: (~S E~) I~ fl. /Z ff. --'~/~' Rear Ya~: (~S E W ) _-/~ ff. ~7. ff. . ,~ Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ff. ' (NSEW) [ Lot Size: ~sq ~ ~ ~. sq ff //~ Hard.vet: sq ff ~q ff ff. Ti. ff. fi. ft. sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning distdct in which it is located? Yes (~, No ( );' If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil teo small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other, specify Please describe: Revised 07-11-00 -7888- JAN.-18'OI(THU) 09:49 GDA TRAGTOR TEL:667 1919 P, OOS Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain; Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yea, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petit[on? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? g. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained'in any required papers or plans to be submitted .~rewith are true and accurate. I consent to lhe ent~ in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official cd=the C~y of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing su~ch notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Appticant's Sign. ~re <'-'~~Qat~Date -7889- PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN SHAUGHNE$$Y OF LOTS 3 &: 4, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA EX~ST NO LEGAL DESCRtPT ON Thi ...... y intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the Iocalion of an existing house and garage, and the location of at vla~ble "hordcover'* thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements oren ochmentsNOTECrOAccUracy of hord ..... ,ocoti .... d extent of odditiono, hordcover is limited by ice and snow cover. ~ COFFIN GRONBERG INC. C~C~[D 482 TAMARA<K A~. Ot--O37 -7890- CITY OF MOUND HA~D¢0VEn 0ALCULAT~ONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: ~'O//A,/ ~'t/~r ~M~'J'J" ~' LOT AREA ~ Oq SQ. Fl'. X 30% = (for all lots) .......... :... I Z~_~ [ LOTAREA ~O~ SQl FT:'"X'40'%"-'='"(for L0ts 0'f'RB'C'o'rd*) ........ I ,~'~2~- I' LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached, buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlin.ed.in Zoning Ord!nance Section 350. ;.1225,Su.bd:.6. B:.i. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X DETACHED BLDGS X (GARAGE/SHED) X TOTAL .r.)E?ACHED DRIVE'WAY, PARKING ~',~4~'/~.e '2 ~ X AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ~/M~'~,~,~, X ETC. ~ f~/~,, ~' "' X DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) wi'th e pervious surfaco under are not counted es herdcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = TOTAL DECK ........................... X = TOTAL OTHER ............. .. ........... / 040 4~ TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (/~,~&~w~.pE~/) I 2. ~40 I UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.).--, ..-. ,.~..-.=.; ';.., .; , .' ;'. · :""..'-~-, ', · ~ '. '.",-.' . · · · I PREPARED BY DATE -7891 - JAN,-18'OI(THU) 09:48 GDA TRACTOR TEL:667 1919 P, o02 Application for MINOR SUBDNISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 4?2.0607. Fax: 472-0620 JAN ~8 ~00'] ~,,,o- 0/-o~ Application Fee: S75,00 City Planner Public Works City E~jineca' ~-~-t.) Z~- t~/. DNR _~--~, ~- C!, I Parks ..~_~&-...~, i Other Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Ta~es? .$1.000 VARIANCE REQUIRED? ............................................................ ZON~G OWNER Name ot~r ~an " appli~nt) Add~ , ., N~ ~GINEER Addr~ mil l~[, vanance, condi~Ba use pet-m~ or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes. ( ) ne. if ye~, fist date(s) of application, action taken, re. solution numbers) and provide copies of resolutions. This applicat/°n must~l~e~c~Y ~rS of the sub. iect propertY, or an explana~'~on give~n why thi~ is not fhe case. o,,,,,,~ %.a%; '- / /~/" Date' Rev;~e~ 07-I.1.00 -""-'~ Revised 07-13-00 -7892- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -7893- OF PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR dOHN SHAUGHNESSY LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA / EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION : Lots 3 and 4, Block 9,-THE HIGHLANDS PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS : Lot 3, Block 9, THE HIGHLANDS Lot 4, Block 9, THE HIGHLANDS o : denotes iron marker (904.6): Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum EXISTING ~)C.~, OARAG~ This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house and garage, and the location of.oil visible. "hardcover' thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. NOTE : NOTE : Accuracy of hardcover location and extent of additional hordcover is limited by ice and snow cover. Utilities shown are from city maps. EXIST1NG I (N?~) EXISTING HOUSE GARAGE: NAR 0 8 2aa! 01-037 OE SCRIPTION COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC, CONSI.I. TING ~ LAND SLR~YORS, SIT[ PLNt~ERS ! CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER ,CALCULATIONS (iMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS' OWNER'S NAME: ',,,r~¢,4/,¢~,' LOT A~EA _ ~__~,I~'__SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ... ............. LOT AREA ~ 6~-,~ LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)' *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in Zoning Ordinance Section 3501.1. 225,Subd:.6. B...1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~ ~, ~ X ~', ~' = ~ '7 ~ X = DE%ACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVE'WAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open deck., (1/4" min. opening between boards)with a perviou~ surfecs under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL HG'JSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x : x : 55'1 x = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ' x = x = X = T©TALOTHER - D~vEw,,~T ."DE.~I~ oH 51DE 0¢: HOU TOTAL DECK .......................... ~1~E' X,,,,,.. = ~?- -,'~,~g'r ............. , ........... 1'2-Z. TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.)..~..-..-,....~-.. ;...~ .., :... ~., ....~.,., . ,......,.-.,.... PREPARED BY ~OFF, M ~ ~l~orqi~,Er2~.. DATE -7895- C~TY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) P'IAR 0 8'200? LOT AREA ~0~ SQ. FT. × 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ,~?~O ~ SQ: FT:"×'40%'- ="(for L6~S Of Rb'C'o'rd*)' ....... I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached, buildings °nly) .. I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined.in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ¢o x : X X = TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = X TOTAL DE',.'ACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING ,,P,i/~t/,~..c X J'//~ = AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ,~'f t/,d~'~'? X = ,,~"{5'*O DECKS Open decks (114" min. opening between boards) with e pervious surface under are not counted es herdcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = TOTAL OTHER ............. : ............ /o4o ¢40 I TOTAL HARDCOVER/IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference.),.-, ..-. ,-,...,~; .,.., .~ . ....... ~,..'...-~-,., · ~ .. '.'.,.-.' · · · . I PREPARED BY -7896- :1 3'- 7-o/ ~: ~FFIN & ~ FP~, ! ! 47;3 44.35 Feb. 26 ~01 1~;32RM P2 I ! t I I I ' ! -7897- DEC 0 ?_%OO AssesSO CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 November 28, 2000 Mr. Keith Rennerfeldt Hennepin County Surveyor A-2 ! 03 Government Center 300 South 6th Street Minneapolis, MN 55487 SUBJECT: DIVISION REQUEST LOTS 3&4 BLOCK 9 THE HIGHLANDS (6024 CHERRYWOOD ROAD) Dear Mr. Rennerfeldt, Please do not complete the division request as noted above, because the city has not approved the division at this time. A review of the division request and the lot of record status is currently in progress. Approval of a subdivision for this parcel may require action by the city council as there appears to be issues that are not in conformance with the city zoning regulations. The property is currently located in the R-1 Zoning District. I have attached separate information which details the requirements applicable to this property. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions you can reach me at 472- 0614. J6n Suther-'l'~nd Building Official JS:mb Enc: cc: Jim Holan Hennepin County PID Supervisor, Michael Mueller, John and Pam Shaughnessy A zZ x rh '~ -7899- x ' T 145 - 214,6 ;,, ~ :, (23) 145 ~ 3Z 145 n '~ 30 T(40)~ (49) ~45 ~ r, 29 ~45 ~,.e41)~45 ~ MM (48) r, (80h45 ~ ,, (50) ;' 145 (24)145 ~o 30 ~, 145 'J 28 27 (81){ (31) m I45 I3 , 26 Z5 MS (30) ;, -,, 145 :o .0 IDLEWOOD RD ;/ m 1405045 ~/OOD RD (103) :'",,, '~Zt PARK (" .~'..o,: LAGOON GOVT LOT 6 · '~"---LAKESRORE AS SHOWN ON PLAT OF 'THE I~IGI4LANOS' .... . ~40 ~ ~ -.., -7901 - PRIESTS BAY 3886,76 RES CO Mound City Code Section 350:620. Sinllle Family Residential (R-l). Subd. 1. Purpose (R-l). The purpose of this district is to allow the continuation of existing residential development and the infill of existing lots in residental areas of the City where services are available. Subd. 2. Lot Area, Height, Lot Width, and Yard Require-ments (P-l). Building Height. No building hereafter erected shall exceed two and one- half (21/t) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height. Lot Area, Lot Width~ and Setback Requirements (R-l). The following minimum requirements shall be observed subject to additional requirements, exceptions, and modifications set forth in other sections of this Ordinance. Minimum Lot Area ..................................................................... 10,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width ..................................................................................... 60 feet Front Yard ............................... 30 feet Side Yard ...................................................................................................... 10 feet Rear Yard ..................................................................................................... 15 feet Minimum Lot Depth ...................................................................................... 80 feet Minimum lot frontage on an improved public street shall be 60 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 60 feet at the front building setback line. Lots of Record (R-l). The following minimum setback requirements shall be observed for Lots of Record (R-l). Side Yard Requirements The required side yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet. Minimum Setback Lot Width on One Side Yard 2 40 - <79 feet 6 feet 80 - 100 feet 8 feet 2101 feet 10 feet 2. Front Yard Except as regulated in Section 350:440, Subd. 6, the front yard setback shall be based on the lot depth as follows: Lot Depth Front Yard Setback <60 feet 20 feet 61 - 80 feet 24 feet 281 feet 30 feet -7902- 27 November 2000 TO: Jon Sutherland - Building Official - City of Mound RE: Lot Separation Request - Lots 3 & 4, Block 9 "The Highlands" FROM: Michael Mueller - Re/Max A-1 Excellence Realty Agent for John & Pam Shaughnessy 6024 Cherrywood Road / Mound, MN 55364 The owners of the above referenced lots have asked for my assistance in getting a lot separation completed for the two lots, 3 & 4, of Block 9 in The Highlands addition. When they purchased this property, the owners were informed by their realtor at that time that they were purchasing 2 lots with the home. The home currently resides on Lot 3 and Lot 4 is vacant. The address for Lot 3 is 6024 Cherrywood. When researching this property for the purpose of listing it, I found that when the house was originally built in 1970, the ownership of Lot 4 was different than that of Lot 3. The building permit was issued for Lot 3 only (See Attached Survey). In 1986, the City of Mound granted a variance for construction of a home on Lot 4 (See Attached Resolution). Additionally, City records show that both lots were separately charged for the 1979 Storm Sewer and Steet Improvements. This research would lead anyone to believe that if you purchased Lot 4 it would still be a buildable site even if the resolution has somehow expired. Sometime in the past, Lots 3 & 4 were combined at the County for tax purposes only. Nowhere in the records available at City Hall was there a requirement or a formal combination of these two lots. My assumption is that the title company suggested a county combination as the mortgage was to placed on both the lots and not just on Lot 3. Subsequently, the owners have requested from Hennepin County a separation of the two parcels which was the entity that originally allowed them to be combined. The County has approved the separation and has issued two new PID numbers. The sellers are requesting the City confirm in writing the lot separation as approved by the County. This would allow the owners to sell the two parcels separately, which is their intent. Requiring a formal subdivision of these parcels appears to be outside of the scope of the City of Mound Code requirements. The parcels are two separate Lots of Record and should be treated as such. The confirmation letter or any questions can be addressed to me at the address listed below. My phone number is 472-5302. The owners are requesting a timely review of this request by you and your staff, as they wish to proceed with their relocation out of state. If there are ordinances or requirements that are applicable or are not included in this packet, please let me know ASAP so we can jointly address those issues. Tha ,n~.,,,~ou,., Michael Mueller 5910 Ridgewood Road / Mound, MN 55364 / 472-5302 ' Attachroeni:s: Survey (Lot 3); Survey (Lot 5); Special Assessment Notices (both lots); Resolutions (both lots). ¢ c -7903- /~J'.Z : '. ,:'. ~.'' .'",..," "*.'" . -' :-' : . ,.',*',','~.'.". .... .. I ~l~R~rtl"f Cl:RTIFY THAT THIE. AI"IOv~' II A TRUe. AND CORRECT ~I.AT OIe A 8URVWY OF Lot 3 Block ~, The l[iKhlande 1.i OZm. o 1) 5.ri, (J Om ~g y, Mizu~.,3 :l '> fa. Al ,gU~VEYra,,,D BY MS THIS 19'10 HA WTHORN.c ROAD (.,. 0.70 I W~LL r.8~ W~LL $ 13.03, 4 of that part me drawn at hne at: a point the North- 9. "The Highlands", :of. RD the above described property. e, garage, yard barn, and other not purport t.¢ show an), other -7905 HC 1212 (10-78) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PREPAYMENT FORM MUNICIPALITY MUNIC CODE STATEMENT NO. DATE ISSUED VOID AFTER To the City Treasurer, please permit: First Secur|.ty Title, Inc. 1501 West 80th Street Mound 85 .'" 86-000700 September 12, 1986 Bloomington, MN 55431 to pay the following deferred installments of special assessments. PROPERTY I.D. 2t-117-24 34 o~3 LOT 3' BLOCK 9 ADDN. CODE ADDN. NAME The H~ghlands 61610 DESCRIPTION LEVY PROJECT YEatS INTEREST TOTAL PREPAYMENT FROM TO PAID PRINCIPAL AMOUNT Rdqwd Storm 6702 lq~7 ! 1979 Street Imp. 7928 1987 1995 3784.07 2270.43 qemarks: TOTALS 2~28.q~ 30-1751-799-00 58.50 56-1751-829-00 2270.43 ' To Hennepin County Special Assessments Unit; Please cancel the above special assessments which have been paid to the City Treasurer. AUTHORIZED BY E Shukle/D Schwalbe For County use only: White - City 'Freasurer [}ink - City Cl~-rk FUND/AMOUNT i FUND/AMOUNT i PREPAYMENT DATE September 12~ 1986 ' RECEIPT NO. ~ {~o ~ ~ 0 -7906- HC 1212 (10-78) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PREPAYMENT FORM MUNICIPALITY MUNIC CODE STATEMENT NO. DATE ISSUED VOID AFTER To the City Treasurer, please permit' M~und '/.9 --..~ 84-000420 Nnwmhmr 5, 1984 Reed end Pond 5425 Sh~re~i.-ne Blvd. Mound, MN 5536~ to pay the following deferred installments of special assessments. PROPERTY I.D. 23-117-24 3A 0024 LOT 4 BLOCK 9 ADDN. CODE ADDN. NAME The Highlands 61610 DESCRIPTION LEVY PROJECT __YEARS INTEREST TOTAL PREPAYMENT FROM TO PAID PRINCIPAL AMOUNT Sewer L~eral .__3388 ..... 1985 1990 851.26 204.30 Rdgwd storm 6702 1985 1990 182.26 85.06 1979 S~reet Imp. 7928 1985 1994 3925.26 2878.53 3167.89 Remarks: TOTALS 20, lT,_qi ?qq. o.~ To Hennepin County Specia] Assessments Unit; Please cancel the above special assessments which have been paid to the City Treasurer. FUND/AMOUNT FUND/AMOUNT AUTHORIZED BY .I ~l~m/n %rhwalh¢ PREPAYMENT DATE NoVember 5, 1984 For County use only: White - City Treasurer Yellow- Finance, Director Pink - City Clerk Gold- File RECEIPT NO. rllrl I'1 ~i TRANSACTION DOCUMENT NO. =Ax BO0 BY -7@07- HE~OLUTION NO. ?0-27 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND WAIVING LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDING ALL SIDE YARD AND SET BACK REQUIREMENTS ARE MET WHEREAS, the owner of Lot 3, Block 9, The Highlands has appealed to the Planning Commission for a lot size variance from lO,000 square feet to 8,720 square feet, and *. WH.~S', the owner purchased this lot thinking it was a buildable log, and "' · W~HFJLEAS, the Planning Commission r~commended that the lot size requir, ement . be waived providing thal: all side yard and setback requirementi~ are met, . *..-. NOW, TMEREFORE, BE *IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL* OF MOUND, MOUND, ~LI~ESOTA: .. That a lot size variance be ~rsnted provided all side yard and * setback requ rements are met. -- . . :.. : .. -~ ]: .: [.'*, ...': . ':.'~..... Adopted by the Counoi'l this 1}th day of ;JanuarY,.'1970..,....:...-i..;.:..-'. , : ." '?:'.'):[ ,..'..,.., ,.. '..,:..,;., :', : . /........ ( . :'.*,.:'~ ....~' .,...... .-: · . ...,f.. .... :., ~ . ': ;,,'%.'..*~.... .., ......, .-'~....,:..: .,'. *,,, . , . .*'~ · ,., .,, :.. - : ,4. ..~.. . ..* .~. · . :' ...*. -:' '. ~ '. ,. .... . ... ~: .: .' .. . .,.'..;..' :.?;~ . . · ..'..'.(,.;.......~ -': . ..' .~....:. . · ... .,-.'...-.;.;.,,.;.. ~.,: [..; · . ,....,.:.'-~ . . .. . ~*,;: ?..', .;.~..*~, .. . .~. .' ... - 7908- · :.....'.. :,'i, :. ,:"*-.: · '..., '~. , " ' ' . .: .......~ ..-:.:... ,~.;.. ~ -..: ...~: .... '. .... - .': . 84 RESOLUTION NO. 86--51 RESOLUTION TO APPROYE A VARIANCE IN LOT WIDTH AND AREA FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 9, IHE HIGHLANDS, .PID ~23-117-24 34 0024 (6032 CHERRTWOOD ROAD) WHEREAS, Gerald R. Barrow, owner of a vacant parcel of land described as Lot 4, Block 9, The. Highlands, has applied for a variance in lot size and width to allow construction of a single family dwelling with conforming setba, ck$; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 10,000 square foot lot in the R-1 zoning district with a lot width of 60 feet; and WHEREAS, the property described has a lot area of 9,060, plus or minus, square feet and a lot width of 50 feet; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend a lot width and are'a variance to afford the property owner reasonable use of his property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size and width variance as it is within ten (10) percent of the required lot area and the lot width of ten feet for Lot 4, Block 9, The Highlands (6032 Cherrywood Road) to allow the construction of a single family dwelling with conforming setbacks for the lots This variance is granted upon the following of record. conditions: 1. The variance is valid for one year after approval unless renewed by the City Council. The lot size is within the ten (10) percent of the required 10,000 square feet· The topography ls to be limited to 8 percent slope. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances due to the existing sites in close proximity to it are fully developed. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship· No furth.er variances will be granted. The foregoing resolution was moved by MaYgr Polston and seconded by Councilmember ?eterson. The following Counoilmembers voted 'in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, folston and Smith. Ihe following Councllmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk Mayor -7909- X o oo ~ mom -7911- ';:Z ~_.: -- .:~ -.:~ i7-_: ~. 7'_. __i __ !2: :.-2. :.-- -7913- ,Z' C"-' ~...: · .~..; !- -.. --;: 2:' 7-;. !-.Z: 1 , 7-T-T ; i MOUND, MINNESOTA ZONING APPLICATION Street Location of Property Address ~'? P~one ., AppJJca nt_~~~~~m~._Name ~ ~ ~Address ~'~~ho~~ Type of Request: Rezoning ,~ ~ Varia,qce Description of Request:,.~ Reason for Request Note - Sketch of proposed property and structure to be drawn on back of this form or attached. Fee: $ Following to be filled in by Village  Date By PI. Comm. Action PI. Comm. Posfponement On Council Agenda Council Postponement Council Action Bldg. Dept. Notified Applicant Notified Special Use Permit Other Subdivisional Approval Date Recommendations of Village Officials Any official making any comments should sign and date. Use additional sheet for comments if necessary-attach hereto. Please draw or attach a sketch .of proposed structure showing the following: 1. Indicate North 2. Location on lot 3. Adjacent Street names 4. Location set backs and use of adjacent existing buildings 6. Dimensions of proposed structure 7. Proposed set back 8. State zoning in force in area concerned Distances between any purpose structure and structures on adjacent property PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMM£NDA TIONS On the // day of ,.~)L(__~: .19. ~' ~ the action requested in the foregoing petition wa: approved .~r- disapproved subject to the fo"-7'~=lSZ~nditions: ,~est Sub~zrban Builders, Inc. r~ot 9 Block 3 The Highlands Tax Forfeit 5/21/69 $1800. O0 Contains 8720 sq. ft. plus or minus Zoned Residential A-1 lO,OO0 sq. ft. Min. (~t time of Zonin~ it was felt that 5% should be the allowable maximum deviation) This would be a deviation of 8.7~ Disbursement of Sale Price. State 180.00 Special Assessments lost Through Cancellation C o~nty 540.00 Village 360. O0 Sewer Unit 292.00 School ___ 720.00 Sewer Lateral 851.26 180o. oo If this had been improved property v~ith a market value of 21,000.00 land & bldg. the Yilla~e would have received approximately 75.00 as their share of a total tax of $560.00 based on the 1969 mill rate., for real estate plus $tl0, O0 for special assessment annual payments including interest. Village Share of Sale Loss to Vi~l~e Plus delinquent taxes for seven years plus interest on the annual special assessments. 1153.26 36o.oo 783.26 If this had been improved for total market value the village would have received 75.00 and nothin~ for special assessments -7916- 3. West Suburban Builders, Inc. / 3' 14912 Mir~netonka Boulevard, Hopkin /Lot Size Variance ~Lot 3, Biock 9, The Highlands ' /' Hasse moved and Bargman seconded to recommend that the lo: size require- ment of 10,000 square feet be waived providing that all side yard and setback recuirements are met. For: Hasse, Bargman, Brandenburg, Partington. Against: ~ewell and Weiland.  Abstain: Schmidt Planning Commission Discussion ~-~ ' 1. Election of Officers carried over to January meeting. 2. Recommend that the Council consider a Special Permit for fences with fees based on cost of materials and construction. That such permit define snow fences in residential areas as temporary fences not to be erected prior to November 1st. That all such fences be removed by May 1st of the succeeding year. Tha: such fences not conforming to these conditions be removed by the Village wi:h a penalty for cost of removal to be assessed against the property if possible. Parking carried over to January meeting for action. 4~ Balconies and Decks that encroach into front and side yard requirements. I~ is the consensus that such structures are an integral part of the building and should be back of the side yard and setback lines. That the Council consider amending the Building Code if necessary to make this clear to builders and remodelers when plans are submitted. 5. The Planning Commission feels that use of new construction methods and materials such as joists should be considered'as special cases by the Planning Commission and. the Council until enough instances of use and performance have proven satisfactory before the Building Code is changed ~o include them. Adjoured at 10:00 P.M. Attest: -7917- ,. 70-27 ~-1~-70 RESOLUTION NO. 70-27 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT AND WAIVING LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING ALL SIDE YARD AND SET BACK REQULREMENTS ARE MET WMk~%EAS, the owner of Lot 3, Block 9, The Highlands has appealed to the Planning Commission for a lot size variance from 10,000 square feet to 8,720 square feet, and W~EHEAS, the owner purchased this lot thinking it was a buildable lot, and W]iEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the lot size requirement be waived providing that all side yard and setback requirements are met, NOW, TM~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That a lot size variance be g~anted provided all side yard and setback requ~.rements are met. Adopted by the Council this 13th day of ~January, 1970. -7918- CII'Y OF MOUNt) -ZONING INI:OP, MATION SIiEET SURVEY ON FII..E? YES / NO ZONING DIS'rRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~o,ooo/6o RiA 6,000/40 R2 g,000/40 R2 14,000/80 OU RECORI)? YES / N() R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,O00/100 I I r B1 7,500/0 B2 20,000/80 B3 10,000/60 EX;ISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: · VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W ~ Sll)E N S E W REAR N S E W 15' N S E W 50' OF BI.UFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIEI) ..... DETACIIED BUILI)INGS FRONT FRONT N S E W N S E W SIDE N $ E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W §0' 'I'OP t)F BIMFF 10' OR 30' 30% OR 40% ]BY: YES / NO ? I DATED: This /.onmg h:lo~nmficm ,~;hcet o~)l_~ summarizes a porlion of tile requirements outlined itt the (;ily of {vlound Zoning Ordinance. For fu£ther information, contact the City of Mound a{ 472-0600. THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -7920- PRELIMINARY PLAT AND. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN SHAUGHNESSY OF LOTS 5 & 4, BLOCK 9, THE' HIGHLANDS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I L~ EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots .3 and 4, Block 9,-THE HIGHLANDS PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Lot 3, Block 9, THE HI(~HLANDS Lot 4, Block 9, THE HIGHLANDS o : denotes iron marker (904.6): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. EXISTI~ This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described, property, the location of on existing house and garage, and the location of oll visible. "hordcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. NOTE : NOTE : Accuracy of hardcover location and extent of additional hordcover is limited by ice and snow cover. Utilities shown ore from city mops. / '/. / / / 8809-* SO. ~FT. EXISTING HOUSE OARAO~ :XIST~ HOU~ .liAR 0 8, 2001 O~ SCJ~PTION COFFIN & GRONBERG, II C, ONSULING ~ L~D S~VEYORS. ~ ~ 482 TAMARACK AVENUE, LON~ LAKE, MN. 55356 952-47,3-4141. DATE ~ MN 01-037 ..J CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #01- A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN OPERATIONS PERMIT FOR MAHOGONY BAY LOCATED AT 5300 SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING) WHEREAS, Mahogony Bay is proposing to lease 60,136 square feet of warehouse area from Balboa Center, LP, for sales, service, restoration and storage of vintage boats; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Code in sections 350:680 Subd (6)(B) and (F) provides for general warehousing, storage, repair and servicing of watercraft; and, WHEREAS, the company plans to utilize a majority of the space for storage as identified in Exhibit B; and, WHEREAS, the loading docks on the west side of the building will be modified and an access ramp will be built for access to the warehouse area; and, and, WHEREAS, adequate parking is available for employee use within the property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve an Operations Permit for Mahogony Bay for an occupancy of approximately 60,136 square feet within the Balboa Building subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with all building and fire codes. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: and Adopted June 26, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk -7922- Jun. 4. 2001 l:53PM BEST AND HEt~PEL, LLC No.0277 OPERATIONS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF ~OUND, 53~1 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364 City Council Date: Dist~bution: City Planner: Other: Phone: 472-O600, FAX; 472-0620 Operations Permit Fee: Building Official 2 0.,00 _U~es by. Operations Permit: Within any Planned Industrial Area, no structure or land shall be used for the uses listed within the Zoning Ordinance, Section 350:680, Subd. 6. [attached), except by operations permit. Criteria for granting operation permits is the same as listed in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:525, Subd. 1, A; L (attached). All operations permits must be approved by the City Council. Applications must be received two weeks prior to the City Council meeting to allow time for staff review. The City Council meets on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month. The City Council meetings are held at City Hall in the Council Chambers, and commence at 7:30 p.m. The applicant or a representative is encouraged to be present at the meeting. Section I - Application Information 1. ' Street Address of Property: 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot Block Addition ~¥1~ VL~'.~k~-~ PID .~3- tl~- z,~%~o Icc.. Owner's Name: Address: C/b (J~:~.6 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name fY~a~,oa~,,, ~,,¥ Phone Address Z~/C~,~ ~t~6. ~d, ~ Section 2 - Business Information Name of Business ._.J~_ ._aho~awv. i~ay Total Floor Area (~0~ 1:5(~ Office Area Manufacturing Area Warehouse Area (~::3, Sales Floor Area Other (please specify) Describe Nature of Business ' '~ Wholesai~ Retail -79 3- 4. 2001 Rev. 11-16-~8 §. Location (cite unit number Or attach floor plan) Number of Employees: 1st shift 3'd shift Adjacent Uses (list businesses) 2"~ shift Section 3 - Business Operations Describe Products produced or services offered (attach product brochures if available) t~a~oaw,.~ ~a~, b.~,.% ~llj ~-~ 5~'o;c~$ What types of materials will be shipped into and/or stored within the premises 7 Will materials be shipped by: rail Other (specify) Semi truck Will delivery vehicles be stored on the property? Yes X' No ~ Does the business plan future expansions at this location? Yes No X' .. If yes, describe amount of anticipated expansion and timing. Will the bUsiness require' any modifications to the exterior of the existing building including but not limited to doors, windows, overhead doors, cooling towers, HVAC units, etc? Yes /~ No If yes, please describe and attach a floor plan and exterior building elevation drawings. Will the proposed operation involve: Noise Generation' Yes If yes, describe source and amount No k' Odor Generation: Yes No. /~ _. If yes, describe source and amount_ Toxic and/or Hazardous Waste Generation: Yes If yes, describe source and amount No X' -7924- Jun. 4. 2001 Rev. 11-1~-9~ I:54PM BEST AND HEMPEL, LLC No.0277 P, 5 Provide a detailed listing of all chemicals which will be discharged into the sanitary sewer sys~:em..._/t/'/~ Will the operations include either interior or exterior storage of bulk chemicals? Yes _ No ._~__.. If yes, at-tach floor plan and/or site plan showing location and describe spill/leakage containment provisions, Other than chemicals, will the operation require outdoor storage of ~ materials? Yes No ,_~,__~.... If yes, describe materials and attach site plan showing locations and identifying proposed screening by type and location. Section 4 - Certification I certify that ali of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers and plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose~'~specting, or~f posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be requi~d'~ II Signature of Applican~/~'_~//~.~~ . Date ~_~' Section 5 - City Review and Action Reviewed by: Building Official City Engineer City Manager Fire Chief Other City Planner -7925- 2642 Commerce Blvd Mound, MN 55364 (952) 495-0007 (952) 495-1237 Fax Wednesday, June 13, 2001 Description of Use of Balboa Center Space. Todd Warner's Mahogany Bay a world leading Vintage Boat sales, service, restoration, transportation and storage is currently in negotiations with the owners and their representatives to commence a lease on approximately 60,000 square feet of the building at 5300 Shoreline Drive in Mound also know as the Balboa Business Center. It is Mahogany Bay's intention to consolidate all of their operations to one larger facility within a close proximity to Mahogany Bay's corporate headquarters at 2642 Commerce Blvd. in Mound. This consolidation will include relocating our production facilities and storage facilities into the Balboa Center. This move will require Mahogany Bay to add an access ramp to the existing Northwest corner door to be able to move boats in and out of the facility. Inside the confines of the building Mahogany Bay will be demising an area that will be used for the service and restoration work. The remainder of the space will be used to store boats during times of non-use and vessels that are for sale. Mahogany Bay will not, at this time, be doing any exterior extended storage of vessels effecting parking or access to the building. Items that Mahogany Bay will be storing in the building are projected :to be, boats, trailers, boats on Trailers, accessories related to the use and operation of the boats, items used in the course of service or restoration including but not limited to: sanding materials, finish materials, fasteners (screws, nuts & bolts), wiring materials and wood. If you have any further comments or concerns please direct them to Jayme Hines, Chief Operations Officer of Mahogany Bay at 952-495-0007. -7926- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -7929- I 24',0* ',f 1 24'-0" 24~.0* 24~.0~ .j, I I I I m JJIBALBOA BUSINESS CENTER ~ ~JI'sHORELINE DRIVE m I J MOUND, MINNESOTA June 7, 2001 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound West Edge Boulevard Street Improvements MFRA #7827 Dear Mayor and Council Members: The City's scheduled bid opening for the subject project on May 30th resulted in only one bid submitted. The plan holders list included six (6) contractors; however, for a number of reasons GMH Asphalt Corp. was the only contractor to submit a bid. Attached is a copy of the bid tabulation. The bid from GMH was in the amount of $214,163.85. The engineer's estimate from the feasibility report prepared last summer was $167,900 and the revised estimate used after the final plans were prepared this spring was $176,172. The bid submitted is 27-1/2 percent over the feasibility report estimate and 21-1/2 percent over the revised engineer's estimate. We have reviewed the unit prices of the bid submitted and feel a substantial number of are too high and therefore are recommending that the bid be rejected. The City has a number of options to consider including the following: Rebid the project immediately for construction yet this summer. We do not believe this option would result in much, if any, savings since many contractors already have too much work and with the amount of rain we have had are behind schedule. Rebid the project in August or September for construction either late fall or next spring. This option also has too many variables that could affect the bids, such as, workload and the weather. -7931 - Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council June 7, 2001 Page 2 The third option would be to rebid the project in February or March of 2002. It appears this may be our best chance at getting more contractors to bid and hopefully result in lower prices. The second phase of the Rottlund project is also scheduled for completion in 2002. The first phase of their project will take access from County Road 15 and would not need the West Edge Boulevard improvements until the 2002 construction year. We have discussed with R.H. Development and Rottlund the prospect of delaying the construction of West Edge Boulevard until next year. They indicated that a one year delay would not place any undo hardship on their project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure s:\main:\Mou7827:\Correspondencekmayor6-6 -7932- oo~ooo~oooooo~ooo~~oo~ooooo oo~o d -7933- DRAFT MCCOMB$ FRANK DRAFT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Between the Mlnnehahe Creek Watershed District end the City of for Local Water Planning and Regulation This Cooperative Agreement.is.made:this · day of__.____, 2001 by and between .the 'Mlnnehaha:Creek:Wate.re:hed'.DiStrlct, a watershed district with purP°ses'·;and'P°Wers aS~et:f°rthat'Mjnn:e$:°ta;Stat;Utes:'Cha 'tars 1038 and Lnome rule::h'arteflS:tatut0ry] city inthe.State of;Minne~o~("Olty,,). Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS in 1997, the,MOWD revised ttscomprehenatve watershed management Plan ·under M!nnesota.:statUtes § 1038::231 ;·which details the existing phYsiCal'environment!,: land use;and deVa!opmentlnthe watershed and' estab!!Sihee aplan:.to :regulate· Water 're:source use and: management to protect water·~i~'eeOUr~=ea~ ImPrOve :WeterqualitYrptevent~fi0~dlng and' Otherwise achieve the goals' :~fMlnne:sota $~ti~tes:: ich'a.ptet8. ?i 03B' end'103D;' . i WHEREAS the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan ncorporateB th$.Rules .adopted'ibYtheMOWD to:protect.water resources, improve Water qUallbj'i: preventfii)adingand otherwise achleve the goals of Mlnnesota::statut~a :'.C!hapters.103B:.a'nd 1'03D; WHER.EA$.'~he City has :developed a local water management plan under Minnesota Statutes § 103B;235.thatd.escribea the existing and proposed physical environment.and: land.use.Within the, CitY and sets forth an ' Implementation.plan foil.bringing =10¢ai water, management Into' conformance * with. the"MCWD's compreher{~lVe. Water~hed .m.ariai~ament plan; WHEREAS on ,200~, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally approved the City's local water management plan by adoption of ReSOlUtion .___-2001, whl~h'res01Uflon Is attached and.lncorpo~ated herein; [WHEREAS MCWD approval ora local plan requires a finding that the. official controls of the lOcal :gOvernment are' at least as 'protective· .of water resourc.e~:'aa' the MCWD'RUles; WHEREAS the finding by the MCWD Board Of Managers In this regard rests on the declaration:in!the City,a plan that.the C'lty authorizes the continued exercise of regulatory auth0r!ty' Of the :MCWDwtthl.n,':the"Clty In accordance with Mln'neao~:::Statute~'~§i'0$B':i2~:% aUbd!vlS!on" ~(a)(3),']'' ' ! -7934- ~41~1 DRAFT WHEREAS the · _, 2001 local plan approval was conditioned on fulfillment of the terms setforth in EesOlutton _-2001; WHEREAS the City within 120 da;ye of execution of this Cooperative.. Agreement will adopt and implement its local water management plan and within 1 eD days will ad°~t.:all' o.rd[nan~.ea Jdentlfled:ln,~esolut!on __-2001 as .necessary for the:Board.of Ma nags.rs:. :~flri:ding :th'a~!.the. Ci~:.~ offi'c:lai ContrOls are as Proteotive'of'[heWater' resource :.aS :(heMCWD s;." · WHEREAS the MCWD and City desire to memorialize their respective roles in implementing water resource proteotion end :management within the City; NOW THEREFORE it.ts'mutually agreed by and between the parties that they enter.into.this Cooperative'Agreement in-order to document the understanding:of:the parties:as to'the :roles and .responsibilities of each party. 1.0 -1~-~9-gJlS/btllttes.ef the_City. 1.1 The City may exercise alt present and future authority Ii otherwise may possess to issue-permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the'City, 1.2 The. City is solely responsible for [list subjects of regulation] within the City. The.City will regulate these :aoflv'ltles in accordance with the City's approved.local water management plan'and the terms of this Agreement. Th e MCWD'wlll continue ts.exercise!its.regulatory authority 'with respect to all other subjects of'reg'utat;Ion under Its Rules, 1.3 On written confirmation to the MOWD that the City has adopted a oKllnance as: required byR:es'olutlon_._.2001 and said ordinance is in force, the City a'hail become.SOlelY resp0nsible':for.[Subject of regulation] wi~ln the City. The'Clty.:wili implement~the ordinance in accordance with ihs CI~s :approved local water management plan and the terms of this Agreement. 1.4 Within 120 days of its receipt of the MCWD'a wetland invento~ and function & value assessment:fOrthS.City, the City shall review its local water ~anagement-plan, Subml[.~to the MOWn .such revisio'ns as the City believes warranted by the-new lnformati~n,.and gain MOWD ap proval of the revisions. 1 ,~ The Ot~ will n~t I~,ul a variance for an aotlvl~ that ~oea not =omply with wll] tranam:it:.:a :.cOp~::of ~e varlan~, .raques't ~a.~.a:uppo~:g dOcumen~flon t~ theMCWD:for review, -7935- DRAFT 1.6 The City will maintain a Icg of permits it grants pursuant to this Agreement, will provide the Icg to the MCWD annually and will meet at least annually with the MCWD to review the Implementation of the City's local water management plan. 2.0 ReSr~onslbillfles of the MCWD [2,1 TheMCWD will continue.to.apply.an01 enforce its Rules, as they may be amended from 'time to' time,. Wtti~i n the 'City to th e' same.extent as'presently.] [2.2 ,, The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce MCWD Rule ..... ," within the City, as applicable.] [2.8 The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce MCWD Rule --, have .l~ee'n ~r~l~t,]' ' =~--'" within.the.City until thO"conditions tn Paragraph -. 2.4 The MOWD wilt continue to apply and enforce Rule I, "Variances," when considering a variance from'an above-refer, anted *City ordinance.' The MCWD will act on.'a.vari.ence requestpui, tiuant~to-.Paragi, eph 'I .5 within $0 days .Of Its ~ecelpt ortho request. 2.5 The MCWD will perform a wetland inventory and a function & value asae$$mentfor the City end will'Provlde the results to the City. 2.6 The MCWD will exercise good faith In'Its review and approval of any revision submitted by the 'Olty in accordance with paragraph 1.4, above. 2.7. The MCWD will meet with the City at least annually to review, the Implementation of the City's local' water management plan. 2.8 The MCWD retains the rightto enforce any and all of its rules in the event that the City is unable or unwi}ling'to carry Out its obligations listed in Ssction 1.0 of this Agreement, 2.9 The MCWD retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D or any other provision of.Jaw, except ae explt!=E!Y reposed.tn the :C~tty under'this Agreement, including but not limited to authOritY set forth' at Minnesota :StatuteS.§§'103:8~2,i 1, subd.': 1(al; 103D.335 and 105D,~41, S.0 The City's local water management plan shall be deemed finally approved by the MOWD.0n th't Oity'e fulftlime'ntof piragralOh'[a] .an l ............... , above, -7936- May, £i, 2001~'+~ l'34PM MCCOMBS !~.11-0I DR~I~ : 'i 'i ':' DRAFT 4.0 ~ This Agreement may be amended only by a wflttng signed by both of the perU,s. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto have exec~uted this Cooperative Agreement. CITY OF-~- By mayo By City Manager MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By President, Board of M~nagers APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By By ILs Attorney its Attorney · 4 -7937- Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin@minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek, org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Uonica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life May 25, 2001 Ms. Candis Hanson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: MCWD Permit Application No. 01-144 Dear Ms. Hanson: The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers reviewed the above mentioned permit application at their Board meeting on May 24, 2001. It was the action of the Board to approve this application with the following conditions: · Reimbursement of mailing costs in the amount of $ 22.91. b ~ ~ · Submit a declaration for the preservation of the wetland buffers which must be recorded. Once the above mentioned fees have been paid and the other conditions have been met staffwill issue the permit. You are reminded that work on the project cannot begin until the permit has been issued. This permit expires one year from the date of this letter. If final municipal approval of the project results in changes to the project you must submit revised plans to the MCWD for review. Please call me at 952-471-0590 with any questions. Barbara J. Moeller District Technician C~ John Cameron, MFRA Lisa Tilman, Wenck Associates i~ Pr[ntad on recycled paper containing at least 30% post consumer waste. -7938- RESOLUTION NO. 06-2.001 APPROVING THE CITY OF MOUND'S LOCAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS on June 12, 1997, the MCWD adopted amendments to its comprehensive watershed management plan under Minnesota Statutes § 103B.231, which, as amended, details the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and established a plan to manage water resources and regulate water resource use to improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and WHEREAS the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan, as amended incorporates the Rules adopted by the MCWD to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and WHEREAS the City of Mound submitted a local Water Resources Management Plan to the MCWD for review and comment on May 2, 2000 that continued under an extended time frame by agreement of the City and the MCWD; and WHEREAS the MCWD reviewed the Plan in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 103B.235, subd.3, prepared comments and met with City representatives; and WHEREAS the Metropolitan Council received the local Water Resources Management Plan and provided its comments to the MCWD on September 1,2000; and WHEREAS the City of Mound subsequently prepared revisions and submitted final revisions to MCWD which incorporated MCWD review comments; and WHEREAS the MCWD determined that the revised Plan is consistent with the MCWD Water Resource Management Plan; and WHEREAS the MCWD determined that the Plan meets the requirements for local plan approval set forth in the MCWD's Water Resource Management Plan, including that the City has demonstrated that draft official controls described in the Plan will protect the MCWD'~ water resources at least as well as the MCWD's rules; and WHEREAS the City does intend to assume regulatory authority for erosion control, floodplain, preservation, wetland protection and stormwater management. -7939- Resolution No. 06-2001 Approving City of Mound's Water Resources Management Plan THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the MCWD Board of Managers hereby approves the Plan on the occurrence of the following conditions: 1. Both local governments shall execute a cooperative agreement establishing implementation responsibilities between the City and MCWD. The City shall revise the Wetland Management Plan to state that the City will amend the Plan and submit it to the MCWD for approval within four months or 120 days after the MCWD provides the Wetlands. Functions and Values Inventory and Assessment results for wetlands within the City of Richfield. 3. City Ordinances: ao City ordinances shall be adopted addressing the use of phosphorus fertilizer, erosion control, parking lot/street sweeping, pet waste disposal, floodplain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management within 180 days of plan approval. bo Adopted city ordinances shall be in the final substantive form as submitted to MCWD as included in the Mound Water Resource Management Plan with the following provisions: 1. Activities will result in no net decrease in the 100 year flood storage capacity. 2. BMPs will be consistent with .Rule N, specifications of the MPCA Manual (Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas) and its future revisions. 3. Water quantity control requirements will be consistent with Rule N, #4 (rate control) 4. Water quality requirements will be consistent with Rule N. #5. Wetland buffers will be required for all wetlands impacted by filling or excavation and for wetlands on sites with new development or changes in development and floodplain alteration sites. 6. Activities including but not limited to mowing, yard waste, disposal, and fertilizer application shall not occur within the wetland buffer zone. 7. Wetland replacement where permitted shall occur within the same subwatershed as the associated wetland impact. 8. Written notification will be in accordance with Rule A, #5. 4. The City shall not otherwise amend the Plan before adoption. -7940- FINALLY BE IT RESOLVED that MCWD staff and consultants are directed to develop a cooperative agreement with the City of Mound to be executed upon mutual agreement and MCWD Board approval within six months of this date. Lance Fisher Malcolm Reid offered the following resolution and moved its adoption, seconded by The motion to adopt Resolution No. 6 -2001 received 6 yeas and 0 nays as follows: Yea Nay Abstain Absent Yea Nay Abstain Absent BLIXT x SCHP. OEDER CALKINS x REID x FISHEP, x THOMAS x GROSS . x X Upon Vote, the President of the Board of Managers declared the Resolution No. 6-2001 adopted on this the 10th day of May, 2001. I, Lance Fisher, Secretary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers hereby certify that this is a true and accurate copy of the original Resolution No. 6-2001approved on the 10th day of May, 2001, by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers during an official Board of Managers meeting on that date. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand of said Watershed District this the 10th day of May, 2001. Lance Fisher, Secretary -7941- MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS May 10, 2001 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was called to order by President Pamela Blixt at 6:50 p.m., Thursday, May 10, 2001, in the Council Chambers, Minnetonka Community Center, Minnetonka, Minnesota. MANAGERS PRESENT Pamela Blixt, Malcolm Reid, Monica Gross, Lance Fisher, James Calkins, Scott Thomas. MANAGERS ABSENT Robert Schroeder. ALSO PRESENT Eric Evenson, District Administrator; Glenda Spiotta, District Planner; Joan Ellis, District Communications/Education Manager; Jim Hafner, Senior District Technician; Michael Panzer, District Consulting Engineer; Chuck Holtman, Assistant District Counsel. CITIZEN COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Manager Thomas, seconded by Manager Calkins, to approve the agenda with the following additions: Add 12. 6, discussion of Minnehaha Creek stabilization project Upon vote, the motion carried 5 - O. CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT None. Manager Reid arrived at this time. -7942- ' Minutes May 10, 2001 Sue Yorzak, Minnetonka, offered her observation that cities and developers are being quite cavalier about water resource protection and that a great deal of high-rise development along the Creek demonstrates the need for strong protections. Carol Hines, Hopkins, concurred that large condominium developments on the north side of the creek were a substantial intrusion on the resource and that the proposed buffers would help to limit the impacts of such developments. Manager Blixt determined that no further members of the public wished to speak to the rules and the public hearing was closed. The Board turned to discussion of the proposed rules. Mr. Evenson advised that written comments on the rules packages had been received from Minnetonka, Minnetrista, Mound, Richfield and St. Louis Park. Mr. Holtman, with reference to a May 8, 2001 memorandum to the Board, went through 14 staff recommendations for revision of the proposed rules prompted by public comments as well as staff/consultant discussion. Mr. Holtman first presented Recommendation 4 to delete buffer provisions from Rule D and create a stand-alone Rule M buffer rule applicable to lakes, streams and wetlands. Mr. Holtman advised Managers Fisher and Calkins that moving the wetland buffer provisions from Rule D to Rule M would not create any loopholes. The Board concurred in the staff recommendation. Recommendation 1 was to provide qualitative definitions of the terms "impervious" and "pervious." According to Mr. Holtman, Mr. Panzer had advised that a quantitative "bright line" definition would have an element of arbitrariness and that those in the field would agree on what type of surface is "pervious" and what is "impervious." The primary focus of the definitions is to clarify that a surface need not be 100 percent impervious in order for it to be defined as impervious for the purposes of the rules. In response to a question from Managers Fisher and Gross,.Mr. Panzer advised that a quantitative definition could be used, but would have the aforementioned limitations. In response to a question fi:om Manager Reid, Mr. Holtman advised that some research had been done as to defmitions used by other watershed districts, but that a more comprehensive study had not been done. In further response to a question about a quantitative standard, Mr. Panzer noted that runoff coefficients also will vary depending on soil type and on the phase of a given storm. Manager Thomas felt that with so many variables, a qualitative definition might be preferable. The Board directed staffto further research the matter and to again present a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Holtman described Recommendation 2. This recommendation would provide for a limited exception from a temporary buffer requirement for small sites and for sites with other features for which the buffer requirement would make construction infeasible. Manager Gross opposed this recommendation. Mangers Fisher and Calkins stated that it 5 -7943- Minutes May 10, 2001 had relocated one of those chambers for improved performance. He also noted that throughout construction it was discovered that the location of subsurface infrastructure often was not where indicatedon the City's as-built plans. He noted the late discovery of a large Minnegasco gas main that needed to be crossed three times. The pipe necessitated revising the Amelia Pond design. The contractor also encountered more soft soils than anticipated, necessitating materials adjustments. Mr. Hettiarachchi described the pond and wetland functions and presented photographs of the created facilities. Mr. Beduhn reviewed the project budget and expenditures to date. The project, budget, including landscaping, was $2.7 million; $2.28 million has been expended to this point. He informed the Board that landscaping would commence tomorrow with a controlled cattail bum, tree replacement and final grading and seeding would begin next week, and the weir is scheduled to be installed by the end of May. Final site restoration Would occur in June. Responding to a question from Manager Thomas, Mr. Beduhn noted that the rough fish removal had produced fewer pounds of fish than expected. He believed that the contractor's initially favorable scanning of the lake probably was showing large schools of smaller crappies and also believe that because of the artificial dredged bottom of Lake Nokomis, the carp may have been able to escape the nets in the channels beneath the nets. He observed that, nevertheless, the operation, at $3,800, was a very cost-effective means to reduce internal biomass loadings. Ms. Ellis advised the Board that HDR had done a very good job in addressing the public outcry over the temporary trail closure. 2002 BUDGET PROCESS Mr. Evenson directed the Board's attention to the budget schedule in the packet and advised that a special budget workshop was scheduled for May 31, 2001. MINNEHAHA CREEK STABILIZATION PROJECT Mr. Evenson informed the Board that Managers Blixt and Gross and he met with Hennepin County Commissioners Opat, McLau .ghlin, and Dorfman and MPRB representatives to discuss rema/ning differences as to trail widths. As a result of the discussion, the MPRB has agreed to reduce all pedestrian trails from eight feet to six feet. Bicycle and combined paths will remain at their proposed widths due to ISTEA requirements. Manager Blixt noted that the Board will hear public comment on the project on May 14, 2001, and will take that input into account in acting on the MPRB's permit renewal request as well as the outstanding cooperative agreement. Mr. Evenson also noted that the M?RB had agreed to move the trail away from the creek in certain specified areas. Mr. Panzer observed that installation of grade control would be 9 -7944- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM May 31, 2001 TO: FROM: REF: Mayor/City Council, DCAC & POSAC~~/ Jim Fackler, Park Director /~7~ LMCD restriction on fishing dock. / / I discussed with Greg Nybeck, Executive Director for Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD), the council's question about how a fishing dock is regulated under LMCD rules. Mr. Nybeck noted that the dock itself must meet setback requirements and length restrictions but does not count as a Boat Storage Units (BSU). cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Katie Hoff, Dock Inspector 7945_'c'ed"aPe' MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY DOCKS COMMOSSION APRIL 19, 2001 Present: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Gerald Jones, Greg Eurich, City Council Representative Mark Hanus, Parks Director Jim Fackler, and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. Frank Ahrens arrived at 8:45 p.m. Public Present: City Council Member Peter Meyer Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 15, 2001 DCAC MINUTES MOTION by Jones seConded .by Funk to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2001 DCAC Meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. ., 6. DISCUSS: FISHING DOCKS (Peter Meyer will be in attendance to discuss) City Council Meyer stated how he appreciates everything the Commission does for our community. Meyer then read from a newspaper explaining how fishing is important to families and youth. Neighborhood fishing spots in Mound are decreasing rapidly and would like to get some suggestions from the commission as to how to stop this trend. Chair Funk stated that this has been brought before the commission previously. The commission sees a challenge to keep this issue before the Mound residents. Commissioner Goldberg stated that the Commission should redefine what we are trying to accomplish and would like to come back with a short list of ideas as to support this issue. The Commission will bring to the May meeting a short list of ideas. City Council Member Meyer introduced a book on designing lakescapes, maintenance, stabilization, etc. City Council Representative Hanus requested staff to have Jon Sutherland, Building Official, provide this Commission with the new buffering ordinance that are/will be going into place. -7946- MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY DOCKS COMMISSION MAY 17, 2001 Present: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners, Gerald Jones, Greg Eurich, Mark Goldberg, and City Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Parks Director Jim Fackler Dock Inspector Katie Hoff and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. Absent and excused Frank Citizens Present: City Council Member Peter Meyer and John and Linda Verkennes of 4771 Island View Drive. Chair Funk called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1.APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 19, 2001 DCAC MINUTES MOTION BY Funk seconded by Eurich to approve the April 19, 2001 Dock and Commons Advisory Commission. MOTION carried unanimously -7947- 4. DISCUSS: FISHING ACCESS/DESIGNATED AREAS City Councilman Meyer has requested ,the fishing docks be added on the agenda because he is looking for ways to increase fishing opportunities for our families and children. City Council Representative Hanus questioned if this is the appropriate place to start this issue. The group is appropriate for dock issues and this should be brought in front of the City Council and the Park Commission. This group's focus is not involved with public dockage and this is not the appropriate place to start. The Commission must decide of it wants to take on this project. This question should be answered first. Hanus will not now or in the future support a fishing pier for the general public. He will not install this in someone's backyard or next to his or her private land. Also parking is a major issue. Commissioner Jones stated this issue should go to Parks and Open Space Commission first. Also concerned about out-of-towners and parking a major problem. Commissioner Eurich does not feel the DACA should take on this project at this time. City Councilman Meyer stated he started this issue last fall during his campaign. Multiple docks improve things especially the aesthetics; however eliminated the fishing. In this area 30 households made this an issue and the fishing area came up. People across the city (425 dock sites) have spoke to me about this. Meyer is looking for volunteers to coordinate a program. Hanus stated that Centerview Beach is a dedicated fishing beach from the DNR. This people are mostly adults and they drive to this area. Never has one sole asked me to add fishing piers for children and adults. MOTION by Goldberg seconded by Jones: 1. The Dock and Commons Commission is in favor of providing more fishing areas to Mound children (if a demand is determined). The Dock and Commons Commission is opposed to docks that would be set in front of people's houses for the sole purpose of fishing (in front of any dockage for fishing purposes should be in a residential setting). 3. The Dock and Commons Commission is in favor of a communication program within the context of the City of Mound to establish a program -7948- or encourage dock and lakeshore residents opening up access to neighborhoods kids ( if a demand is determined). 4. The Docks and Commons Commission is to consider investigating a program to coordinate volunteers to take children fishing. 5. The Docks and Commons Commission encourages the Park Commission to address this issue. (Work with the Park Commission). DISCUSSION: Commissioner Eurich does not see a defined need for this. This is not within the scope of the Dock Commission. There is no way to determine the demands of this from the neighborhoods. This should be steered through the neighborhoods. MOTION carried unanimously. -7949- BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dr. Chinyere (Ike) Njaka President Francis Hagen 1st Vice President Mary Henning 2nd Vice President Scott Brandt Treasurer Bob Bean Secretary Laurie LaFontalne Past President John C. Boeder Member-at-Large Gordon Hughes Member-at-Large Senator Rudy Boschwitz Peter Coyle Marty Gurltz Alko Hlguchl Dwight Johnson Gloria Johnson Kevln Krueger Rep. Ann Lenczewski Dotty O'Brlen Senator Gen Olson Curtis A. Pearson Mary Tambornlno Leonard J. Thlel Thomas Thorflnnson Tom Ticen Benjamin F. Wlthhart Executive Director & C.E.O. PROGRAMS · Multi-Purpose Senior Centers · Senior Outreach · H.O.M.E. · Transportation SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: (952) 541-1019 FAX: (952) 541-08t June 13,2001 Mayor Pat Meisel and City Council Members City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel and City Council Members, We are excited about moving into our new home in the Gillespie Center. We are requesting your much needed assistance. Until this point, we have focused our efforts upon raising funds for the bricks and mortar of the new facility. Today we need your assistance in supporting the heart of the new building, the Senior Center Program itself. We are requesting funding to support the staffing needs at the new Center. We need to hire custodial help and to replace serious losses in C.D.B.G. funding for the directors position. The City of Mound had for many years contracted for senior services with Senior Community Services from general funds until shifting to C.D.B.G. We are hopeful the city will agree the Center Program has and will be a valuable asset to the citizens of our community and deserving of your support. We are requesting $20,000 for budget year 2002. We would be very willing to meet with the City Council (workshop or regular meeting) to explain our request more fully. Executive Director and CEO c.c. Sharon Cook, President of the Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation Cathy Bailey, Director of Westonka Senior Center Kandis Hanson, Kim Anderson,.Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Peter Meyer A Founding Member of Eldercare Partners A United Way Agency -7950- Mound City Code Section 1000:00 CHAPTER V. NUISANCES Section 1000- Nuisances -Abatement Section 1000:00. Public Nuisance Defined. Whoever by his or her act or failure to perform a legal duty intentionally does any of the following is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor: (a) Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort, or repose of any csnsilsrabla number of members of the public, or (b) Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage, any public highway or right-of-way, or waters used by the public, or (c) Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by law or this section to be a public nuisance and for which no sentence is specifically provided. (d) Permits real property under his/her control to be used to maintain a public nuisance or rents same, knowing it will be so used. Sections 1000:05, t000:10, and 1000:15 relating to nuisances and abatement are hereby repealed in their entirety. (ORD. #29:%989 - 6-26-89) // Section 1000:02. DEFINITIONS. The following words, when used in th~s orct~nance, shall have the meanings ascribed to them: 1. Garbage includes all putrescible animal, vegetable or other matter that attends the preparation, consumption, display, dealing in or storage of meat, fish, fowl, birds, fruit, or vegetables, including the cans, containers or wrappers wasted along with such materials. 2. Rubbish is nonputrescible solid wastes such as wood, leaves, lr4mm4ngs from shrubs, dead trees or branches thereof, shavings, sawdust, excelsior, wooden waste, printed matter, paper, paper board, paste boards, grass, rags, straw, boots, shoes, hats and all other combustibles not included under the term garbage. Section 1000:05A. Public Nuisances Affecting Health. The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting health: (a) Carcasses of animals not buried or destroyed within 24 hours after death; (b) The keeping of any animal over six (6) months of age which has not been vaccinated against rabies with an approved vaccine as determined by the official Comprehendium of Animal Rabies Vaccines published by the -7951 - Mound cit~ Code Section 1000:05A (b) Conference of State Public Health Veterinarians and the Center for Disease Control of the Department of Health and Human Services. (c) Ail public exposure of persons having a communicable disease as defined in Minn. Stat. section 144.4172 and any building, conveyance, or place where contagion, infection, filth or other source or cause of communicable disease exists; (d) Accumulations of stagnant water, feces, or rubbish which are likely places for flies, mosquitoes or vermin; manure or animal to become breeding (e) Depositing manure upon any city street, city sidewalk, or city property. (f) Garbage not stored in rodent free and fly-tight containers, or; garbage stored so as to emit'foul and disagreeable odors, or; garbage stored so as to constitute a hazard to public health. . (g) Acc, ....... ulations of rubbish as defined herein. (h)Accumulation of junk, disused furniture, appliances, machinery, automobiles, and parts thereof or any matter which may become a harborage for rats, snakes or vermin, which creates a visual blight, or which may be conducive to fire, or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, safety or welfare of the public. (i) The parking and/or storage of construction equipment, farm vehicles and equipment, or a commercial vehicle with a length greater than 21 feet, or a height greater than 8 feet, or a gross vehicle weight greater than 9,000 pounds, continuously for more than two hours on any property within a residential zoning district or being lawfully used for residential purposes or on any public street adjacent to such properties. Such equi~uaent and vehicles shall include, but are not l~m~ted to, the following: d,,mp trucks, construction trailers, back hoes, front-end loaders, bobcats, well drilling equipment, f~ml trucks, combines, thrashers, tractors, tow trucks, truck-tractors, step vans, cube vans and the like. The prohibitions of this subdivision shall not apply to the following: a) Any equipment or vehicle described above being used by a public utility, governmental agency, construction company, moving co~any or s~m~lar company which is actually being used to service a -7952- ~ , Mound City Ordinance Section 1000 residence not belonging to or occupied by the ope~rator of the vehicle. b) Any equipment or vehicle descr/bed above which is actually making a pick-up or delivery at the location where it is parked. Parking for any period of tim~ beyond the time reasonably necessar~ to make such a pickup or delivery and in excess of the two hour limit shall be lawful. (j) The outside parking and/or storage on vacant property of usable or unusable vehicles, trailers, watercraft, snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, all-terrain vehicles, construction vehicles and equipment, or s~m~lar vehicles, materials, supplies, equipment, ice fish houses, skateboard r~m~s, play houses, or other nonpermanent structures except as may be permitted by the Zoning or Sign Ordinances. (k) The outside parking and/or storage on occupied residentially used property of usable or nonusable vehicles, trailers, watercraft, snowmobiles, recreational vehicles, all terrain vehicles and similar vehicles, materials, supplies, equipment, ice fish houses, skateboard ramps, or other nonpermanent structures unless they com~ly with the Zoning or Sign Ordinances. All vehicles, watercraft and other articles allowed to be stored outside in an approved manner on occupied residentially used property must be owned by a person who resides on the property. Persons who are away at school or in the military service for periods of time. but still claim the property as their legal residence shall be considered residents on the property. Section t000:10A. Public Nuisances Affecting Morals and Decency. The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances affecting public morals and decency: (a) Ail gambling devices, slot machines and punch boards, unless approved as a legal device by the State of Minnesota; (b) Betting, bookmaking, and all apparatus used in such occupations; (c) Ail houses kept for the' purpose of prostitution or promiscuous sexual intercourse, gambling houses, houses of ill fame, and bawdy houses; (d) Ail places where controlled substances, narcotics, or intoxicating liquor is manufactured or disposed of in -7953- · ~Mound City Ordinances Section 1000:10A violation of law or where, in violation of law, persons are permitted to resort for the purpose of drinking intoxicating liquor or use of controlled substances or narcotics, or where intoxicating liquor, controlled substances, or narcotics are kept for sale or other disposition in violation of law, and all liquor controlled substances, and narcotics, and other property used for maintaining such a place; (e) Any vehicle used for the transportation e~of intoxicating liquor, or for promiscuous sexual intercourse, or any other immoral or illegal purpose; (f) The use of any fish house, warming house, or other similar structure for any activity listed in (a) through (d) above. (g) A residential dwelling (party house) that habitually (requiring three (3) or more police responses in a six (6) month period) provides a meeting place where alcohol or narcotics are consumed or neighbors are disturbed and causes complaints requiring a police response. Section 1000:15A. Public Nuisances Affectinq Peace and Safety. The following are declared to be public nuisances affecting public peace and Safety: (a) All.snow and ice not removed from public sidewalks 12 hours after the snow or other precipitation causing the condition has ceased to fall; (b) Ail wires and limbs of trees or bushes which are so close to the surface of a sidewalk or street as to constitute a danger to pedestrians or vehicles, any l~m~s or bushes which block the clear view of traffic signs and all limbs of trees closer to the street surface than 15 feet and all limbs of trees closer to the surface of a sidewalk than 8 feet; (c) Obstructions and excavations affecting the ordinary use by the public of streets, alleys, sidewalks, or public grounds except under such conditions as are permitted by this Section or other applicable law; (d) Radio aerials, radio towers, television antennae, television towers or satellite dishes erected or maintained in a dangerous manner; (e) Any use of property abutting on a public street or sidewalk or any use of a public street or sidewalk which causes large crowds of people to gather, obstructing traffic and the free uses of the streets or sidewalks; (f) Ail hanging signs, awnings, and other similar structures over streets and sidewalks, so situated so as to endanger public safety, or not constructed and maintained as provided by this Section; -7954- - Mound City Code Section 1000:15A (g) (g) The allowing of rain water, ice, or snow to fall from any building or structure upon any street or sidewalk or to flow across any sidewalk; (h) Waste water cast upon or permitted to flow upon streets or other public property; (i) Accumulations in the open of discarded or dLsused machinery, household appliances, automobile bodies, or other materials, in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice, snakes, or vermin, or to fire, health, or safety hazards from such accumulation or from the rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated; (j) Noxious weeds, as that term is defined in Section 18.171 of Minnesota Statutes, and any excessive growth of other weeds; excessive growth of weeds means weeds or grass which are 12 inches or more in height; (k) Any wire, except clothes line wire, which is strung less than 15 feet above the surface of the ground; (I) Any fence or other structure maliciously erected or maintained for the purpose of annoying the owners or occupants of adjoining property; (m) Ail buildings, walls, and other structures which have been damaged by fire, decay, or otherwise, and which are so situated as to endanger the safety of the public; (n) Ail dead standing trees which present a hazard to like or property, all elm or other trees found harboring the Dutch elm beetle, all dead standing elm wood, and all cut elm or other wood found harboring the Dutch elm beetle~ (0) Ail dangerous, unguarded machinery, including derelict autos, derelict boats, and derelict refrigerators and freezers, in any public place, or so situated or operated on private property as to attract the public; (p) Swimming in a channel or jumping or diving from a channel bridge; (q) Operating any water craft, motor vehicle, or powered device, or propelled device, on the open water, or upon the ice of a body of water, in such a manner as to endanger life, limb, or property; (r) Standing upon any street bridge or railroad bridge for purposes of fishing there from; (s) Causing to be made any fire on any public beach area or park except in fireplaces designated for that purpose; (t) Any well, hole, or similar excavation which is left uncovered or in such other condition as to constitute a hazard to any child coming on the premises where it is located; -7955- . Mound City Code Section 1000:15A (u) (u) Obstruction to the free flow ~ of water in a natural waterway or a public street drain, gutter, or ditch with trash or other materials; (v) The placing or throwing on any street, sidewalk, or other public property ~ of any glass, tacks, nails, bottles, or other substance which may injure any person or animal or damage any pneumatic tire when passing over such substance; (w) The depositing of garbage or refuse on a public right- of-way or on adjacent private property. (ORD. %29-1989- 6-26-89) Section 1000:20. Duties of city Officers. The Police Department shall enforce the provisions relating to nuisances. Such officers shall have the power to inspect private premises and take all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission and maintenance of public nuisances. Section 1000:25. Abatement. Whenever the officer charged with enforcement determines that a public nuisance is being maintained or exists on premises in the City, the officer shall notify in writing the owner or occupant of the premises of such fact and shall order that such nuisance be terminated and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by certified or registered mail. If the premises are not occupied and the owner is unknown, the notice may be served by posting it on the premises. The notice shall specify the steps to be taken to abate the nuisance and the time, not exceeding 10 days, within which the nuisance is to be abated. If the notice is not complied with within the time specified, the enforcing officer shall ....... ~ ~ ..... ~,.~. .............. ~ .................................. cf a ~-~ ~rs~crty. issue the appropriate citation for the violation. Thereafter, the Chief of Police may, after notice to the owner or occupant and an opportunity to be heard, provide for the abating of the nuisance by the City. The notice shall be served in the same manner as notice by the enforcing officer is served and shall be given at least seven (7) days before the date stated in the notice when the City Manager will consider the matter. If notice is given by posting, at least ten (i0) days shall elapse between the day of the posting the notice and the hearing, and a copy of the notice shall be sent by certified mail to the record owner of the subject property. Section 1000:30. Recovery of Cost. Subd. 1. Personal Liability. The owner of premises on which a nuisance has been abated by the city shall be personally liable for the cost to the City of the abatement, including -7956- Mound City Ordinance Section 1000:30 been completed and the cost determined, the City Clerk or other official designated by the Council shall prepare a bill for the cost and mail it to the owner. Thereupon the amount shall be immediately due and payable at the office of the City Clerk. Subd. 2. Assessment. If the nuisance is a public health or safety hazard on private property, the accumulation of snow and ice on public sidewalks, the growth of weeds on private property or outside the traveled portion of streets, or unsound or insect- infested trees, any unpaid charges by the city for the cost of elimination of the nuisance may be collected as a special assessment pursuant to section 370 of the city Code. section 1000:35. No Election of Remedies. The notice and abatement as above provided in section 1000:25A above shall not be deemed the exclusive method for the enforcement of section 1000 without notice, a proceeding may be instituted in a proper tribunal for the prosecution of a misdemeanor; and the judge in such a criminal case may impose the fine or penalty authorized by law in such case made and provided, including that contained in section 347.04 of Minnesota Statutes for the disposition of dogs constituting a public nuisance. The civil remedies at law and equity shall be deemed available at all times, without notice. The Health Officer may, concurrently with any such procedures, or without such procedures, condemn such structures as unfit for habitation pursuant to section 1005. -7957- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYgVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1667 PH: (952) 472-0600 FA, X: (962) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com MEMO DATE: June 16, 2001 TO: Mayor Meisel Council Members FROM: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Performance Evaluation My first year anniversary as City Manager for said I wouldn't last. Some people still controversy. My response to that is: job is complete! Trust me; I won't be Mound! was April 17! Some people withstand the issues and the made off I am here until the soon. My commitment is to the City of Professional Goals and At my six-month Associates. Out of that came goals and priorities for community; 2) internal and bridg school, city of the City ~,gree evaluation, performed by Lynn and regarding my professional goals and priorities. My the following: 1) Become more involved in the speaking abilities; 3) Improve all aspects of communication-- knowledge of the financial aspects of the City; 5) Build 1, staff with councilors/commissioners, city with city, city with and city with the development world. The successful operations essential elements. I hope you agree. City and Departmental Accomplishments and Goals People representing all possible constituencies tell me noticeable change and. activity has occurred in the last year. Frankly, if I may use an analogy, rm unable to see the forest for the trees. Not having anything with which to compare, I struggle to comprehend any advances. Thus, the following comprehensive list submitted by the Departments, to prove to myself that some things have been accomplished, and justify my worth. Of course, the list is in no way comprehensive, but rather a sampling of the achievements. As the lists imply, the workload is monumental and accomplishing some work assignments on a timely basis is really a challenge. This performance evaluation falls in that category, unfortunately. I apologize for its lateness. Accomplishments Woodland Point settlement agreement Hired and trained Planning and Inspections Secretary (replacement position) Team efforts when very low on staffing: Trained new staff members Pitched in on public meeting minutes taking Created new leaf disposal program Implemented new policy and procedure for collecting escrow accounts Set up new filing system for property jackets Implemented first phase of space reorganization Started performance evaluations of line staff Team approach to purchase of new copy machine purchase 6% increase in sales at Mound Liquor Hiring of a full-time lead clerk for night time Liquor Store management "%¢i::::,~::.?~'~ .... Complete division of responsibilities among three liquor managem~*~::i:::,? NewPurchase water ofmeter generators reading for system lift stations.::?iiii Code amendments re sewer and water, increasing revenues Training and safety prOgram for all City staff .... %% 1999 minutes and resolutions completed ?"" ,.:,:. *'%;~ Hiring and training of Public Service Wo~?¢i~,,::~d Docks (now year round position) Hiring and training of engineering Purchase of new mower Staff recommendation Community Policing Award ......... SARA projects b~ Implementation Sgt McKinley PD incentive pro: Wells Fargo National Ni, problem solve and work with community Management in 2000 Resource Officer in 2001 Citizen to twice a year Youth d to middle school programming Assisted Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative with program needs TRIAD and senior citizens First police departmental awards banquet MetroPlains development agreement Langdon Bay final plat Gramercy preliminary development agreement Efforts Underway Study of new financial software and hardware decision Ongoing development of Web site Assistance to Act II to sustain the firm -7959- Successful collection of outstanding bills: escrow accounts, Mediacom, etc. Annual audit and report Insurance review: medical, long- and short-term disability State reporting for Tax Increment Financing Certificate of Excellence for State reporting of 2000 Annual Financials Successful Pay Equity compliance Planning for new liquor store New "no parking" sign map Hookups for generator power to lift stations Ongoing sump pump program Storm water repair program Update ordinance book Design play structures for parks at MetroPlains and Rottlund Homes d~e!.opmeBts Dock fee evaluation .~i!?~!i~::i~,~ ....... SARA projects for 2001 being selected and reviewed for offic~? Hiring process to replace Officers Ewald and Buetow .... ? "%, .... Lions Club donation for School Resource implementatior~ii~00 i'?~ balance to be raised Grant process to help defray cost of School Resource O~'~er::¥a~.firsi' three years Update fee schedule Continue reorganization of physical workspaces Post office relocation Mound Liquor relocation County Road 15 realignment Replace play structure at Goals for Upcoming Year Procurement and conversion of Telephone lines Finance Construction and Increased sale: Hire shared Hire Citywide system area liquor store t new liquor store secretary for Sewer Department twice per year Complete signage of "no parking" sign project Street condition inventory Retaining wall condition inventory and repair/replacement Streamline nuisance abatement policies Project to clean up the community and limit exterior storage Continue customer service, citizen partnership philosophy Review of Zoning Code streamlining; make miscellaneous Zoning Code modifications Hire and train Community Development Director Start the elimination of consultants to the City of Mound Gramercy development agreement -7960- Conclusions If I may, these arc my observations: The Mound City Managers' job is, without a doubt, the largest undertaking of my lifetime. The amount of work exceeds one's imagination and capabilities. The Mound Vision's Project is probably what is viewed as my primary responsibility. However, the needs and work to be accomplished cover a vast array of matters totally unrelated to redevelopment. I feel the pressures for certain types of change and response from employees, Department Heads, Council Members and the public customers. The demands of the position go way beyond what could have been anticipated, due to pent up needs and recent lack of attentive management. The expectations create pressures that are compounded by the s~i~ me that Mound works with the smallest work force of~ head can tell you of days when departments were than are on staff today. I am told that through the by not replacing employees when they left the am feeling the overwhelming demands of the the work. Remarkably, we are resources. This is very draining. .?¢, %;~ Outsiders tell department employees more were kept at a minimum assumed that, just as I who are helping carry out With fewer people and financial · My acceptance in the community i~:~,:~i~'if~'~h~:~expected blessings of the position. My welcome reception makes Moundi!~:~¥i!:~i!~ii~6~e. Along with involvement in the community, however, comes.:g: ~:d of.~':xpectations for spending that exceeds the ordinary reimbursable co~i? ~i[!::~ulated my unreimbursable business expenses for 2000, I expected that th~!~::~o~d ¢~,i!:,u~'ed as tax deductions and reduce my taxable income. Surprise! The tax lam~::~ Changed, not allowing tax deductions for unreimbursable business expense~i!i!~[i!ii:.~?:'i!!~cceed 2% of the adjusted gross income! So, the raffle tickets and socifl ~*~§;:~:~B~i~iI incur when I apply the "but for" test for tax purposes -- "but · · ~..::¢:!i!i::iii~:,!::i:;:;i:'i::i::i::~ii~::.~ for this job,:¢ii~ are.:~g9 i~nger allowable deductions on my taxes. This is disappointing; it also deplet~iimy t~e home earnings considerably. Req uest/Ree~'mme~dation In summary, ~:...fir~{i!~ear as the Mound City Manager, though very challenging and satisfying, has presented sC~*"Surprises. Foresight might have enabled me to negotiate a more fair and suitable contract--one better matching the responsibilities of the position. Without the advantage of foresight, however, I am asking that you consider an addendum to our agreement. I am suggesting some forms of compensation that would more amply compensate me for these, my concerns, especially in light of my quick ability to learn the job and carry out the impressive list of achievements. I am requesting and recommending the following: that my compensation be accelerated to Year 3, or $71,836, plus the customary 10% pay for salaried employees at the City of Mound, equating to $79,020. (Refer to the 2001 Classification Plan.) The budget allows for this, retroactive to April 17. -7961 - that you consider a contract that allows for incentive pay, such as the model from the City of Osseo, with you, the Council, determining the incentive projects and their corresponding compensation upon completion. Compensation based on projects would more adequately compensate me for the scope of the position that exceeds a normal management position, as it does here at the City of Mound. that the City commit to deferred comp contributions, similar to those provided management at the City of Hugo. The 2001 does not provide for this, so could be effective January 1, 2002. Please recognize the fairness of this request (i.e., both of my peers are ~ployed by considerably smaller communities). Thank you for your kind consideration of these~!ests,,I will be happy to answer any questions. .~::ii~iii!'?:i::::::::~:,::.:...~ '%~::~:f~::' .:~? "::!ii::%~ .... '~ii~:~ -7962- -7963- AG~ entered into this 14th day of March, 2000 by and between the City of Mound (herein after referred to as "City') and Kandis Marie Hanson (herein after referred to as ~Haason"). WHEREAS, Hanson is trained, experienced and competent to provide the services needed by the City in the capacity of City Manager and desires to secure her position with an Employment Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Mound has sought and engaged the services of a professional City Manager and desires to engage the services of Hanson by means of the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreem~ are mutually acceptable to NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIF.._3 MUTUALLY A~E'~::=:iii~OVENANT AS FOLLOWS: ..... ~!!¢i== ........ %,::.. % POSITION & DUTIES. The City agrees City to perform legally permissible and from time to time shall assign. It is with the City approximately 30 Agreement. as City Manager for said and duties, as the City Council Hanson will commence employment date the parties have executed this SALARY. The City $66,000 plus an upon the sigaing of as other employees six-month for her services rendered an annual .base salary of ary, or $6,600, equaling $72,600, effective Her salary is payable in installments at the same time ~. Hanson's salary shall be adjusted upwardly by 2% at her satisfactory performance review by the City Council. costs ALLOWANCE. The City shall pay for the actual and unpacking, to be provided by a professional moving firm. the lowest of three bids attained from reputable moving companies. to moving shall be reimbursed directly to Hanson with a check. ® PENSION PLAN. The City shall contribute to PERA as required by State law for Hanson. VACATIONS. Hanson shall receive three weeks of vacation each year, which is available for use as it accrues. Accrued vacation may be carried over from year to year. 'Increases in accruals shall occur as described in the Administrative Code. e INSURANCE. The City shall provide Hanson full coverage for group hospital, medical and dental insurance. DUES & SUBSCRHrFIONS. The City shall budget and pay for professional dues and subscriptions for Hanson which are necessary for Hanson's continued participation in state and local associations necessary and desirable for Hanson's continued professional growth -7964- and to the benefit of the City. The City reserves the right to review, from time to time, the nature and amount of such expenditures, and to determine what adjustments, if any, are warranted in future budgets. ® 10. 12. 13. PRO~SIONAL DEVELOPMENT. The City shall budget and pay for the travel and subsistence expenses for Hanson for official travel, meetings and occasions at a rate of whatever is adequate to continue the professional development of Hanson and to allow her to adeqmtely fulfill her necessary official duties. Hanson shall use good judgment in her outside activities so she will not neglect primary duties to the City. Some of the seminars Hanson expects to attend include, but are not limited to, the following: Minnesota City/County M~ager's As~tion Ann~ C0nferenees, League of ~nneso~ Cities Annual Conference, and the National International City Manager's Conference. The City shall also budget for and pay the travel and subsistence expenses of Hanson for short courses, meetings and seminars that are pertinent to her official duties that are also to the benefit of the City. The City reserves the right to review thelnature and amount of such expenditures, and to determine what adjustments, if any, ..~e w~~ in future budgets. AUTOMOBILE. A City car shall be available for.H~so~?~:~'~:to attend City-related functions. When the car is not available, Hanson,,::::i~aU~ori~ to use her personal vehicle for City purposes and the City shall reimburse.. H~n on:;~' per mile basis at the federal standard for mileage allowance. GENERAL EXPENSES. The City ~ rg~mbur~ Hanson's miscellaneous job related expenses which it is anticipated she ~.:~ur~;:~Om time to time. PERFORMANCE REVIEW,,iiiii?:!~im~?~ otherwise as required, Hanson's performance and the ex~ofi~,i~of th~ City shall be reviewed, in consultation with Hanson. At that same ti~ ~~'::salary shill be reviewed and upward adjustments made should the ex~tion*~'°f'::~e City Council be met.' HOURS OF wO~:~:.:.~::::~,i~iiii~':':"~nderstood that the position of City Manager requires attendance a~:~e~g,meefings and occasionally at weekend meetings. It is understood by the City thg~?Han~b~ '~:~ay absent herself from the office to a reasonable extent in consid~afi~:,~,.of e~ordinary time expenditures for evening and weekend meetings at otheri'~iii~an n~:'working hours. ~~ON BENEFITS. In the event that Hanson is terminated by the City during such time that Hanson is willing and able to perform the duties of City Manager, the City agrees to pay Hanson at the time of her final payroll check a lump sum cash payment according to the following schedule: Within the fa'st six months of employment, 2 months of compensation; Within the second six months of employment, 4 months of compensation; After one year of employment, 6 months of compensation. The City also agrees to provide and pay for the benefits of hospital, medical, dental insurance benefits, and dues and subscriptions for the applicable period contained in paragraph a, b or c above following termination (collectively referred to as "termination benefits"). However, in the event that Hanson is terminated because of her conviction of an illegal act that adversely impacts the City, then the City shall have no -7965- obligation to pay termiaation benefits, or if, during the time of payment, ~son .finds other comparable employment. If the City at .any time during the employment term reduces the salary or other financial ben~fits of Hanson in a greater percentage than across-the-board reduction for ~ non.union employees, or if the City refuses, following written notice, to comply with any other provisions of the Agreement benefiting Hm~son, or Hanson resigns following a fom'~al suggestion by the City that she resign, then Hanson may, at her option, be deemed to be "terminated' on the effective date of Hanson's resignation and Hanson shall also be entitled to receive the termination benefits set forth herein. ® If Hanson voluntarily resigns her position with the City, she agrees to give the City thirty (30) days advance notice. If Hanson voluntarily resigns her position with the City, there shaft be no termma' fion pay due to her. G~ CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. No~g '~iii~i~¢~greement shall prevent, limit or othe~se interfere with the right of the::g~:.~i!l~,ii~inate the services of Hanson at.any time, for any rea_son, subject only to..:,~p~d~i~ of this Agreement. Fu~ermore, nothing in this Agreement shall pr~t, "~!~iii~r otherwise interfere with the right of Hanson to resign at any time from he~::..~s~on wi~ the City, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement. TERM OF AGREEM~.NT. This A its execution. If neither Hanson terminate this employment periods of one year at a time for one year after the date of written notice of their desire to shall continue for additional as set forth above. ® INDEMNIFICATION. 466.07 and 465.76. Hanson from all roles and position. defend and indemnify Hanson pursuant to MS City shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify penalties and fines; violations of statutes, laws and Hanson was acting in the performance of the duties of the March, 2000, by the Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota. EMPLOYER: BY:_$$/MARK HANU$ Its Acting Mayor, Mark Hanus AND Its Acting City Manager, Fran Clark EMPLOYEE: Kandls M. Hanson -7966- ~O02/OOB CITY OF HUGO, ~NASHINGTON COU~TTY, b~INNESOTA EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT HUGO, a AGKEEMENT made this 18Lh d~y of Much, 2000, by and between tl~ CITY OF Minnesota municipal corporation ("Employer") and MICHAEL A. ERICSON ("Employee"). 1. POSITION. Employer agrees to emptoy.:Eml~i~ii~iii::~s:~:::::its City Administrator. Employee agrees to serve as City Administrator in accordan~¢~th S~e'*:~tatutes and City Ordinances, "::iii::i::?:::! and to perform such other legally permi~s~le and prol~.er.d~6s ancf~:~mctlons as the City Council shall, ~om time to tira:, ~sigr~ 2. PENSION_pLAN. ~i~?i~:"contr~ute.to PERA as required by State law for the Employee or an alternate p~i~iP~ .~'¢¢i~etected by Employee, authorized by State law. In addition, the City will agree to .~°'~i~te to'':a deferred compensation plan. If the employee matches :: .......... the City's contribution, the ~.~.i~h~ute up to four pe~ent (4%) of Employee's annual salary, 4. shall pay Employee a salary of Seventy-Five Thousand .... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: %::;~:~ Dollars ($75,00~i'00) ~::::i~i~i:¢ar, starting on April 17, 2000. Employee shall be given an initial performance revie~;~i::~r six (6) months and on each anniversary date thereafter. 5. SICK LEAVE AND PERSONAL LEAVE, Effective upon Employee's first day of employmcnt, Employee shall be credkcd with twenty (20) days of accrued sick leave and personal leave. In addition, Employee shall accrue sick leave in accordance with the City's personnel policies. 6. VACATIONS. Effective upon Employee's first day of employment, Employee shall be credited with fffieen (15) days of accrued vacation leave. In addition, Employee shall accrue vacation leave in actor 'da.ncc with thc City's personnel policies. -7967- 06/1~/2001 RED 10:~2 F.AX ~003/009 7. HOLIDAYS. Employer shall provide Employee the sm'ne holidays as enjoyed by other non-union employees. g, GENERAL ]2qSURANCE. Employer shall provide City Admirfistrator mad his dependents 100% coverage of the same group hospital, medical, dental, life and disability insurance benefits as provided to all other non-union employees. 9. DUES AND SLrBSCRZPTIONS. professional dues and subscriptions for Employee which are participation in national, regio,al~ state and local associations continued professional participation, growth and 10. PROFESSIONAL and subsistence expenses of Employee ibr adequate to continue the professional Employer shall budget and pay the continued for Employee's shall budget and pay the travel d official travel meetings and' occasions and to adequately pursue necessary o~icial and other commifiees judgment in his outside 11, representation itt and member of expense. 12. serves as a member. Employee shall use good not neglect his pr~m~W duties to the Employer. Employer recognizes the deskability of and other organiT:ations. Employee is authorized to become a or organizations as deemed appropriate by him, and at the Employer's A[YFOMOB.II,E. Employee shall be paid a monthly allowance of Two Hundred Fitly Dollars ($250.00) for use of his personal automobile for Employzr business. 13. GENERAL EXPENSES. Employer shall reimburse Employee miscellaneous job-related expenses which it is anticipated Employee will incur from time to time when provided appropriate documentation. 2 -7968- 06/12/2001 ~ED 10:22 FA~ ~004/009 14. HOURS OF WORK. It is understood that the position of City Administrator requires attendance at evening meetings and occaslonally at weekend meetings. It is understood by Employee that additional compensation and compensatory time shall not be allowed for such additional expenditures of time. It is further understood that Employee may absent himself from the office to a reasonable extent in consideration of ex'craordinary time expenditures for evening and weekend meetings at o ,ther than normal working hours. 15. TERM[SAT[ON BENEFITS. In the event that E~g!oyee .is terminated by the ======================= ........ ":~%::~:: .,::~¢~? .... . Employer during such time that Employee is willing and able ~i:~:~ii~:~:;~:~ the duties of City Administrator, then and in that event, Employer agrees to lq~iiii~m~i~g~i:'~ at the time of' receipt of his ';~i~ ....... ~::~::~::~ .... ' ...... last paycheck a lump sum cash payment equal to six (6...)~jn6h~ ag~egate salary, accrued vacation and sick leave, and to continue to provide and pay one (1) year following termination. Ho~liiii,,iih:'~i~iiiii~vent Employee is terminated because of his conviction for an illegal act invol~g!iiiiii~:~a~i~:!iii}ain to Employee, then Employer shall have no obligatio= to pay the termination:~M~e~l "~!~::~iii:: "::~:.i::}ii .... If Em~;i:~iiii~ tirr~ during the employment term reduces the salary or other financial benefits of ~plo~::, ~¢~:a greater percentage than across-the-board reduction for all non- . union employee~i?;r'ifg~t~;'yer ref-m~es, following wr,tten notice, to comply with any other provision of this Agree~!i~i:~titing Employee, or Employee resigns following a formal suggestion by Employer that he resign, then Employee may, at his option, be deemed to be "terminated" on the effective date of Employee's resignation and the Employee shall also be entitled to receive the termination benefits set forth above. If Employee voluntarily resigns his position with Employer, Employee a~ees to give the Employer thirty (30) days advance notice. If Employee voluntarily resigns his position with Employer, there shall be no termination pay due to Employee. -7969- 06/1~/~001 ~ED 10:~ F.,~ ~00§/009 16. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMZNT. Nothing in this Agreement . sh~)! prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of the Employer To '~erminate the services of the Employee at any time, for any reason, subject only to the provisions of this Agreement and statutory requirements. Furthermore, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent, limit, or otherwise interfere with the right of the Employee to resign at any time from his position with the Employer, subject only to the prov/sions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Employer has caused this ~emer~ to be signed and executed on its behalf by its Mayor and City Clerk, and Employe~i ~'~i::!~;d this Agreement, in duplicate, on the day and year ~st above written. '<:~iii~::'I ..... .......... '<:%::.. 4 -7970- FROM : OSSEO CITY HALL PHONE NO. : 1 612 425 2624 Maw. 14 2001 04:54PM P2 MEMO~DUM OF AGREEMZNT EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAVID CALLISTER (EMPLOYEE) AND THE CITY OF OSSEO (EMPLOYER) WHEREAS, the Employee and Employer entered into an employment agreemeilt dated April I1, 1994; and WHEREAS, as per SECTION 3. COMPENSATION. it is the desire of the parties to amend the agreement as follows: SECTIQN 3. ~O~MP .ENSATION, SALARY,/a hereby ame~ed'"~'~'~i~efl.~i: an annual salary of $71,286 ($_~4.27/hour), effective January t, 2001. :~iiiiiiii'ii:f::::i?:!i}iiI,!ii::!:.:.~:,~?i~::~: . SECTION 3. COMPENSATION, SALARY, is he~ ~}:d as follows; The Employer recognizes that the Employee is a':"~rie~::i~mplovee and thus not eligible for over[fmc pay for hours worked in excess of"~?:'.!~f~::~ ' Employer recognizes that more thaJiiiiii. O::::iiii~;u~;:'i::i:~:~::ibcr week are required in order for the Employee ro ,dequarely do his i~;:~::~::::~~i~h the Employee accumulating a substanriai mount of compensatory time. ':~i,..add~n,":'~he Employer ret%miTes that it is difficult for the Employee to fully utilize co~mr~::::i~ or the annual vacation time accrued. In lieu of reimbursing~E~g~$~ee fo~" comp rime from the Ciw's General Fund, the Employe, r has indicated that~ si~:::.~h of the extra dine is generated ~s a result of the Employee s efforts in econo~::~,P~enr, that any reimbursement to the Employee for unused compensat~i~::~:.ii~¢ld be paid from, project proceeds, which may include reimbursements from or. heri~urce~iiiilkh~'sale of propcrt~ or administrative charges received by the Employer. As a~i?cen~i:i~: the Employee, the Employer and Employee a~ee that compensatory time be ~by r~bursed to the Employee when and if dxe following events occur and only if the EmployOf¥~ceives proceeds from said events up to the maximum amount as indicated: I(I) Hans Foreign Auto Project -sale of properw - $10,000 2) North Clinic Project - sale of EDA property- $3,000 3) Realife Senior Housing Project - project funds - $10,000 CenrraI Ave & CSAH Office redevelopment project - sale o{ EDA property - $5,000 The Employer recognizes that after the 2000 reimbursement, the Employee still has a balance of 401 hours in compensatory time. The Employee and Employer agree that any additional ,.grants, aids, etc. obtained by the Cit3~ as a result of the Employee's efforts, may be considered and negotiated by both parties for further compensation. -7971 - FROM : DSSED CITY HALL PHONE NO. : 1 612 425 2624 May. 14 2001 NOW THSREFORE B5 IT R'~OLVED, that th~ Oss~o City Couna[1 has hereby approved the a~m?clmen~s ro the ampln~nent a~reemcnr as oudined above and has authorized the Mayor m enmr fnto said memorandum with Employe~. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby authorizes payment of $ t0,500 as per the Memorandum of Agreement dated Februar~ 15, 2000, for the following 2000 projects: Met Council Sewer- $5,000 1'~ Avenue Commons - $3,000 Hans Foreign Auto- $2,500 IN V¢ITNESS WHEREOF, City has caused this Agreement to be ~e~'~ ¢~cured in f:s behalf by its Mayor, and Employee has signed this executed Agre~i~%~,;~i~ .... 29th day of ua e ~alli~rer, --mptoye¢ ...... ~'%,.. '% ..... ~*~' nan ¢adler, ~4a¥or -7972- · Seeking to strengt]~en ar~t cor~nect o~r community in kealthy, creative ways. -7973- -7974- This card represents a contribution to the programs of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution 1776 D Street N.W., Washington, DC 20006-5392. © 1999 Bon Art m, a division of Art Resources International,°Etd. Printed on K5052 by artist Julia Rowntree recycled paper. -7975- Jan 19 2881 15:13~26 Via Fax -> ~&ainiatrator Page 001 Of 884 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103.2044 Phone: (651) 281.1200 · (800) 925.1122 TDD (651) 281.1290 LMC Fax: (651) 281.1299 LMCIT Fax: (651) 281.1298 Web Site: http://www.lmnc.org To: From: Re: Date: MEMORANDUM City Manager, Administrators and Clerks James F. Miller Potential State Budget Shutdown June 19, 2001 The Minnesota Legislature adjourned at midnight on May 21, 2001 without reaching an agreement to appropriate money to fund operations of state government for the biennium that begins on July 1, 2001. Under the Minnesota Constitution, funds from the state treasury cannot be expended by an agency unless the Legislature has made an appropriation. Although the Legislature is continuing to exchange and discuss budget proposals, unless it agrees to appropriate money for state government operations in the next 21/2 weeks, non-critical operations of state agencies may be forced to cease effective July 1, 2001. If this occurs, state employees of non-critical operations cannot report to work until an appropriation has been secured. The implications of a state shutdown could extend beyond the state to counties and cities. '['he Commissioner of Revenue distributed a memo to all local units of government about the implications of the budget impasse. The major message in that memo is to proceed to plan for 2002 as if current law will not be changed. However, issues remain about how to plan for the remainder of 2001 and 2002. Current law does not anticipate a state shutdown and we have never had to consider the implications of such an event. Listed below are several issues that you should consider as you prepare for your city's operations in the short term. Please note that state agencies have not finalized their plans for a shutdown and that some of these potential implications may be avoided if certain aspects of state operations are deemed essential and thus are not shut down. Although we continue to believe that a state shutdown is not likely, cities should begin making plans for such an event. Potential Impacts Delay in the distribution of 2001 state aid payments--Although the LGA and HACA formulas -7976- Jun 19 2001 15;13~5fl ~a Fax -> ~d~ini~ra~or Pa~e 082 Of 084 are open and standing appropr{ations that do not need spec{i']c lcg{slative act~.on thi. s year, a state shutdown could affect the distribution. City LOA and HACA are paid on or around July 20. Ifa state shutdown occurs, the Departments of Revenue and Finance will not have the personnel necessary to distribute the payments. The statewide total of these two programs is approximately $600 million; $300 million of which would otherwise be distributed in July. Consider the implications on your reserves and cash flow needs if your LGA and HACA were delayed. Cities faced with potential cash flow concerns should be aware that state law provides a couple of short-term financing tools that cities may want to consider using. In particular, Minn. Stat. Sec. 412.271, subd. 3, authorizes statutory city treasurers to mark city checks "not paid for want of funds." Once funds become available the treasurer can pay the checks in the order originally issued. Charter cities may find similar authority in their charters. In addition to marking checks "not paid for want of funds," statutory and charter cities, under Minn. Stat. Sees. 412.261 and 410.325, may borrow money to pay current expenses by issuing tax anticipation certificates. While strictly speaking only charter cities can issue these certificates in "anticipation of state aids," statutory cities may ,*'ant to consider their use in anticipation of receipt of fall tax payments. Because both these financing tools are subject to a number of conditions and limitations, cities should consult with their city attorney and/or financial advisor before using them Delay in the certification of pay 2002 state aid payments--Cities need to know the level of funding in state aid programs in order to establish their budgets and set their property tax levies. Assuming current law state aid levels could be problematic given that the preliminary levy that must be set by September 15 effectively becomes a self-imposed levy maximum. You may want to assume that HACA will be eliminated and that your levy will need to be increased to cover the lost revenues. Both the House and Senate proposals include significant increases in LGA, but at this time, it is probably safest to assume that the 2001 amount will be available next year. Delay in the certification of pay 2002 levy limits--The House bill includes t~vo years of levy limits, beginning with the levies set this fall for payment in 2002. The Senate and the Governor have apparently agreed to levy limits. However, you may not have notice of the amount of your levy limit. As suggested by the Revenue Commissioner, it is probably best to proceed as if current law is in place. Delay in the Distribution of Municipal State Aid--The Legislature must biennially appropriate the distributions for Municipal State Aid (MSA). Ihe MSA money is divided into maintenance and construction accounts. The next maintenance payment would be made to cities over 5,000 around the 20th of July. Ihe Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates the amount would be about $60 million going out to both counties and cities, with about $10 million allocated just for cities. Of course, if government shuts down, employees at the departments of Transportation and Finance would not be making the deposits into the accounts. State aid projects would be at risk as well with a government shutdown; if you have projects that are awaiting the distribution of these funds, consider developing contingency plans for the projects. The DOT has advised the League that it will be sending cities a letter explaining some of the more significant DOI implications associated with a state government shutdown. Local City Sales Taxes--For most cities with local option sales taxes, the state Department of -7977- Jan 19 2081 15:14~42 Via Fax -> fl&ministrator Page 003 0£ 084 Revenue administers the tax collections. A shutdown of the Department of Revenue could impact the distribution of these local sales tax revenues, which could in turn affect the ability of some cities to make debt payments that are supported by these revenues. According to the Minnesota Tax Handbook: local sales taxes collected exceeded $104- million in 1999, so it appears that a delay in receiving these amounts could have some significant impact on some cities. Police and Fire Aid--Municipal relief associations receive a share of the state tax collections of certain insurance taxes, which are distributed on or around October 1. These payments could be delayed by a protracted shutdown. TIF Grants--The Department of Revenue will be mailing applications for the TIF grant program next week. The grant program provides state assistance to districts that have suffered revenue shortfalls due to the class rate compression enacted in 1997, 1998 and 1999. Although the applications will be mailed out next week, before a potential shutdown, the deadline for completed applications is August 1. Department of Revenue staff would potentially not be available to address questions and process applications during any potential shutdown. Grant recipients are notified of their award amounts by November 15 and grants are sent out December 26. Peace officer training reimbursementMThe application forms must be submitted by August 1 with payments usually made by mid-September. Last year, the amount was approximately $375 per officer. If the shutdown delays the reimbursement, cities with large police departments may see a delay in payments of a significant amount. Smaller police departments would also be affected, but since the total dollar amount would be less, there might be a better chance for a city to absorb the cost until payment is made. Cities Holding Local Elections This Fall--The Secretary of State's Office is confident that an appropriate level of staffing will be in place to allow essential voter registration and election administrative activities to continue. Ihe chief election officer for the state has requested the Governor to include as essential services appropriations for the level of staffing necessary in her office to assure that local elections this fall can be conducted in compliance with state law. The Governor has plans to seek a court order to keep essential state government services in place in the event of a state government shutdown. Cities Anticipating Grant Awards or Approvals of Local Housing or Economic Development Activities by Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and Department of Trade & Economic Development--Delays could take place for cities with pending housing or economic development grant agreements. Cities expecting staff review and approval of loans and grants for state-funded programs such as housing, drinking water, wastewater treatment and other community development may also experience delays. Small Cities Community Development Block Grant funds that have been awarded must be drawn down to cover costs of local program activities. In such situations, cities need to be aware of the impact on local development activities and delivery of services. It is also important for local officials to keep in mind city residents who would be immediately at risk if scheduled rent assistance funds or other regularly scheduled financial support or services are not forthcoming. -7978- Jun 19 Zf101 15:15:Z3 Via Fax -> A&ministrator Page 884 Of 884 Impact on Counties--County governments could also be impacted by a state government shutdown. Stearns County has already notified affected workers about potential layoffs. Although the first half property tax settlements should not be affected; a protracted state shutdoYvn could have the ancillary impact of shutting down certain county operations; which could include property tax administration. This could impact general property tax administration, the truth-in- taxation process as well as the metropolitan and Iron Range fiscal disparities portion of the property tax system. General City Interaction With State Agencies--Interaction with state agencies may be delayed or unavailable. Examples could include data practices assistance, building inspections, approvals or issuance of certain liquor licenses, wastewater regulation through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, OSHA complaints, pay equity compliance reports, election judge training, MnDOT approval of plats, joint road projects with MnDOT, planning assistance from the state, boundary adjustment activities, joint park and recreation activities, etc. Of course, at this time, there is no way of knowing if any of this information will be relevant. Hopefully, it will not be necessary. However, because the consequences could be significant, it seems prudent to do contingency planning now if you have not already done so. The League will do its best to keep you apprised over the coming weeks; be sure to carefully read the Cities Bulletin and Friday Fax and also to check the League's website for current information. -7979- Jun 88 Z88! 16:54:80 Via Fax -> ~dninis~rator FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Page 881 Of 801 Number. June 8,2001 Special Session called for Monday Counties' concern over reform administration logistics a major factor On Thursday afternoon, the governor officially celled a special session to begin at8 a.m., Monday, June 11. The reaction from the House and Senate was both pessimistic and critical, with leadership publicly stating the Monday special session is premature. As of Friday, it appears the Legisla- ture will convene on Monday and then recess until later in the week. The recess wilt allow leadership and the work groups to continue negotiations. In his message to legislators, the governor indicated he had several reasons for calling the session, including the lack of progress by House and Senate leadership in reaching an agreement, the poten- tial cost and disruption of a govern- ment shutdown, and possible administrative challenges counties will face if the final tax reform bill is not enacted in the near future. The commissioner of revenue and county officials have indicated June 11 is the drop-dead date by which they need to know the final structure of any property tax reform measures. The magnitude of the potential changes will req uire sig nificant reprogramming for county auditors, and they have indicated they need time to adequately test systems before the fall truth-in-taxation process begins. The governor clearly expects the Legislature to pick up their negotia- tion pace. In his press conference Thursday, where he announced his intent to call the special session, Gov. Ventura said, "It is my expecta- tion the Legislature will pass a tax bill and omnibus appropriation bills on Monday." However, the interim working groups have not finalized most of the major appropriations bills nor the tax bill. Even if the working groups met all weekend, they would not be able to meet the governor's demand to have the bills in hand 48 hours before the special session convenes. The Tax Working Group has not met since Tuesday evening. As they recessed that evening, Rep. Ron Abrams, who holds the gavel, said he would not reconvene the group until leadership had reached a sub- stantial agreement. As of this issue of the FridayFax, none of the working groups have announced meetings for today or for the weekend. Complicating matters is the fact that yesterday, the Department of Finance released an interim economic and revenue update that indicated actual state raven ue collections are down by $91 million since the release of the February forecast. The reduced surplus means the sales tax rebate, largely agreed to by the House, Senate and governor, will be smaller. In light of the more pessimistic economic report, the governor is now demanding the Legislature set aside an additional $300 million to buffer the impact of any future downturn. This new demand will undoubtedly complicate the resolu- tion of the differences between the House and Senate. Up to this point, the major difference has been based on the resources allocated by the House for tax relief and the Senate for new spending. With this new demand by the governor, both the House and Senate are going to have to revise their positions. There may be other reasons for the Department of Finance to be con- cerned. The federal tax relief measure signed yesterday by President Bush will have a negative impact on nearly every state's revenue collec. tions. According to the National Governor's Association, the federal tax cuts, especially the phase-out of the estate tax, will reduce revenues for states by an estimated $69 billion over the next 10 years. The biggest impact of the estate tax phase-out is expected in the states with the largest concentrations of wealth, including California, Illinois, New York, and Texas. Although the expected impact on Minnesota will be relatively small, it will undoubt- edly exacerbate the impact of the economic slowdown on state revenues. Legislature's delay affects LMC publications The Legislature's delay in concluding its work has affected our ability to summarize changes that will impact municipal operations. As a result, the Guidelines for Preparing City Budgets and Law Summary publica- tions will not be completed until after the special session is concluded and the governor has signed the bills. We expect to complete a brief publication summarizing law changes of municipal interest for theAnnual Conference in Duluth. The next issue of the Cities Bulletin will be pub- lished June 13, with fax updates sent to members June 15 and 18. For more information on city legislative issues, contact any' m 7Q'~ e League of .44inne$ota CJtJes lnteegovernmental Relations (651) 28] -_ !.~_ ~, Jun 14 2081 13;08;23 Via Fax -> fidninistrator Page 881 Of 881 ACTION ALERT!!!! PLEASE RESPOND IMMEDIATELY!!! TO: Cities utilizing TIF FROM: Andrea Stearns, LMC Gene Ranieri, AMM Kathy Hahne, EDAM, NAHRO DATE: June 14, 2001 RE: TIF IMPACTS -- INFORMATION REQUEST Late yesterday, the Tax Working Group spent a considerable amount of time discussing the impact of the state takeover of the general education and levy and the property tax class rate changes on tax increment financing (TIF) districts. Both the House and Senate have proposed increasing the TIF grant fund in order to mitigate these impacts. One of the main criteria of the House bill for qualifying for a TIF grant is having bonds issued by June 2, 2001. City and development authority representatives have raised the concern that there are "projects in the pipeline" that may not have issued bonds yet but have other significant commitments made justifying a "grandfather" into the TIF grant program. Senator Pogemiller has requested that we provide him with information regarding these projects. Please let us know ASAP whether you have "pipeline" projects for which one or more of the criteria listed below applies: 1. Type of district 2. Date district was certified or date the request for certification will be made. 3. A signed development agreement is in place. Please indicate the date signed. 4. Either the city or thc developer has made a significant financial commitment. Please estimate the total project cost, the percentage of total project costs committed, and the actual dollar amounts. Please sabrnit this information to Andrea Stearns at 651.281.1258, 652.215.4216 (fax), or stearns(~'blmn c. or~ -7981 - AMM FAX II June 4-8, 2001 Association of Pletropolitan Hunicipaliti¢$ Governor Calls Special Session for Monday. June 11 Governor Ventura has called a special session begin- ning on Monday June 11, 2001. The Governor made his announcement at a press confer- ence regarding the latest state revenue collections. The special session has been called despite the fact that, as of Thursday, June ~ J Practice' sAdvisory Committee has a vacancy for a city represen- tative. Chanhassen City Manager Scott Botcher has resigned and as a result the committee has a vacancy. If you are interested in serving on the committee please contact Gene at AMM, The committee recommends study topics and reviews best practices reports. The committee meets approximately three or four times a year. /iMM Noos Fax is fa. red to M! AMM city managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayor~, councilmembers and staff to lteep them abreast of impor- tant metro ciO' issues. 145 University ,4venue P/est St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (650 215.4000 Fax: (651} 281-1299 E.mall: a~mml 4 $.org 7, most budgets and the tax bill had not been finalized. Although the Governor and legislative leadership did agree on May 25 to a broad outline for tax reform and a budget package, the details of the agree- ments have slowed the negotia- tions. For example the Jobs Con- ference Committee has not agreed on its spending target. The last Senate proposal exceeded the "target" by $12.0 million. Also the Senate tax conferees 'contend that the agreement does not specify the exact level of commercial industrial property tax reduction, The House has offered approximately ten percent while the Senate has a four percent decrease. Policy differ- ences are evident in all of the remaining open working groups, In addition to the policy differ- ences the most recent state revenue collections report could add to the complexity in reaching an agreement, The' Department of Finance reported on Thursday that state revenues for the last four months are $91.0 million less than projected. With two months of the biennium left to be reported there is a possibility that collections could decrease further. Being aware of the revenue collections, the Gover- nor has requested that the legisla- ture "prepare bills that allow for adjustments to the targets and leave $300.0 million unspent and left on the bottom line." The $300.0 million request is an increase over the $100.0 million included in the May 25 agreement. Tax Working Group Update Drior to Thursday's [ anouncements regarding revenue collections and a special session, the tax working group had generally agreed to a tax package that will: · Compress tax rates; · Eliminate the state mandated general education levy and replace it with state funding; · Initiate a state levied property tax uosu~H s!pu~ -7982- <- on commercial industrial prop- erty; Impose levy limits on local gov- ernments; Establish a grant program to assist TIF districts impacted by the tax changes (compression and levy takeover); and Authorize a tax rebate payable i' September 2001. While the contents of the pack- continued next page... x~& ~!tl t,S:GE:8I I88Z 88 Un_l' ...continued from previous page age are part of the agreement between legislative leadership and Governor the specific details need to be determine6. The 3use and Senate have each proposed a different class rate schedule. The major difference is in the commercial-industrial class rate. The House provides for a lower rate than the Senate. The House and Senate also differ on the details of the state-imposed property tax on commercial indus- trial property. The House recom- mends a set dollar amount of levy while the Senate prefers a tax rate and wants to use the tax proceeds for education funding. Although the working group has not discussed tax increment financing (TIF), several variations to the grantProgram are being discussed. The computer simula- tions run by legislative staff indicate that the class rates contained in ~e original House bill, combined he state take over of the general education levy, could reduce TIF proceeds by one third of the 2001 level. Being aware of the impact of the tax reform pro- posal on TIF, the House's original proposal and later proposals include, a grant program. The Governor also has a grant pro- gram, and during negotiations the Senate agreed to a grant program, but the details are still being dis- cussed among legislative staff and local government representatives. The TIF issues include the follow- ing; · Should there be any require- ments to apply for the grant? The current grant program requires a local fund contribution while the House proposal also contains a locat fund requirement. Options to the local contribution include but are not limited to the repeal of the certified tax capacity rate, and . extending the duration of the district. · What types of expenditures should be eligible for state fund- ing? The House proposal would have the grant amount equal the lesser of the reduction in the district's revenues resulting from rate changes anci the levy take- over, or the amount needed by the district to pay off bonds and binding contracts entered into before June 2, 2001. The use of the grant for "pay-as-you go" notes is being discussed. Which districts should be in- cluded in the grant program? The House grant proposal will include districts for which certification was requested before June 2, 2.001. Districts which are in process - development agree- ment, districts approved but not certified, contracts not finalized- have been identified as an issue that needs to be discussed. Language defining these so called "pipeline districts" is being prepared. ESg] JO IEi]I~ ~l~eIuosu~H s!pu,lt -7983- <- ×~[ ~!t~ £t,:~tt,:1t~ l:ltltZ 88 un.r AMM FAX Ii Association of Metropolitan Hunicipalities June 11-15, 2001 AMM Sponsors ,Affordable Housing Seminar and Blueprint Session The Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) and the AMM are co- sponsoring a half- day workshop on Affordable Housing. Entitled "Legal and Political Framework for Affordable Housing" the workshop is scheduled for June ?.7,200'1. Representatives of cities, builders, advocacy groups, state agencies, realtors and the Metropolitan Council have been invited to speak. It is anticipated that the speakers and panelists will encourage discussion and debate. The workshop will be held at the Double Tree Park Place in St, Louis Park and will begin at 7:30 a.m. and end at 11:30 a.m. BreaKfastwili be served. To register please contact Pat Amst of SLUC by June 21 at g52-474- 3302 or visit their web site at www,sensibleland,org. As [)art of the annual League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) conference AMM is coordinating a session regard- ing the Metropolitan Councirs Update of the Regional Blueprint. The Metro- polita~3 Council intends to have a revised blueprint completed by the end of this year. At the session, Caren Dewar, director of community develop- merit for the Metropolitan Council, will present an outline of the Blueprint as well as comment on the "white paper on regional growth strategies" and the natural resources inventory. A panel consisting of Terry Schneider of AMM, and Rick Packer of the Builders Association of the Twin Cities (BATC} will provide reaction and assess impacts on their respective members. There will be time for comments and questions. The session will be held in the Gooseberry Falls Room 2 from 2:3P p.m, to 4:30 p.m. ~AMM Elects Officers'*~ Metropolitan Counties Sponsor and Board Members Energy Forum At its annual meeting on May 31, 2001, the membership approved the nomination of Frank Boyles, city manager of Prior Lake, as President and Craig Waldron, city manager of Oakdale, as Vice President. Coon Rapids Mayor Lonnie McCauley was elected as a new member to the board. /iMM News Fax_is faxed to all ~4MM ciO~ managers and admlnlstrators, legislative ¢onlacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayors, councilrnembers and staff to iceep them al~reast of impor- tant metro ciO~ isstte$. 145 Univer~'ity A ~'enue West St. Paul, MN 55103.2044 Photte: (651) Fax: (651) 281-1299 F-mail: amm~,amml 4 $.or~ ZlilO .fO ZOg afl'ti The Metropolitan Counties Energy Task Force is sponsoring an energy forum on June 21,2001. The forum will provide background and stimulate ciiscussion on the production and delivery of energy to Minnesota, the key issues facing Minnesota and experiences in other states. The forum will be at the Sheraton Midway and is scheduled from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. For furl. her information including registration contact Carrie Koudelka at 651-298- 8300. Legislature Convenes: Negotiations Continue 'the Minnesota Legislature convened in special session on Monday and ~promptly recessed until Thursday. In the interim, legislative leaders are scheduled to meet in an effort to reach an agreement. Most working groups are waiting for a general agreement prior to reconvening. u°su~H s!Pu~H -7984- <- x~ ~!~ 8Z:ZZ:£[ [0gE Z[ unr AMM FAX June 11-15, 2001 (no, 2) I I I Association of Hctropolitan Hunicipalities Tax Working Group Reviews House and Senate Proposals The tax working group met throughout the day Wednesday. Although no general agreement was made both sides have made proposals that cover tax and budget issues. The following is a summary of issues that are of importance to cities. Please note that the i~roposals do not, in many in- tances, include specific lan- guage and could change as the working group continues to meet. General Education Property Tax Levy Takeover. Both bodies agree that the levy wilt be eliminated and paid by the state. . Statewide Property Tax on Commercial Industrial Prop- erty. There is agreement on the levy but there are differences regarding the amount and purpose of the levy. The House AMM Ne~s Fax is foxed to all AMM city managers and administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please sh are this fax with your mayors', counc£1rnernbers and staff to I~eep them abreast of lmpor- tant metro ciO' 145 University A ~tnue St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E. mai/: amrt~.jtrnm 145. ore recommends a set dollar amount and does not specify the use of the tax proceeds. The Senate wants a fixed tax rate; or growth factor that in- cludes inflation, household growth and new construction. The Senate also wants the tax proceeds dedicated to educa- tion. -'City HACA. The House and Senate agree to eliminate city, town and special district HACA. - Local GovernmentAid (LGA). The House proposes a $98.0 million increase in LGA. The current formula would be modified. The Senate pro- poses an LGA increase of $168.0 million. The formula would also be modified. - Tax Class Compression. There is agreement on reduc- ing classes but there is not agreement on the rates for all classes. see TAX next page... Auditor Releases Report (~'~ late Auditor Judi Dutcher ~,~) released a major report Tuesday focusing on the revenues, expenditures and debt of Minnesota's 185 largest cities (those with populations over 2,500). The report found that the average unreserved fund balance as a percent of current expenditures increased from 42.1 percent in '1 !;)95 to 52.8 percent in 1999. -7985- <- In 1999, cities' unreserved fund balances ranged from- 68.7 to 400.8 percent, with 36 cities carrying unreserved fund balances totaling more than 100 percent of current expenditures. The report also notes that city spending increased 4,9 percent between 1998 and 1999, with the largest share of city spending going to public see AUDITOR next page... E00 JO Z00 *lh~d uosu~x s!puqt x~[ ~!t~ t,I:H~:t~I IEIOZ t,l un.r TAX continued... - Tax Increment Financing (TIF), The tax reform bill will impact TIF. The original House bill included a grant program to assist in meeting revenue shortfalls in the districts. The latest House proposal contin- ues the grant program pro- posal. The proposal recom- mends a $195.0 million appro- priation that will be available until 2005. The Senate pro- posai recommends $250.0 million for two years. The Senate proposal states that it intends to hold redevelopment districts whole with state grant aid but during the discussions it was noted that all types of districts should be considered for the grant program. The language relating to the grant program will need to be dis- cussed by the working group. tn terms of TIF policy, it is unclear if there will be an article in the 'final bill that includes special bills and amendments to the TIF act. - Levy Limits. The Senate proposes a levy limit based on the levy payable in 2001 plus the aid revenue base. The Senate also recommends exemptions for pensions, jail operations, and matching fund. The working group is sched- uled to meet again on Thursday. We will keep you informed of the progress of the proposal. AUDITOR continued... safety, followed by streets and highways and debt service. City revenues increased 1.4 percent between 1998 and 1999, while state intergovernmental aids continued to decrease and charges for services continued to increase as a percentage of total revenues. A companion report ranks all cities with populations over 2,500 according to per capita capital outlay, debt service, and outstanding long-term debt, as well as spending per capita in ten di'fferent areas. Cities can use this information to compare their spending to that of neigh- boring communities and those with similar circumstances or characteristics. Tables listing the total outstand- ing indebtedness and unre- serw;d fund balance (both desig- nated and undesignated) of each city are included in the report. Cities are encouraged to confirm the information presented in the report, which can be viewed online at _wWw.osa.state.mn.us. Municipal License and Permit Fee Survey The Municipal License and Permit Fee Survey is now available. Every member city (Administrator/ Manager) received one copy in the mail a few weeks ago. To request additional copies at $20.00 each, please contact Laurie Jennings at 651-215-4000. Clarification It must be special session fatigue--we forgot to print the date for the League of Minnesota Cities Annual conference ses- sion in the last AMM Fax News. The Blueprint discussion will be on Thursday, June 21 at 2:30 pom, £8a JO £~8 as~a uosu~H s!pU~H -7986- <- ×~ ~!~ 88:5~:~I I88Z ~I unr LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIREGTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, June 13, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES- 5/09/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 5/23/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 5/30/01 LMCD Special Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) (*) Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; B) Update on 2001 Increased Water Patrol Presence Project; C) Status of Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force; D) Additional Business; 2. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (6/1/01 - 6/15/01); B) Review of draft 2002 LMCD Budget; C) Additional Business; WATER STRUCTURES A) (*) Donald and Loretta Mann, staff recommends a refund of $184.00 of the $250.00 deposit submitted for approved dock length variance application; B) Discussion of Action Items from 5/30/01 Special Board Meeting; C) (*) 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal, without change, multiple dock license application for Bayshore III HOA; D) Additional Business; -7987- 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) Staff update on 2001 EWM Harvesting Season; B) Additional Business; 5. SAVE THE LAKE 6. ADMINISTRATION 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT -7988- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 9, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster Called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Member present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McMi!lan, Orono; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetfista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wed, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster Foster stated that June 2nd and June 9th have been identified as possible dates for the annual lake inspection tour. The consensus of the Board was to conduct the inspection tour on June 9th with the itinerary of sites visited to be determined. READING OF MINUTES- 4/11/01 Regular BOard Meeting 4/25/01 Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Babcock seconded to-approVe the minutes of the 4/11/01 Regular Board meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (9), Abstained (2; Ahrens, & BabCock); motion carded. McMillan stated she would recommend two changes.to the minutes. First, on page 5 under Item 2C, she WoUld, like to add 'cost of' so the sentence would read: "on or around May 20 and the cost of staffing would be approximately 60 Percent less" Second, on page 9 under the 3rd bullet, the sentence Should read: "Overtime would Only be allowed if approved in advance by Harper or Nybeck", MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the minutes of the 4/25/01 Regular Board meeting as amended, VOTE: Ayes (9), AbStained (2; Ahrens & BabCOck); mOtiOn Carried.' PUBLIC COMMENTS. Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda: Ms, Rita Pederson and John Carrier,~ 4344 west Arm Road Spdng Park, addressed the Board conCerning a neighborhood docking issue that was being reSOlved bY LMCD staff. Gilma~ arrived at 7:07 p.m. -7989- Lake MinnetO'nka: Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Page 2 Babcock requested that staff add this situation update as an agenda item at a future Board meeting. CONSENT AGENDA- Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Nelson moved, Gilman seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. Motion carried unanirnously,_ltemsJor_ approval included: 1D, 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal, without change multiple dock license application for Driftwood Shores HOA; 4A, Minutes from the 4/13/01 EWU/Exotics Task Force Meeting .. PUBLIC HEARING · Bayshore III HOA, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a conforming multiple dock facility in Smithtown Bay. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. He asked for backgrOund on the proposed application from staff. Harper made the following comments: · The applicant has submitted a new multiple dock license application for Board consideration. · The facility currently is licensed for 8 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on approximately 385' of continuous shoreline. · The shoreline further breaks down to 40' on Outlot A with 5 approved BSU's, two 100'lots With one BSU approved for each lot, and a 145' wide lot with one approved BSU. · District staff Ob§erved discrepancies with'the dock installation and the approved site plan last summer; The applicant has made application to correct these discrepancieS. · The City of Victoda and lakeshore residents of the homeowners association have raised concems with the proposed application and configuration. ~' · Staff believes the Board can approve the changes as prOpOsed by the applicant or the Board can table the application to allow the applicant time to resoJve pending issues with the city and residents of the homeowners association. ~ Nybeck further explained that the full 385' of continuous shoreline has been dedicated towards the multiple dock license to achieve the increased boat storage density on Outlot A. The dedication restricted the boat StOrage on the other 3 lakeshore lots to one BSU per lot. Since the four lots are dedicated to the multiple dock license, LMCD side set back requirements do not apply to the internal extended lot lines, The side setback requirements only apply to the twb outside extended lot lines on the 385' of shoreline. He also stated that the City of ViCtoria considers this a grandfathered facilitY Under their Zoning regUlations and requires iSsues to be resOlv~ with the BayShore III COnditional Use permit. Foster asked the applicant if he had any comments. Tuck Thomas, spoke on behalf of the Bayshore III HOA, stated it was not his intention to create any animosity in submitting this application for reconfiguration. He stated that he would be willing to have the Board table the application to allow time to resolve the issues with the City of VictOd~ and with the members of the homeowners as~ociation. Foster asked if anyone from the public had any comments. Peter Johnson, attorney for the two Bayshore I11 lakeshore property o~ers (Robert Atkinson and Don Strom), stated that his interpretation of the dedication easement specified that the Out!or dock must not be constructed in a location other than directly in front of the Outlot and can not extend in front of the riparian lOtS. He stated that the configuration of the docks was set at the time that the property was subdivided and has remained the same until now. He added that -7990- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 this is the first time the docks have been reconfigured and the applicant did not notify the lakeshore property owners of the proposed changes until the public headng notice was sent to them by the LMCD. He stated that his clients and him would like to talk to Mr. Thomas to find a configuration that all parties would agree upon. Babcock responded to Mr. Johnson's remarks. He made the following comments: · The proposed dock plan seems to meet all LMCD requirements and the Board could approve the proposed configuration: . · The LMCD treats the shoreline from the four lots as one continuous 385' lot for the multiple dock license. · The issues between the homeowners association contact and members of the homeowners association must be resolved outside of the LMCD. Mike Reiner, non-lakeshore member of the Bayshore III HOA, stated that the reason for the reconfiguration was that 2000 was the first year that more than one BSU was needed on the outlot and the water depth was too deep to install the dock three slips deep into the lake. Babcock emphasized that because this is 385' of multiple dock shoreline, changes on the docks at the outlot and the lakeshore lots can not be made without Board approval. Because the property is all under a.multiple dock license that was dedicated ten years ago, the residents can not randomly change the configuration of the docks without Board approval. The homeownere association must come into the District with an application and new site plan and get it approved before they can make dock changes. Seuntjens asked to have the minutes brought back at a future meeting to understand the dedication of the lakeshore. Babcock clarified that regardless of the potential LMCD Board approval, the applicant must resolve the issues with the City of Victoria and whichever regulations were the most restrictive, must be followed. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public heating at 7:40 p.m. Thomas stated if they must meet the most restrictive rules, the City of Victoria would not approve the configuration that has been proposed to the LMCD. He stated.he would like to have his application tabled to resolve the issues with the city and the homeowne¢s association members. He would possibly come back with a revised site plan. Knudsen asked if there is a conflict with the easement and the multiple dock license. LeFevere explained that the developer set up the develo I)ment to give the non-lakeshore proPerty owners access to the lake and the way they did that was by dedicating the whole development's shoreline to the multiple dock license. He stated that the development lakeshore was considered one site to'aChieve the one BSU per 50' of lakeshore. This allowed 8 BSU's to be located on the 385'. There was one applicant, the developer in the inception and the homeowners association currently. The LMCD treats the entire shoreline as one site and it is not important Within LMCD Code how it was done--by easement, by creating an extended outlot along the shoreline or having restrictive covenants. The distdct is not concemed with the way the docking dghts were divided amongst the homeowners. If there were a certain reStrictions on the way the homeowners use the 385' of shoreline would not concern the LMCD, it woUld have to be resolved intern ally. This issue will get the'association to communicate. He Stated the hOmeowners association controls the shoreline. All the property owners in the association own a part of the shared dpadan rights; lakeshore owners and non-lakeshore owners. -7991 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District .Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Page' 4 MOTION: Gilman moved, Babcook seconded to table the new multiple dock license application per request of the applicant to resolve pending issues .with the homeowners association and the City of Victoria and to direct staff to prepare a sixty day extension. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. · Walden Tract X, new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming, multiple dock_facility under LMCD Code Section 2~015. · Walden Tract Y, application to reconfigure a non-conforming, non-multiple dock facility under LMCD Section 2.015. Foster suggested thai Board should combine the Walden Tract X and Walden Tract Y public hearing and discussion because the applicants are proposing to combine two adjacent properties for joint docks. Foster opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. He asked for background on the proposed application from staff. Nybeck provide background information to the Board. He made the following comments: · Walden Tract X submitted a new multiple dock license application to reconfigure a non-conforming multiple dock facility and Walden Tract Y has submitted an application to reconfigure it's non-conforming non-multiple dock facility. · The proposed applications would combine boat storage at the two non-conforming facilities utilizing LMCD Code section 2.015 or the envelope concept. · Walden Tract X is currently grandfathered for six Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on approximately 50' of continuous shoreline. · Walden Tract Y is currently grandfathered for four BSU's on. approximately 40' of continuous shoreline. · County records reflect that there ap.pgars to be appmximat, ely 70' of shoreline between the two sites. · The applicants stated that they have a disagreement on the common lot line, which resuliS in the double counting of approximately 20' of shoreline. · Over the years, the installation of doCk and boat storage at these two sites has been problematic because of the number of boats, 10, being stored in small authorized dock use areas. · In 2000, staff' Was involved With the Situation with Tract X, Tract Y and the adjacent City of Deephaven site. · The City of Deephaven has recently resolved their docking and boat storage issues on the south end of.their site. · The reconfiguration would be done under LMCD Code Section 2.015 and the proposed applications would meet all the requirements except the section that states the application may not result in any further extension into non- conforming setback areas than the existing docks. · Currently under LMCD Code, the proposed reconfigurations would not be allowed. .~, · Staff received phone confirmation from the City of Deephaven that the City Council has agreed to. allow Tract Y's boat storage encroachment over the City's extended lot line but would like to have the annual dght to withdraw the consent. · Staff believes the Board has three options. They include: Change the Code to allow the Board to consider the combined dock use areas for the two non.conforming facilities; Consider the combined dock use areas through vadance applications, questioning what the physical hardships or practical difficulties are; and the last option is to deny the applications. Babcock stated that since the Tract X and Y applications are separate, it appears that the proposed site plan would increase the number of BSU's on Tract Y from four to five, thus not complying with the first requirement in LMCD Code Section 2.015 prohibiting the increase in BSU's. -7992- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May §, 200'1 Foster asked if anyone from the public had any comments. Page 5 Mr. Dan Gilbert, Walden Tract X, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the two properties should be considered as one application. Foster explained that if they were to combine the two properties, the grandfathered status would be lost and would have to conform to the cu!Tent regu_.!ations that wou d a_gw ~o...boats per et with. a_,total of _4 boats Gibert explained that Tract X and Y had been storing boats at that location before the LMCD was created and they have the dght to store 10 boats, He stated the proposed configuration was the 11th layout drawn up and had taken a long time to come up with. He noted that they had received the consent from the City of Deephaven to allow the extension over the extended lot line, He explained that he would like the Board to approve the proposed reconfiguration as submitted whether through a Code change or a variance, Babcock stated that the current approved site plans seem to be reasonably conforming configuration. He asked what was the catalyst for the change? Dan Nelson, Tract X, explained that there is a domino affect in the area because some docks on the shoreline are installed parallel to the extended lot lines and others are installed perpendicular with the shoreline. This pushed the docks to the North, which encroached on to Pat Florence's property. Babcock stated that if Tract X and Y docks were installed according to the approved site plans, it appears that the side setbacks would comply with code on the Pat Florence extended lot line and the City of Deephaven extended lot line. He asked why the applicants would want to go to a configuration that is not in conformance with side setback regulations. Gilbert stated that it would not conform. Babcock stated that according to the site plans it would conform. He suggested that the applicants may not be installing the docks or storing watercraft in the designated locations according to the approved site plan. Foster explained that there is the problem of double counting the 20' of shoreline. Dan Nelson stated that there was a dispute between a survey from 1957 compared to a survey from 1993. It was the same surveyor with diffedng depictions of where the common property line was. Both Tract Xand Y relied on what the surveyor told each of them. Babcock asked why the LMCD should continue to allow the same number of BSU's now when it is recognized that at the time of the applications, there was erroneous information submitted. Dan Nelson stated that Tract X and Y have been working with Pat Florence and the City of Deephaven to find a solution that would be agreeable for all parties. Nybeck explained that there are some issues with the approved site plan for Walden Tract X that was approved by the board in the Past and WoUld currently not be apprOved. He further explained that the site plan shows that three of the BSU's do not meet the required northerly 5' setbaCk with Tract Y. Although, the annual license certificate states that boats or lifts on outside slips mUSt not intrude on 5' Side setbacks. He noted that the language on the certificate contradictS what is illustrated on the approved site plan, Babcock asked if these requirements could be looked up at the time of the initial approval, -7993- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting MaY 9, 2001 Page*6 Nybeck stated the approval was in 1981 and the records around that time were not complete. Foster stated that City of Deephaven has had some conversations concerning expanding their multiple dock license in upcoming years to allow more slips for their residents and this may resolve the problems with Tract X and Y. Babcock stated that. with.the CiysspeCial densitylicense;-slips can-not be-tied to specific~real property: ........... Judd Peterson, Tract Y, stated that Tract X and Y have a grandfathered dght to have ten boats on the lake. · LeFevere stated the concept of grandfathedng allows a person to continue something that was legally in existence at a time that Code was changed. The LMCD is not required to recognize grandfathered rights of docking compared to land because the Lake is public waters. In 1978, the LMCD made it's first density limitation which was the 1:50' rule. Prior to the 1:50' rule, the LMCD code allowed riparian owners to store as many boats as they could fit within their dock use area. When the 1:50" rule was enacted in 1978, certain facility's rdensities that were lawfullY in existence at that time were grandfathered in. The density grandfathedng could not be at the expense of any other Code provisions such as dock use area. Thus, the boat storage density would only be grandfathered if it fit within the dock use area at the time of grandfathering, otherwise it is just an illegal structure. He concluded that the entitlement to the number Of watercraft stored is grandfathered, but does not carry with it the dght to violate side setback restrictions or cross extended lot lines. Babcock requested to be provided a survey with the amount of shoreline on Tract X and Tract Y. There being no further comments, FoSter closed the public hearing at 8:30 p,m. Wed stated that the applicants can not go forward with the proposed applications unless there is a Code change or a vadance application. MOTION:Van Hercke moved, Wed seCOnded to table these two agenda items and revisit them after agenda Item 1C is discussed because, current LMCD COde would not alloW the reconfiguration proposed in these two applications, VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES A. Tonka Bay Sales, new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 18 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 475' of continuous shoreline (tabled at the 2/28/01 Regular meeting to conduct a mandatory RAW). Foster asked for background on the proposed apPlication from staff. Nybeck made the following comments: · A public headng was held on 2/28/01 to consider a new multiple dock license and special density license application from Tonka Bay Sales. · A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (RAW) was reqUired.for the expansion and was prepared by LMCD staff. · The mandatory RAw was revieWed and approved by the Board at the 3i14/01 Regular Meeting. It was published in the 4/2/01 EQB Monitor, with'~mments ~lueinthe District office by 5/2/01 · staff received comments from three agencieS, none of which were negative. · Staff recommends the Board make a negative declaration for the need to prepare an Environmental ImPact Statement. -7994- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meefincj May 9, 2001 Page7 · If the Board makes a negative declaration, staff feels the Board can take the new multiple dock license and special density license applications off the table and act upon them. · Staff believes that the applicant has provided sufficient public amenities to qualify for a special density license. · If the Board concurs with this, staff recommends the Board Direct the Distdct Attomey to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the new multiple dock license and special density license applications. ...... MOTION.: ..Nelson moved, Babcocksecondedto declare.a negative-declaration.on the EAW.with'regards to conducting an ElS on the proposed Tonka Bay Sales project. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. MOTION: Skramstad moved, Nelson seconded to direct attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of a new multiple dock license application for Tonka Bay Sales subject to no objections raised by the MN DNR. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Eggers arrived at 8:50 p.m. Excel Marina (Sites 1 & 2), new multiple dock license and special density license applioations for 90 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 913' of continuous shoreline (tabled at the 2/28/01 Regular meeting to conduct a mandatory EAW); Foster asked for background on the proposed application from Staff. Nybeck made the following comments: · A public hearing was held on 2J28/01 to consider 2 new multiple dock license and special density license applications from Excel Marina, · A mandatory Environmental ASsessment WorkSheet (EAW) was required for the expansion and Was prepared by LMCD staff. · The mandatory EAW was reviewed and approved by the Board at the 3/14/01 Regular Meeting. It was published in the 4/2/01 EQB Monitor, with comments due in the District office by 5/2/01. · Staff received comments from three agencies, none of which were negative. · Staff recommends the Board make a negative declaration for the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. · The reason why two new multiple dock and special density license apPliCatiOns were submitted was because of a 12' firelane owned by the City~ of Excelsior biseCted the Excel Marina properties. There is currentlY disCusSion between Excel Uadna and the City of Excelsior conceming possibly trading land to make Excel Madna one continuous site. Jerry TOberman, Excel Marina owner, stated that Progress was being made with the City of Excelsior and requested that the applications remain tabled until posSible negotiationS With the City of Excelsior were resolved but would like the Board to make a negative declaration on the need for an EAW: MOTION: Weft moved, Gilman seconded to declare a negative declaration on the EAW with regards to conducting an ElS on the proposed Excel Madna project. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. -7995- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Page 8 C. Consider possible Code changes for non-conforming structures to reduce setbacks and dock use areas by mutua, consent. Review of memo from LMCD Attorney with pros and cons; Foster introduced the agenda item noting that LeFevere had prepared a letter that summarizes arguments for and against allowing adjustment of dock use area by mutual consent for non-conforming facilities. He stated that there has been applications brought before the Board recently that involved non-conforming facilities wishing to reconfigure.theirfacilities-furtherdnto nomconforming setbacks; adjustingdock use areas orcombining dock use areas for a common dock with mutual consent. Currently, under LMCD Code these options are available for some types of conforming facilities and not allowed for any non-conforming facility. Foster opened the agenda item up for Board discussion. Babcock made the following comments: · If the code was changed to allow waiving of setbacks for non-conforming sites, when property ownership changed, a possible situation involving the Board to resolve would occur. The situations will be more frequent under a broader ordinance than less. · This change would not benefit the Lake as a whole, it has the potential to make the lake a more congested place. · The setback violations with mutual consent become entitlements and it is very difficult for the Board to take away the conceived entitlements when consent is withdrawn. McMillan stated that using mutual consent in regards to side setbacks, benefits the two residents but does not benefit the neighbors outside of the consent area that are potentially negatively affected by this. She stated that th. Board needs to limit the non-conforming narrow lots around the lake and not let them expand by allowing them encroach into Setbacks. She stated that by changing the code concerning non- conforming sites WOuld go against the LMCD's overa!! density management plan. Seuntjens stated that he was comfortable allowing the code change and addressing situations when consent is withdrawn. He stated that it'would be worth the change to allow current grandfathered situations to work under the conditions. He noted thedensity'would not change from the current use. He stated it would be too restrictive to not allow the adjustment of dock: use area for non-conforming sites. Foster questioned if it was the Board's expectation that grandfathered situations disappear over time: He stated that he has the expectations that these grandfathered dghts should be carded forever, He explained that he didn't have any problem allowing non-conforming pdvate and municipal.sites to adjust dock use areas with mutual consent. He noted that he had reservations with allowing dock use area adjustments with non-conforming commercial facilities. Babcock stated that it has never been his intention to take away any facility's grandfathered dghts. He emphasized that the current ordinances in place prohibit the expansion of non,conforming use. He stated that the Board has passed ordinances that require new applicants to meet a certain set of standards and allowing non-conforming applicants further expansion does not give the same opportunity to new applicants which is inconsistent and not good policy. Skramstad left at 9:14 p.m. Foster stated that under the potential ordinance amendment, the non. conforming facilities would not. expand the number of BSU's, the size of BSU's or the square footage. -7996- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Page9 Babcock stated that it would be an expansion because it would increase the dock use area. He stated the non- conforming sites can use the grandfathered configuration as is or come into conformance with current Code and be able to make changes. Foster stated that the discussed ordinance amendment that allows non-conforming facilities to agree on setback adjustments with mutual consent seems to be a reasonable and practical solution with pdvate residents and municipalities. Babcock stated that in 1997, the city of Minnetonka Beach agreed that they would be binding on the mutual consent agreement with the neighbor and this year the city imposed pressure on the adjacent property owner that withdrew consent to maintain the non-conforming setback. Nelson stated that conforming sites have more rights than non-conforming and the grandfathered site maintains their grandfathered status as a privilege not as a right. He added that the privilege is granted because they were in existence pdor to the adoption of the ordinances. He explained that it isn't fair to allow the non-conforming sites the same opportunities as the conforming site has. Gilman stated that he would never vote for an ordinance amendment that would allow a city to put pressure on a property owner to allow a city dock to encroach on the property owners dock use area or setbacks. Foster stated that the consensus of the Board was that there is no need to change LMCD Code to allow non- conforming facilities with mutual consent to reconflgure their facilities further into non-conforming setbacks, adjust dock use areas or combine dock use areas for a common dock. Ahrens left at 9:35 p.m. Foster asked the Board revisit the Walden Tract X and Walden Tract Y agenda items. Nelson stated that the proposed Tract X and Y applications can not be approved without a variance application. He asked if it was appropriate to entertain a motion for denial of the applications. Foster stated that a potential approval of Tract X and Y would not be possible tonight without a vadance application and stated that the extended lot lines that are not perpendicular and would that be a sufficient hardship to grant a variance. Babcock stated the applicant could try to come up with a better configuration that would not encroach on the setbacks and there might be some tough choices of possibly having to store smaller boats or less boats, but when the applicants are dealing with 70' for 10 boats those are the choices you must make. He stated they could leave the configuration as it has been approved in the past. There was discussion on the possibility of a variance application to straighten the extended lot line between the Tract X and Florence property. LeFevere stated that if a vadance application was submitted, a new public headng would have to be held. Foster suggested that the applications be tabled until the next meeting. Nybeck stated that at the 3/14/01 meeting the Board had approved the Walden Tract X renewal without change multiple dock license. He stated that Tract X can install their docks as specified on the site plan and. the license until -7997- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District .Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Page' 10 a new configuration or variance is submitted to the Board. He emphasized that the installation and storage of the two sites must be in full compliance with LMCD Code. He stated the Board can act upon the applications if there is further action by the applicants and if there is not by the next couple meetings, an extension letter may be required. E. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Hennepin Parks, 2000 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka Report presented by John Baden. Mr. John Barren, representing Hennepin Parks, provided an overview of the Report for 2000. He summarized the key highlights and discussed the issues of wetland preservation. Members of the Board asked Barten questions on the 2000 Report and phosphorus concems on Lake Minnetonka. The Board took no action on this agenda item. Gilman left at 10:25 p.m. Staff Report on the Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force. Foster asked for an update on the Wetlands Task Force. Wert stated that as summarized in the enclosed minutes, the focus of the discussion at this meeting was to 'dete~i~b thb chamct-~fi§trC-s' of-wetl ~i~d-~'i'h E~ke-Mi-n-n~[o-~'ka-~nd-[(~ ~se~-rmih~ ~-~'imp~cts o~--t~'~i :[~m' activities on the water. He reported that he leamed a lot from this meeting and that the experts believe that the establishment of "Non-Motorized" areas on the Lake might be a good idea for a vadety of reasons. This includes water quality, fisheries, plants, and phosphorus. The task force identified some of these areas, including Painters and Six Mile Creeks. The challenge will be to identify some other areas that could be owned by the public or private sector. He stated that working with Nybeck, they decided the way to move forward with the task force would be to identify the main wetland areas on,Lake Uinnetonka that could be impacted by development. The next tasks would be figudng out how to categorize these main wetland areas and identifying the differences between these main wetland areas on the lake. He concluded that the Task Force was looking for comments and the authorization of the Board to move forward in addressing these issues at a meeting to be scheduled in the near future. Foster asked John Barren about the potential affects of prop dredging in wetland areas, specifically inlets to Lake Uinnetonka. Barten expressed his conCem with prop dredging in shallOW wetlands in terms of stirring up sediment thus decreasing water clarity. He stated to increase water quality, plants are needed to replace the algae and good water cladty is needed to maintain plants such as bull rushes and cudy leaf pond weed. He stated that the concern with Halsteads and Jennings BaySto maintain water quality, plants must be maintained and to protect the plants something must be done about prop dredging. Babcock asked Barten if there was any correlation between the size of prop or speed with the depth and amount of prop dredging. -7998- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Barren stated there was a direct correlation, which was tested by a study in Florida. Page'11 Babcock asked if quiet waters areas would reduce the impact on prop dredging. Baden stated it would decrease the impact in certain areas with sufficient water depth, but in other areas with shallow water, there is still going to be a large re-suspension of sediments. He stated the public has to recognize that not all parts of the lake can support all watemraft activities if the public wants to maintain good water quality, Wed concluded that a Meeting of the Task Force will be planned in the near future. McMillan left at 10:35 p.m. Foster requested that agenda item 4B be brought up in the agenda. The consensus of the Board was to allow this, 4B. Evaluation of Truck hauling Bids for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Program, Foster introduced the agenda item by providing some baCkground information. He made the following comments: · The District recently advertised in the Star Tdbune and the Lakeshore Weekly NeWs for bids for hauling of Eurasian Watermilfoil for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Season, with Sealed bids due in the District office by 2p.m., CST, on WedneSday, 5/2/01. · Two sealed bids were received before the deadline. They included Curfman TruCking and Repair, Inc. and Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company, Inc. Curfman Trucking Inc submitted a bid of $54 per hour for one .truck service and $106 per hour for two trUCk service. A bid of $57 per hOUr for one truck serviCe and $114 per hour for two truck service was submitted by Minnetonka Portable Dredging Inc. ~ ...... ~t1f~tibh-w~b~u~.bf`the--C~j~f~-bi~h~i~F~r-t~`b-d-t6hi~/~`th~h~-n~i~d~St~7~ Cu-tfmah explained why the information was not inCluded in the bid, A day after the closing date he submitted the correct and missing information, curfman was invited to come befOre the Board to explain why the information was not included in the bid initially. · The Board needs to decide whether the Curfman bid was valid or invalid and need to aCcept a trucking bid for the 2001 season. LeFevere explained that this situation is subject to public bidding law, which requires sealed bids, and based on awarding contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. He stated the Board had three choices as follows: · Reject all bids and re-advertise, · Accept the IoW bid from CUrfman Trucking. · Reject the Iow bid from Curfman because of irregularities and accept the bid from Minnetonka Portable Dredging, LeFevere stated that the Board has the authority to waive irregularities. He stated that certain criteria such as references is not as important as other information since the references were included in last years bid and most likely would not change, He stated that the most important single issue is the price. Another issue was whether the nature of the defects in the bid would alloW the company to get out of the bid. Foster asked for comments from Steve Curfman. -7999- Lake MinnetonkaConservation District Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Steve Curfman of Curfman Trucking and Repair addressed the Board explaining 'the reasons why some of the background information that was not submitted. He stated that it wasn't submitted because he was using the same trucks, personnel, and references as the prior year which was on file at the District office. He stated that 'his agent supplied him with a performance bond that is typically used in other public bidding projects but was not consistent with What is required by the LMCD. Nybeck emphasized the need to resolve this issue in 'a timely manner since the harvesting season starts in approximately five weeks. MOTION: Suerth moved, Van Herke seconded to waive the bid requirement discrepancies and award the 2001 Eurasian Watermilfoil trucking contract to Curfmans Trucking and Repair Inc. VOTE: Ayes (1; Suerth), Nayes (8), motion failed. There was discussion by the Board as follows: · There is a benefit having the truck ddver that understands the equipment. · The irregular information was submitted the next day after it was brought to the applicant's attention. · Concern was raised that by accepting perceived incomplete bid may put the LMCD in a bad legal situation. · A legal challenge would take a long time to resolve in Which the District cOuld not afford to put itself in that situation becauSe of the time restraints with the harvesting season. · There is an opportunity to reject all bids and republish for bids for hauling of EWM. · It would be extraordinary for a court to reverse a decision to reject all bids. · There would have to be sufficient time to advertise for bids and have a Board meeting to accept a bid, which may require a speCial Board meeting due to the time constraints. It was unfortunate that Curfman Trucking Inc. did not include all the information required and Minnetonka .... PortabteDredging-is-a-reputable-firm:that theDistrict-.has-hadalongstanding-relationshipwith: Thus., the Cur[man Bid should be thrown out and the contract shoUld be awarded to Uinnetonka Portable Dredging. · The risks involved with accepting a bid that was out of compliance would not outweigh the 7% savings in the trucking contract. · It would create too much of a risk for the program schedule to re-advertise for the trucking bid or accept the bid from Curfman Trucking. MOTION: Wert moved, Knudsen seconded to reject all bids and re-advertise for new bids as soon as possible for the 200t EWM trucking contract. VOTE: Ayes (5; Eggers, Foster, Knudsen, Suerth, Wed), Nayes (4; Babcock, Seuntjens, Nelson, Van Herke), motion carded. Wert left at 11:15 p.m. 3A. Audit of vouchers (5/1/01 - 5/15/01). Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers as sUbmitted. He added check #13591 to Curfman Trucking and Repair Inc. for $2,500 to the voucher list, explaining that this is paid twice a month for the maintenance contract with the EWr harvesting program. MOTION: Nelson moved, Babcock seconded to approve the audit of vouchers adding check #13591. -8000- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 9, 2001 VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. Page 13 C. Update on Sheriff's Office Water Patrol Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season. Foster introduced this agenda item, making the following comments: · Staffing of the two additional Deputies would include one hired on a full-time basis, with a second one taken from the Patrol Division backfilled through overtime. The five months of the two additional Deputies would commence on around May 20 and the staffing would be approximately 60 percent less than what was originally anticipated. · The cities should be given the option to receive a refund or keep the money in the account to pay for the additional off~cers for the 2002 season. · The chair will wdte a letter to the cities thanking them for the contribution and explaining the projected overage with a copy of the motion enclosed. The letter will explain that the LMCD will determine what all the details and costs occurred over the season were in October and give them the option to receive a refund or carry the money to the 2002 season, LeFevere asked if the board would like him to put together a contract for the cities describing the contribution the city committed to and the services received from the fee collected. A consensus of the Board decided it would be a good idea to have a contract drawn up with the cities.' MOTION: Nelson moved, Suerth seconded to calculate the cost of the two additional water patrol officers at the end of the 2001 boating season and give the cities that contributed the option to have the proportionate overage returned to the city or keep their share in the account to fund the officers for the 2002 season. VOTE: Motion ca~ed unanimously: E. Additional Business, There was no additional business, 3. FINANCIAL B. Review of timetable to consider 2002 draft LMCD Budget. Foster stated that if any of the Board members were interested in being involved in preparing the 2002 budget to contact staff to set up a meeting time the week of the 14th. Nybeck stated he would E-mail the draft budget to the interested Board members prior to the meeting. C. Additional Business, There was no additional business. 4. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE C. Additional Business. -8001 - Lake Minnetonka,Conservation District RegUlar Board Meeting May 9, 2001 Page 14 Suerth stated he is working with Dick Osgood conceming the revised Weevil Survey ProPosal and request for partial funding through the Save the Lake Fund, 5. SAVE THE LAKE There was no discussion. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: The monthly Executive Director Report is in the handout folder. · The discrepancy with the Boat Density survey on the 2000 audit was clarified with the auditor and was deleted off the management letter. Copies of the audit have been prepared and will be sent to the cities. · The lake level for Lake Minnetonka as of 5/9/01 was 929.93'. 7. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. OLD BUSINESS Van Hemkeasked ~ranupdateonthestatusofschedulinganintroductory Workshop/Planning. Sessionfornew Board membem Nybeck stated that this request has been taken under advisement and that a Workshop/Planning Session is being targeted sometime in May or June. 9. NEW BUSINESS Nelson expressed a need for the LMCD to find a way to communicate with dock installers to inform them the LMCD · regulations' andthat theyare hurting their customers by violating these rules: Suerth stated it would be difficult to identify the people and companies that install docks on Lake Minnetonka. Nybeck stated that the LMCD database of dock installers is not current or accurate. Consensus of the Board was to have staff update the dock installer database and contact the current dock installers to inform them of LMCD regulations. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Albert Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -8002- DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:00 p..m. ROLL CALL Member present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spdng Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetdsta; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suer/h, Woodland; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Chades LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster Foster made two announcements, First, a Special Board Meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, 5/30/01, at 7 P.M. at Tonka Bay City Hall. This meeting has been scheduled to take action of the sealed bids for truck hauling for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Program, and an Orientation Session for interested Board members. Second, the LMCD Board Lake Inspection Tour is planned for Saturday, 6/9/01, from around 7:30 a.m. until late morning. Staff will forward further details about this Inspection Tour in the near future. READING OF MINUTES. 5/09/01 Regular Board Meeting Seuntjens stated that the City of Minnetonka Beach has expressed concern about the accuracy of accuracy of the statement by Babcock in the third paragraph on page 9. He suggested that the Board could remove this paragraph from the minutes or table review of them to a future meeting when Babcock was present. MOTION: Gilman moved, Suerth seconded to table review of minutes from the 5/9/01 Regular Board meeting to the 6/13/01 Regular Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA. Consent agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. Skramstad moved, Seuntjens seconded to approve the consent agenda as submitted. McMillan requested a friendly amendment that agenda item 3B be removed from the consent agenda. Skramstad and Seuntjens agreed to this friendly amendment. Motion carried unanimously. Item for approval included: 1D, 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, -8003- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 2 staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal, without change multiple dock license application for Meadowbrook Boat Club. PUBLIC HEARING City of Minnetonka Beach, new multiple dock license application and variance application from LMCD Code for side setbacks and an adjusted dock use area at its Cross Point Road dock (Dock Site #10). Foster opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. He asked for background on the proposed applications from Staff. Nybeck made the following comments: · An application for variance from LMCD Code has been received for adjusted dock use area and side. setback requirements at Dock Site 10. The City of Minnetonka Beach is considered a legal, non- conforming multiple dock facility with 86 Boat Storage Units (BSU's), at 25 dock sites, on 2,370' of non- continuous shoreline. At the 1/10/01 Regular meeting, the Board decided to eliminate BSU # 2 because the consent from the abutting property owner to the north had been withdrawn. The hardship proposed by the applicant is that the elimination of BSU ~ has caused them a practical difficultY to relocate it to another dock site. · An application was received in March to reconfigure the non-conforming multiple dock facility at Dock Site 10, with a public hearing held at the 4/11/01 Regular meeting, Action on this application waS tabled to allow LeFevere to cladfy whether the application being considered was sufficient for the proposed relocation of BSU #2 at Dock Site 10. At the 4/25/01 RegUlar meeting, LeFevere reported that the Code currently did not allow for the proposed change because there are limitations on reconfigudng non- conforming structures. Two options were outlined by LeFevere to allow the Board to COnsider the proposed change. They included the submitting an application for variance from LMCD Code, with the need to establish a physical hardship or practical difficulty, or amending the Code. The consensuS of the Board' Was that the submitting an appliCati0n fOr Varian~:e fr0m 'COde made the most Sense. · Three sections of the Code apply to the proposed applications. Flint, section 2.01 defines auth0dzed dock use restrictions, including length and side setback restrictions, Second, section 2.015 allows for the reConfiguration of non-conforming structures, prOVided a number of requirements are COmplied with. He believed the requirement that LeFevere is concerned about is that no neW BSU's shall be located in the setback area without first Secudng a vadance in the case of dOcks not in Conformance with the provisions of section 2.01, subd. 2b)2) applicable to new facilities. Third, Section 1.07 allows the Board to consider applications for vadance from LMCD Code, inClUding, side setback, requirements and adjusted dock U~e areas, provided the applicant demonstrates that the application of the Code causes them a practical difficulty or particular hardship. He stated that he believed the hardship proposed by the applicant is self- imposed. : · There are three options for the Board to consider in reviewing the proposed change at Dock Site 10. First, a Code amendment could be adopted that woUld allOw the proposed change through mutual consent with the affected property owners, This was discussed extensively at three previous meetings and the Board concluded that there is not interest to do this at this time. second, the Board COuld approve the variance application. A similar application was considered by the Board inthe 1996/1997 timeframe, With the conClusion that there Was nora particular'hardShip or practical di~culty at Ddck Site 10, Third, the Board COuld deny the variance application and alloW the applicant to relocate the BSU in question to another dock site within the City of Minnetonka Beach. Staff has recommended the Board deny the Variance aPplication due to the lack of a particular hardshiP or practical difficulty. Seuntjens asked fOr clarification of the'20~ wide dock use area referenced in the staffmemo. -8004- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 3 Nybeck stated that Dock Site 10 is a 30' wide firelane with relatively parallel side site lines. Taking into consideration the 5' side setback required by Code for this site, the authorized dock use area for this site is 20' wide. Seuntjens stated that he believed the Code could be interpreted differently for Dock Site 10, with the conclusion that the proposed relocation of BSU #2 is in compliance with this section.of the Code. Specifically, the proposed relocation of BSU #2 is not a new BSU in the side setback area because there already is a BSU in the setback area in question. LeFevere stated that he believed interpretation of this section of the Code states that no new BSU shall be added to a side setback area, whether it is a new or existing BSU that has been relocated. Seuntjens re-stated that he believed the interpretation from LeFevere is a technicality because he believed a BSU is not being added to the side setback area. McMillan stated from a common sense standpoint, the proposed relocation of the BSU is adding additional structure to the south-end of dock structure. Wert stated that BSU #2 was fully contained within the extended side site lines in 2000. The proposed relocation of BSU #2 for 2001 would generally be located outside the extended side site lines. Seuntjens stated that Dock Site 10 has been grandfathered prior to 1977 and that the applicant is requesting to maintain the same number of BSU's at this dock site, six. He believed if the Distdct does not allow Minnetonka Beach to relocate the BSU #2 at Dock Site 10 as proposed, this would cause the city a major hardship: Wert stated that he believed the premise of the Board in recent meetings is that the best opportunity to restrict the uses of non-conforming sites is when changes are proposed. Seuntjens stated that he believed other examples exist around the lake, citing the City of Excelsior dock at the end of Water Street. It appears that some Board members are attempting to take away non-conforming doCks and he believed that is not the intent of the District. Knudsen aSked staff what is the potential for relocating this BSU to another dock site. Nybeck stated that he believed relocation of the BSU is an issue that the applicant~needs to resolve. Mr. Jim Gasch, a Minnetonka Beach City Council Member, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He made the following comments: · The new multiple dock license application, that has been previously tabled, and the variance application should be handled separately. The Minnetonka Beach City Attorney believes that this dock site would comply with all Code sections outlined in the staff memo, · The proposed relocation of BSU #2 from the north end to the south end of Dock Site 10 would not extend any further into the existing side setback area. Although relocation is proposed at this site, he believed the envelope at this dock site would not change. -8005- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 4 · Minnetonka Beach believes they do not need a variance for the proposed change and he encouraged the Board to consider it with the reconfiguration of a non-conforming structure application. Seuntjens asked for the status of this multiple dock facility. Nybeck stated that the Board approved 86 BSU's in Minnetonka Beach in January for 2001, subject to eliminating BSU #2 at Dock Site 10. This approva! allowed the applicant to consider whether they would like to relocate it at Dock Site 10 or to another dock site Within the city. A subsequent new multiple dock license application was received in March to relocate it within Dock Site 10 and this application was tabled at the 4/11/01 Regular meeting. Seuntjens stated that he believed the applicant would like the Board to consider the proposed change under the new multiple dock license application tabled at the 4/t 1/01 meeting because they believe it complies with Code. LeFevere stated whether the proposed change requires a variance depends on the interpretation of Code. Ordinarily, non-cOnforming facilities are allowed to continue, provided there are no expansions or alterations. In recent years, the Board decided that was too restrictive and wanted to allow some flexibility for non- conforming structures. This resulted in Code section 2.015 or the "envelope concept" ordinance that allows for some reconfiguration provided a number of requirements are met. The one requirement that concemed him was that no new BSU shall be located in the setback area without first secudng a variance, noting that was the case in the proposed change. Ultimately, the question of interpretation of the Code is up to the Board. Wert asked..LeFevere if. itwould be fair.to .assume.that the relocation.of BS.U #2at Dock. Site..lO-would be outside the existing "envelope" for that site. LeFevere stated that would be difficult to assume because the "envelope" for the existing site is established during the application process. Foster stated that he was active in the "envelope concept" ordinance amendment with Babcock and a number of commercial madna owners. The pdmary pUrpose for the ordinance change was to allow multiple dock licenses to address market changes by allowing limited changes,, provided a number of requirements are met. He believed the "envelope" being proposed by the applicant might be reasonable, subject to interpretation. LeFeVere stated that the application currently being considered by the Board is for a variance from Code. If the Board determines to allow the proposed change under the Code section 2,015, the next step would be to determine the' Perimeter of the "envelope" at DOck Site 10. If the BOard determines that the Code section 2.015 prohibits the granting of the proposed change, then the variance application needS to be addressed. Skramstad stated that on the proposed site plan, it appears that the Sizeof BSU's 1 and 2 have increased in length from the approved site pian from 26' to 28'. He asked the applicant to addreSs that. Gasch stated that is the result of a hand-drawn Site plan, The intent of the city is to maintain the same lengths of these two BSU's. -8006- Lake Minnetoaka Conservation Oistrict Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 5 Foster stated that he would like to grant the request from the applicant to consider the two applications separately, beginning with the new multiple dock license to reconfigure the non-conforming facility that was tabled at the 4/11/01 Regular meeting. He would like to close the public headng on this application and have the Board consider taking action on it, if that is the desire of the Board. If the vote on this application fails, he would like to re. open the public hearing and take testimony on the proposed variance application. The consensus of the Board was that they were comfortable with this, Mr. David Bergerson, 2303 Huntington Point Road E., stated that he was the abutting property owner to the south of Dock Site 10. Personally, he was comfortable with the proposed site plan from the applicant as long as it is not permanent, such as a variance, because it could affect the value of his property. There is a change in the proposed site plan; however, he believed the Board could interpret the Code to allow it under the "envelope concept" ordinance. He stated that he would like to have the opportunitY.to remove his consent in the future and have this dock go away in the future. "' Gilman stated that he believed the proposed application is an example of how difficult it is to have boat storage go away in the future because of the removal of mutual consent. Mr. Charlie Carpenter, legal representation for the abutting property owners to the north of Dock Site 10, thanked the Board for eliminating BSU #2 in January. He cladfied that mutual consent was not withdrawn, but instead they never consented to the dock installation since they moved into the property in 1997. He believed there are two issues for the Board to consider. First, does interpretation of Code section 2.015 eliminate the need for the citY to get mutual consent from the abutting property owners. Second, could BSU #2 be relocated on the side of his clients dock in the future if they consented to it~ He stated that he had comments on the proposed variance application; however! he would reserve them for later !.n the meet ng Ms. Becky Comstock, 2323 Huntington Point Road W., stated she is the resident who has been permitted BSU #2 by the City of Minnetonka Beach. She has invested in a pontoon and dock for storage at Dock Site 10 and she spoke in favor of the District allowing this grandfathered dock to remain at this site utilizing section 2.015. Gilman stated that the Distdct is not considering taking a grandfathered BSU away from the city. Instead it might need to be relocated to another dock site. If docking has been purchased by residents that use Dock Site 10, part of that can be directed to the City of Minnetonka Beach that was negligent in not obtaining on- going mutual consent from the abutting property owner to the north. Gasch stated that he believed it would be inappropriate to address altemative locations for the BSU in question at this time; however, he would if that is the desire of the Board. On the permits they issue to their residents, it states that they are permitted annually with no future guarantees. Mr. Dave Rogers, 2208 Huntington Point Road E, stated that he lives across the street from Dock Site 10 and that he stored his boat at this site. He encouraged the Board to allow the dock that has existed for over 30 years, with six boats, to continue. He recommended the Board be reasonable because he believed there is no compelling reason to take any of the boats away. Gilman stated that he believed one compelling reason is that the on-going mutual consent has been removed from the abutting property owner to the north. -8007- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 6 Seuntjens stated that he believed the mutual consent that has been taken away from the abutting property owner to the north has been addressed in the proposed site plan. If the abutting property owner to the south removed mutual consent in the future, the city would then have to go back and revisit docking and boat storage at this dock. Currently, there is mutual consent from the Bergerson's that abut Dock Site 10 on the south side. Nelson stated that the BSU density at Dock Site 10 is 1:5', which is very dense. An agreement was made in 1997 that required mutual consent from both abutting property owners in order to store six watemraft at this dock site. When consent goes awaY from one or both of the abutting property owners, he believed the city needs to remove'the BSU's in ~question and relocate them elsewhere. Wert complimented the Bergerson's for mutually consenting to the approved and proposed site plans at this site over the years. He expressed concern about the pressure the city might place on the owners of this property, whether or not it is the Bergerson's, if mutual consent is removed in the future. Gasch stated when the Board addressed this in 1997, it is not clear from the minutes whether mutual consent is required from the abutting property owner to the north. Nybeck stated that the Code required mutual consent from the abutting proPerty to the north for BSU #2 because it was a side opening' slip. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m., with the understanding that it could be re-opened to discuss the proposed variance application. MOTION: Seuntjens moved, Foster seconded to approved the new multiple dock license for Dock Site 10 that WOuld allow for the storage of six BSU's, noting interpretation of Code section 2.015 does not require a variance for the proposed site plan, subject to the applicant receiving and documenting on-going mutual from the abutting property owner to the south, the Bergerson's. Nybeck clarified that the application that the motion refers to is the new multiple dock license to reconfigure the non-conforming facility, Which was tabled atthe 4/11/01 Regular meeting. Knudsen asked LeFevere if approval Of the motion could set bad precedent for the Distdct on a lakewide basis. LeFevere stated that there probably are other similar circumstances to thiS around the lake where docks encroach in side setback areas; however, they probabiy are limited. If the Board is concemed about this for the future, the Code could be further Clarified. McMillan questioned if there is a need to define the "envelope" for the motion Prior to voting on it. The Board discussed the formal application to reconfigure non-conforming structures utilizing LMCD Code section 2.015. Mr. Gabbriel Jabbour, owner of Tonka Bay Marina, stated that he was on the "envelOpe concept" subcommittee and he expressed concern that the intent of the subcommittee is not repreSented at this -8008- · Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 7 meeting. Member cities participated in this subcommittee and he stated that he was sorry to see the Board struggle with the proposed application from Minnetonka Beach when there is documentation of the intent and purpose of this ordinance. VOTE: Ayes (4; Foster, Knudsen, Seuntjens, and Skramstad), Nayes (5); motion failed. Foster re-opened the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. to consider the variance application. Nybeck stated when a similar variance application was considered for Dock Site 10 in the winter of 1996/1997, LeFevere expressed concern about the precedure of granting a vadance from Code, with documented particular hardship or practical difficulty, and then revoking it in the future because mutual consent of one of the abutting property owners is removed. He asked LeFevere tore-clarify his concerns for the Board. LeFevere expressed concern about a vadance that could be rescinded by an abutting property owner. In order to grant the variance, the Board needs to conclude there is a hardship within the intent of the Code. Once the Board has concluded there is a hardship and the variance is appropriate, it could be difficult to rescind a variance because mutual consent has been withdrawn from one of the abutting preperty owners. He questioned whether the abutting property owners consent is necessary once the Board has established a hardship for the site. Gasch stated that the city has made the commitment wi~rgemorCs-r~t-to-pursue the variance alternative if there was not language that required on-going mutual consent from them. Because of this, he recommended the Board table the variance application to allow their city attomey to discuss this issue with LeFevere. Foster acknowledged the request from the applicant and stated that he would like to receive testimony from the public that is present. The Board could then make a decision on the request from the applicant to table the variance application. Bergerson stated that the proposed dock greatly intrudes in his dock use area over the common extended side site line he has with the city. He believed the variance request is more appropriate for side setbacks, not an adjusted dock use area, because it would still require his mutual consent. Carpenter stated that his clients do not believe the circumstances have changed from the previous variance request when the Board concluded that there was no hardship. Convenience for the property owners in that area of Dock Site 10 is acknowledged; however, it should be weighed against high density docks and the impacts it has on the abutting property owners. In 1997, Mayor Palmer and Jo Ellen Hurt, a city employee, stated at a council meeting that a goal was to reduce BSU's at this dock site in the future through attrition. He concluded by expressing concern about the variance request because once it is approved, he believed it would be difficult to remove it in the future because of withdrawal of mutual consent. Nelson stated that he believed the basic question for the Board to consider is the variance application and whether it is appropriate to make a decision on it at a future meeting. He questioned what is a hardship at the site that would allow the Board to grant a variance, reminding the Board that a similar request was received in 1997 and the Board concluded that there was not a hardship. He recommended that this issue -8009- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 8 will not change by tabling the variance application and he recommended that the Board make a decision on it this evening. There being no further comments, Foster closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Gilman expressed concern that there is not a hardship at this site and the imPlications an approved variance could have on the Bergerson's, especially if they would like to withdraw their consent. He concurred with Nelson's statement that it was appropriate to take action on the variance application at this meeting. MOTION: Nelson moved, Gilman seconded to direct attomey to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for denial of the Uinnetonka Beach variance application at Dock Site 10. Gasch stated under the circumstances being discussed by.the Board, the applicant would like to withdraw its variance application at Dock Site 10 at this time, with no further action taken by the Board. The city would not like a variance considered for Dock Site 10 if mutual consent cannot be part of a Variance Order. Wert stated that he would the Board to take a vote on the motion. LeFevere stated that the Board could consider the request from the applicant reasonable because the legal fees involved in the drafting of the Findings of Fact and Order would be passed on to them. Foster stated that he was respectful of the request from the applicant and he would like to get a sense of the Board, without the need to draft Findings of Fact and Order, possibly through a resolution. LeFevere stated that one option for the Board to consider is to take a vote on the motion. If the motion to i~repar~'"Rh-di~tO-d~tiy-tl~e variance aplS]i~-a'tiO~ ~s append;' th~-a~li~a-n~-E~l-d Withal-raW ~heir'motion at that time so Findings would not need to be prepared. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (1, Seuntjens); motion carded. Gasch requested the Board to withdraw the vadance application. MOTION: Nelson moved, Knudson seconded to accept the vadance withdrawl request from the applicant and to direct the attorney to withhold the Findings of Fact and Order. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES A. Tonka BaY Sales, consideration of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 18 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 475' of continuous shoreline. Foster asked for comments on this agenda item from the Board or entertained a motion, MOTION: McMillan moved, Skramstad seconded to approve the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license and special density license applications for Tonka Bay Sales as submitted. -8010- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 9 VOTE: Motion carried unanimously, B. Rita Pederson & John Carrier, staff update on docking issues in Spring Park neighborhood on West Arm Bay. Foster stated that this agenda item was a follow-up from the 5/9/01 Regular meeting when a Spring Park resident brought a docking dispute to the Boards attention under "Public Comments". Staff has informed him that the docking situation has been brought into compliance with Code and he complimented their efforts. D. Additional Business. Them was no additional business. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA), consideration of 2/21/01 letter from LMA requesting "Save the Lake" funding for 2001 weevil monitoring on Lake Minnetonka, Foster asked for background on this agenda item from Suerth. Suerth stated that the Board has previously discussed the request and the 2/21/01 LMA letter further refines the request for 2001. Specifically, the .LMA has requested $1,640 of "Save the Lake" funds in order to survey Lake Minnetonka to identify if there are viable populations of weevils. The second phase of this project, augmentation of the weevils, is not being proposed at this time and is more realistic for 2002. MOTION: Suerth moved, McMillan seconded to authorize up to $1,640 of "Save the Lake" funds to the LMA Gilman recalled feedback from the earlier LMA presentation that the management of Eurasian watermilfoil using weevils has not been very successful in Minnesota to date. If that is the case, he questiOned why the District would appropriate funds for this project. McMillan stated that she believed one contributing factor to the limited success of weevils in Minnesota is the reluctance to allow stocking:. Gilman stated that he believed the District could appropriate "Save the Lake" funds mom appropriately, especially if the MN DNR does not support the stocking of weevils. The consensus of the Board was to support funding of the first phase; however, the LMA needs to understand that the funding of the second phase, augmentation, will require a number of funding sources, not only the "Save the Lake" committee. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (1, Gilman); motion carried. B. Staff update on maintenance of EWM Harvesting Equipment. Foster asked staff to provide an overview of this agenda item. -801 1 - Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 10 Harper reminded the Board that the District has a new mechanic for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Season. The new mechanic has expressed some concern about the condition of the equipment and repairs that might need to be made. The mechanic will be compensated $25,000 for repairs to the harvesting equipment in 2001, with $18,000 budgeted for equipment and Supplies. He stated that staff is looking for direction from the Board on how to deal with this issue if repairs need to be made and equipment and supplies exceed the $18,000 budgeted figure. Foster stated the issue raised by staff is whether the Board would support continued repairs to the harvesting equipment if substantial repairs need to be done that were not budgeted for, taking any overruns out of a reserve fund. He supported the idea because the labor is a fiat rate and the mechanic would not recommend additional work that does not need to be done because they will be paid no additional funds for labor. The consensus of the Board was to put some limit on these funds and to have staff update the Board at the meeting during the harvesting season. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (5/1/01 - 5/15/01). Skramstad reviewed the audit of vouchers as submitted. Nybeck recommended that check #13627, in the amount of $2,068.07, to Lord Fletchers of the Lake be addedto-the voucher'list. He ~xpl~i~d th'i~ ~heCk i~ 'for th~ 200-~1 8~iVe th'~ Eal~-E~Cogni[i0n Ban~ue~ Dinner. MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to approve the audit of vouchers, adding check #13627. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. B. April financial summary and balance sheet. McMillan stated she requested removing this agenda item from the consent agenda because she wanted clarification on the negative interest balances in the Administrative, Save the Lake, and EWM/Exotics Budgets. Nybeck stated that these negative balances were a result of year-end adjustments from the recently completed 2000 LMCD Audit. MOTION: Nelson moved, Wert seconded to accept the April financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Review of draft 2002 LMCD Budget. -8012- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page 11 Nybeck stated the, draft 2002 LMCD Budget was recently prepared with assistance of Foster, Skramstad, and Babcock. He provided an overview of the draft 2002 LMCD Budget, highlighting the key elements of it. A meeting will be scheduled for 12 NOON on Friday, 6/8/01, to gather comments and feedback on it from the 14 member cities and interested Board members. He encouraged comments or feedback from the Board prior to submitting it to the member cities for their review. Foster stated that the proposed levy to the member cities, $244,621, is the maximum the District can levy to the 14 member cities. He believed the maximum levy for 2002 is appropriate because the Distdct is well below the agreed upon reserve levels with the member cities and there is a need to increase them in the near future. The proposed levy increase to the member cities for 2002 is approximately 11% above the levy approved for 2001. The Board reviewed the draft 2002 LMCD Budget, with a summary of the comments as follows: · Concern was expressed regarding the proposed levy increase to the 14 member cities. · The $9,378 line-item for EWM Contingency should be deleted with a line-item inserted for money to be transferred to the EWU/Exotics reserve fund. Staff was directed to check whether there is a need for Contingency in the Administration Budget. · Whether the 2001 (Year-to- Date) column adds anything to the draft budget. · The need to evaluate whether there is a need for fee increases for 2002. · There is a need to summarize the key differences between the 2001 and 2002 budgets that have increased the expenditures either in an Appendix and/or a cover letter. D. Additional Business, There was no additional business. ADMINISTRATION A. Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for Administrative TeChnician Judd Harper. Foster recommended this agenda item be moved to the end of the meeting. The Board concurred with this recommendation. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. SAVE THE LAKE McMillan stated that the spring solicitation letter had recently been sent out. 6. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · The lake level as of 5/23/01 was 929.91, with a discharge of 150 c.f.s. ,, A Minneapolis Star Tribune article on the Grays Bay public access was included in the handout folders for informational purposes. A coPy of the most recent LMA Newsletter was also included in the handout folder. -8013- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page12 quarterly Executive Director Newsletter will be sent out in the near future. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Update on Sheriffs Office Water Patrol Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season, Foster asked LeFevere for an overview of the documents included in the Board packet. LeFevere stated that a draft contract has been included for review by the Board that could be forwarded to the member cities to outline and explain the details of the project. Nelson stated that in Section 3.2, he believed it should be clarified that the funds will be sent to the Distdct and the Distdct will be responsible for the disbursement of them. Foster stated that he believed the spreadsheet that summarizes voluntary contributions from the member cities should have an asterisk next to Minnetonka, noting that this would be made up by privately donated funds. He added he believed the 20% contribution noted in Section 3.2 should be cladfied that these are donated, "Save the Lake" funds which are derived from non-tax dollars. Additional work needs to be conducted on the draft contract and cover letter to be forwarded to the member cities, He will keep the Board informed on the progress of this project, B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. OLD BUSINESS Weft stated that he had met with Nybeck and John Baden from Hennepin Parks to discuss progress on the Lake Minnetonka Wetlands Task Force. The conclusion of this meeting was that there is a need for staff to inventory abutting wetlands on Lake Minnetonka, a need to define wetlands on Lake Uinnetonka, and a need to bdng the Task Force back together in the near future. He stated that he would keep the Board informed on the progress of this Task Force. Skramstad updated the Board on the progress of District computer upgrades, noting both the improved computer operations and upgraded WebSite are generally complete. Foster stated that he had recently met with the Minnetonka Power Squadron Commodore with exploratory brainstorming about required boat safety courses for adults, 9. NEW BUSINESS Skramstad stated that he believed there is a better need for cooperation and communications between the District and the LMA, especially with the recent hiring of Dick Osgood as their Executive Director. He added he would like the District to have discussions with dock installers on Lake Minnetonka informing them of District rules and regulations. ADMINISTRATION A. ConSideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for Administrative Technician Judd -8014- Lake Minnetonka Conservation District · Regular Board Meeting May 23, 2001 Page13 Harper. The Board discussed the performance of Judd Harper as Administrative Technician for the District and the recommendation from Nybeek to ~djugt hi~ ~nnu~l ~l~ry from the $:~'1,000 ko gg~;,O00, retroactive {o ~;/i/ot, with $2,000 of the annual salary to be taken from the EVVM/Exotics Budget because he will be the EWM Project Manager for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Season. MOTION: Wert moved, Nelson seconded to adjust the annual salary of Judd Harper, Administrative Technician for the District, from $31,000 to $35,000 retroactive to 5/1/01, with $2,000 to be taken from the EWM/Exotics Budget. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjoumed at 10.16 p.m. Albert Foster, Chairman Lili McMitlan, Secretary -8015- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 30, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT CALL TO ORDER Chair Foster called the Special Board meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Members Present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McUillan, Orono; Bob Ambrose (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Wayzata; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Paul Knudsen, Minnetrista; Tom Seuntjens, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka (arrived at 7:05 p.m.); Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members absent: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Craig Eggers, Victoria. BOARD ACTION ITEM 2001 EWM Harvesting Program, Staff evaluation of Truck Hauling Bids received by 5125101 deadline. Foster stated that this was the only action item on the agenda that required a quorum of the Board, eight, noting that 1u Board members were present at this time. Two sealed bids were received by the deadline that were complete and complied with all bid specifications. Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company, Inc. submitted an hourly rate of $52 for one,truck service and $104 for two,truck se~ice: Carfman- Trucking and'Repair, Inc, submitted an hourly rate of $54 for one-truck service and $106 for two-truck service. Staff has recommended that the Board award the contract to haul Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) and other lake vegetation for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Season to Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company, Inc. MOTION: Wert moved, Knudsen seconded to award the trucking contract for the 2001 EWM Harvesting Program to Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company, Inc. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. BOARD MEMBER ORIENTATION Foster stated that the remainder of the meeting did not require a quorum and that Board members could leave at any time. This section of the meeting was requested by a number of newer Board members, and that he and staff prepared an agenda of topics to discuss. He stated that this agenda was flexible and that he would like to focus discussion on the interests of the Board members that were present. The Board discussed a variety of topics regarding the LMCD. They included: · Historical overview of the LMCD, including the State Enabling Legislation and Background/Powers. · Overview of LMCD Ordinances. · Overview of the Lake Minnetonka Lake Access Task Fome Report. -8016- Lake MinnetOnka Conservation District SpeCial Board Meeting May 30, 200'1 o Overview of the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. · Overview of LMCD Budget/Financing. The Board established three action items for further discussion and review in the near future, They included: Clarification of the various governmental agencies in the Lake Minnetonka area, with emphasis on the jurisdiction of each of these agencies. Staff was directed to investigate into clarifying this and to include it on the LMCD's WebSite. · Multiple Dock and Non-Multiple Dock License lighting concerns on Lake Minnetonka, · Enforcement of Code relating to dock length and the storage of restricted watercraft at residences on Lake Minnetonka, OTHER DISCUSSION There was no other discussiOn. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Special Board meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Albert Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary -8017- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT May 2001 41.67% 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 May 2001 YTD PERCENT BUDGET ~ ~ I_~ ~ 81,320 4 000 48 000 229 430 2 300 73 450 196 830 18 950 118,980 1,125,850 6,950 261,980 496,120 80,440 247,740 42,260 25,000 206,740 6,028 38,298 43,022 47.10% 0 0 4,000 0.00% 24,219 24,299 23,701 50.62% 20,611 72,329 157,101 31.53% 36 178 2,122 7.74% 166 188 73,262 0.26% 16,968 75,788 121,042 38.50% 247 14,953 3,997 78.91% 12,039 49,141 69,839 41.30% 79,606 496,133 629,717 44.07% 745 2,322 4,628 33.41% 25,723 102,285 159,695 39.04% 48,346 252,464 243,656 50.89% 7,781 69,303 11,137 86.15% 15,754 101,463 146,277 40.96% 0 0 42,260 0.00% 1,418 61,072 (36,072) 244.29% 15.848 79.236 127.504 ~ GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3.266.340 275.535 1.439.452 1.826.888 44.07% Area Fire Service Fund 415,850 TIF 1-2 0 Recycling Fund 135,480 Liquor Fund 332,450 Water Fund 478,620 Storm Water 712,000 Sewer Fund 948,210 Cemetery Fund 7,500 Dock Fund 144,620 23,050 161,494 254,356 38.83% 173,668 353,121 (353,121) 32,552 66,544 68,936 49.12% 25,277 139,957 192,493 42.10% 39,436 208,196 270,424 43.50% 1,227 3,654 708,346 0.51% 65,665 357,991 590,219 37.75% 54 1,431 6,069 19.08% 18,536 65,270 79,350 45.13% Exp-00 06/14/2001 Gino -8018- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT May 2001 41.67% 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 May 2001 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,429,370 0 0 4,340 3,750 6,390 160,920 18,684 53,207 970,380 0 38,466 132,750 37,200 60,241 100,000 6,724 31,810 142,400 1,619 63,396 153,000 0 0 ~ 2,500 1,420 5,687 ~ARIANCE (1,429,370) 2,050 (107,713) (931,914) (72,509) (68,190) (79,004) (153,0o0) (6,813) PERCENT RECEIVED 0.00% 147.24% 33.06% 3.96% 45.38% 31.81% 44.52% 0.00% .45.50% TOTAL REVENUE 3.105.660 69.397 259,197 (2,846,463) 8.35% FIRE FUND 403,270 18,895 175,167 (228,103) 43.44% RECYCLING FUND 121,880 16,733 43,661 (78,219) 35.82% LIQUOR FUND 1,900,000 163,516 679,312 (1,220,688) 35.75% WATER FUND 510,000 29,905 176,182 (333,818) 34.55% STORM WATER UTILITY 101,000 9,255 34,255 (66,745) 33.92% SEWER FUND 990,000 86,257 395,405 (594,595) 39.94% CEMETERY FUND 6,250 785 1,185 (5,065) 18.96% DOCK FUN D 81,350 (11,971 ) 66,965 (14,385) 82.32% 0611412001 rev01 Gino -8019- General Fund $58,822 CDBG 1,347 Area Fire Protection Services 243,301 MSA 21,338 Sealcoat 19,404 PW Facility 62,669 Capital Improvement 927,749 CDB 663 Commerce Place TIF 13,857 Downtown TIF 1-2 (1,317,159) Grant Revolving 7,725 Recycling 64,525 Liquor Store 415,919 Water 783,045 Storm Water 23,317 Sewer 928,030 Cemetery 1,264 Dock 257,786 Fire Relief (52,940) HRA 0 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 ~ear 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 ~ear. In addition, the audit fmrn 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. 0611412001 Cash ReportCouncil Gino -8020- ! HI-NOTES VOL IX 1'40 7 ,,TULY 2001 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE June 14, 2001 Dear Members and Friends, It is hard to believe that we have made it to the completion of our incredible, beautiful building project. It has been a little more than two years since we began the work of fundraising to construct The Gillespie Center and now we are on the eve of moving in. We couldn't have done it without you. Thank you for your generous donations, thank you for your prayers, thank you for volunteering and coming to our fundraising events and thank you for your kindness of staying out of the mud and hazards while the building was going up. We know that each and everyone of you must feel as proud as the Board of Directors of both the Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc and the Westonka Senior Citizens Foundation do. We have been blessed by a truly marvelous benefactor, Bill Gillespie, who made our "dream" possible with his five to one matching funds through the Gillespie Family Fund of The Minneapolis Foundation. We have been in awe of the perseverance of so many people under the very capable and enduring leadership of Sharon Cook, our Foundation President. We were so fortunate that she retired just before this project began and was able to have the time to do it. We are grateful for Foundation Treasurer, Roger Westman, for his daily banking and care of the funds that we :ived. The list goes on and on, but the time for thanks will be next month. We have many dates for you to on your calendar and that is why we are getting this newsletter out so early. Here are the dates: · SNEAK PREVIEW FOR WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC MEMBERS will be held on Monday, June 25th from 8 to 4 pm. Although we are not furnished yet, we knew you wouldn't care as you peak in all of the nooks and crannies of the Center. This sneak preview is for members only. · SNEAK PREVIEW FOR DONORS will be held on Tuesday, June 26th from 8 to 8 pm. We thought that this would be a great way for them to see the progress before our official open house. · OPENING DAY FOR THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES will begin on Wednesday, June 27th. We know that people will probably still be wandering in, but the furniture and d6cor are still on our wish list, so you might want to tell them to wait a bit. We felt that we could still begin the programs even if we haven't everything in place. · FIRST SPECIAL DINNER is scheduled for 5:00 pm on Thursday, June 28th. We will have borrowed chairs and can seat only about 80 people, so sign up soon. Following the dinner you can attend the evening of' "Sentimental Swing" over at our next-door neighbor, Mound Bay Park. · DEDICATION/RIBBON CUTTING/OPEN HOUSE FOR THE COMMUNITY is scheduled for Tuesday, July 24th beginning at 4:00 pm until 8:00 pm. You will really feel proud to be showing offthe building on this evening and we can officially thank people at that. Looking forward to seeing you all in the coming months and years in our new Center, yn Byrnes President -8021 - Westonk~ Healthy Community Conaborative Agenda' May 18, 2001, 7:15.9:00 a,m. Mound City Hall 1. Social Coffee, tea, rolls, fruit and juice start at 7:15 2. Introductions 7:30 3. Additions or Changes to the Agenda/Minutes 4. 2,nnOuncements (15 mi..) £ 5. YMCA C~mp IhduhaPi, Terri Harris (20 r-ln 0: Terri will tell us about the youth programs that the YMCA has to offer our ~rea youth. 6. "Annual Report" _(2_0 mi~ ) It is the end of our fiscal year. Leah will present an overview of the projects that .we completed in the fiscal year July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001. You will be amazed at all the good things that we have done! "Constant effort and frequent mistakes are the stepping stones'to genius." Elbert. Hubbard Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952,491-8058 or WeyckerL@westonka.k12.mn.us -8022-. Health Carol Olson, Patricia Anderson, Sandy~Olstad, Carolyn Schmidt, Mary Goode, Jeanette Metz, Mark Brekke The Health Group is reexamining ways to address the data reflecting attempted sUicide. New student survey data will be out in the Fall and we will be able to compare the years and our data to other areas. They will look at how other communities have handled this subject. Youth Activities Sandy Rauschendorfer-temp chair, Chris Valerius, Sue Cathers, Jean Ann Thayer, Patsy Kiesow Winners of the logo design contest for Zero Gravity Skate Park are: Brion Conner, 7th grade and Sean Struble, 5th grade tied for first place. Matthew Willette, grade unknown, received third place. Fund raising is next! NYPUM starts this week and will run every Wednesday for the next ten weeks. Leah Weycker and Mary Harrell will be the adult supervisors. Parenting f Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Jeanne Stortz, Bill Erickson Annie Lewis from MAP- Management Assistance Program for Non profits, sent a proposal for mobilizing parents. The Parent Target Group will review the proposal and make a decision soon. Community Margaret Holste, Cathy Bailey, Cheryl Fischer The survey results for the H~ Se~i~e Pilot-Projedt ~e in' andit okay in some of the areas of human services planning. We will need to meet to go over the results and plan on how to improve in this project. Communications Anne Wilbur, Carol Olson We are working on a communications Plan that uses the skate park as a sample project. We lost some great members here. Can anyone help out? Finance and Operations Mary Hughes, Len Harrell, Margaret Holste, Craig Anderson The final budget for fiscal year 2001-2002 has been approved. Any project not in the funding that has been approved, will go through the entire group for approval. Executive Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Raushendorfer The Executive Group will be doing a job review for Leah's position. Carol O1son is in charge of coordinating all the comments and suggestions from the executive group. -8023- Westonlr~, Healthy Community Collaborative Minutes · May 18, 2001 Present: Craig Anderson, Patricia Anderson, Beth Fagen, Len Harrell, Margaret Holste, Kathy Jones, Jeanette Metz, Carol~ Olson, Sandy Olstad, Carolyn Schmidt, Leah Weycker, Anne Wilbur, Sandy Wing, Rich Ziert Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: Margaret Holste had a change in the section for Storefront Group. The students that are in the program are referred for emotional and behavioral problems, not academic, as it was written. Patricia Anderson made a motion to approve the minutes as changed, carol Olson seconded the motion. Motion Passed. Announcements: We need more people to volunteer their time for the day of the City Days parade - June 16. A sign up sheet went around. We also need more people on the work groups. A list of groups and existing members went around. £ Summer school bus Craig Anderson, in his new position as chairperson, went over the Executive Work Groups recommendation to support the summer school bus. Because of the need to know about the funding as soon as possible, the executive work group looked at this issue and we are reporting this back to the whole group. They passed the motion as follows: Carol Olson made a motion that we fund scholarships for the summer school bus for GMS that will not exceed $1000, and that whoever is r~mnlng the program needs to do the coordination of the bus. And if we do not see a signed request for payment that we won't pay. Sandy R. Seconded the motion and the motion passed. Craig went over the history of funding for the bus. No motion was needed but everyone was in agreement with the motion that was made by the executive work group. Work .Plan for 2001-2002 Each of our work group's chair people will updated us on what they have planned for the upcoming budget. Sandy Wing covered the Parent Education group's work plan. Along with a $7,770 budget, the Parent group is also. worl~ing on the Parent Mobility Grant from the Alliance for Families and Children for $13,000, for a total of $20,770. Kathy Jones would like to participate in a 1/2 page Laker ad or flier with the parent group. She comes across a lot of information about parenting. Anne Wilbur covered the Communications group and the Skate Park task force. The total for the Communications group is $14,050. The banner in the budget could be used.for the parade. We received aboUt 20 applications for the Zero Gravity Skate Park logo contest. When that is ready, we will be able to put that on the b-nner and begin the promotion and fundraising for the new skate park. -8024- Carol Olson covered the Health Groups budget. The budget is $30,300 and covers some new, projects related to depression and mental heath issues. There are no budget dollars for the Community group, but Margaret Holste talked about the need to meet when the survey results are back about the Hennepin County Pilot Project, using the Collaboratives for Human Services Planning in our local area. Rich Ziert, from CASH, has seen the second draft of the final report that came out a few days ago. It will be distributed when the final - final is done. If any funding will-be needed for this group, we will come back with a request. Leah covered the Youth group for Sandy Rauschendorfer who couldn't attend today, the Youth Activities group budget is $29,986 and includes $5,000 for the skate park construction. The Finance and Operations budget is the catch all for all the other expenses for the collaborative coordinator, the two grants from the Alliance and the copies and mailing of the agendas. The budget for the F and O Group is $81,100. Approve the budget for 2001-2002 The final budget looks like this: Projected Revenues , LCTS Time Study 70,448 /Attendance Grant 20,000 Parent Mobility Grant 13,000 carry over 81,841 FSC Henn. Co. Pilot 12,000 01-02 FSC 4,125 fees - bus, snacks, donations 850 carry over 11,430 total estimated revenue $213,694 Projected Expenses Community Wk. Group 0 Finance and Operations 81,100 Health Wk. Group 30,300 Communications 14,050 Parent Ed. Wk. Group 7,770 Youth Activities 29,986 Total projected expenses $163,206 BAlsnce $50,488 Margaret Holste made a motion to approve the budget, Sandy Olstad seconded the motion, the motion passed. Patricia Anderson made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Beth Fagen seconded.the motion, the motion passed. (at 9.~7) -8025- assigned to the project. Sheriff Don Omodt identified the need. for a new detention facility and supported the concept throughout much of his Administration. The HCSO Transition Team, under'the direction of Inspector Richard Esensten, has brought us from the groundbreaking to today. Their planning and hard work now has us prepared to open one of the finest pre4rial detention facilities in' the country. It is time to celebrate. Soon enough, our dream will be a Working reality. The HCSO Transition Team Sheriff Patrick D. McGowan A Message from the Sheriff Welcome to the PSF After years of planning-and preparing, the doors of thenew Public Safety Facility are, at last, open. This is a proud moment for the Sheriff's Office. The. building reflects the dreams and hard work of many. Retired Chief Deputy A1 Moran dedicated much of his career to the planning for a new jail. Retired Captain Michael Jalma spent his final years at HCSO exclusively Transition Team members (left to right): Mike Wresh, Jack Stephens, Leni Story, Rob Reardon, Heather Clement, Juli Jaruszewski, Darwin Williams, Lydia Cumbee, Melissa Nyenhuis, Kelly Doriott, Steve Sutton, Connie Meyer, and Robert Carlson. Not Pictured: Bill Condon, Sherri Lawrence, Dan Ricker, Bob Staupe, and Donna Weiland. ............ , ..... 8026-- ................................................... is not "nice" for the inmates, it is nice .for the employees who have given so much to the Sheriff' s Office and continue to provide quality public service to the community. They truly are the well deserving recipients of tkis long awaited facility. Captain Jack McMullin, Facility Commander A Message from The Captain. Moving into the Future By Captain Jack McMullin As we move into this new facility, celebrate with us, recognizing the dedicated public servants who work in the Adult Detention Division. They are beginning a bright new future. The move into the new Public Safety Facility is a change that many of us have been looking forward to for a long time. Jail employees have been working for many years under cramped and overcrowded conditions. ADC contract nurses have been confined to a tiny medical clinic that required their lockers and mailboxes to be located in staff restrooms. Medical records have been stored in public corridors. Any available closet space has been converted into offices or locker rooms. There was absolutely no more room to grow in the old city hall. Yet, because of the excellent people who work in the ADC, the work went on. Staff always found a way to get the job done. The ADC has been consistently booking an average of 50,000 inmates per year through an intake area'that was made'for a maximum of 28,000 per year. The work became chaotic at times, but employees pushed themselves to get the job done..Whenever they could, they would try not to leave work for the shift that followed them. People from the general public have asked me, "Why does the jail need to be so nice? After all, it holds accused criminals." In response I say, as a short-term holding facility, inmates come and go on a regular basis, but the people who have to work in the jail are here day after day for their entire careers. The jail has a responsibility to keep pre-trial detainees safe from harm. We plan on accomplishing this rrfission better using the direct supervision model to manage inmate behavior. But the jail Building Entrance Transition Team Mission and Vision By Lieutenant Rob Reardon The Mission of the PSF Transition Team is to facilitate the opening and operation of the new facility as smoothly and efficiently as possible, incorporating the current ADC into the operation of the new facility. The Vision is to maintain the trust that has been placed upon us by providing safe and secure detention of pre-trial inmates through a high quality, cost effective pre-trial detention 'services aimed at having a positive impact on our community and on the persons we detain. We will strive to create a pre-trial detention center that will serve as a national model for safety, security and efficiency. -8027- Training Preparing Employees for the Changes Ahead By Sergeant Darwin Williams The Jail Training Unit (JTU) is accountable for the training needs of all ADC staff in all job classes. Orientation training of large numbers of new employees has been on-going for the past'two years. Much of the orientation training was already in place, but some had to be developed with new job classes that were created. PSF Employee Classroom In addition to the orientation training, in- service training for experienced staff was needed. Staff required training in the new direct supervision philosophy. Two trainers were sent to a two-week Direct Supervision Academy put on by the National Institute of Corrections in Longmount, Colorado. They returned with materials that were used as a part of the PSF in-service training. Also included as a part of the weeklong security in-service were courses on "Change Readiness", "Building Orientation", "Major Changes to Job Duties and Responsibilities", and. "Touch Screen Security". A manager was sent to a national training session on the role of supervisors in direct supervision. A.two-day workshop was then held for all supervisors and managers. Many volunteer staff from numerous job classes have been used as instructors and Field Training Officers during the transition preparation period. Many thanks to those that were willing and able to assist in the training of their fellow co-workers ! Also, thanks to Dakota, Carver, Sherburne, and Washington Counties for allowing our deputies to spend a day shadowing in their direct supervision hOusing units ! PSF Facts and Figures By Sergeant Kelly Doriott · Project Budget - $96.2 million dollars · Building square footage - approximately .400,000 · The building is 2 stories below grade and 7 stories above grade with a secure tunnel for inmate movement to the city hall and the Government Center. · When fully operational, the PSF intake area is built to process 80,000 bookings per year. · Intake holding rooms accommodates up to 308 persons. The PSF has: · 270 housing cells with 60 double-bunked for a total of 330 beds. · 3 arraignment courtrooms and accompanying_judges chambers. · Offices for Hermepin County Community Corrections, City Attorney, County.Attorney and Public Defenders. -8028- Lieutenant Mike Wresh, Construction Ltaison A Chronological History of the PSF Project By Lieutenant Mike Wresh 1984 Sheriff's Department begins discussion of need for new jail or jail annex. 1985 Sheriff's Department makes a 1986 Capital Budget Request for project. County Board establishes an internal County task force to study request. 1987 Internal task force recommends constructi on of a new PSF to replace the existing j ail. 1989 Hennepin County asks Minnesota legislature for bonding authority to build new PSF. Legislature asks County to document actions taken to control ADC crowding. Setter, Leach & Lindstrom retained to work on.preliminary design. 1992 Court finds in favor of County, but finding is overturned by Supreme Court. 1993 County Board establishes a Jail Site Selection Advisory Committee. 1994 County Board approves the purchase of the Bureau of Engraving site and directs staff to begin a "Comprehensive program review" of the new project. County Board creates the PSF Advisory Committee to identify needed functions, recommend expansion scheduling, and evaluate use options for both existing and new facilities. 1995 County Board awards construction manager contract to Knutson Barton- Malow. 1996 The County Board passes a resolution containing twelve resolving clauses directed at an omnibus approach on the issue of jail crowding, i.e. to make sure resources will be spent on soci al programs and preventive programs to prevent people from becoming involved in the criminal justice system in the first place. This resolution approved the purchase of the Augsburg Fortress site, and directed staff to work with the architect and construction manager to begin schematic design on a new booking facility including 270 detention beds, space for court hearings, pre-trial release and associated programs. The County Board then authorized the Architect and the Construction Manager to begin work on schematic design, with the provision that the building have a "minimal building Correctional Services Group (CSG) retained to help develop program and estimate bed need. 1990 Hennepin County reports to legislature and increase in bonding authority .is approved. Armory is acquired with intent to demolish a build new PSF with 1,440 beds. 1991 Minnesota Historical Society (and others) files suit in District Court to prevent County from demolishing Armory based on its historical designation. 1997 The County Board approved the Schematic Design Report of May 29, 1997, with modifications. The Board ' required the PSF be modified to -8029- 4 consolidate the basement levels and that the project cost be within $96,200,000. The Board also authorized the PSF design' team to proceed with the design development .and construction documents~ 2000 Outside walls constructed. Once the building is sealed, work' begins on the inside of the structure. 1998 Contract 4383-A8 awarded to Frattalone excavating for demolition, excavation and shoring of the project. Demolition of the Augsburg Fortress buildings and the Main 'Welfare Building started on september 16, 1998, Construction begins with piling driving starting on November 13, 1998. 2001 Inside of bUilding completed. Security system installed. Certificate of Occupancy given May 31,, 2001: Furniture and equipment being delivered and installed. 1999Construction continuesl HCSO Transition Team formed at end of the year. -8030- PSF Food SerVice Food for Thought By Deputy Steve Sutton With the opening of the new Public Safety Facility, preparing an inmate meal will become a whole lot easier. A high-tech kitchen will allow us to use a method of meal preparation called "Cook-Chill". Instead of the current "scratch cooking" method of cooking, where inmates meals are cooked immediately prior to being served, the Cook-Chill method allows cooked meals to be stored for a period of 30 days or more. Cook-Chill cooking begins with the main entrSe being prepared in large 100 gallon cooking kettles. The food is then pumped into gallon plastic bags, sealed, and then rapidly cooled to 42 degrees. The bags can be stored until needed. When the desired main entree is needed for a menu, it is removed from the cooler and portioned out onto a tray insert along with a pre-cooked cold vegetable. The insert is then re-heated for approximately 15-30 minutes. The heated insert is then placed onto a base tray along with inserts containing food items such as salads, breads, or desserts. The completed inmate tray is loaded onto a cart and immediately delivered to inmate housing areas to be served. The Intake Release Center Steps in the Intake and Release Process By Sergeant Jack Stephens The intake area of the PSF is divided into 6 different areas: Admissions. Processing, Post Booking, Release, Court Staging, and Transfer Release. The combined area is several times larger than our current facility and can accommodate booking approximately 80,000 inmates per year if all stations are staffed and equipped. The first step in the inmate booking process occurs in the Admissions area. This is the. area a police officer brings arrested persons to begin the procedure of being "booked" into the jail. Detention staff will accept a person from a police officer and complete a search for weapons and other contraband. The next few steps in the booking procedure occur in the Processing area. In the processing area an inmate has their personal property inventoried and stored until they are released from jail. They are photographed, screened for medical problems, interviewed by an Identification Specialist and fingerprinted. Before continuing the process a member of the detention staff fit the inmate with an identification wristband. PSF Kitchen Fingerpnnt area in Processing From the processing area an inmate proeeeds to the Post Booking area where they are given a telephone call. Inmates are interviewed by a classification officer. Appropriate housing is -8031 - assigned if it is determined the inmate will be staying in jail. If it is determined the inmate is eligible for release back to the street they are taken to the Release area. Post Booking Station The Court Staging area is the area inmates are staged on their way to and from court appearances. From this area they will either be taken to court in the Hennepin County Government Center or to one of the three courtrooms in the Public Safety Facility. Transfer Release is a staging area for inmates waiting transportation to outer division courts, to other agencies or transferring to prison. Inmate Housing Direct Supervision and the Management of Inmate Behavior By Deputy William Condon In the new Direct Supervision housing units deputy workstations are located inside of the housing unit dayrooms. Being inside the housing unit allows the deputy to communicate clear expectations of inmate behavior. Direct Supervision is not a new concept. It is a trend that has been sweeping the nation since the U.S. Bureau of Prisons developed it in the early 1970's. The first jail to use the · philosophy was in Contra Costa County, CA in 1981. The majority of the Twin Cities metro area county j ails have been running direct supervision jail facilities since the late 1980s to early 1990s. Having a deputy inside of the housing unit allows the inmates to feel safe from other inmates and has been shown to reduce the inmate' .s feeling of the "need to arm themselves". Deputies are immediately available to proactively respond to changes in the "atmosphere" of the housing unit. When tension in the unit rises, the deputy is able to sense it and take immediate measures to de- escalate or redirect the situation. In addition, inmates will not be allowed to act like "typical" inmates. There is a clear expectation established that they are to act like normal adults. Staff will require good behavior from the inmates. Staff will do this through training and by expanding on their Interpersonal Communications skills. Inmates who misbehave will be removed from the direct supervision environment and placed in a less desirable housing location. Direct supervision, however, is much more than just a building design. It is an inmate management philosophy. Deputies inside the units are able to better supervise the inmates. Direct supervision is really a state of mind. The main goal of direct supervision is to achieve the active and continuous supervision of inmates. In this way, the new housing areas will be safer, more secure, cleaner and quieter. -8032- Facility Security State of the Art Technology By Deputy Heather Clement A state of the art security system from Integrator.corn has been installed in the Adult Detention Center Portion of the PSF. This system controls over a thousand doors and intercoms and two hundred ninety-one (291) cameras. It also receives duress alarms and can control water flow, electrical outlets, televisions, and the lighting levels throughout the building. PSF Master Control The system uses touch screen technology. Icons on the computer screen can be activated by touching the screen or by using a mouse to click on the icon. There are twenty-three touch screen stations throughout the facility, any of which can be taken over by the Master Control station. Inmate records are kept in a computer database using new Jail Management System (JMS) software. This new computer tracking software went on-line in May, 2001 and will be used in both facilities to reduce data enu-y and as an interface between other j ail software systems. The ADC is actively seeking to reduce the amount of paper generated and filed. The PSF will have an inmate telephone recording system. This system will record all inmate telephone calls on digital CDs. Investigators in other counties have used this technology to solve major cases. The digital storage of photographs and fingerprints have been a part of ADC standard operations for many years. These technologies will continue to be used and improved in the new operation. Inmate Programs Expanding Programs By Connie Meyer, Recreation Therapist Although the majority of the inmates booked into the facility do not stay in custody for more than a day or two, there is a portion of the inmate population who stay longer. Some pre-thai inmates actually spend many months awaiting adjudication. Programming will be targeted at these inmates. The recreation/programming staff is looking forward to the opportunity to expand programming options to inmates. There has been significant increase in jail programming space and this has, in rrm, increased programming options available to inmates. No longer will inmates in the Adult Detention Center merely be "doing time". They will have the opportunity to spend their time constructively while in custody. A staff of three recreation therapists along with volunteers from the community will offer inmates a variety of programs. Inmate Programs Classroom Programming is an effective tool for structuring inmate time and redirecting them- toward something positive while incarcerated. Initial programs to be offered will focus on things that are beneficial to inmates before their return to the community (i.e. education, work, self-help and religion). Volunteers from the community will receive training to help ensure their safety and the safe and orderly operation of the jail. Anyone interested in volunteering to provide' programming to inmates in the ADC can call Connie Meyer at (612) 596-8089. -8033- MEMORANDUM To: Kandis Hanson From: John Dean Subject: MetroPlains Approvals You recently informed me that a question was raised concerning the ability of the City to revise the approvals previously given to MetroPlains for its development. As I understand the question it relates to the ability of the council to withhold approval of the final plat until MetroPlains agrees to a reduction in density of the residential element of the development. The preliminary plat for MetroPlains was approved in January of this year. The approval contained a number of conditions that would need to be met before final plat approval. None of the conditions relate to the issue of density, which I believe is the issue of interest in the inquiry. That point is important because section 330:35 of the city code which limits the review of the council to determine "conformance with the approved preliminary plat". The council may not impose additional or different conditions other than those contained in the preliminary plat approval. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you in more detail at your convenience. -8034-