Loading...
2002-03-26 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL ~~igi~~~~~~4iii!~::i~iil::::: ":: ' , .: :. :! .... :, '~ ' :; :' .: ......... v':z' ': ..... :i::'v'''' '.":"::"".""'...""::": .... '::: "::"::': "~':':'. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002 - 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 10. 11. APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: MAR 12, 2002 REGULAR MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONTINUATION FROM 3/12 ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN/ZONING AMENDMENTS SUBDIVISION/VARIANCE APPLICATION - 4770-4782 NORTHERN ROAD BERGQUIST/LOELIN ON BEHALF OF CALIUND, LLC DISCUSSION WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM MEDIACOM AND LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION ACTION ON AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE LAND FROM BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACTION ON AGREEMENT WITH BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SCHOOL DISTRICT REQUEST FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY MEASURES COUNCIL MEMBER MEYER WITH CITIZEN SUGGESTIONS FOR PUBLIC BEAUTIFICATION 1443-1447 144~-1474 1475-1521 1522-1585 1586-1601 1602-1607 1608-1612 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 12. 13. ANNUAL REPORTS A. LIQUOR STORE B. PARKS DEPARTMENT MANAGER JOEL KRUMM PARK DIRECTOR JIM FACKLER INFORMATION/MI S CELLANEOUS 1613-1616 1617-1636 A. AMM Fax News and Bill Tracking Report 1637-1641 B. LMC Friday Fax 1642-1645 C. Correspondence: LMCD 1646 D. Correspondence: Westonka School District 1647-1659 E. Just for Fun: Commons rules, found in a residential out house 1660 F. Newsletter: Ramstad Reports 1661-1664 G. Outcome ofBiegler v. City of Mound and Hennepin County 1665-1666 H. Report: Spring and Fall Clean-up Days 1667 I. Report: Status of Langdon Lane sewer improvements 1668 J. Minutes: Zero Gravity Skate Park meeting - Mar 6, 2002 1669-1670 K. Newsletter: Mn Chamber of Commerce 1671 L. Correspondence: Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative 1672-1675 M. Notices: Charitable Gambling contributions to the City of Mound 1676-1677 N. FYI: Information related to Fire Station project 1678-1689 O. Communications Law Update 1690-1693 P. LMCC April schedule 1694-1696 14. ADJOURN is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cityofmound, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING March 26, 2002 HRA Meeting will begin at 6:00 p.m. Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Mar 26 - 6:00 - HRA regular meeting Mar 26 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Apr 18 - Public Safety Open House - Fire Station Apr 9 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Apr 9 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting #7. Mediacom and LMCC Visit Representatives will be present from Mediacom and Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission. I would suggest you have Sally Koenecke of LMCC go first, followed by Tom Bordwell of Mediacom. I have asked them to present certain information, including our contractual arrangements with them and their distinguishable differences. I suggest placing an agreed upon time limit on this discussion at the beginning, such as one hour. Please bring along the copious materials on these subjects provided to the rear of your Feb 12 agenda. Our guests have received the same information contained in your packets. #8. Balboa Purchase Agreement for Land To complete the redevelopment, certain utilities must be moved or accommodated. Land currently owned by Xcel and intended for their expansion purposes, located west of the substation, will transfer to the city and county for the road right-of-way and ponding. The lift station located across the street from Glass Plus must be moved out of that district to make way for a retail/housing project. Additional land is needed for water .g in the form of a grit chamber. City employees currently park on rented land proposed for these utilities and will need to be accommodated. To meet all of these needs, it is proposed that the City purchase the three lots lying east of the substation. The appraised value came in much lower than expected, at $170,000. Under a verbal agreement with Xcel, they will buy the land from the City, since we will be buying the land from them for the road/pond. Under a verbal agreement with Metropolitan Council, we will provide the land to move the lift station, since the move is not essential to their capital plan. Under a verbal agreement with the watershed district, land will be provided for the construction of the grit chamber, which will be financed through a grant to the City from them. The balance of land will be for employee parking. It is staffs recommendation that the Council approve this purchase agreement at the terms described, thus enabling the redevelopment to occur. School District Request for Safety Measures Staff has met independently on this matter and recommends their configuration for crosswalks and signage. Staff also recommends a letter that details the comments contained in the email correspondence. Other The report on the lifeguard programming has been delayed two weeks. The allocation of money donated by the VFW is being reconsidered by their board at an upcoming meeting. This report will be made when all the pertinent information is available. Human Resources Ul/date for the long-vacated Building Official position are scheduled to take place Tues, Mar 26, 8:30-12:00. Over thirty applications were sent out, but only four were received back, three of which were qualified. Sarah Smith, the building official from Wayzata and I make up the interview team. As City Manager, I am approaching my second anniversary with the City of Mound. Twenty-three people have been asked to submit their input regarding my performance through participation in a 360-degree evaluation Oprocess. They include: Mayor and Council, Planning Commission Chair, City Attorney, Project Manager for Redevelopment, eight department heads, Housing Director of Indian Knoll, two citizens and four line employees drawn at random. The line employees randomly selected represent the Liquor Store, Planning and Inspections, the Police Department and the Docks division. I will be reviewed by the City Council at their Apr 23 meeting. Mayor Pat Meisel will oversee the work of City Clerk Bonnie Ritter as she tabulates the scores and assembles the comments for the City Manager's evaluation. This, by the way, is the same format to be used for the Housing Director. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 12, 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Councilmembers Present: Acting Mayor Mark Hanus; Councilmembers Bob Brown, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Councilmembers Absent: Mayor Pat Meisel Others Present: City Attorney, John Dean; City Manager, Kandis Hanson; City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; Community Development Director, Sarah Smith;Police Chief, Len Harrell; Nancy Schultz of SEH, Inc; Jeff Anderson, Richard S~gens, Lorrie Ham Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent A~i!~m considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted:h~i~'roll ~iiYote. There wi//be no separate discussion on these items un/ess a Co~i~ember o?'~itizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the C~ent ~genda an~i:;~n sidered in normal sequence~ e meebng~at 7 City Manager Hanson Item #7, Ma~ters Pertaining to MetroPlains, and removal with Balboa Center. the Pledge of Allegiance was MOTION by Osm in favor. Motion :~ '"~::?:: 3. CONSEN' , ~iiiiiiiiii:'~' MOTION by osmek, s~~ by Meyer to approve the consent agenda. vote taken, all vOted in la,Sr. Motion carried. to approve the agenda as amended. All voted Upon roll call A. Approve minutes of the February 26, 2002 regular meeting. B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $359,346.44. C. Approve Tree Trimmer Licenses (~fingent upon providing all application paperwork, fees and proof of insurance) for: Aaspen Tree Service/VVayzata Bear Tree Service/Mound Matt's Tree Service/Minneapolis Shorewood Tree Service/Watertown Rainbow Tree Care/St. Louis Park Amberwood/Mound Emery's Tree Service/Delano Rob's Tree Service/Watertown Viking Land Tree Service/Delano Tall Timber Tree Experts/Wayzata - 1443- Mound City Council - March 12, 2002 Ray's Tree Service/Maple Plain D.J.'s Stump Removal/Delano Tree Top Service/Mound Above Ground & Beyond/Mound · Roger's Tree Service/Mound Asplundh Tree Experts/Spring Lake Pk. D. Approve Consumption and Display Permit (Set-ups) for Al & Alma's Supper Club E. RESOLUTION NO. 02-39: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WESTEDGE BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. F. Approve Municipal Certification for Liquor License port of Call for 2002 - Six Al & Alma's boats and one Minnetonka Boat Rental boat. City Attorney John Dean left the meeting at this point. ~=,~;i:~iiliii!il!ii!iiiiii?'i~:~:': 4. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM ClTIZEN$'.!~ESi~/~:":?~:~::~*:' *:=~'~" ON ANY ITEM NOT Acting Mayor Hanus asked for any comments o~iii~=:~gesfiens from'~=:~mbers of the public and received none. Meyer asked if he could talk about two it and i~';~noted that he should have added the items to the agenda before Meyer continued.by stating that the Grandview Middle Class donated eleven wood duck houses to the City, to have one, they could contact him or City Hall. Meyer also wanted to informed him at that time. A. STORM' efforts, and City Manager Hanson update' put on a later agenda and he could report PLAN/ZONING AMENDMENTS - CONTINUED FROM Sarah smith briefly revi~d the history of the propOsed amendments to comply with the Watershed District's Management Plan. She stated that written documentation was requested from the Watershed District and is forthcoming. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to continue the public hearing until March 26, 2002, at 7:30 p:m~ All: voted in favor. Motion carried, B. ON.SALE LIQUOR LICENSE FEES The current on-sale liqUor license fee was compared to that of neighboring cities, as well as city's in the same size range as Mound. Police Chief Harrell gave statistics of additional calls generated when there was an on-sale liquor establishment in Mound, adding that in his 1.8 year tenure with. the City, the on-sale liquor license fee has not been raised. 2 - 1444- Mound City Council - March 12, 2002 Acting Mayor HanUs opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. He asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the proposal of raising the on-sale liquor license fee and no one came forward. Hanus closed the hearing at 7:59 p.m. After further discussion, there was a MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to adopt the following resolution adopting a new fee schedule, with the only change being raising the on-sale liquor license fee from $4500/year to $5000/year. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus and Meyer. The following voted against: Osmek. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-40: RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 6. UPDATE BY FACILITIES STUDY GROUP ON ACTIVI~ES REGARDING FIRF STATION/PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY .... Jeff Anderson of the Mound Fire Department and me~:i:' o~::~:~::Facilities Study Group presented the Council with updated site plans and:a ~mmuni~{~D:::outlining the next steps to be taken for this project. Jeff also corrected a misquote ~i~en by a citizen regarding the survey done regarding the propo~:fa~i,!~!: He emphasized the open houses coming up on March 19th from 4-8 p.m., '"~i~iC;Ji~":hall, asking the Council to be present to answer questions and for a p~esentation'::~?~i~he Fire Chief at 8:00 p.m. Another Open house is scheduled for AP~:ilil;:.~iii~mm 4~§~li~i:m. at the Fire Station. Nancy Schultz of SEH, Inc, pre8~ an ~i'Ve'"':§::~:mmary outlining the findings gathered related to the feaSibi;li~'~:b~'~:~nstru~Ji~g Option 2A one of the five options studied to improve City ow~'~'f~ciliti~i'~iii~r $~iiimillion dollars. SEH has determined with reasonable accuracy that i{:~:~i~:~i~ii~P~s:~!~i~'t~'~:il,d"::this revised project this year for $4.95 milliOn dollars. This figure: do~ii~{ include'projected related costs as; surveys, soil borings, Phase I E~i:~~{al ~ssment, correction of poor soils, removal of contaminated materials suc~iaS soil:.~i'~Or Pip fitting asbestos, furniture, fixtures and equipment, lega'i:~'::::i~sts such a~iilbond sales, communications equipment, and architectural/engin~i~g fee~ii? MOTION by BrOwn, se~:d by Meyer to accept the foregoing reports and set the open houses, with the Council present, for March 19, 2002, from 4-8 p.m. at City Hall, and April 18, 2002, from 4-8 p.m., at the Fire Station. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 7. (removed) 8. PUBLIC LANDSrP:ERMIT APPLICATION -,POWERS - 1791 RESTHAVEN, LANF Sarah Smith informed the Council that the applicant, Jim Powers, is requesting an ~after-the-fact" PUblic Lands Permit to allow a number of evergreen trees and retaining wall section to remain within Sunset Landing. The Docks and Common Commission had been advised that the landscaping elements were installed in the Sunset Landing right-of-way in error by the builder, Superior Value Homes, when the new home at 1791 3 - 1445- Mound City Council -March 12, 2002 Resthaven Lane was constructed. The builder was informed of these encroachments before selling the property to Powers. Lengthy discussion followed regarding the problems that these encroachments could cause, including adding difficulty in backing a trailer to the landing and parking in the area. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to table action on the item and direct staff to research the characteristi~ of the trees to determine how large they wi.t:l get and to contact the City Attorney for his opinion on who is responsible for the encroachment - the builder or the cun'ent owner. Ail voted in favor. Motion carried. 9. (,removed) .~f, iii~i?i . 10. REPORT & RECOMMENDATION FROM ISLAN,Gi~i~A~Ii~CILITIES TASK City Manager Hanson reviewed the report submi~t~:'by Re Island:~::::~rk Task Force. The Task Force recommends relocating the Pa:~,:Mai~ance to the Public Works Facility at Belmont & Lynwood and to schedule ~ili~: house for June 15, 2002, at Island Park Hall, to gain resident input MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown contingent upon approval by th~ building. All voted in favor. future'::~i~his building. ~n'house for June 15, 2002 of property stored in that 11, 2002 Hanus reviewed the during the summer private funding, costs of parties desCribed funds. The i share of monies not agreement with the LMCD for extra water patrol between Hennepin County, the LMCD, and covered. The agreement states that if the total less than the amount contributed by the cities, the i~to reimbursement on a pro rata basis of the unused id shows that the City of Mound has $1,096.06 as their 2001. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Hanus to exercise the City's option under the agreement and request a refund $1,096.06 and have staff draft a letter indicating that Mound will not participate in this program in 2002. Meyer stated his reason for thinking Mound is responsible for contributing to funding the extra water patrol. His reason is that Mound is surrounded by Lake Minnetonka and it could be a Mound resident that drowns, is drive over by a boat~ or snowmobiled over, and lake safety is a big concern. Hanus pointed out that Mound residents already pay for the program through the taxes they pay to Hennepin County and should not have to pay twice. Upon vote taken on the motion, those voting in favor were Brown, Hanus and Osmek. Voting against was Meyer. Motion carried. 4 - 1446- Mound City Council - MarCh 12, 2002 12. ANNUAL REPORTS A. Poli~ Depa~ment: Police Chief, Len Harrell, presented his annual report for 2001, a c~py of which is on file in the City Clerk's office. B. City Clerk: City Clerk, Bonnie Rifler, presented her annual report for 2001, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk's office. 13. a. B. C. D. E. f. g. H. I. J. K. L. M. N. O. P. Q. R. S. IN FORMATIONIMISCELLAN EOUS AMM Fax News and Bill Tracking Report LMC Friday Fax Correspondence; LMCD Correspondence: Westonka School District Update: wine stays in liquor stores Newsletter: EhleCs Advisor Minutes: Parks and Open Space Commis~i~n - Feb. 14, 2002 FY1: Spring Park resolution on raif. ii~"~'{~ilii~etter'{~iiii~he editor FYI: City of Lake City m~i~evenae~~'':~ adjourn at 10:04 p.m. All voted in favor. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Acting Mayor Hanus 5 - 1447- CITY OF MOUND 03/22/02 11:53 AM Pa *Check Detail Register(D 10100 Marquette Bank Mound March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 006632 3/9/2002 PETTY CASH E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies Total PETTY CASH 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $3808 030902 $38.08 $38.08 REPLENISH PETTY CASH FILTER: None - 1448- CITY OF MOUND 03/22/02 11:53 AM Page 1 *Check Detail Register(D 10100 Marquette Bank Mound March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 006633 3/12/2002 PETERSEN, JOANNE R 101-34110 Depot Rental $25.00 Total PETERSEN, JOANNE $25.00 03122002 DEPOT REFUND/CLEANING Paid Chk# 006634 3/12/2002 SCOTTY B'S E 101-42115-434 Conference & Training $374.00 255877 Total SCOTTY B'S $374.00 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $399.00 POLICE ACADEMY AWARDS CATERING FILTER: None - 1449- CITY OF MOUND *Check Detail Register(D 03/22/02 11:53 AM Pal 10100 Marque[~e Bank Mound Paid Chk# 006635 3/13/2002 March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resale E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resale Total COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST Paid Chk# 006636 3/13/2002 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING $166.56 61228137 $149.48 61387260 $316.04 MISC ITEMS MISC. ITEMS G 609-20200 Paid Chk# 006637 G 101-21715 Accounts Payable Total PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING 3/13/2002 NORLANDER, JILL $1,709.07 51581 $1,709.07 CIGARS DEC 2001 Flex Plan Medical Total NORLANDER, JILL 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $88.00 021302 $88.00 $2,113.11 MEDICAL EXP. REFUND FILTER: None - 1450- CITY OF MOUND 03/22/02 11:53 AM Page *Check Detail Register(D 10100 Marquette Bank Mound March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 006638 3/14/2002 LAKE MINNETONKA COMM. COMM. G101-20200 Accounts Payable $11,587.74 031402 Total LAKE MINNETONKA COMM. COMM. $11,587.74 2001 4TH QTR. Paid Chk# 006639 3/14/2002 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPANY G 609-20200 Accounts Payable $410.00 164785 Total PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPANY $410.00 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $11,997.74 WINE DELIVERY FILTER: None -1451 - CITY OF MOUND 03/22/0211:53 AM Pa' *Check Detail RegisterS) 10100 Marquette Bank Mound Paid Chk# 006640 3/15/2002 March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment MOUND POST OFFICE E 601-49400-322 Postage Total MOUND POST OFFICE 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $650.00 03152002 $650.00 $650.00 NEWSLETTER POSTAGE FILTER: None - 1452- CITY OF MOUND *Check Detail Register(D 03/22/02 11:53 AM Page 1 10100 Marquette Bank Mound March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 006641 R 401-36100 3/18/2002 BERGE, ORLEN & HERMA Special Assessments $1,009.20 031802 Total BERGE, ORLEN & HERMA $1,009.20 Reimbursement 2001 Assessment Paid Chk# 006642 R 401-36100 3/18/2002 DUNLAP, RICHARD J. Special Assessments $1,009.20 031802 Total DUNLAP, RICHARD J. $1,009.20 Reimbursement 2001 Assessment Paid Chk# 006643 3/18/2002 WEBER, MARSHALL & THERESA R 401-36100 SpecialAssessments $514.87 031802 Total WEBER, MARSHALL & THERESA $514.87 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $2,533.27 Reimbursement 2001 Assessment FILTER: None - 1453- CITY OF MOUND 03/22/02 11:53 AM Pa *Check Detail Register(D III 10100 Marquette Bank Mound Paid Chk# 006644 3/20/2002 March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment MOUND POST OFFICE E 602-49450-322 Postage E 601-49400-322 Postage Total MOUND POST OFFICE Paid Chk# 006645 3/20/2002 UNIFORMS LIMITED $108.86 032002 $108.86 032002 $217,72 UTILITY BILLING UTILITY BILLING G 101-20200 Accounts Payable Total UNIFORMS LIMITED 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $331.70 107498 $331.70 $549.42 DRESS COAT FILTER: None - 1454- CITY OF MOUND 03~22~02 11:53 AM Page 1 *Check Detail Register(D 10100 Marquette Bank Mound March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment Paid Chk# 006646 3/20/2002 GRAND, DEB G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical $165.00 031902 Total GRAND, DEB $165.00 REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE Paid Chk# 006647 3/20/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER E 101-42110-208 Instructional Supplies $75.00 031902 Total HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER $75.00 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $240.00 SEMINAR, SWANSON, 04-08-02 FILTER: None - 1455- CITY OF MOUND 03/22/02 11:54 AM Pa, *Check Detail Registered 10100 Marquette Bank Mound Paid Chk# 006657 3/21/2002 GRADY, DANIEL March 2002 Check Amt Invoice Comment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical Total GRADY, DANIEL Paid Chk~ 006658 3/21/2002 VFW CLUB #5113 E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous Total VFW CLUB #6113 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $315.00 032102 $315.00 REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $267.30 032102 $267.30 $582.30 01-31-02 COMMISSIONERS RECOGNI FILTER: None - 1456- CITY OF MOUND Payments Page 1 Current Period: March 2002 Batch Name 032602SUE User Dollar Amt $195,403.37 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $195,403.37 $0.00 Refer 32602 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS, INCO 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. PAGER REPAIR Invoice 11029D Transaction Date 3/20/2002 In Balance $40,55 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $40.55 Refer 32602 ANDERSON, MIKE 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms REIMBURSE BOOT ALLOWANCE 2002 $44.99 DIFFERENCE Invoice 031302 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $44.99 Refer 32602 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $30.60 Invoice 55206507 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $54.60 Invoice 55207909 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $54.60 Invoice 55207109 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $139.80 Refer 32602 BABB, PAUL 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE DULUTH FIRE SCHOOL $400.00 APRIL 12-14, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $400.00 Refer 32602 BELLBOY CORPORATION 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-25t Liquor For Resale LIQUOR invoice 23349400 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS Invoice 35319800 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 23396400 Transaction Date 3121/2002 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY E 101-41110-331 Meeting/Travel E 101-42400-331 Meeting/Travel E 101-45200-331 Meeting/Travel 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 COFFEE COFFEE COFFEE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $2,715.18 $153.34 $2,176.45 Total $5,044.97 $17.00 $8.50 $8.50 Total $34.00 Refer 32602 Cash Payment Invoice 274964 Cash Payment Invoice 274964 Cash Payment Invoice 274964 Transaction Date Refer 32602 BURKE, JAMI 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE MEALS Invoice 031002 nsaction Date 3/2112002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 BUSINESS FORMS AND ACCOUNT 3/26/2002 $17,79 Total $17.79 - 1457- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 2 Cash Payment Invoice 029074 Transaction Date Current Period: March 2002 E 101-41920-210 Operating Supplies UTILITY BILL CARDS 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $394.56 Total $394.56 Refer 32602 CARGIL SALTDIVlSION 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials SALT Invoice 2296585 PO 16688 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials SALT Invoice 22928966 PO 16688 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 10100 Refer 32602 CHADWlCK AND MERTZ Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees Invoice 030502 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Refer 32602 CHAMPION AUTO Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice D132752 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply MlSC PARTS Invoice D132786 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 10100 Refer 32602 CLARK, LESTER Cash Payment R 281-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues Invoice 032102 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 61327174 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Marquette Bank Mou 3/26/2002 02-02 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 MOLDING, ETC. Marquette Bank Mou 312612002 REFUND STAIRWAY FEE $524.59 $541.20 $1,065.79 Total $5,176.00 Total $5,176.00 $51,09 $106.49 Total $157.58 $50.00 Total $50.00 $207.20 Total $207.20 Refer 32602 CONCO, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal Invoice 032602 Cash Payment E 455-46381-611 Bond Interest Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 3/26/2002 04-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 04-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $492.06 $469.78 Total $961.84 Refer 32602 COPY IMAGES, INCORPORATED 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract COPIER STAPLES Invoice 21314 Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 02-01 COPIER MAINTENANCE Invoice 21321 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou Refer 32602 CRYSTEEL DISTRIBUTING, INC. 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA DUMP BODY Invoice Ll1534 PO 16455 Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply RVC CONTROL LEVER Invoice F105978 PO 17299 Transaction Date 3/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 3/26/2002 $61.38 $340.8O 10100 Total $402.18 $9,155.81 $127.08 Total $9,282.89 - 1458- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 3 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750.253 Wine For Resale WINE $52.20 Invoice 169657 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $575.05 Invoice 169653 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $35.30 Invoice 170490 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,50695 Invoice 170504 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,169.50 Refer 32602 D/SPLAY SALES 3/26/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22812 X-Mas Ornaments CHRISTMAS BANNER Invoice 112254-0 PO 17294 Transaction Date 3/8/2002 Marquette Bank Mou Refer 32602 EAST S/DE BEVERAGE 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 214050 Cash Payment Invoice 213049 Cash Payment Invoice 212533 Cash Payment Invoice 216908 Transaction Date $1,32907 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale 3/21/2002 BEER BEER BEER Marquette Bank Mou 10100 10100 Total $1,329.07 $45.40 $1,3O6.45 $68.OO $844.50 Total $2,264.35 Refer 32602 Cash Payment Invoice 19271 Cash Payment Invoice 19270 Cash Payment Invoice 19269 Cash Payment Invoice 19268 Transaction Date E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 3/21/2002 EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 3/26/2002 02-02 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 02-02 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 02-02 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 02-02 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $975.00 $450.00 $862.5O $2,100.00 Total $4,387.50 Refer 32602 ELKHART BRASS MANUFACTURIN 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair CELCON BALL Invoice 306567 PO 17206 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $74.37 10100 Total $74.37 Refer 32602 FACKLER, JAMES 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-218 Clothing and Uniforms REFUND CLOTHING ALLOWANCE $71,95 Invoice 031802 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $71.95 Refer 32602 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSOC MINN 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies RAPID INTERVENTION TEAMS $447.30 Invoice 47329 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $447.30 Refer 32602 FLAIG, KEVlN M. 3/26/2002 - 1459- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 4 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE ROCHESTER FIRE $300,00 SCHOOL APRIL 4-7, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $300,00 Refer 32602 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone 02-02 472-3093 $293,93 Invoice 030102 Cash Payment E 101-42400-321 Telephone 02-02 472-3190 $26,69 Invoice 030702 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone 03-01 472-3555 $180,12 Invoice 031002 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $500.74 Refer 32602 G & K SERVICES 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 03-12-02 UNIFORMS $29.59 Invoice 148043 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 03-12-02 UNIFORMS $29.59 Invoice 148043 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 03-12-02 UNIFORMS $29,59 Invoice 148043 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 03-12-02 MATS $15,24 Invoice 148043 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 03-12-02 MATS $15.24 Invoice 148043 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 03-12~02 MATS $15.24 Invoice 148043 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 03-19-02 MATS $40.66 Invoice 155104 Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 03-19-02 MATS $51.02 Invoice 155101 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 03-19-02 MATS $81.45 invoice 155102 Cash Payment E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 03-19-02 MATS $23.61 Invoice 155105 Cash Payment E 10t-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 03-05-02 UNIFORMS $29.59 Invoice 141016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 03-05-02 UNIFORMS $29.59 Invoice 141016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 03-05-02 UNIFORMS $29.58 invoice 141016 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 03-05-02 MATS $15,92 Invoice 141016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 03-05-02 MATS $15.92 invoice 141016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 03-05-02 MATS $15.92 Invoice 141016 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 02-05-02 MATS $104.67 Invoice 112918 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 01-08-02 MATS $142.03 Invoice 884796 - 1460- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 5 Current Period: March 2002 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $714.45 Refer 32602 GIESE, LEROY 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training REIMBURSE MILEAGE $100.59 Invoice 030502 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $100.59 Refer 32602 GLASS PLUS, INCORPORATED 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery WINDSHIELD $36640 Invoice 8259 Transaction Date 3/812002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $366.40 Refer 32602 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 512220 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 512280 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 510856 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 582897 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 582887 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 582461 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 515215 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 515214 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou Refer 32602 GUSTAFSON, BRUCE 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE ROCHESTER FIRE $250.00 SCHOOL, APRIL 5-7, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $250,00 Refer 32602 HAGGERTY, CRAIG 3/26/2002 Cash Payment R 281-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues REFUND DOCK FEE $80.00 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $80.00 Refer 32602 HANSON, KANDIS 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone REIMBURSE DSL LINE $49.95 Invoice 031202 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $49.95 Refer 32602 HARDINA, DAMON 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms REIMBURSE BOOT ALLOWANCE 2002 $75.00 DIFFERENCE Invoice 031302 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $75.00 Refer 32602 HATCH, JIM SALES COMPAY 3/26/2002 $357,59 $1,667.59 $1,270.75 -$2,84 -$2.84 -$8,01 $1,501.3O $984.28 10100 Total $5,767,82 -1461 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 6 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment Invoice 3304 Transaction Date E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts PO 17295 3/21/2002 Refer 32602 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals Invoice DM71258 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Refer 32602 HECKSEL MACHINE SHOP STRIP BRUSH BROOM ELGIN Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 CONTAINER (4) Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 Total Total Cash Payment Invoice 40395 Cash Payment Invoice 40396 Cash Payment Invoice 40394 E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair BALL COUPLER, ETC. E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair DECK PLATE E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic HOSE WITH ENDS Transaction Date 3/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 32602 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMA TIO 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41920-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 02-02 NETWORK SERVICES Invoice 022801 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 32602 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41500-300 Professional Srvs 2002 PROCESS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Invoice 10-44720-671500 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 32602 HENTGES, MATTHEW 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE ROCHESTER FIRE SCHOOK, APRIL 4-7, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 32602 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 CTY RD 15 STREETSCAPE Invoice 030702-A Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 MOUND VISIONS Invoice 030702-B Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 TIF RELATED WORK Invoice 030702-C Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 KELLS LANE VACATION Invoice 930702-D1 Cash Payment G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 02-02 KELLS LANE VACATION Invoice 030702-D2 Cash Payment G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 02-02 KELLS LANE VACATION Invoice 030702-D3 Cash Payment G 101-22892 4778/4790 Northern Road #0 02-02 BERGQUIST SUB-DIVISION Invoice 030702-D4 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING Invoice 030702-E Cash Payment E 401-46540.300 Professional Srvs 02-02 LOST LAKE GREENWAY Invoice 030702-F $2,584.76 $2,584.76 $20.00 $20.00 $127.58 $257.01 $46.59 $431.18 $38.57 $38.57 $257.75 $257.75 $250.00 $250.00 $5,906~78 $2,472.50 $2,352.56 $87.50 $87.50 $87.50 $487.5O $4,813.21 $857.OO - 1462- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 7 Transaction Date 3~22~2002 Current Period: March 2002 Marquette BankMou 10100 Total $17,152.05 Refer 32602 Cash Payment Invoice 17235 Cash Payment Invoice 17235 Cash Payment E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA SLIDE SAW Invoice 28080001188978 PO 17241 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply SLIDE SAW Invoice 28080001188978 PO 17241 Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies WIRE Invoice 28080001188978 PO 17241 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply HOLSTER Invoice 030502 Transaction Date 3/8/2002 Refer 32602 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Cash Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 HOME DEPO T/GECF 3/26/2002 E 101-42110-409 Other Equipment Repair WET/DRY VAC, ETC E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply WOOD,FILTERS,TRIMMER,ETC Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 04-02 LIQUOR STORE RENTAL SPACE $74.52 $195.66 $456.89 $181.04 $19.97 $42.05 Total $970.13 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $4,342O0 Total $4,342.00 Refer 32602 INET-/INTERNET SERVICES, INCO 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 INTERNET SERVICE Invoice 10365 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 INFRATECH 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms JACKETS Invoice 020282 Transaction Date 3/8/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $29,95 $29.95 $257.87 Total $257.87 Refer 32602 JEFFERSON FIRE AND SAFETY, IN 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair COUPLERS, ETC. Invoice 087378 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $196.23 Total $196.23 Refer 32602 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR 3/26/2002 Cash Payment Invoice 1375000 Cash Payment Invoice 1377880 Cash Payment invoice 1377881 Cash Payment Invoice 1377882 Cash Payment Invoice 1377883 Cash Payment Invoice 1377884 Cash Payment Invoice 1377885 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $142.10 $186.12 $1,273.53 $1,459.05 $147.35 $115.80 $1,025.45 - 1463- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 8 Cash Payment Invoice 187243 Cash Payment Invoice 187242 Transaction Date Current Period: March 2002 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale 3/21/2002 LIQUOR -$8.00 WINE -$5.63 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $4,335.77 Refer Cash Payment Invoice 032602 Cash Payment Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 32602 JOHNSON, PHYLLIS E 455-46381-600 Debt Srv Principal E 455-46381-611 Bond Interest 3/26/2002 04-01 PRINCIPLE TRUE VALUE 04-01 INTEREST TRUE VALUE $259.16 $4O9.95 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $669.11 $29.59 10100 Total $29.59 03-09-02 AD BIDS UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 32602 JUBILEE FOODS 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-434 Conference & Training MEETING DONUTS Invoice 031802 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou Refer 32602 LAKER NEWSPAPER 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 455-46385-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 965 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 $72.00 $72.00 Refer 32602 LARSON, JOHN 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE DULUTH FIRE SCHOOL $400.00 APRIL 12-14, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $400.00 Refer 32602 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply AIR FILTERS $91.17 Invoice 031753 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $91.17 Refer 32602 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts MINI LAMP $12.03 Invoice 5-337535 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts LITE-MATE $6.01 Invoice 5-336802 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $16.04 Refer 32602 MAAS, JASON 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE ROCHESTER FIRE $250.00 SCHOOK, APRIL 6~7, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 389740 Cash Payment Invoice 389739 Cash Payment Invoice 387363 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Total $250.00 $42.25 $1,724.65 $1,528.35 - 1464- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page Current Period: March 2002 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $3,295.25 Refer 32602 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment Invoice 10629 Cash Payment Invoice 10653 Cash Payment Invoice 10662 Cash Payment Invoice 10686 Transaction Date E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight E 609-49750-265 Freight 3/22/2002 3/26/2002 03-04-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 03-07-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 03-11-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 03-14-02 DELIVERY CHARGE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $16.00 $76.8O $25.60 $152.80 $271.20 Refer 32602 Cash Payment Invoice 38897 Cash Payment invoice 38898 Cash Payment Invoice 38899 Cash Payment Invoice 38900 Cash Payment Invoice 38901 Cash Payment invoice 38902 Cash Payment Invoice 38903 Cash Payment Invoice 38904 Cash Payment Invoice 38905 Cash Payment Invoice 38906 Cash Payment invoice 38907 Cash Payment Invoice 38908 Cash Payment Invoice 38909 Cash Payment Invoice 38910 Cash Payment Invoice 38911 Cash Payment Invoice 38912 Cash Payment Invoice 38913 ,ment Invoice 38914 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCI E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22851 Langdon Deveop, Gramercy E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 427-43121-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22851 Langdon Deveop, Gramercy 3/26/2002 01-02 WESTEDGE MISC ENGINEERING 01-02 WESTEDGE WATERMAIN EXTENSION 01-02 BLDG MlSC SERVICES 01-02 P/Z MlSC SERVICES 01-02 WATER MlSC SERVICES 01-02 LANGDON DEVELOPMENT 01-02 STORM WATER UTILITY 01-02 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 01-02 COUNTY ROAD 15 REALIGNMENT 01-02 TIF DISTRICT ENGINEERING 01-02 LANGDON DEVELOPMENT G 101-22847 5947 Ridgewood, Muonio, Su 01-02 MUONIO SUB-DIVISION G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs 01-02 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT 01-02 MCES LIFT STATION 01-02 WESTEDGE EXTENSION 01-02 XCEL SUB-STATION 01-02 RETAINING WALL 01-02 SHORELINE FOOTAGE $1,021.10 $1,992.7O $2,O42.50 $237.5O $237.50 $190,00 $237.50 $570.00 $2,817.60 $142.50 $190.00 $47.50 $190.00 $807.60 $47.50 $332.50 $47.50 $2,484.50 - 1465- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 10 Cash Payment Invoice 38915 Cash Payment Invoice 38916-A Cash Payment Invoice 38916-B Cash Payment Invoice 38916-C Cash Payment Invoice 38917 Cash Payment Invoice 38918 Cash Payment Invoice 38919 Cash Payment Invoice 39167 Cash Payment Invoice 39168 Cash Payment Invoice 39169 Cash Payment Invoice 39170 Cash Payment Invoice 39171 Cash Payment Invoice 39172 Cash Payment Invoice 39173 Cash Payment Invoice 39174-A Cash Payment Invoice 39174-B Cash Payment Invoice 39175 Cash Payment Invoice 39176 Cash Payment Invoice 39177 Cash Payment Invoice 39178 Cash Payment Invoice 39179 Cash Payment invoice 39180 Cash Payment Invoice 39181 Cash Payment Invoice 39182 Cash Payment Invoice 39183 Current Period: March 2002 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 01-02 WELL/PUMPHOUSE SERVICES E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 01-02 KELLS ROAD VACATION G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 01-02 KELLS ROAD VACATION G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 01-02 KELLS ROAD VACATION E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs G 101~22887 Legion Post 01-44, 01-45 E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22827 Landgon View E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs E 101-45200-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22851 Langdon Deveop, Gramercy E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22838 Maple Manors G 101-22866 Carlson Sub-Division 00-41 E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22851 Langdon Deveop, Gramercy G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 01-02 GULL LANE MODIFICATION 01-02 LEGION SUB-DIVISION 01-02 MSA AND MISC REPORTS 02-02 2002 SEAL COAT PROJECT 02-02 LANGDONVIEW DEVELOPMENT 02-02 WESTEDGE ENGINEERING 02-02 WESTEDGE WATERMAIN 02-02 BLDG MISC SERVICES 02-02 P/Z MISC SERVICES 02-02 STREETS MISC SERVICES 02-02 WATER MISC SERVICES 02-02 SEWER MISC SERVICES 02-02 PARKS MISC SERVICES 02-02 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT 02-02 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT 02-02 MAPLE MANORS SUB-DIVISION 02-02 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 02-02 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT 02-02 TIF DISTRICT ENGINEERING 02-02 LANGDON DEVELOPMENT 02-02 LANGDON DEVELOPMENT $142.50 $95.00 $95.00 $95.0O $142.50 $192.10 $380.00 $47.50 $95.00 $1,645.00 $2,758.00 $522.50 $285.00 $95.00 $142.50 $142.50 $47.50 $237.50 $144.50 $47.50 $669.00 $1,238.00 $380.00 $237.50 $285.O0 - 1466- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 11 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 POST OFFICE RELOCATION $175.50 Invoice 39184 Cash Payment G 101-22859 4707 Manchester, 00-36, Huf 02-02 HUFNAGLE PROPERTY $47.50 Invoice 39185 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 MCES LIFT STATION $190.00 Invoice 39186 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 WESTEDGE EXTENSION SOUTH $448.50 Invoice 39187 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 MSA&MISC REPORTS $10.60 Invoice 39188 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 EXCEL SUB-STATION $9500 Invoice 39189 Cash Payment E 101-45200-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 SKATE PARK ENGINEERING $413.00 Invoice 39190 Cash Payment E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 SHORELINE FOOTAGE $2,278.00 Invoice 39191 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 WELL/PUMPHOUSE $47.50 Invoice 39192 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 LANGDON LANE BACKUP $47.50 Invoice 39193 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 SKAALRUD LOT SURVEY $71.25 Invoice 39194-A Payment G 101-22890 2957 Cambridge Retain Wall 02-02 SKAALRUD LOT SURVEY $71.25 Invoice 39194-B Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 CSAH 15 STREETSCAPE $467.50 Invoice 39195 Cash Payment G 101-22887 Legion Post 01-44, 01-45 02-02 LEGION SUB-DIVISION $47.50 Invoice 39196 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 02-02 MSA&MISC REPORTS $427.50 Invoice 39197 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 02-02 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $6,602.28 Invoice 39198 Cash Payment G 101-22892 4778/4790 Northern Road #0 02-02 BERGQUIST SUB-DIVISION $406.50 Invoice 39199 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $35,644.48 Refer 32602 METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEM 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-433 Dues and Subscriptions 02-02 LUNCHEON Invoice 299 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIR 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste DisposaI-MCIS 04-02 WASTEWATER Invoice 0000735276 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 MINNCOMM PAGING Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. Invoice 20233303021 3/26/2002 03-02 PAGERS Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 31202 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEAL TH 3/26/2002 $12.65 Total $12.65 $33,341.20 Total $33,341.20 $112.62 Total $112.62 - 1467- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 12 Current Period: March 2002 Iii Cash Payment R 601-37170 State fee - Water 01-01-02 THRU 03-31-02 Invoice 022002 Transaction Date 2/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $4,605.00 Total $4,605.00 Refer 32602 MINNETONKAREFRIGERATION 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-409 Other Equipment Repair SUPCO RELAY Invoice 030102 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Refer 32602 MOUND POST OFFICE- 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-322 Postage 2002 BUS REPLY PERMIT $125.00 Invoice 032602 Cash Payment E 101-41910-322 Postage 2002 BUS REPLY ACC $375.00 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $500.00 Refer 32602 MOUND, CITY OF 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities 02-02 WATER/SEWER $20.20 Invoice 022802 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $155.38 Total $155.38 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $20.20 Refer 32602 MYERS, TONY 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE DULUTH FIRE SCHOOL $400.00 APRIL 12-14, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $400.00 Refer 22602 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AS 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions THRU 05-31-004 RENEWAL $210.00 Invoice 1165433 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $210.00 Refer 32602 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA 175 AMP WIRE FEED $1,070.29 Invoice 822300624 PO 17240 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies 175 AMP WIRE FEED $62.69 Invoice 822300624 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,132.98 Refer 32602 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INCORPO 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One-Call 02-02 LOCATES $68.20 Invoice 2020528 Cash Payment E 602-49450-395 Gopher One-Call 02-02 LOCATES $68.20 Invoice 2020528 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $136.40 Refer 32602 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $77.15 Invoice 23752618 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $119.12 Invoice 23752710 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $196.27 Refer 32602 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC 3/26/2002 - 1468- CITY OF MOUND Paymenfs 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 13 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $93.00 Invoice 812356 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $346.25 Invoice 812355 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $636.12 Invoice 812354 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $266.00 Invoice 814449 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $430.35 Invoice 814450 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,771.72 Refer 32602 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $551.20 Invoice 54063 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $668.16 Invoice 55015 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $1,163.85 Invoice 54530 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,383.21 · Refer 32602 POIKONEN, DARREN 3/26/2002 Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies TRAVEL ADVANCE DULUTH FIRE SCHOOL $400.00 APRIL 12-14, 2002 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $400.00 Refer 32602 POUTI, MARK 3/26/2002 Cash Payment R 281-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues REFUND DOCK FEE Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 PRESENTA PLAQUE CORPORATI 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies KIT BULK FITS Invoice 99469 PO 17192 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Refer 32602 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 098193-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 097638-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 097656-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 100516-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 097162-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 100633-00 Payment E Invoice 099896-00 $85.00 Total $85.00 $195.66 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 WINE Total $195.66 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $296.59 $62.91 $2,346.14 -$14.95 -$6.47 $1,834.97 $73.70 - 1469- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 14 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 099897-00 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $3,214.20 Total $7,807.09 Refer 32602 R & S COLLISION SERVICES, INCO 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery REPAIR TRUCK Invoice 7298 PO 17238 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $551.53 10100 Total $551.53 Refer 32602 R.C. ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings FLAG POLE REPAIR Invoice 030502 Transaction Date 3/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 RECYCLING MANAGERS, ASSOCI 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 670-49500-434 Conference & Training 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES Invoice 032002 PO 17303 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Refer 32602 RELIANT ENERGY Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Cash Payment E 222-42260-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 033002 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Refer 32602 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice R02021091 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 $151.72 Total $151.72 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 5801 BARTLETT $20.00 Total $20.00 $186.89 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 4812 CUMBERLAND 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 LIQUOR STORE 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 FIRE STATION 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 CITY HALL 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 STREETS 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 WATER 01-21-02 THRU 02-19-02 SEWER Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 AIR AND OXYGEN Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $473.51 $221.90 $557.59 $982.73 $464.75 $264.06 $327.43 Total $3,478,86 $20.62 Total $20.62 Refer 32602 RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL, MOUND 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-305 Medical and Dental Fees EE EXAM POUNDER, CHRIS $103.00 Invoice 157660 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $103.00 Refer 32602 ROBERTS, COLLETTE 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41500-433 Dues and Subscriptions REIMBURSE MCFOA DUES $35.00 Invoice 031102 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $35.00 Refer 32602 SCHARBER AND SONS 3/26/2002 - 1470- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 15 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair NUTS AND BOLTS Invoice 02-2024468 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $351.83 Refer 32602 SPORTING BREED KENNELS Cash Payment Invoice 032602 Transaction Date E 101-42110-445 Dog Kennel Fees 3/22/2002 10100 Total $351.83 3/26/2002 04-01 DOG KENNEL FEE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 STANDARD SPRING OF MINNEAP 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA LEAVES,BOLTS, ETC invoice 92220 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 10100 Refer 32602 STAR-WEST CHEVROLET/OLDS 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair HARNESS, ETC invoice 112884 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou STROBE TUBE STROBE TUBE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 STREICHER'S 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies DRUG TEST KIT Invoice 279572.1 PO 17193 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery STROBE TUBE Invoice 280794.1 Payment E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery STROBE TUBE Invoice 289794.2 Cash Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 277924.1 Cash Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 280794.1 Transaction Date 3/7/2002 Refer 32602 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 FIRST HALF DUES Invoice 030802 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 SUBURBAN TIRE COMPANY 3/26/2002 E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts 3/21/2002 TIRES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Cash Payment Invoice 158921 Transaction Date Refer 932692 SWENSEN, JASON E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous 3/21/2002 3/26/2002 REIMBURSE MILEAGE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Cash Payment Invoice 031002 Transaction Date Refer 32602 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale 3/26/2002 BEER BEER BEER Cash Payment Invoice 255954 .~ash Payment Invoice 255955 Cash Payment Invoice 255391 $325.00 Total $325.00 $458.72 Total $458.72 $46.27 Total ...... $461~ $60.09 $47.87 $53.20 $219.74 -$53.20 Total $327,70 $400.00 Total $400.00 $280.i4 Total $280.14 $41,50 Total $41.50 $66.80 $3,246.7O $64.05 -1471 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 16 Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment Invoice 255392 Cash Payment Invoice 217371 Cash Payment Invoice 255746 Cash Payment Invoice 217840 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 THYSSEN-KRUPP ELEVATOR COR 3/26/2002. Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-02 ELEVATOR SERVICE Invoice 187083 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $2,395.20 $6800 $628.15 -$20.00 Total $6,448.90 $158.60 Total $158.60 Refer 32602 TUSHIE MONTGOMERYARCHITE 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA 01-02 MOUND LIQUOR STORE Invoice 6A Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 $422.00 Total $422.00 UNITED PROPERTIES 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 04-02 BALBOA PROPERTIES $31.95 Invoice 032602 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 04-02 BALBOA PROPERTIES $31.95 Invoice 032602 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 04-02 BALBOA PROPERTIES $31.95 Invoice 032602 Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Refer 32602 US BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSO Marquette Bank Mou 10100 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 675-49425-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND SERIES 2001A $180.00 Invoice 030802 Cash Payment E 601-49400-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES $135.00 2001A Invoice 030802 Cash Payment E 101-49999-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 201A $58,75 Invoice 030802 Cash Payment E 401-43100-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees GO IMPROVEMENT BONDS SERIES 2001C $373.75 Invoice 031102 Cash Payment E 609-49750-620 Fiscal Agent's Fees MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE GROSS REV $373.75 2001B Invoice 031102-^ Total $95,85 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,121.25 Refer 32602 VERIZON WIRELESS 3/26/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41500-321 Telephone 03-01 296-9058 FINANCE $8,33 Invoice 032502 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone 03-01 554-6520 ON CALL PAGER $5.48 Invoice 032502 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone 03-01 554-6520 ON CALL PAGER $5.47 Invoice 032502 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone 03-01 590-4351 PNV SKINNER $36.77 Invoice 032502 - 1472- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Current Period: March 2002 Cash Payment Invoice 032502 Cash Payment Invoice 032502 Cash Payment Invoice 032502 Cash Payment Invoice 032502 Cash Payment invoice 032502 Cash Payment Invoice 032502 Cash Payment Invoice 032502 E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 222-42260-321 Telephone E 222-42260-321 Telephone E 222-42260-321 Telephone E 222-42260-321 Telephone E 222-42260-321 Telephone $36.77 $36.78 $0,92 $7.31 $3.48 $8.33 $22.23 E 101-42110-208 Instructional Supplies PO 17197 3/21/2002 03-01 590-4351 PNV SKINNER 03-01 590-4351 PNV SKINNER 03-01 723-7560 MOUND FIRE 03-01 751-3572 ENGINE #18 03-01 751-3573 MOUND FIRE 03-01 875-4502 RESCUE TRUCK 03-01 750-26666 FIRE DEPT Transaction Date 3/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 32602 WILLIAM MITCHEL COLLEGE OF L 3/26/2002 Cash Payment Invoice 031102 Transaction Date Total $171.87 SEMINAR, MCKINLEY, MARCH 11-15, 2002 $595.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $595.00 Refer 32602 XCEL ENERGY 3/26/2002 Payment E 101-41910-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #2245-301-939 $706.00 O40402 Cash Payment E 101-42115-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #0466-607-223 $21.99 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 609-49750-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #1914-601-425 $358.63 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #0217-606-329 $3,018.38 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 222-42260-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 32184-407-t47 $424.06 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 101-45200-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #0047-005-229 $182.52 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #0864-508-832 $118.91 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #0864-508-832 $118.91 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #0864-508-832 $118.90 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 #0018-802-634 $1,425.60 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 02~02#0009-604-835 $305.65 Invoice 040402 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 02-02 STREET LIGHTS $5,156.41 Invoice 022802 Transaction Date 3/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $11,955,96 ~r 32602 ZE"*"~'"~""''~MANUFACTURING COMPANY 3/26/2002 Invoice 57939772 PO 17025 CHERRY BOMBS $59.64 - 1473- CITY OF MOUND Payments 03/22/02 11:21 AM Page 18 Current Period: March 2002 III Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies VACUUM, DISPENSOR, ETC Invoice 57939352 PO 17205 Transaction Date 3/20/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $340.8O Total $400.44 Fund Summa~ 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 427 SEAL COAT FUND 455 TIF 1-2 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 10100 Ma~uette Bank Mound $57,704.03 $5,396.83 $4,977.50 $10,118.55 $142.50 $20,490.89 $9,522.69 $38,153.93 $48,314.45 $20.00 $562.00 $195,403.37 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $195,403.37 $195,403.37 030902S~E = $ 38.08 031202SOE = $ 399.00 031302SUE = $ 2,113.11! 031302S~E = $ 11,997.74 03IS02SUE = $ 650.00 031802SUE = $ 2,533.27 032002S]~E= $ 549.42 031902SUE = $ 240.00 032102SUE = $ 582.30 032602SBE~= $½95,403.37 $214,506.29 TOTAl, - 1474- 5341 Mayxvood Road Mound, MN S5364 (952) 4'/2-3190 Memorandum Cc: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Saraln Smith, Community Development Director 3/22/2002 Surface Water Management Plan - City Code Amen&-nents 3/26 Continuation of Public Hearing - City Code Amendments for Implementation of Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) At its March 12, 2002 meeting0 tine City Council continued tine public lnearing for review of tine City Code amendments wtnich are associated witin the S~VM]v in light of the unknown status of proposed MCWD Rule M wlnich, if approved, would increase and expand &e wetland buffer st~mdards. Impact Rule M on Local Water Plans City staff received a telephone call on February 15, 2002 from MCWD Senior District Technician Jim Hafter who indicated tinat tine MCWD ~vould not require tine City of Mound to update its Plan until such time as fl~e MCWD prepares and approves its next generation water plan. The City would tlnen have two (2) years to update its SWMP. Mr. Hafter indicated tin'at, in all likelihood, tine timeframe for Mound to comply with tine new roles wound be approximately five (5) years. As requested by fl~e City, Council, written confirmation reg:~rding fine status of tine Mound S\X,%I]) has been requested but bas not yet been received as of tinis date. Mr. Halter has indicated tlnat a letter will be available for review by fine City Council at its March 26, 2002 meeting lno~vever it was not ready in advance of tine agenda preparation. In tine event a letter is nor received by March 26, 2002, tine City Council may opt to continue tine public hearing to ~tn ~temate date. Status of Proposed Rtfle M According to a memor~dum from tiqe MCWD dated Febru~%, 22, 2002, fine MCWD Board lnas opted to delay action on tine proposed revision(s) to Rule M until Spring 2002. Attachments Memorandum dated Marcln 8, 2002 · Executive Summary dated February 4, 2002 · Email from Jim Halter dated Marcln 22, 2002. - 1475- Page 1 of 2 Sarah Smith From: To: Sent: Subject: "Jim Hafner" <jhafner@minnehahacreek.org> "Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Friday, March 22, 2002 10:27 AM RE: Mound SWMP / Rule M Thanks for the reminder. I did meet with our engineer and attorney the other day and we have divided the responsibilities to respond to the comments, including Mound's, on Rule M. However, we will not have this completed until the first of next week. These comments must be completed for our board meeting on Thursday next week. I remain optimistic that we can send you at least a memo by Tuesday, realizing that your council meets that night. I will do my best to comply by then. Jim ..... Original Message ..... From: Sarah Smith [mailto:SarahSmith@cityofmound.com] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 10:03 AM To: Jim Hafner Subject: Re: Mound SWMP / Rule M As requested, I'm offedng a friendly reminder regarding the City's request for a written response from the MCWD re: grandfathering / Rule M. Thanks! SS .... Original Message .... From: Jim Hafner To: Sarah Smith Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:31 PM Subject: RE: Mound SWMP / Rule M I'll try to have a letter for you by then. Could you remind me Fri. AM? Jim ..... Original Message ..... From: Sarah Smith [mailto:SarahSmith@cityofmound.com] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:18 PM To: Jim Hafner Subject: Re: Mound SWMP / Rule M Thanks for the update Jim. Wanted to let you know that our packets go out on 3/22. Do you think it will be possible to receive a letter by this date? Let me know. Sarah .... Original Message .... From: Jim Hafner To: Sarah Smith; gspiotta@minnehahacreek, org Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 3:20 PM Subject: RE: Mound SWMP / Rule M - 1476- 3/22/2002 5341 May~.vood Road Mound,MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 Memorandum To: Cc: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 3/8/2002 Surface Water Management Plan - City Code Amendments Public Hearing - City Code Amendments for Implementation of Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) _At its February 12, 2002 meeting, the City Council continiaed the public hearing for review o£ thc City Code amendments which are associated with tJ~e SWMP in light of the unknown status of proposed MCWD Rule M which, if approved, would increase and expand fine wetland buffer standards. As the City Council is aware, the MCWD held a public hearing regarding this matter at its February 14, 2002 meeting. Summary of Public Hearing - MCWD Rule M (proposed) City staff attended the public hearing at the MCWD regarding the proposal to :~rnend Rule M. In general, fine City's phmary concern deals With fine ramifications to the Mound SWMP in the event proposed Rul& M is adopted. A copy of the letter to MCWD Board of Mmagers President Para Blixt has been included as an attachment. Impact Rule M on Local Water Plans City staff received a telephone call on February 15, 2002 from MCWD Senior District Technician Jim Halter who indicated that tlne MCWD would not require the City of Mound to update its Plan until such time as fine MCWD prepares and approves its next generation water plan. The City would then have two (2) years to update its S\VMP. Mr. Halter indicated that, in all likelihood, the timeframe for Mound to comply with the new rules wound be approximately five (5) ye~u's. As requested by file City Council, written confirmation regarding the status of tile Mound S\VMP has been requested. Status of Proposed Rule M According to a memorandum from the MCWD dated February 22, 2002, the Board has opted to delay action on the proposed revision(s) to Rule M until Spring. A copy of the memo lnas been included as an attachment. - 1477- Public Agency Comments As requested by Council Member Meyer, a COpy of fl~e letter from the DNR regarding the proposed amendments has been included as an attachment. Staff Recommendation - Continuation of Public Hearing for Review of City Code Amendments As a formal written response from the MCWD regarding the status of the proposed rule revisions on the Mound SWNIP has not yet been received, City staff recommends that the public heming for review of the Proposed amendments to the City Code be continued to an alternate date to be set and announced by the City Council at its March 12, 2002 meeting. Attachments · Letter to MCWD Board President Para Blixt'dated February, 15, 2002 Memorandum dated February 22, 2002 from MCWD - Status of Rule M MCWD agenda dated February 28, 2002 · Email from MCXX/D District Tech. Jim Ha£tner dated March 4, 2002 · MCWD agenda dated March 7, 2002 · Letter from Travis Germundson of DNR dated February 28, 2002 Page 2 - 1478- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH:.(952) 472;0600 FA.X: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofrnou nd.com February 15, 2002 Ms. Pam Blixt, President Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood. Road Navarre, MN 55331 COPY Proposed Amendment to MCWD Rule M - City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan Dear Ms. Blixt: This letter is in regard to the public hearing that was held by the MCWD on February 14, 2002 for the proposed amendment(s) to Rule M to increase and expand the wetland buffers standards. As you are aware, the MCWD appr6ved the Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWM~) on May 10, 2001 subject to a number of conditions including the execution CooPerative Agreement betWeen the MCWD and the City of Mound within six-months following the Plan's approval. The Cooperative Agreement was approved by the City Council at its October 23,2001 meeting. Subsequently, the MCWD Board of Managers approved the Cooperative Agreement at its December 6, 2001 meeting subject to a number of conditions including a requirement that states that certain amendments and/or revisions must be made to various sections of the Mound City Code within six (6) months. The public hearing for review of the proposed amendment(s) to the Zoning Ordinance was held by the City Council at its Tuesday, February 12, 2002 meeting and was subsequently tabled until Tuesday, March 12, 2002 due to concern expressed by members of the City Council with regard to the proposed revision(s) to Rule M~ As stated during my presentation last night, the City of Mound respectfully request s written responses to the following question: In the event the proposed rule revisions are approved, will Mound's Surface Water Management Plan be grandfathered under the existing rules, and if so, for h ow long? As discussed previously with MCWD staff, it is our expectation that Mound's Plan would be grandfathered since both the SWMP and the Cooperative Agreement, have already been approved and is consistent with the current NACWD Plan. Additionally, in the event Mound's Plan would be grandfathered under the existing rules, would the MCWD consider amending the Cooperative Agreement to reflect this position? Additionally, while the Mound City Council did not prepare a formal resolution with regard to proposed Rule M, members expressed strong concern regarding its passage due to possible negative impacts upon Mound's redevelopment activities and also questioned whether expanded and/or increased buffers provided additional water quality protection. On behalf of the City of Mound, I would ask that you share this information with the MCW'D Board of Managers. If you have any questions regarding this letter or would like any additional information, please feel free to contact me at 952-472-3190. Sinc2[ely2~~ Community Development Director - 1480-- 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 Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder (~ Printed oa recyclsd paper containing at least 30% post consumer waste. Date: To: From: RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Qu.a~/ of'~rater, Quality Mi..,elmha Creek Watershed istrict MEMORANDUM February 22, 2002 Cities and Townships of the MCWD, BWSR, MN DNR, MN Dept. of Health, MN Dept. of Agriculture, MPCA, MPRB, BATC, and Interested Parties Jim Hafner, Senior Technician Status of Proposed MCWD Rule M Following the close of the public comment period for the proposed Rule M, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Board of Managers, at their regularly scheduled workshop meeting on February 21, 2002, made the decision to delay action to approve Rule M. A vote had been scheduled for the February 28, 2002 meeting. After reviewing the comments received during the comment period it became evident to the Managers that there remains many misconceptions requiring further explanatiOn as well as issues that need additional research and discussion by the MCWD. Staff may be contacting you during this period to clear up any misconceptions. While specific dates have not been set at this time, the Board projects a final decision to be ~nade during Spring 2002. A revision of the rule will be circulated prior to any final action. If you have questions or would like additional information, please contact me at (952) 471-0590 or jhafner@minnehahacreek.org. -1481 - Minnehaha Creek etched District P.01/02 Thursday, Fehrnary 28, 200~ 6:45p,m, - Board of Managers M;fl-otonka Comm.~!ty Center 14600 Min~etonk~ Boulevard Mismet~nka, MN 55845 Council ch.,~bers IFY Board of Manager~: Para Bltxt. president; Malcolm Reid, Vice President~ Lance Fisher, S~cretary; Monica Gross, Treasurer; Jsm_es Calkins, 1Vi-~,~er; Robert Schrooder, M~nager; ~ott Thomas, Manager Note: Indicated times are estimates; actttat limes may vary considerably, lndivictuals with I~ems on the Agenda or who wislt to speak ~o the Board are encouraged to be in attendance when the meeting is called W order. 6:45pm 1. Board Meeting Call to Order and Roll Call 6:45-7:00pm 2. Matters from the Floor Anyone. wishing io address the Board, of Managers on art ttem~r~ot on the a.qendo or on the co~sent a_qend~_tllay come forward iii this time. Cornrments are limited to two minutes. 7:00-7:30pm 4. Hearings for Violations and Stop Work Orders 7:30-7:45pm 5, CAC Report 7:45-7:50pm 6. Approval of Agenda (Additions/Corrections/Deletions) 7:50-8:00pm CONSENT AGENDA (The corlsent agenda is cortsidered as one item of bUstrtess, It consists of routine administrative items or/terns no[ recluiring discussiar~ Ire. fro, clvt be remowd from the conserlt agenda a~ the. request cfa Board M~mber.) 7. Approval of Minutes 7.1 Sanuary 10, 2002 7.2 lanuary 17,2002 7,3 .l'anua:'y 24, 2002 m Approval of Check Registers* $. 1 Chmcking Account 8.2 Petty Cash Account ConSent Permits * 9.1 01457 ,DenTtv _Manri~u~: Derm~,'ManriqUe has applied for permits tbr Rule F: Shoreline Stabilization for the construction of a r~ 'taining wail oa a property located at 45 l:airhope Avenue in xhe City of Tonka Bay (previously tabled). 9.2 01-019 Minnesot, a,V~terans Ho__m_o-: Alan Saatkamp has requested the renewal of a weviously approved permit for Rule B; Erosion Control and Rule C: Floodplain Alteration for thg construction or drainage improvements to a property located at 5101 Mtnaehaha Avenue South in ~he City of Minneapolis. 10. Consent Items None * Attachments tncl'osed, **Attachments w b~ sent under separa£e cover. - 1482- FEB-22-2002 1S:32 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED~ 612471 0682 P.02/02 8:00-8:30pm REGULAR AGENDA 11. Permits Requiring a Variance or Board Discussion* 11.1 01-413 MI Fischer: Earl i'~ischcr of IvLLIVI Enlorprises, Inc. has appliex:l for permit.? Rule B: Erosion Con,roi, Rule D: Wetland ProtectS011 (with a variance), and Rule I',, Stormwater Management for the coastruction of a multi-family residential subdivisioi~ located at 2220 County Road 1Ol in the City t~t" Plymouth. 11.2 02-007 S.uburban Ilennepin Relional Park District: 'H~nnepin Parks h= applied Ibr permit~ for Rule B: Erosion Control, Rule D; Wetland Protection (with a variance), and Rule N; Smrmwatcr Management for the construction of trail improvements to the LRT trail Pressing at Highway 7 in the City of Victoria. ti.3 01-426 City ofLtan~ Lak~-: The City of Long Lake has applied for pm'mit, for Rule B: Erosion Control, Rule D: Wetland Pro~oction and Rule N: Stormwat~r management for the construction 0fa rogionaI fire station located at 430 Willoxv Drive in the City of trent. 11.4 02-029 City of Edina: The City of Edina has applied for permits for Rule B: Erosion Control and Rule N: StormwatPr Management (with a variance) for l:h~ construction of a police s~ation localed at 4701 West 50th Street in the City of F',dina. 11.5 01-453 MnDOT: Ben Timerson of MnDOT has applied for permits for Rule B: Erosion ContrOl, Rule D: Wetland Protectiun and Rule N: Stormwater Management for the construction of an additional mrn lane on an offramp of T.H. 394 at County Read 101 in the City of Wayzata. 8:30-9:00pm 12. 12.I 12.2 Board Action Items Approval of' the City of Long Lake Water Resourc~ Management Plan Authorization to Enter into an Agreement with a Independent Third Party Consultant to Interpret Additional Data Collectcd at the Hwy 55/62 MnDOT Construction Site.* 9:00-9:30pm Executive Session 13. l Discussion on the Impact to L~al Water Plans ~s~tin2 from M~ R~e Revisions 13,2 Ropes lm t~ ~pac~ to ~undwa~er Levels resUldn~ from MAC Dcwaterin2 13.3 Updae on ~lisla~vc Activities 13.4 Contin~n~ of Rule M Discassion lO:O~m 14. ~joment 15. Pending Board Agenda Items Rule M (March 7,2001) - Attorney Contracts (March 2002). 2002 AUdit AC%planed 0Vlar~h 2002) 16. Pending Workshop/Discussion Items 17, TBD Upcoming Meeting Schedule **"Thursday, March 7, 2002. TBA **Thursday, March 14,. 2002-Meeling-Minneionka Communi£y Center-Council Chambers **Thursday, March 2 [, 2002-Workshop-Minnetonka Community Center-St. Alhan's Room **Thursday, March 28, 2002-Meeting-Minnettmka Communhy Center-Council Chambers * Attachments en¢losex:l. **Attachments to be sent under scparat~ cover. -1483- TOTRL P,02 ~rah Smith From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: "Jim Hafner" <jhafner@minnehahacreek. org> "Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> <gspiotta@minnehahacreek.org> Monday, March 04, 2002 11:53 AM RE: Rule M / Mound SWMP Plan Hi Sarah, Thanks for your e-mail and I hope you had a great trip. I talked with Terry before you all left and it sounded like a lot of fun. 1 am working with Chuck Holtman to put together a letter explaining the potential impact of Rule M to city plans. Given the change in the schedule for rule adoption we may have to delay a little on the letter. On Feb. 21, at the close of the public comment period, the MCWD Board decided to delay action on the rule due to the volume and nature of the comments received. A special workshop was scheduled for this Thursday (3/7) to allow the staff time to Summarize the comments, do some additional research and provide additional opportunity for the Board to discuss potential revisions to the rule. This also allOWs us a chance to answer what appear to be misconceptions of the rule and work out some minor details, with this in mind, it is my recommendation that we wait until after ThuredaY's meeting and then complete a letter that Would better explain how the proposed rule may affect your city. This should get the letter to you in time for your 3/12 meeting. Let me know If this will not work or If you need any further info on the rule process and time frame. At this time, their is no date set for approval of the rule except to say that the Board is trying tO complete their process by sometime this spring. .," - 1484- MAR-01-2002 17:50 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 612471E~682 P.81/81 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Impro. ing Quali~y of Water, Quality of £ife Board M ~: Para BliX~, Preside~, Mal~ Reid, ViCe President;, Lance I~sh~, I~:~lica Gross, Tn~astl~, James Calkin$, ~ RObert s~, Manager;, $cc~'lTmmas, lVlan~jar 8:30-10:00pm 2. Execut~e Session 10:00pm 3. Adj~ * Attachments enclose~l. **Attachments to be sent under separate cover. - 1485- TOTRL P. O1 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910' Fax: (651) 772-7977 February 28, 2002 Ms. Sarah Smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364 Re: Shoreland Ordinance Amendment, City of Mound, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Smith: Thank you for submitting your community's iequest for an amendment fi.om the statewide shoreland rules and your shoreland management ordinance to the Department of Natural Resources for review. In accordance with your amendment request received January 31, 2002, 'individual stormwater management plans for business and industrial lots with 30 to 75 percent of impervious surface will n° longer be required. Instead, these lots will have to meet the requirements of the city's approved Surface Water Management Plan. The executive summary of the plan adequately describes the situation and justifies your request. I find that the city's draft amendment is in substantial compliance with Minnesota Rules 6120.2500- 6120.3900, and hereby conditionally approve it. Full approval will be granted after the city has officially adopted the amended ordinance. Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, 'please contact me at (651) 772-7910. Travis Germundson Area Hydrologist C: City of Mound Shoreland File DNR Information: 651-296-6157 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity 1-888-646-6367 ° TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929  '~ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste - 1486- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (95~) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 4, 2002 SUB,IECT: Review of Text Amendments to City Code - Implementation of Mound Surface Water Management Plan APPLICANT: City of Mound PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-03 PUBLIC HEARING- ZONING AMENDMENTS The City Council will hold a public hearing for review of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance that are associated with the Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) at its Tuesday, February 12, 2002 meeting. · CITY CODE AMENDMENTS In addition to the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, there are other amendments to the City Code which are necessary for proper implementation of the SWIVlP. With the exception of City Code Section 350, amendments to the City Code do not require a public hearing or review by the Planning Commission. However, the proposed amendments to the City Code will be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed zoning ordinance amendments as they are aSsociated with the implementation of the SVvSVfP. BACKGROUND As the City Council is aware, the MCWD approved the SWMP on May 10, 2001 subject to a number of conditions includin/~ the execution of a cooPerative agreement between the McWD and the City of Mound within six-months following the Plan's approval. The cooperative agreement was approved by the City Council at its October 23, 2001 meeting. Subsequently, the MCWD Board of Managers approved the COoperative agreement at its 'December 6, 2001 meeting subject to a number of conditions including the requirement that certain amendments and/or revisions are made to various sections of the Mound City Code within six (6) months. PROJECT SUMMARY Details regarding the proposed amendments to the City Code are contained in Planning Report No. 02~03 which has been included as an attachment. - 1487- REVIEW PROCEDURE Minnesota State' Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states that no zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted .until a public hearing is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, the notice of the public hearing must also be published at least (10) days prior to the hearing date. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Laker. on February 2, 2002. The Notice of Public Hearing was also posted On or around January 29, 2002. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS DNK Area Hydrologist Travis Germondson contacted City staff via telephone on February '4, 2002. It is anticipated that comments from the DNK with regard to the proposed revisions to the shoreland management ordinance may be forthcoming. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW City Code Section 350:520 also requires that any proposed text amendment which is not initiated by the Planning Commission must be referred to the Planning Commission for review and must not be acted upon until it has received the Planning Commission's recommendation. Members of the City Council are advised that the proposed ordinance amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its February 4, 2002 meeting. A copy of the minutes from the February 4, 2002 meeting has been included as an attachment. RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning CommissiOn unanimously voted to recommend approval of the propbsed amendments to the City Code as recommended by City staff on the following condition: The corrections and/or revisions suggested by the Planning Commission at its February 4, 2002 meeting are incorporated into the ordinance amendments. ATrACHMENTS * Ordinance No. -2002 [City Code Section 350 - zoning] · Ordinance No. -2002 [City Code Section 300 - floodplain] · Ordinance No. -2002 [City Code SeCtion 3*/5 - grading, soil erosion, sedimentation control, and stormwater management] · February. 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes - 1488- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 350.1121 -Wetland Buffers is hereby added to read as follows: 350.1121 Wetland Buffers. VVhen a site is proposed to develop or redevelop in a manner that requires a Major Subdivision, as defined by City Code Section 330, a natural wetland buffer shall be provided. The minimum buffer width along a wetland or replacement wetland within each lot may range from 50 to 150 percent of the requirement in order to provide flexibility and encourage a natural appearance. Subd. 1. Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Size (Ac) Buffer Width (ft) 0- 1.0 16.5 1 - 2.5 20 2.5 - 5.O 25 > 5.0 35 Subd. 2. · Setbacks. All structures, roadwaYs, driveway.s and parking areas must be located Outside of the required buffer. Exceptions to the setback include stairways, walkways and trails. Subd. 3. Protection of Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers can be established by preserving existing nature vegetation, supplementing existing vegetation, or replanting the buffer with native vegetation. The wetland buffer shall be left un-maintained, except when burning to promote its continued health. A delineation of both wetland and buffer edges shall be eStablished through the use of monument markers as approved by the City. Subsection 350.1200 - Shoreline Manaqement is hereby amended as follows: Subsection 350.1225, Subd. 6 (B)(2)is hereby amended to read as follows: .................... ~ ........ ~ .... , .... ~ ..................... ~ .... ~,, ~ot ~ 75 ...... ~ ~f ~ *~ ~+ 2r~3. Impervious s~ace coversRe for businoss, industrial, public, an~ mixed usos shall not oxc~oO 75%. 1 - 1489- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE BUILDING CODE The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 300.15, Subd. 4, b, is hereby amended 'to read as follows: bo Flood Fringe Structures, The placement of new structures and land uses as permitted by the underlying zoning district, 'may be permitted within the flood fringe subject to the standards of this section, Fill placed within the flood fringe portion of the flood plain shall be properly compacted and the slopes protected with riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable methods. Activities such as the ConStruCtion of struOtures and placement of fill within the flood frinqe shall result in a no net decrease in lO0-year flood storage. Passed by the City Council this day of Published in The Laker the day of Effective on ,.2002. ,2002. ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk 'Mayor Pat Meisel - 1490- CITY OF MOUND :ORDINANCE NO. -2002 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 378 - GRADING, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO THE CITY CODE The City of Mound does ordain: Section 375 - GRADING, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION CONTROL, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT is hereby added as follows: 375.10 Gradinq, Soil Erosion, and Sedimentation Control. Subd. 1. Purpose. The City requires the preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for land disturbing activities, in order to limit erosion from wind and water; reduce flow volumes and velocities of stormwater moving off- site; reduce sedimentation into water bodies; and protect soil stability during and after site disturbance. These measures should reflect the following principles: A. Minimize, in area and duration, exposed soil and unstable soil Conditions. B. Minimize disturbance of natural soil cover and vegetation. C. Protect receiving water bodies, wetlands and storm sewer inlets. D. Retain sediments from disturbed properties on site. E. Minimize off-site sediment transport on trucks and equipment. F. MinimiZe work in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. G. Maintain stable slopes. H. Avoid steep slopes and the need for high cuts and fills. I. Minimize disturbance to the surrounding soils, root systems and trunks of trees adjacent to site activity that are intended to be left standing. J. Minimize the compaction of site soils. -1491 - Ordinance No, -2002 Subd. 2. Permit Requirement. Unless specifically excepted by this section, land-disturbing activity shall' require a permit incorporating an erosion control plan approved by the City..and shall be conducted in accordance with that plan. SUbd. 3. ,Exceptions. The following land-disturbing activity shall not be subject to the requirements of this section: Ao Activity that: (1) disturbs an area of less than 5,000 square feet; and (2) involves the grading, excavating, filling, or storing on site of less than 50 cubic yards of soil or earth material. B. Routine agriCultural activity. Emergency activity immediately necessary'to protect life Or prevent substantial physical harm to person or property, Subd. 4. Gradin,q and Erosion Control Plan A satisfactory erosion control and grading plan consistent with the City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan (Appendix J and other sections as applicable) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management practices handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," (March 2000 as amended) must be approved by the City before a building permit is issued for construction, if the construction will result in disturbing the soil. To guarantee compliance with the plan, a five hundred dollar cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the City, shall be furnished to the City before a building permit is issued. The maximum escrow required of an individual builder or subdivider, regardless of the number of building permits that have been issued t° the builder or subdivider, is five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The City may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the City for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the City draws on the escrow funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The City shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the City. B. For subdivisions, the grading and erosion control plan must be consistent with the approved grading plan for the plat. The finished slope shall be no 2 - 1492- Ordinance No. -2002 steeper than three (3) units horizontal to one (1) vertical unless specifically approved. Also, location of erosion control devices shall be clearly labeled. Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No grading or filling shall be Permitted within forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a water body unless specifically approved by the City. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of grou nd cover shall be provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading operation. Do Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to determine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the City may require additional controls to correct specific site related problems as normal inspections are performed. All erosion control nOted on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the initiation of any site grading. Noncompliance with the grading and erosion control plan shall constitute grounds for an order from the City to halt all construction. All construction activity that results in disturbance of the ground shall comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management P~actiCes HandbOok, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended. 375.20 Requirement for Stormwater Manaqement. SUbd. 1. Purpose. A. Require stormwater facilities to be included i.n land development projects where practicable and effective. B. Manage stormwater and snowmelt runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis throughout the City to: _ Promote effective water quality treatment, where feasible, prior to discharge to surface waterbodies and wetlands; Limit developed peak rates of runoff into major surface water bodies to less than or equal to existing peak rateS; and 3. Promote infiltration of both Precipitation and runoff. - 1493- Ordinance No. -2002 Subd. 2. Applicability of Stormwater Manaqement Permit Requirements. As provided herein, before creating any impervious surface or changin9 the contours of a parcel of land in a way that affects the direction, peak rate or water quality of storm flows from the parcel, a developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway, sidewalk or trail uses shall submit a stormwater management plan and secure a permit. The plan shall incorporate provisions of the City ol~ Mound Surface Water Management Plan and the Best Management Practices (BMP's) as found in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices Handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended, rate control and water quality control, as applicable. The applicability of the stormwater management requirements set forth in this section to a given development or redevelopment is set forth in ~paragraphs A through E. A. Single Family Homes. A permit is not required for the construction or reconstruction of a single-family home or its residential appurtenances. Bo Single-Family, Developed or Redeveloped Subdivision. A permit is not required from the City for construction on less than two (2) acres with a density of two (2) units or less per acre. A permit is required for residential development or redevelopment of subdivisions with a density of two (2) units or less per acre on sites of two (2) acres or more, as follows: For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of two (2) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 of this section are required. For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of eight (8) acres or more but less than twenty (20) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. o For development or redevelopment of_subdivisions of twenty (20) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. C. Medium Density Residential Land Development. A permit is not required for the development or redevelopment on a site of less than two (2) acres of residential subdivisions with single-family units at a density of more than two (2) units per acre or a multi-unit residential development or redevelopment, at a density of less than eight (8) units per acre. A permit is required for development or redevelopment on a site of two (2) acres or more of 4 - 1494- Ordinance No. -2002 residential subdivisions with a density of more than two (2) units per acre or multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a density of less then eight (8) units per acre, as follows: For development or redevelopment of two (2) acres or more but less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisior~s set forth in Subd. 3 of this section are required. For development or redevelopment of five (5) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. For development or redevelopment of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. D. Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Development or Redevelopment; Mixed use; High Density Residential Development or Redevelopment. A permit is required for commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed use development or redevelopment, or for multi-unit residential.development or redevelopment at a density greater than or equal to eight (8) units per acre, as follows': 1. For all development or redevelopment, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 of this section are required. 2. For development or redevelopment activities on sites of one-half (1/2) acre or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of thiS section are required.. 3. For development or redevelopment activities on sites of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. Roads, Streets, Highways, Sidewalks and Trails. A permit is not required for the maintenance or improvement, of a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way not otherwise regulated under paragraphs (a) through (d), if the project does not result in a net increase in impervious - 1495- Fo Go Ordinance No. -2002 surface. A permit is required for a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way that results in a net increase in impervious Surface area, as follows: For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of less than-one (1) acre, the best management practices in Subd. $ of this Section will be required; 2. For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or more, but the total project area is less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 are required to treat the increase; 3. For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or more and the total project area is five (5) acres or more, the best management praCtices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this Section are required to treat the increase; o Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed ten (10) feet in width and are bordered by a pervious buffer of at least five feet on each side do not require a permit and are not included in any calculation of net increase in impervious surface When part of a road Or street project. The interruption of pervious buffer by streets, driveways or other impervious surfaces crossing a sidewalk or trail does not invalidate this exception provided that these impervious surfaces do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the required pervious buffer. AdditiOnal Requirements. i.n the event that the stormwater management requirements in the preCeding paragraphS A through E are not adequate to address development impacts relating'tO BMP's, water quality or water quantity controls on development or redevelopment sites or special conditions exist, the City may require, at is discretion, ad-ditional measures in order 'to further the intent of the Mound Surface Water Management Plan. Surety. A performance bOnd or other surety in a form satisfactory to the City is required for all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of land. Common Scheme of DeveloPment. In determining stormwater management reqUirements under this section, development or redevelopment on adjacent sites under common or related ownership shall be considered in the aggregate. T. he requirements aPpliCable to a development or. redevelopment 6 - 1496 - Ordinance No. -2002 under this section shall be determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site, or on adjacent sites under common or related ownership, since the date this Section took effect. Additional Development or Redevelopment on Developed Sites, When the' impervious area on a site is increased by 50 percent or more, the requirements imposed by this Section will be determined with respect to the site in a pre-development condition. When the impervious area On 8 site is increased by less than 50 percent, the requirements imposed by this Section will be determined with respect to only the additional impervious surface and site alteration proposed. Subd. 3. Best Manaqement PraCtice Requirements. BMPs consist of site design, structural and non-structural practices. BMPs must be incorporated in all projects requiring a permit under this section to limit creation of impervious surface, maintain or enhance on-site infiltration and peak flow contro. I and limit pollutant generation on and discharge from the site. BMP's must be consistent with spedfications of the MPCA manual "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas dated March 2000 and its future revisions. The City, in its discretion, may allow a BMP not addressed in the MPCA manual on a demonstration of its effectiveness or if its application will generate new and useful data or information regarding its effectiveness. All applications for which compliance only with BMP's is required shall delineate buildings and structures showing that door and window openings are a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water elevation. Subd. 4, Stormwater Manaqement and Erosion Control Plan Standards Stormwater management plans shall incorporate provisions of the City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan (Appendix J and other sections as applicable) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices Handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended. Passed by the City Council this Published in The Laker the day of Effective on ,2002. day of ,2002 ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel - 1497- DRAFT MOUND ADVISORy PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, .Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Sill Norlander. The following Public were present: Bill Schlatzlein Construction-70 Chairman Michael Welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Bob Brown was acknowledged and welcomed heartily as the new City Council representative. , 1. APPROVE ~MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2002 Glister nominated GeoffMichael as Chairman. Weiland seconded and~closed the nominations. Brown moved to white ballet. Nomination was approved unanimously. Mueller nominated Orr Burma as Vice-Chairman. Weiland seconded and closed the nominations. Brown moved to white ballet. Nomination was approved unanimously. 3. ADOPTION OF PC WORK RULES FOR 2002 The following changes were suggested: Page 2 - Section B. 1 - "second and fourth" should be changed to "first and third". Page 2 - Section B.3 - "first meeting in January" should be changed to "second meeting of the year. Page 2 - Section B.3 - "shall" should be changed to "will MOTION by Michael, seconded by Weiland, to postpone action on this item until next meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. - 1498- Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2002 4. PRESENTATION FROM CONSTRUCTION-70, INC. (ANTHONY'S FLOR_AL SITE) Construction 70 received general input and comments from Planning Commission fin June regarding the reuse of Anthony's Floral site, They are to be commended for their willingness to come before us once again for input. Present were Bill Schlatzlein, representing Construction 70 and Aaron Bamhardt representing.the buyers. The wetlands will remain. The eastern half of the parcel is substantially higher than the western half. Plan is for continued senior living from independent to assisted living. Most of the parking will be underground. Units include independent living, assisted living and memory care, Also proposed are Villa homes (cottages) on the northwest side; probably slab on grade. Clapsaddle asked if there was any sense of community reception to this concept. Bill said they hadn't done any surveying yet but it's something that we are looking to pursue. Mueller felt that the utility building near the county road was visually unattractive both as an aesthetic and market standpoint. Because this proposal is considered high density, they would need a comp plan amendment and PUD. There are 148 living units planned. Many would be multiple (1 and 2 bedrooms). Are 142 parking spaces adequate? The Masonic housing in Bloomington is similar but larger. Planning Commission would like the address so they can take a look at it. Are we looking at setting ourselves up to non-prOfit, non-tax? Bill said they would expect it to be tax paying. Brown asked if there would be dedicated park land of 10%? Bill indicated a definite willingness to accommodate that - either payment in lieu of land dedication or land itself. Weiland asked if there had been consideration of what was dumped into .that area? Aaron said it was mostly road surface material; gravel. Weiland wondered if all the units on east side 4 story? Bill indicated some are 3 and some 4. Clapsaddle asked if the parking garages fully below grade? Bill said theY basically were. Michael observed that Commerce Boulevard is extremely busy. He felt that rezoning for high density would be difficult to get through. - 5. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AME~NTS TO MOUND CITY CODE Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approved'the Mound Surface Water Management Plan (sWMP) in 2001 subject to a number of conditions including execution of a cooperative agreement between the MCWD and the City. This agreement was approved in December 2001 subject to a number of conditions including the requirement that certain amendments and/or revisions are made to various sections of the Mound City Code within six (6) months. - 1499- Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2002 Weiland noted that on Page 14, Subd 3 it should be changed to read "The wetland buffer shall be !eft." He also wanted to know what was the advantage of taking this over? Smith said that local control is best and, we get to interpret the rules for what is best for us. We cam look right in the plan and know what it means for us. We also don't have to shimmy thix~gs to someone else for review. One set of rules for everything isn't specific enough to deal with issues. Our plan has been written for Mound and shOuld work well for us. Mueller wanted to know if there were any changes from what we talked about in July, Gordon said it was the same. We are really adopting what the watershed is doing today. Weiland wanted to know what the markers were that are referenced on Page 15, Sabd 3. Gordon referred to the Langdon Bay area where, along the wetland buffer areas, markers are required so people know where they can and cannot mow; Each property would have regulations as to what the property can do. Weiland asked if there have been any comments from lakeshore property owners about not mowing along the lake? Gordon said no. They've had a public heating and we have heard nothing. Smith indicated that the first permits adjacent to the wetlands have just come in. The Engineer has addressed the need to be sure the markers are placed appropriately. The key to this whole project is public information. Mueller said that conversations with Dan Parks indicated that Minnetonka is not a wetland area. Gordon previouslY it applied to just wetlands. Most properties along Minnetonka do not have wetland edges. Brown wanted m know ffwe have spoken to the City Attomey about non-elected officials making laws/policy. Is this legal? Smith replied that it was a question for John Dean. Mueller asked how it would affect our parks and the greenway? Gordon replied that the new rule adds stream and lake buffers to the previous wetland edge regulations. We are going to adopt this before the new rule comes and our plan will be grandfathered in. The Watershed currently says if more than 50 cubic yards of fill is involved the rule kicks in. Our SWIvIP plan says it. only applies only under major subdivisions. Mueller asked if we are going to have to survey/categorize every half acre of wetland? Gordon replied that it's akeady been done. Mueller asked about the wetlands the Construction 70 concept addresses. Gordon said that if they are considered wetlands they will fall under Page 17.2. Mueller asked if Lost Lake is a 35 foot buffer area? Smith indicated that it is but a variance has already be acquired to put a trail in the middle of it. - 1500- Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2002 Brown ~alel hdd be~ against re l~uffer zone from day 1. Two years ago he sa~cl ~is was their way of getting their toe in the door and they would make it stricter down the road. Burma sees if from the viewpoint that the City is regaining some control over these things: Maybe the Watershed District will come back at some point and regain control but ..we will have a period of time to develop as we see fit. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend adoption of this amendment. MOTION Carried unanimously 6. OLD AND NEW BUSINESS Smith asked the Commission if it they were open to a second meeting in February. There are a couple of applications in addition to several discussion items staff would like input on. We could use February 25t~ as a workshop only and then March 4th for cases. Consensus of the Commissioner's was to meet on February 25t~. Smith indicated that staffwas updating the application forms for complete and clear directions. We are raising the bar as the Commission indicated was desired. Because of the higher expectations there might be complaints. We have also changed the submittal due date to the first business day of the month. Brown mentioned that there is a special city council workshop on February 13th. Because Gramercy pulled out, the City Council will meet to plan the next move. Does Planning Commission want to be invited? Mueller indicated he has always maintained that Planning Commission should be in on redevelopment planning. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 9:16 PM. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair Geoff Michael Attest: Planning Secretary - 1501 - 5341 Maywc~od P. osd Mound, MI',I 55364 (952) 472-B190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah .Smith, Community Development Director DATE: January 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Review of Text Amendments to City Code - Implementation of Mound Water Management Plan APPLICANT: City of Mound PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-03 Surface PROJECT SUM31ARY As the City Council and Planning Commission are aware, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approved the Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) on May 10, 2001 subject to a number of conditions including the execution of a cooperative agreement between the MCWD and the City of Mound. The cooperative agreement was approved by the City Council on October 23, 2001. Subsequently, the MCWD Board of Managers approved the cooperative agreement at its December 6, 2001 meeting subject to a number of conditions including the requirement that certain amendments and/or revisions are made to various sections of the Mound City Code within six (6) months. REVIEW PROCEDURE Ivfinnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states that no.zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted until a public hearing'is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, the notice of the public hearing must also be published at least (10) days prior to the hearing date. City Code Section 350:520 also requires that any proposed text amendment which is not initiated by the Planning Commission must be referred to the. Planning Commission for review and must not be acted upon until it has received the Planning Commission's recommendation PUBLIC HEARING DATE The public hearing for formal review of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance will be held by the City Council at its Tuesday, February 12, 2002 meeting. The notice of public hearing was published in the Laker on February 2, 2002. -1502- REVISIONS TO MOUND CITY CODE In addition to the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, there are other amendments to the City Code which are necessary for proper implementation of the SWMP. With the exception of City Code Section 350, amendments to the City Code do not require a public hearing or review by the Planning Commission. However, the proposed amendments to the City Code will be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed zoning ordinance amendments as they are associated with the implementation of the Surface Water Management Ordinance. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF ORDINANCE AMENDM]gNTS Members of the City Council and Planning Commission are advised that the proposed amendments to the City Code which are associated with the SWMP were reviewed preliminarily by the Planning Commission at is July 16, 2001 meeting. Copies of the minutes from the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission have been included as an attachment. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEw Copies of the request and all supporting were forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the MCWD for review and comment. Members of the Planning Commission and City Council are advised that the proposed amendments were reviewed by the MCWD prior to the approval of the SWlVI? and were favorably received. STAFF COMMENTS Members of the City Council and Planning Commission are advised that the proposal to increase and expand the buffer standards (Rule M) has once again resuffaced and will be formally reviewed as part of a public hearing to be held by the MCWD on February 14, 2001. In the event the City's ordinance amendments are not in place prior to the 180- deadline for the execution of the implementation phase, the possibility exists that Mound's Plan could be subject to the proposed new rules effective immediately in the event they are approved. Conversely, if the ordinance amendments are already formally approved by the City, it is likely we would be "grandfathered in" until such time as the Generation III Plan would be approved by the MCWD. It is City staff's understanding that copies of the Mound Surface Water Management Plan were provided previously to members of the City Council and Planning Commission and therefore have not been included as part of this report. Additional copies can be obtained from City staff upon request. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the City Code. - 1503- ATTACI~3/IENTS Affadavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice Notice Of Public Hearing dated February 2, 2002 Proposed text amendments dated February 2002 for implementation of Surface Water Management Ordinance Cooperative Agreement dated October 23, 2001 between the city of Mound and the MCWD · City Code Section 350:520 Text Amendments · Minutes fi.om July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting - 1504- ~?:STATE OF MINNESOTA ) Case .No. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTICE~ :~;i',;:~COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ;;:;i:!(;;;~...,+..zft, ~/~¢-tCgC-//"}~-~Z. '~~ day of ':the a~ached notice in three public places in the Coun~ of Hennepin, '::::,Minnesota, to wit: .;;...1) One tree copy thereof on the bulletin board at Ci~ Hall, 5341 Ma' Mound, Minnesota. ';;One true copy thereof on the front door of the Public Works Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. Subscribed and sworn to before me; thiso~ ;?day of One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at the Westonka Commun Library at 207~ Commerce BoUlevard, Mound SUE $CHWALBE NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA Notary Public My CommissiOn PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER oRDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 350:1100 - WETLANDS AND SECTION 350:1200 - SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota wlll meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m.:on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 to consider amendments to Zoning Code Section 350:1100 (VVetlands) and Zoning Code Section 350:1200. (Shoreland Management.) .. Amendment Summary - City Code Section 350:1100 Section 350:1121 Wetland Buffers. When a site is proposed to develop or redevelop in a manner that requires a Major Subdivision, as defined by City Code Section 330, a natural wetland buffer shall b.e provided. The minimum buffer width along a'wetland or replacement wetland within each lot may range from 50 to 150 percent of the requirement in order to provide flexibility and encourage a natural appearance. Subd. 1. Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Size ('Ac) Buffer Width ('ft) 0 - 1.0 16.5 1 - 2.5 20 2.5 - 5.0 25 > 5.0 35 Subd. 2. Setbacks. All structures, roadways, driveways, and parking areas must be located outside of the required buffer. ExCeptions to the setback include stairways, walkways, and trails. Subd. 3. Protection of Wetland Buffers. 'Wetland buffers can be established by preserving existing native vegetation, supplementing existing vegetation, or replanting the buffer with native vegetation. The wetland buffer shall left unmaintained, except when burned Io promote its continued health. A delineation of both wetland and buffer edges shall be established through the use of monument markers as approved by the City. Amendment Summary - City Code Section 350:1200 Shoreland Management- 350:1200 (revisions to existing ordinance) Section 350:1225, Subd. 6(B)(2). Impervious surface coverage for business, industrial, public, and mixed uses shall not exceed 75%. Mixed use projects cannot be exclusively residential to qualify for this impervious surface standard. Copies of the ordinance amendments are available to the public upon request at City Hall. Ali persons appearing, at said hear. ing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. HI ~lorlander, Plafining and Inspections Secretary Published in the Laker on February 2, 2002. - 1506- Draft Ordinance ProvisiOns for Surface Water Management Plan Implementation GITY OF MOD I~ D Shoreland Management- 350:1200 (Revisions to existing ordinance) Section 350:1225, Subd. 6(B)(2) Impervious surface coverage for business, industrial, public, and mixed uses shall not exceed 75%. Mixed use projects cannot be exclusively residential to qualify for this impervious surface standard. Wetlands - Section 350:1100 (New language to existing ordinance) Section 350:1121 Wetland Buffers. When a site is proposed to develop or redevelop in a manner that requires a Major Subdivision, as defined by City Code Section 330, a natural wetland buffer shall be provided. The minimum buffer width along a wetland or replacement wetland within each lot may range from 50 to 150 percent of the requirement in order to provide flexibility and encourage a natural appearance. Subd. 1. Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Size (Ac) Buffer Width (ft) 0- 1.0 16.5 1 - 2.5 20 2.5 -5.0 25 > 5.0 35 Subd. 2. Setbacks. All structures, roadways, driveways, and parking areas must be located outside of the required buffer. Exceptions to the setback include stahwvays, walkways, and trails. Subd. 3. Protection of Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers can be established by preserving existing native vegetation, supplementing existing vegetation, or replanting the buffer with native vegetation. The wetland buffer shall left unmaintained, except when burned to promote its continued health. A delineation of both wetland and buffer edges shall be established 'through the use of monument markers as approved by the City. Proposed Amendments for Stuff ace Water Management Plan Jmple~nentation February 2002 ! of 6 pages - 1507- Floodplain Overlay Regulations - Section 300:15 (New language to existing ordinance) Subd. 4 Development Standards a. Activities such as the construction of structures and placemen of fill within the flood fringe shall result in a no net decrease in 100-year flood storage. Section 375 - Gradinga Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control A satisfactory erosion control and grading plan consistent wi~h the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended, must be approved by the city engineer before a building permit is issued for construction, if the construction will resuk in disturbing the soil. To guarantee compliance with the plan, a five hundred-dollar cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished the city before a building permit is issued. The maximum escrow required of an individual builder or subdivider, regardless of the number of building permits that have been issued to the builder or subdivider, is five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. b) The grading and erosion control plan must be consistent with the approved grading plan for the plat in which the property is located, if any. Areas where the finished slope will be steeper than three (3) units horizontal to one (1) vertical shall be specifically noted. Also, location of erosion control devices shall be clearly labeled. c) Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No grading .or filling shall be permitted within forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a water body unless specifically approved by the cky. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed 'areas, restoration of ground cover shall b'e provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading operation. d) Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to determine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the city engineer may require additional controls to correct specific site related problems as normal inspections are performed. Proposed Amendments for Surface Water Management Plan Implementation February 2002 2 of 6pages - 1508- Ail erofion, control noted on the approved l hn hfll be inmlled lxi r to the initiation of any site grading. Noncompliance with the grading ~nd erosion control plan shall constitute grounds for an order from the city engineer to halt all construction. f) All contraction activity that results in disturbance of the ground slm~ll comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Mana, gement Practices handbook, as amended. Requirements for Stormwater Management - (MCWD Rule N language) As provided herein, before creating any impervious surface or changing the contours of a parcel of land in a way that affects the direction, peak rate or water quality of storm flows from the parcel, a developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway, sidewalk or trail uses shall submit a stormwater management plan and secure a permit. The plan shall incorporate BMP's, rate control and water quality control, as applicable. The applicability of the stormwater management requirements set forth in this section to a given development or redevelopment is set forth at paragraphs (a) through (e). (a) Single-Family Homes. A permit is not required for the construction or reconstruction of a single-family home or its residential appurtenances. (b) Single-Family, Developed or Redeveloped Subdivisions. A permit is not required from the MCWD for construction on less than two (2) acres with a density of two (2) units or less per acre. A permit is required for residential development or redevelopment of subdivisions with a density of two (2) units or less per acre on sites of two (2) acres or more, as follows: (1) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of two (2) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required; (2) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of eight (8) acres or more but less than twenty (20) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required; (3) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of twenty (20) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required. Proposed Amendments for Surface Water Manogement Plan Impleraentation February 2002 - 1509- 3 of 6 pages (c) Medium Density Residential Land Development.. A permit is not required for the development or redevelopment on a site of less than two (2) acres of residential subdivisions with single-family units at a density of more than two (2) units per acre or multi-unit residential development or redevelopment, at a density of less than eight (8) units per acre. A permit is required for development or redevelopment on a site of two (2) ~tcres or more of residential subdivisions with a density of more than two (2) units per acre or multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a density of less than eight (8) units per acre, as follows: (1) For development or redevelopment of two (2) acres or more but less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required; (2) For development or redevelopment of five (5) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required; (3) For development or redevelopment of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required. (d) Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Development or Redevelopment; Mixed Use; High Density Residential Development or Redevelopment. A per~ is required for commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed use devel'opment or redevelopment, or for multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a density greater than or equal to eight (8) units per acre, as follows: (1) For all development Or redevelopment, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required; (2) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of one- half (1/2) acre or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required; (3) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of eight (8) acres or more, the best management Practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required. Proposed Amendments for Surface Water Management Plan Implementation February 2002 4 of 6 pages -1510- (e) Roads, Streets, Highways, Sidewalks, and Trails. A permit is not required for the maintenance or improvement of a public or privat~ road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way not Otherwise regulated under paragraphs (a) through (d), if the project does not result in a x~et increase in impervious surface, A permit is required for a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way that results in a net increase in impervious surface area, as follows: (1) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of less than one (1) acre, the best management practices in section 3 of this rule will be required; (2) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or more, but the total project area is less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 are required to treat the increase; (3) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious SUrface of one (I) acre ore more and the total project area is five (5) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required to treat the increase; (4) Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed ten (10) feet in width and are bordered by a pervious buffer of at least five feet on each side do not require a permit and are not included in any calculation of net increase in impervious surface when part of a road or street project. The interruption of pervious buffer by streets, driveways or other impervious surfaces crossing a sidewalk or trail does not invalidate this exception provided that these impervious surfaces do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the required pervious buffer. (f) Surety. A performance bond or othei- surety in a form satisfactory to the District is required for all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of land. The District will not require a performance bond or other type of surety from cities, townships, municipal corporations, counties, the state or federal government, or agencies of any of the aforementioned. (g) Common Scheme of Development. In determining stormwater management requirements under this section, development or redevelopment on adjacent sites under common or related ownership shall be considered in the aggregate. The requirements applicable to a Proposed Amendments for Surface Water Management Plan Jmplementation February 2002 5 of 6pages -1511- .develOpment or redevelopment under this section shall be determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site, or on adjacent sites under common or related ownership, since the date this rule took effect. (h) Additional Development or Redevelopment on Developed Sites. When the impervious area on a site is increased by 50 percent or more, the requirements imposed by this rule will be determined with respect to the site in a pre-development condition. When the impervioUs area on a site is increased by less than 50 percent, the requirements imposed by this rule will be determined with respect to only the additional impervious surface and site alteration proposed. Proposed Araendments for Surface Water Manageraent Plan Implementation February 2002 6 Of 6 pages -1512- COOPERATIVE.AGREEMENT Between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Mound for Local Water Planning and Regulation This Cooperative Agreement ia made this .~ay off'g~ r, 2001'by and b~tween the 1Wmnehaha Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D ("MCWD"), and the City of Mound, a body corporate and politic and a [home rule charter/statutory] city in the State of Minnesota ("City"). Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS in 1997, the MCWD revised its comprehensive watershed management plan under Minnesota Statues § 103B.231, which details the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and establishes a plan to regulate water resource use and management to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters. 103B and 103D; WHEREAS the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan 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; WHEREAS the City has developed a local water management plan under Minnesota Statutes § 103B.235 that describes the existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water management into conformance with the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan; WHEREAS on May lt~ 2001, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally approved the City's local water management plan by adoption of ResolUtion 06.2001, which resolution is attached and incorporated herein; WHEREAS the May I~ 2001 local plan approval was condition on fulfillment of the terms set forth in Resolution 06-2001; WHEREAS the City within 120 days of exeCution of this Cooperative Agreement will adopt and implement its local water management plan and within 180 days will adopt all ordinances identified in Resolution 06-200I as necessary for the Board of Managers' finding that the City's official controls,are as protective of the water resource as the MCWD's; WttEREAS, the MCWD and City desire to memorialiZe their respective roles in implementing water resource protection and management within the City; NOw THEREFORE it is 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, -1513- 1.0 Re _sponsibilities of the City_ 1.1 The City may exercise all present and 'future authority it otherwise may possess to issue permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City. 1.2 The City is solely responsible for erosion control, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and ~rmwater management for land development within the City. The City will regulate these activities in, ac~rdan~ with the City's approved local water management plan and the terms of this Asreement. The MCWD will continue to exercise its regulatory authority with respect to all other subjects of regulation under its Rules. 1.3 On written confu'mation to the MCWD that the City has adopted erosion control, flood plain alt~tion, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development ordinances as required by Resolution 06-2001 and said ordinances' are in force, the City shall become solely responsible for erosion control, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development within the City. The City will implement the ordinances in accordance with the City's approved local water management plan and the terms of this Agreement. 1.4 Within 120 days of its receipt of the MCWD's wetland inventory and function & value assessment for the City, the City shall review its local water management plan, submit to the MCWD such reVisions as the City believes wan'anted by the new information. 1.5 The ~'City will not issue a variance for an activity 'that does not comPly with an above- referenced ordinance until the MCWD has approved the variance and proposed conditions. On receipt ora request for a variance, the City promptly will transmit a copy of the variance request and supporting documentation to the MCWD for review.. 1.6 The City will maintain a log of permits it grants pursuant to this Agreement, will provide the log to the MCWD annually Md will meet at least annually with the MCWD to review the implementation, of the City's local water management plan. 2.0 Re _SpOnsibilities of the MCWD 2.1 The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce MCWD Rules E, F, and O "dredging shoreland and streamb~ improvementS, and stream and lake crossings," within the CitY, as aPplicable. 2.2. 2.3 The MCWD will continue to applY and enforce MCWD Rules B, C~< D and lq, "erosion control, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development,' within the City until the conditions in Paragraph 1.3 haVe been met. The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce Rule I, "Variances," when considering a variance from an above-referenced City ordinance~ The MCWD .will act on a variance request pursuant to paragraph 1.5 within 30 days of its receipt of the ~request. 2.4 The MCWD will perform a wetland inventory and a function & value assessment for the City and will provide the results to the City. -1514- 2.5 2.6 2.8 The MCWD will exercise good faith in its review and approval of any revision submitted by the City in accordance with paragraph 1.4, above.. The MCWD will meet with the City at least annually to review the implementation of the City's lOcal water management plan. .. The MCWD retain~ thc fight to enforce any and all of its rules in the event that thc City is unable or unwilling to carry out its obligations listed in Sex~tion 1.0 of this Agreement The MCWD retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and I03D or any other provision of law, except as explicitly reposed in the City under this Agreement, including but not limited to authority set forth in Minnesota Statutes §§ 103B.211, subd. l(a); 103D.335 and 103D.341. 3.0 Conditions The City's local water management plan shall be deemed finally approved by the MCWD on the City's fulfillment of paragraph 1.3 above. 4.0 Amendment This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by both of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this COoperative Agreement. CITY OF Mayor Cify Manager /vI~qNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT President, B~ard ~Managers APPRO~ AS TO F~ AND Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By: Its Attomey CLL- lf~)'3~OV2 MU220-4 -1515- 350.515 3,~0.$1~ ..~ planning Commt~ion. The Planning Commission established pursua.~t to Section 245 of the City Code shall provide assistance to the City Council and Administrator in th~:~n-of this Ordinance and at the recommendation of the Planning Comtaission shall.rev:i~t~ hold public hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on all al~lic~oas for zoning ara~mlments and conditional use permits using the criteria in Subseotions 3..~.520 and 350.525. 3~0.S20 Zonlnll~ Amendments. Sub& 1, Criteria for Granting Zoning Amendments. 'The City Council may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map in relation both to land uses.within a particular district or to the location of the district lines. Such amendments sha-t-dl..not be issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as refleCted in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City. Subd. 2. A. Procedure - Zoning AmendmentsJ An amendment to the text of the Ordinance or zoning map may 'be initiated by the City Council, the Planning Commission orby application ofapm, p~.rty owner i · . · ". . ' W ~ng to ~nitiate an. ~rnendmont to the .Zoning Ordinance shall fill out a zoning amendment application form and sUbmit it to the Zoning Administrator. The p. mperty owner.applying for a zoning amendment shall fi!l out and submit t0' the.. AdminiStrator a rezoning application form. A site Plan must be attached or drawn below at a scale large enough fo~ clarity showing the following information: . Location and dimensions of: lot, building, driveways, and off- street parking. e Distance be ~tw~ een: building and front, side, and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 39 215/00 -1516- Motmd 3. Location of: signs, easements; underground utilities+ etc: ,any additional information as may reasonably be required by the Administrator and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator Shall maintain records of amendments to the text and zoning map of the Ordinance. The City Council ma), -not until it has received the advice from the planner or 60 days has passed from referral. A ublic hearing on all r i s ~ hel ~ ~' ~Cou~cil ~ropa~ lo,aaa wiain ~r~ hundred ad fif~ (350) feet of ~e outer ~und~ies of ~e l~d propos~ to b~ rerunS. ~.~!!~abgl~,,i~t~de ~ de~l~0n~o~~~.~l~,d~{~si.~t. ,. The ~d~ Pl~mg ~ss~on must ~e ~uon on ~e ~pl~caUon wi~n six~ days bllowing referS. The per~n m~ing ~e application sh~l nofifi~ of ~e ~fion ~en. The Pl~ing ~mission sh~l m~e i~ repo~ m ~e Mound Ci~ ~uncil a i~ next re~l~ meeting following i~ ~.fion r~omending ~prov~, disapprov~ or modified ~proval of · e propo~ ~endment. No ~plicaion of a pmpe~ owner for ~ ~endment to ~e text of ~e Ordinate or ~e ~ning m~ sh~l ~ considered by ~e Pl~i~g ~mission wi~in ~e one-ye~ period following a deni~ of ~ch ~qaest, except ~e Pl~ng ~mission may pe~it a new ~plic~on, if in ~e opinion of ~e Pl~ning Comission, new evidence or a ch~ge of cimums~ces w~r~t it. 2/15/00 40 ,- -1517- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JULY 16, 2001 ThoSe present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky. Glister, Frauk Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent and excused: Cklair Hasse. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official J'on Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carded unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS REVIEW OF ORDINANCE ELEMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Planner Gordon introduced the discussion topic by saying that a review is needed of some of the elements that are needed to implement the surface water management plan. The Surface Water Management Plan enables us to take the review and approval authority from the watershed district. Gordon indicated there are 4 steps to the process: 1) we already have the plan approved by resolution'; 2) there is a resolution that acknowledges the transfer of authority. Council decided to wait until the Community Development Director.COmes on board; 3) we need to approve the elements and adopt them into our ordinances; 4) once the areas are identified by the MCWD we will have to adopt their assessment of the wetland areas within the city. Ordinance provisions were highlighted by Planner Gordon. (See attachment - Draft Ordinance Provisions for Surface Water management Plan Implementation) Discussion is as follows: Wetland buffers are the old standard and we can stay with these or go with the current standard, which is slightly more. We would like to average the buffer distance but the Watershed district is not really flexible in this area. We're going to push for 50-150% of the required, depending on the area. -1518- Planning Commission M/mutes July 16, 2001 We also would like to be more lenient w½th stairways and trails than the current standards. We would like a delineation of both wetland buffer edges and are doing that now ix the Langdon Bay addition by requiring monuments in various locations. Mueller asked what kind of vegetation growth determines a wetland. Gordon said it depended on the analysis of the area. Mueller inquired what the triggering effect would be o:f an area? Gordon replied that the application to install things like trails and roadways within an established buffer area would trigger the process. Every effort should be made to minimize disturbance of these areas. Sutherland added that there are some properties throughout the city i.e. out on Three Points and property on Lynwood that doesn't restrict someone from mowing without a problem. Mueller wanted to know why it was necessary to mark the buffer and the wetlands both. Sutherland felt that the buffer delineation was necessary s° that when land changes hands the demarcation has to survive. The wetlands need to be delineated in order to know where the buffer is. They could be on the property line and at grade. Sutherland felt that any time approval by the City Engineer is mentioned it should read City Engineer/Building Official because the Building Official issues all grading permits. Clapsaddle wondered how restoration could be made in 5 days. Sutherland said it meant preparation for restoration. Mueller stated that references to fees should be made "as determined by the City Council. The reference to measurement from the ordinary high water is a perpendicular measurement. Mueller wanted the references to permits be specific as to the type of permit so there is no question. Also, in the Surety section it should be stated "as required by the City" not the District as currently stated. Sutherland feels that review by City Attorney should be part of the review process, especially in the area of surety requirements. It could be covered in the definition section of the provisions. The common ownership issue (g) should be part of the application and make it the applicant's responsibility to tell the city of their interest in adjoining properties. Clapsaddle inquired about a residential site that is 1 to 1 ½ acres and had a major drainage area through the site, where the impact is very heavy. How would that be handled? Gordon said it would still come under City Engineer review. Mueller observed that there are two sections (Drainage, Grading, Erosion and Sediment · Control) that say the same thing, but two different sections of our code. Why? Gordon said we are establishing Best Management Practices. It is in the zoning ordinance for when we aren't subdividing land and the other section when we are developing land. We are covering all the bases. -1519- Planning Commission Minutes Jttly 16, 2001 Mueller thought that Mound codes are more restrictive than the 50 cubic yard rule, correct? Ours is 30 cubic yards? Gordon replied that we deal with the 50 cubic yard limit already. I'll check on the 30 cubic yard limit. Mueller wanted to knoTM how we deal with those that bring in a little each year to stay under the 50 cubic yard limit? Gordon - Good point. Mueller asked if we are under the Cooperative Agreement yet. Gordon said we weren't. That's what went to the Council last meeting and they tabled. Mueller's opinion was that MFRA's responses to the watershed were well written. We should argue in favor of the standards we have written in. Provides flexibility and does what it's suppose to do. Gordon confirmed that we'll keep working with the watershed district and make the changes as discussed here. Glister was concerned with the additional work it creates for our staff?. Gordon said there are not a lot of properties that come up that meet these criteria. It fits in our process better if we have the ability to oversee all the elements and not have to farm out one of the issues. John Cameron will have to have some of his people working on storm water facility design. There is a rate structure in place to handle the additional. Developers pay for stafftime. Sutherland felt it definitely increases demand on stafftime. Mueller wanted to be sure that the new changes made will be added to our code so developers are still responsible for review costs. Gordon assured him that it is written in akeady. They - are responsible for professional fees incurred. 3. MISCELLANEOUS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2001 Michael wanted to know what was Plan B in relation to the liquor store update. Sutherland indicated that the lease is due to run out. Anderson said they. are evaluating relocation. Michael inquired, regarding the Policy on Appointments and Reappointments to Advisory Commissions, who are the department heads and who picks the questions? Sutherland sa/d, our department head would be Sarah Smith and the procedure would remain the same right now with the commission setting the questions. Anderson thought it allowed more flexibility that way and mOre applicable to the individual commissions. - 1520- Planning Commission Minutes Jt~l¥ 16, 2001 Mueller thou~t that the change to the administration of the zoning code was a Plamin~ Commission item. Gordon said they were just getting a feel for the Council though_ts.' It will be brought to the Planning Commission for action. Mueller wanted to specifically ask about the appeals procedure in that zoning code change. Doesn't this circumvent the Planning Commission and allow someone to go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which is the City Council, without going before the planm'ng Commission first. We need to be sure that the proper channels are outlined in the Code so no one can do that. We need to discuss this further. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 PM. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair GeoffMichael Attest, Planning Secretary - 1521 - 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Community Development Director Sarah Smith / City Planner Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variances APPLICANT: Paul Berquist / Dave Logelin on behalf of Caliund LLC PLANNING CASE NUMBERS: 02-01 and 02-05 ltKG FILE NUMBER: 02-05 LOCATION: 4770-4782 Northern Road ZONINGi R- 1A Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential SUMMARY At its March 4, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the request from Paul Bergquist and Dave Logelin on behalf of Caliund LLC for a minor subdivision and variances in order to redevelop three (3) properties located at 4770-4782 Northern Road in order to create two (2) larger lots. Specific details regarding the Northern Road proposal are contained in Planning Report No. 02-02 / 02-05 which has been included as an attachment. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located at the east end of Northern Road adjacent to Seton Channel and Harrison's Bay. The properties are currently developed with 2 single story homes, each under 500 square feet, and have a single car detached garage. There are currently 8 nonconforming setback issues - sideyard, lakeside, and garage setbacks between the two homes. Floodplain elevation is also nonconforming for each house and is likely nonconforming for the two garages if the foundations are not anchored and/or floodproofed properly. - 1522- Page 2 Northern Road Subdivision / I/'ariance Executive Summary March 21, 2002 OVERVIIgW OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Members of the Planning Commission who supported the application(s) discussed the redevelopment benefits of the proposed subdivision and also suggested a number of revisions in order to reduce the number of variance(s) necessary. Specifically, the center lot line of the proposed subdivision was moved to the east (1.9) feet in order to eliminate the need for side yard variances for proposed Parcel B. Members of the Planning Commission who opposed the application(s) indicated that the lots were being overbuilt, the development was too close to the lake and such an approval could be precedent setting for the City. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ltardcover Coverage. The applicants intend to utilize a permeable paving stone system for the driveway area(s) and have indicated that impervious surface coverage for proposed Parcel A and proposed Parcel B will meet the thirty (30) percent hardcover restriction. Driveway Widths. The applicants have indicated that the driveway widths for proposed Parcel A and proposed Parcel B will not exceed (24) feet in width. Public Agency Comments. Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all involved public agencies for review and comment. Members of the City Council are advised that comments were received from the DNR and MCWD were received following the March 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and have been included as attachments. DNR. In summary, the DNR has expressed strong concern regarding approval of a setback variance(s) that would allow placement of a new dwelling within the 25-foot shoreland impact zone which is defined as one-half of the minimum lakeshore setback zone. Members of the City Council are advised that City staff is also concerned that approval of a lakeside setback within the shoreland impact zone may be precedent setting. It is important to mention that a (30) foot lakeside setback variance along Harrison's Bay was approved in 1989 for the 4770 Northern Road property however the variance was never utilized and was approved prior to the adoption of the Mound Shoreland Management Ordinance in 1993. A copy of Resolution of 89-97 has been included as an attachment. MCWD. The MCWD commented on the floodplain issues associated with the proposal and indicated that the applicants may be referred to the MCWD after a recommendation from the Planning Commission is received. As stated in the Planning Report, the proposal also requires separate permitting from the MCWD. - 1523- Page 3 Northern Road Subdivision / Variance Executive Summary March 21, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission voted 5 to 3 to recommend approval of the minor subdivision and variance request(s) for the properties located at 4770-4782 Northern Road subject to conditions. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. ATTACHMENTS · Draft resolution 02- based on March 4, 2002 Planning Commission recommendation · Minutes excerpt from March 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting · Planning Report No. 02-01 / 02-05 · Resolution No. 89-97 - 30 foot lakeside setback variance for 4770 Northern Road · Letter from Travis Germundson of DNR dated March 6, 2002 · Email memo(s) from Mike Wyatt of MCWD dated March 5, 2002 - 1524- DRAFT RESOLUTION # 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND RELATED VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERIES LOCATED AT 4770 - 4782 NORTHERN ROAD P & Z CASE # 02-01 AND # 02-05 WHEREAS, the applicants, Paul Bergquist m~d David Logelin, have subnfitted a request for a minor subdivision to create two new buildable parcels and have also requested variances to accommodate the proposed homes; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at the east end of Northern Road adjacent to Seton Channel mad Harrison's Bay and is legally described on Exhibit A which has been included as an attachment; and WHEREAS, the properties are currently developed with 2 single story homes, each under 500 square feet, and have single car detached garages. The properties currently have 8 nonconforming building issues including sideyard, lakeside, and garage setbacks, and flood elevation; m~d, WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the following developmem standards mad variances for Parcels A and B: Proposed Required Variance Parcel A Lot Area 7437 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. Lot Width 67.67 feet 40 feet - Sideyards 10 feet 10 feet - Frontyard 1.9 feet 20 feet 18. I feet Lakeside (Seton Channel) 21.9 feet 50 feet 28.1 feet Lakeside (Harrison's Bay) 31.6 feet 50 feet 18.4 feet Hardcover 2066 sq. fi. 2231 sq. ft. - - 1525- Parcel B Lot Area 6514 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. - Lot Width 60.08 feet 40 feet Sideyards 9 feet 10 feet 1 foot Lakeside 40 feet 50 feet 10 feet Hardcover 1702 sq. ft. 1954.2 sq.ft. Driveway width 30 feet 24 feet 6 feet WHEREAS, the floodplain elevation is also nonconforming for the existing homes and is likely nonconforming for the two garages if the foundations are not anchored and/or floodproofed properly; and, WHEREAS, the City has established a 931 feet flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka which covers a large majority of Parcel B and almost all of Parcel A. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) standard of 931.5 feet would put all of the land area of both parcels below the flood elevation. Flood elevation compensation issues will need to be addressed by the MCWD; and, WHEREAS, the proposed unit for Parcel B is a two story design with a 3 car attached garage with doors facing Northern Road. The house maintains a 20 feet front yard setback but shows the side and lakeside yards would require variances. Floodplain elevations for the garage and first floor would be at or above the minimum 933 feet regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE). The driveway is 30 feet wide at the right-of-way which exceeds the maximum 24 feet width. The house plans do not indicate a lakeside deck on the main level. A small second story deck is indicated in the building plans; and, WHEREAS, the proposed unit for Parcel A is a two story design 2 car attached garage with doors facing the west. The garage is almost double deep at 36 feet. As the developmem standards indicate, a number of variances are proposed. The most severe is the front yard, although it is the same as the existing garage. Parcel A is a difficult lot as proposed because it does not provide a conforming buildable footprint, largely due to the 50 feet lakeside setback. The house plan does provide a lakeside deck. The garage doors are setback 20 feet from the side lot line. WHEREAS, Shoreland Management Regulations (Section 350:1200) identify the shore impact zone as an area within 25 feet of the ordinary high water (OHW) that is essentially a "no- touch .... no-build" zone. The proposed house on Parcel A encroaches 3 feet into the zone; and, WHEREAS, floodplain elevation rules also require a 15 feet area surrounding the house is to be elevated above the flood elevation level; and, WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed the applications and have recommended approval of the minor subdivision and approval of the variances with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applications and has recommended approval with conditions. - 1526- NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby approve the minor subdivision and variances as requested by the applicants with the following conditions: A. Minor Subdivision 1. The boundary line between Parcels A and B be moved 1.9 feet to the east. 2. The City Engineer review grading and drainage easements and plans prior to building permit approval. 3. The lots be classified as non-lots of record as defined by the Zoning Code. B. Variances (Parcel A) I. The mininmm setback from the OHW along Seton Chmmel be not less than 20 feet. 2. The west garage door wall have a minimum 24 feet setback from the west side lot line. 3. A variance be granted to the floodplain elevation requirement for land within 15 feet of the house. (Parcel B) 1. The sideyard setbacks meet code minimums of 10 feet. 2. The driveway width be not more than 24 feet as measured at the right-of- way. 3. A variance be granted to the floodplain elevation requirement for land within 15 feet of the house. C. General Conditions 1. Approval of the proposal by the MCWD. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Com~cil of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision and variance requests. 2. The minor subdivision m~d variances are approved for the following legally described property included on Exhibit A as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System. -1527- 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 March 26, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk - 1528- Exhibit A - 1529- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF BERQUIST PROPERTY: Parcel 1: All that part of the Lot 29, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, lying East of the West 45 feet ~ont and rear of said Lot 29, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: The Easterly 35 feet of the Westerly 45 feet of Lot 29, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CALIUND LLC PROPERTY: The East Half of Lot 28 and the West 10 feet of Lot 29, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL A (BERQUIST): Lot 29 except the West 30 feet thereof, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL B (CAL1UND LLC); The East Half of Lot 28 and the West 30 feet of Lot 29, Subdivision of Lots 1 and 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. - 1530- Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Burma welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. 2. ROLLCALL Those present: Acting Chair Orvin Burma; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused: Geoff Michael. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following individuals were present: 3. BOARD OF APPEALS Paul Berquist David Logelin 4778 Northern Road 4790 Northern Road CASE #02-01 CASE #02-05 Minor Subdivision Variance Paul Berquist/David Logelin on behalf of Caliund LLC 4770-4782 Northern Road The applicant has submitted an application for a minor subdivision and variances in order to redevelop 3 properties located at the east end of Northern Road adjacent to Seton Channel and Harrison's Bay. The properties are currently developed with 2 single story homes. There are currently 8 non- conforming setback issues including side yard, lakeside, and garage setbacks between the two homes. Floodplain elevation is likely also non-conforming for each house and is likely non- conforming for the two garages if the foundations are not anchored and/or adequately flood- proofed. Shoreland Management Regulations identify the shore impact zone as an area within 25 feet of the ordinary high water and is essentially a "no-touch", "no-build" zone. The proposed house on Parcel A encroaches 3 feet into the zone. Staff's primary concern, outside of the MCWD permitting, is the shore impact zone encroachment along Seton Channel. A second concern is the front yard setback with the house on Parcel A. The side entry garage addresses part of the concern but the 1.9 foot setback does not improve the existing property conditions. Additionally, the 20 foot separation between the garage doors and the side lot line is an absolute minimum, and presents a number of practical issues with turning movements and drainage on to Parcel B. -1531 - Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 2002 Discussion Getting rid of two substandard parcels and cleaning up the area is of value. Concern and interest was expressed regarding the driveway paving stone system. Permeability can be up to 90% with this system depending on placement. Inspections can be tailored to verify that it's being done correctly. Concern was expressed with the preparation of subgrade below the driveway. Paul Berquist - 4778-70 Northern Road - He agrees that the garage side yard setback should be 24 feet. His front yard setback of 1.9 feet is greater than the one down the block at .7 feet. A . variance for a 20 foot setback from the OHW was granted in the past. The 21.9 feels a lot farther back because part of it is deck. A shared driveway easement was discussed. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve. Discussion Mueller stated that in past cases we have not allowed variances on newly subdivided property. The 9 foot side yard setbacks are the biggest concern. The variance granted in 1989 allowed a 20 foot channel setback. Discussion ensued regarding shifting the lot lines to allow 20 foot and re-establish the 10 foot side yard setbacks. Brown was asked to clarify the motion. Brown restated the motion as follows: "to approve building of parcels a and b with the moving of the center lot line 1.9 feet to the east". Clapsaddle seconded. Burma was in favor of the upgrade, however moving closer to the lake is not what the code is set up to do. He can't support the subdivision or proposed buildings. Mueller thought that, since these 3 lots had buildings on them, if we prevent them from building on one, we would have to buy it. Burma said another option would be 1 lot with 1 nice house on it. Mueller stated that if we took 1 parcel and made a 34 foot depth house we would still have to variance it. Vote was taken on the subdivision approval only. Voting for: Clappsaddle, Ayaz, Glister, Mueller and Brown. Voting against: Weiland, Hasse and Burma. MOTION carried. Vote was declared invalid because the original motion had not been rescinded. -1532- Planning Commission Minutes March 4, 2002 Motion was rescinded. Brown restated motion as follows: "to approve building of Parcels A and B with the moving of the center lot line 1.9 feet to the east". Clapsaddle seconded. Vote was taken on the new motion. Voting for: Clappsaddle, Ayaz, Glister, Mueller and Brown. Voting against: Weiland, Hasse and Burma. MOTION carried. MOTION by Mueller, second by Clapsaddle, to approve the variance request to include a north lakeside setback variance of 10 feet, an east lake setback variance to Seton channel of 30 feet for Parcel A, a front yard setback variance of 28.1 feet for Parcel B and a front yard setback variance of 18.1 feet for Parcel A also including Item 6 from the Planning Report (a variance be granted to the floodplain "island requirement" for both parcels.) MOTION carried. Voting for: Clappsaddle, Ayaz, Glister, Mueller and Brown. Voting against: Weiland, Hasse and Burma. Burma, Weiland, and Hasse all indicated that they felt the lots were being overbuilt, development is too close to the lake and dangerous precedents are being set. - 1533- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: February 28, 2002 (Revised March 20, 2002) SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision and Variance APPLICANT: Paul Berquist CASE NUMBERS: 02-01 F[KG FILE NUMBER: 02-05 LOCATION: 4770-4782 Northern Road ZONING: R-1A Single Family Residential COMPREEIENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted an application for a minor subdivision and variances in order to redevelop 3 properties. The property is located at the east end of Northern Road adjacent to Seton Channel and Harrison's Bay. The property includes the east portion of lot 28 and alt of lot 29 of Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood Addition, identified as parcels 28, 29, and 30 by Hennepin County. The properties are currently developed with 2 single story homes, each under 500 square feet, and have single car detached garages. The properties currently have 8 nonconforming building issues including sideyard, lakeside, and garage setbacks. Floodplain elevation is also nonconforming for each house and is likely nonconforming for the two garages if the foundations are not anchored and/or floodproofed properly. The City has established a 931 feet flood elevation for Lake Minnetonka which covers a large majority of Parcel B and almost all of Parcel A. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) standard of 931.5 feet would put all of the land area of both parcels below the flood elevation. Because the City has not taken over permitting authority, any flood compensation issues will need to be addressed by the MCWD. 123 North Third Su'eet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 - 1534- p. 2 #02-0I Berquist Minor Subdivision and l/ariances February 28, 2002 The applicant proposes the following development standards and variances for Parcels A and B: Proposed Required Variance Parcel A Lot Area 743 7 sq. ft. 6000 sq. ft. - Lot Width 67.67 feet 40 feet Sideyards 10 feet 10 feet - Frontyard 1.9 feet 20 feet 18.1 feet Lakeside (Seton Channel) 21.9 feet 50 feet 28.1 feet Lakeside (Harrison's Bay) 31.6 feet 50 feet 18.4 feet Hardcover 2066 sq. ft. 2231 sq. ft. Parcel B Lot Area 6514 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 60.08 feet 40 feet Sideyards 9 feet 10 feet 1 foot Lakeside 40 feet 50 feet 10 feet Hardcover 1702 sq. ft. 1954.2 sq.ft. Driveway width 30 feet 24 feet 6 feet The proposed unit for Parcel B is a two story design with a 3 car attached garage with doors facing Northern Road. As indicated above, the house does maintain a 20 feet front yard setback but shows the side and lakeside yards would require variances. Floodplain elevations for the garage and first floor would be at or above the minimum 933 feet regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE). The driveway measures 30 feet at the right-of-way which is above the maximum 24 feet width. The house plans do not indicate a lakeside deck on the main level. A small second story deck is indicated in the building plans. The proposed unit for Parcel A is a two story design 2 car attached garage with doors facing the west. The garage is almost double deep at 36 feet. As the development standards indicate, a number of variances are proposed. The most severe is the front yard, although it is the same as the existing garage. Parcel A is a difficult lot as proposed because it does not provide a conforming buildable footprint, largely due to the 50 feet lakeside setback. The house plan does provide a lakeside deck. The garage doors are setback 20 feet from the side lot line. Shoreland Management Regulations (Section 350:1200) identify the shore impact zone as an area within 25 feet of the ordinary high water (OHW) that is essentially a "no-touch .... no-build" zone. The proposed house on Parcel A encroaches 3 feet into the zone. 123 North Third Sla'eet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 - 1535- p. 3 #02-01 Berquist Minor Subdivision and l/'ariances February 28, 2002 CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: Fire ChiefPederson Police ChiefHarrell Public Works Director Skinner Metro West Inspection City Engineer Cameron Parks Director Fackler No objections. No objections. No objections. No objections if structures meet approved setbacks. See separate attachment. The City owns shoreline as Northern Road extends to the lake which the City will want to protect. UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all involved utility companies for review. Ail written comments received as of February 28, 2002 have been summarized below: Reliant Energy / Minnegasgo Excel Energy No objections. No objections. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to the DNR and the MCWD for review. As of February 28, 2002, no comments haX~e been received. Members of the Planning Commission and City Council are advised that the minor subdivision / variance request(s) will require separate permitting from the MCWD. Be further advised that the MCWD will not accept a land use application until such time as it has preliminary approval from a municipality. DISCUSSION This is a difficult case on a couple fronts because the Planning Commission and Council will need to balance housing redevelopment goals and zoning code requirements. The request essentially takes 3 lots of record with certain development privileges and separates them into 2 non-lot of record parcels which would inherit stricter code requirements. Because of the front and lakeside setback requirements, it would be difficult to build a home that could meet those requirements and meet the needs of today's housing market. Much of the first floor building pad would be garage leaving very little living area on the first floor. 123 Nmxh Third Street, Suite 100, Mi~meapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 - 1536- #02-01 Berquist Minor Subdivision and Variances Februa~y 28, 2002 The MCWD will ultimately have a large bearing on the outcome of the proposal with their regulations on fill and compensation within a floodplain. The past practice of the MCWD on these applications is to begin review after a preliminary City review with the Planning Commission. Floodplain elevation rules also require a 15 feet area surrounding the house is to be elevated above the flood elevation level. The City has typically recognized this "island requirement" but granted a variance to it for Lake Minnetonka properties. This requirement is also in conflict with MCWD floodplain fill/compensation standards. Staff's primary concern, outside of the MCWD permitting, is the shore impact zone encroachment along Seton Channel. The DNR typically objects to any building within this 25 feet zone and the City has long upheld the position. A second concern is the front yard setback with the house on Parcel A. The side entry garage addresses part of the concern but the 1.9 feet setback does not improve the existing property conditions. Additionally, the 20 feet separation between the garage doors and the side lot line is an absolute minimum, as also addressed in the City Engineer's report, and presents a number of practical issues with turning movements and drainage onto Parcel B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the minor subdivision and variance requests with the following conditions: Minor Subdivision 1. The City Engineer review grading and drainage easements and plans prior to building permit approval. Variance 1. A minimum 25 feet setback be provided from the OHW along Seton Channel. 2. The garage doors for the proposed house on Parcel A have a minimum 24 feet setback from the side lot line. 3. The front yard setback for the proposed house on Parcel A have a minimum 8 feet front yard setback. 4. All driveway widths be not more than 24 feet as measured at the right-of-way. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mi~meapolis, Mim~esota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 - 1537- p. 5 #02-01 Berquist Minor Subdivision and l?ariances February 28, 2002 5. The lakeside setback for the house on Parcel B accommodate a lakeside deck at the 40 feet setback if the deck is attached to the house. 6. A variance be granted to the floodplain "island requirement" for both parcels. General Conditions 1. Approval of the proposal by the MCWD. ATTACHMENTS · Letter of application dated January 14, 2002 Application for minor subdivision - Paul Bergquist and Dave Logelin on behalf of Caliund LLC · Application for variance(s) - Paul Bergquist and Dave Logelin on behalf of Caliund LLC · Technical support information from NCMA TEK submitted by applicants entitled "Permeable Pavements for Commercial Parking Lots" Memorandum dated February 28, 2002 from City Engineer John Cameron · Letter of complete dated February 15, 2002 R-1A zoning district - general information sheet · Hennepin County property information / zoning sheet - 4782 Northern Road · Hennepin County property information / zoning sheet - 4778 Northern Road · Hennepin County property information/zoning sheet - 4770 Northern Road o Proposed preliminary / final plat from Advance Surveying & Engineering Co (revised February 4, 2002) · Preliminary house plans for proposed Parcel A (Bergquist) · Preliminary house plans for proposed Parcel B (Logelin / Caliund) 123 North Third Sta'eet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 - 1538- 002 lS:4S FAX 7~51B011S J~[HL BROKER~E/~N F~O01 To the Mound City Council and Planning Commission, I purchased property located at 4770 and 4778 Northern Road in the fall of 1998 with the intent of ~st buil~ng a nc'w structure on the 4770 lot. Al%er completing that structure, I plmmed to build a structure on the 4778 lot. After much planning I h~w come togcthar with my neighbor, Dave Log¢Iin, and we have come up wkh a plan that we feel is a'~etter use of the properties. Our intent is to give the west 20 f'~et of parcel 2 to parcel 3 and the east 15 feet of parcel 2 to parcel 1. This will reduce the overall hardcover of 3 improved lots ';o 2 lots of' greater size. There will also be less traffm with t~vo developed lots as opposed to three. Another concern is th~ ability to preserve thc 150 y¢~s old maple tree on th~ 4778 lot. The n~w plan would ~c¢ommodate that.. This new plan will also nol cause any undue hardship due to "overbuilding" the neighborhood, as the new structures will be roughly the same size. A final concern is the need fro' a large garage.. I believe this is necessary in order to keep yard clutter (lawn mower, bikes) to a minimum. If you have any questions, pteasc feel free to call me at your convenience. Sin¢¢rel~ Paul Bergquist (952) 472-70l 8 Home (612) 363-6457 Work -1539- p. $ #02-01 Bergquist/Logelin Minor Subdivision and Variances February 28, 2002 5. The lakeside setback for the house on Parcel B must accommodate a lakeside deck at the 40 foot setback if the deck is attached to the house. 6. A variance be granted to the floodplain "island requirement" for both parcels. General Conditions 1. Approval of the proposal by the MCWD. ATTAC]~UVIENTS · Letter of application dated January 14, 2002 · Application for minor subdivision - Paul B ergquist and Dave Logelin on behalf of Caliund LLC · Application for variance(s) - Paul Bergquist and Dave Logelin on behalf of Caliund LLC · Technical support information from NCMA TEK submitted by applicants entitled, "Permeable Pavements for Commercial Parking Lots" · Memorandum dated February 28, 2002 from City Engineer John Cameron · Letter of complete dated February 15, 2002 · R-1A zoning district - general information sheet · Hennepin COunty property information / zoning sheet - 4782 Northern Road · Hennepin County property information / zoning sheet - 4778 Northern Road · Hennepin County property information/zoning sheet - 4770 Northern Road · Proposed preliminary / final plat from Advance Surveying & Engineering Co (revised February 4, 2002) · Preliminary house plans for proposed Parcel A (Bergquist) · Preliminary house plans for proposed Parcel B (Logelin / Caliund) 123 North Third Street, Suite t 00, Minneapolis, Mfimesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 - 1540- City of Mound MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Planning Commission Date: ~ Jity CoUncil Date: -- ~--~'~..',~'~------ Distribution: -- ~"')C'~Planner . ~~ Public Works ~/lq~ ~ ci~ Engineer CaSe No. '__._=_ Application Fee: $ 250 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 ~.'~11~[ tL DNR Deficient Unit Charges? 140 czlt~l,l,¢- Parks Delinquent Taxes? ~!l~l'!/)2''- Other Variance Required?' Please type or print clearly INFO EXISTING Lot Block SubdMsion DESCRIPTION Plat ZONING ~ DISTRICT CirCe: 2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner o~ec OWNER Name ~ ~~ (if other ~an applicant) Address Phone (H). ~ (M) ENGINEER Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no, If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions, Application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or explanation given why this is not the case. I certify that all of the statements above and statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknoWledge that I have read all of the information provided and that I am responsible for all costs inc/urred by the City related to the processing of this application. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises des/~.'d in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, m~j i't~ing~and removing such notices as may be reqUired by laW, App~an~ sigo,ature Date ' ,','"~ ~,~ ' 1-~/ ..~ / Owner's Signature Date Page l of ,Revised 01130/02 ~,~v-¢~ %'~&~,,> ~:Y-~tV._..c,,~ ~;~4,J~.~t[i[e~ · - 1541 - (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPUCATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 May'wood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 PAID ] JAN 1 G 2002 CITY OF MOUNO Application Fee:~ PLanning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City PLanner City Engineer Case No. RECEIVEF JAN 16 2002 Public Works Other ~UMD PLANNING P~OPE~ Lot ~ LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision PID~ Pla~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 OWNER Address Phone APPLICANT Name ~ (IF OTHER Address...e~O. THAN Phone · OWNER) (H). (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, vanance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for thi property? ~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resOlution number(s) and provide copie of resoluti0ns~. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Revised 04/24/0 -1542- Variance Application, P. 2 of 3 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations fc3r the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (clescribe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): sETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ff. ff, ft. Side Yard: ( N S~)W ) J O ft. c~ ft. ! ff. Side Yard: ( N S E~ ) I ~ ff. c~ ft. J ft. Rear Yard: ( N SEW ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: (~)S~W) ~ (~ ft. ~ (~ ft. ~ 0 ft. ' (N SEW) ft, ft. ft. Street Frontage: ff. fi. ft. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft sq ff _sq ff Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: it is located? 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 ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~'existing situation ( ) too shallow (:~shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: Revised 04/24/01 - 1543- Variance Application, P. 3 of 3 Case No_ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the lar after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes,(), No~ If yes, explain: Was the hard,ship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~/~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which You request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or 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 of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature~ ~.pplicant's Sign eta re ~~-~'~--.,¢-~ Date' Date Revised 04/24/01 - 1544- National Concrete Masonry iation an information series from the national authority on concrete masonry technology PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS Pavers (2002 .Keywords: erosion control, park/ng lots, pavement base, pavement I subbase, pavers, permeable pavemen! INTRODUCTION Today, stormwater regulations are a patchwOrk of fed- eral, state, and local strictures that may include requirements for on-site stormwater retention/controlled discharge rates, discharge water-quality limits, treatment to reduce sediment or pollutants prior to discharge, limits on land use or imper- meable coverings, special fees or taxes for off-site dis- charge, or some combination of these. Pavements are a major contributor to the mn-off problem, and the concept of per- meable pavements that directly pass water from the surface to the underlying soil are beginning to be recognized as a potential viable alternative for helping alleviate stormwater runoff. The benefits of permeable pavements include re- duced stormwater runoff, direct recharge of underlying groundwater systems, and partial treatment of pollutants in the runoff. Precast concrete paver units are available that provide the designer, landscape architect, and developer a viable method of building environmentally friendly permeable pave- ments. Permeable concrete pavers are either open-cell paw ers or solidpavers with openings or wide joints to allow water infiltration (Figure 1). Because they are earefully manufac- tured and easily assembled in the field to provide a functional surface, preeast pavers are particularly well suited for the evolving area 0fpermeable pavement technology. Open-cellpavers, also known as tuffstone or grid pavers, are suitable for very light or occasional traffic and are treated in more length in Concrete Grid Pavers, TEK 11-3 (ref. 1). The permeable solid pavers such as those shown in Figures lb and 1 c will support moderate traffic loads. This TEK specifi- cally covers permeable solid pavers. COMPONENTS OF A PERMEABLE PAVER PAVEMENT The purpose of the permeable pavement system is to allow surface water to rapidly penetrate the surface and accumulate in the porous lower layers of the pavement. There it may be allowed to infiltrate the subgrade soils or it can be collected in pipe ~}~,._~or treatment, slow discharge, etc. depending~., ',. t~lll}c site requirements and regulatory Ib~Solid Paver with Drainage I c~olid Paver with Wide Ia--Typical Open-Cell Paver Voids (U~,.~ Eeo-Stone ~ype) Drainage Joints ($F-Rima type) Figure 1--Types o~r .%rmeable Concrete Pavers - 1545-  ds or wide'joints Thin bedding layer 5' ".' :'~ ':.: . .~ .;';,~':.;. · . 'o' !'. · · ; · · .,% o.- ... ,.. · · · . - 9,: ..: . . .. .,..."..' 'i ~... '....~,, Porous base -." ' ' ":'-...~ . ° ,.'~ .,.~°, ', ':°..',,' ;,o. ~ . L--~-'_~? ~:_! Filter layer or geotextile Subgrade soils Figure 2~Components of a Permeable Paver Pavement 10-~ cm/s or greater. Placement on less permeable sites or those with clay subgrades will require very careful design and consideration of design objectives. The water table should be deep enough to allow adequate ~trat/on, typically at least 3 ft (0.9 m) below the pavement surface. Local site conditions, such as location of buildings with basements, or pavement use, such as maintenance yards with high petroleum .contami- nation ofnmoff, may preclude permeable pavements. Steep sites may also make permeable pavements ineffective. Expe- hence to date has been with relatively lightly loaded sites. If very heavy concentrated traffic is conterap!~ed, ~gqg~! analysis of recent research may be desirable. DESIGN OF PERMEABLE PAVEMENTS Permeable pavement design must address material re- quirements, hydraulic requirements, and slxuctural issues. These will be briefly addressed below but references 2 through 6 provide more details on various aspects of these design issues. restrictions. Figure 2 shows the basic components of a permeable paver pavement. The surface is composed of solid pavers that assemble such that 9 to 12 percent of the surface is open joints or drainage voids. These voids or joints are then filled with granular permeable material. Below the block is a thin bedding layer that allows the blocks to be placed and vibrated into a smooth level surface. Below the bedding i is a base course composed of granular porous Between the base course and the tmderlying soils is layer or geotextile that prevents fmc being washed or transported into permeable base material. If the and constructed, it is removing water than just the )aver surface. Consider a site with silty or typically have a permeability on the of 10'~ cm/s. If the pavement drainage voids were simply filled with a cIean sand, it would have a permeability of approximately 10'a cm/s~one hun- dred times greater than the native silty or clayey sand subgrade. If the drainage voids are filled with fine crashed stone chips with a higher permeability on the order of 104 em/s, the permeability is 10,000 times that of the natural soil. Hence, if the permeable pavement system is designed with appropri- ate materials, a much larger volume of water can be drained from the surface into the base than the simple percent open area of the drainage voids would imply. A permeable pave- ment is a complete system that encompasses the surfacing, the material used to fill the drainage voids and joints, the bedding layer, and the base course that when properly de- signed and built can convey significant quantities of surface water into the base course. SUITABLE SITES Permeable pavements will be most effective when used on sites with relatively permeable subgrade soils, typically Material Selection The permeable pavers should generally meet the quality requirements of. 936 (ref. 7). To obtain the best rate . the joints, drainage voids and bedding rovers should have a permeability of [ aggregate with particles be '1 and 5 mm) has been used satisfac- this purpose (No. 8 or 9 aggregate from ASTM D 448 8), for example). Sands are much less satisfactory ."or jointing and bedding material for permeable pavers be- of their appreciably lower permeability. The paver surface will initially have a very high permeability, but over t/me this will drop offas clogging OCCurS from an accumula- tion of detritus. A review of available data suggests that a reasonable design value of the long-term permeability of properly designed and built permeable paver surfaces after this clogging has occurred can be estimated as 1.1 in./hr (28 mm/hr) (ref. 9). The base course beneath the paver surface and bedding layer should be more permeable than the overlying materials to avoid water backing up at the surface and impeding rapid drainage into the system. If the ratio Dljk,w .... t. rial/DI.~ ugver ,~t,,~ is > 5, this is easily met, and no seepage pressure will develop. The term D~ is the particle diameter from the cumulative gradation curve for which 15 percent of the material is freer and 85 percent coarser. A highly permeable base course can be provided by a No. 57 aggregate from ASTM D 448 (ref. 8). This is an open-graded material com- posed of No. 4 sieve size to 1-in. (25-mm) sized particles and provides a permeability in excess of 1 crrds. Alternate grada- tions can be used depending on the design requirements for the site but generally the base should have a permeability of 10-2 cm/s or greater. When water flows from one soil or aggregate into other, small particles in the first material may be dislodged and piped into the second material. This can lead to progres- sive piping failures or clogging of the secoad material. Filter - 1546- criteria are used to protect against such problems, and in permeable pavements each layer must be cheekea to ensure that freer particles in the layer are not washed into the lower layer. Different criteria are in use but generally, as water flows down through a permeable pavement, if (1) D~ ~o~r mat~,~/D~ up~ ....,,,i~ < 5, and (2) D~o~ ......,.,.,,~ /Dso m,,~m%,~t < 25 piping and internal erosion of particles going from the upper material to the lower material wOUld not be expected to be a problem. The subgrade soil will normally be much freer than the base course so it is always prudent to also design a filter layer between the subgrade and open-graded base. Geotextiles can function effectively as ~ters and refer- ences 10 and 11 provide appropriate criteria for selection of geotexfiles as filters. There have been two cases where geotextiles used directly under the bedding layer of conven- tional paver surfaces clogged because of traffic pumping fines from the j ointing and bedding material into the geotextile. Consequently, it would be prudent to limit geotextile use to lower layers in the pavement where traffic induced pressures will be minimal (e.g., between base and subgrade). Hydraulic Design The design storm for hydraulic calculations is usually established by the regulatory agency, and the agency specifies what method will be used for runoff. Usually either the Soil Conse or the Rational Method is used reference 3 for The method requires that depends on permeable paver surfaces, curve number is approxi- mately 65 (ref. 9), between a gravel- surfacedroad and a ~ to well drained soil. The rational method, on the other hand, uses a runoff coefficient C for the flow calculations, and this may be estimated for permeable paver surfaces as I-1.1 C - ! (inch-pound) 1-28 c = I (s~) where 1.1 in./hr (28 mm/h) is the long-term surface perme- ability of the permeable paver surface. The base course must also be capable of storing the required quantity of water. The storage capacity may be estimated as V=I ?~ The volume of water that may be stored in the base and other appropriate layers of the pavement should exceed that which will enter the pavement during the design storm. The time for a saturated base to drain when the underlying soil is also saturated can be estimated from the falling head permeameter equations (ref. 4) as Structural Design. Paver pavements distribute loads in the same manner as conventional flexible pavements and are designed as such. · The flexible pavement thickness required for the design traffic cma l~e determined using any existing flexible pave- meat design method, and the permeable paver surface, bed- ding layer, and porous base are then substituted directly for the required thickness of conventional asphaltic concrete, base and subbase (e.g., a design requiring 3 in. (76 mm) of AC and 8 in. (203 mm) of base could be replaced with 3 ia. (80 mm) of paver; 1 in. (25 mm) of bedding layer and 7 in. (178 mm) of porous base). It would not be unumxal for a permeable pavement to be thicker to meet hydraulic design require- meats such as water storage than needed to meet structural requirements for traffic. In exchange, they can make it feasible to develop parking areas where regulatory requirements currently prohibit such or make such development very expensive because of stormwater control and treatment requirements. NOTATIONS C runoff coefficient for the rational method (unitless) D distance from the bottom of the base course to the water table, in. (mm) D~ particle diameter at which x percent of the soil on the gradation curve is finer, in. (mm) specific gravity of the soil or aggregate (unitless) thickness of the base course, in. (ram) design storm intensity, in./hr (em/hr) permeability of the soil between the base and the water table, in./s (mm/s) time for the base to drain, s volume available to hold water in 1 ft~ (1 m~) of soil or aggregate, ft~ (m~) dry unit weight of the soil or aggregate, per (kg/m~) unit weight of water, commonly estimated as 62.4 per (1,000 kg/m~) G$ h, I k t REFERENCES 1. Concrete Grid Pavers, TEK 11-3. National Concrete Masonry Association, 2001. 2. Ferguson, B. Stormwater Infiltration, CRC Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, 1994. 3. Ferguson, B. Introduction to Stormwater, John Wiley & SO~, NY, ~, !998, 4. Rollings, M. P. and R. S. Roilings. GeotechnicalMateri- - 1547- als in Construction, McGraw-Hill, NY, NY, 1996. 5. Cedegren, H. Drainage of Highway and .4irfield Pave- ments, John Wiley, NY, NY, 1974. 6. Smith, D. R. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pave- ments, Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute, Wash- ington, D.C., 2000. 7. Standard Specification for Solid ConCrete Interlocking Paving Units, ASTM C 936-96. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1996. 8. Specification for Standard Sizes of Coarse `4ggregate for Road and Bridge Construction, ASTlvl D 448-98. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1998. 9. Rollings, R. and M. Rollings. SF-RIMATM ,4 Permeable Paving 'Stone .System, SF Concrete Technology, Inc. Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 1999. 10.Report on Joint Task Force 25, Joint Committee Report of AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1991. 11.Engineering Use of Geotextiles, Teehrtieal.Manual 5- 818-8. Depa~-[t~xent of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1995. NATIONAL CONCRETEMASONRY ASSOCIATION 2302 Horse Pen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171-3499 www.ucma.org - 1548- II I To order a complete TEK Manual or TEK Index, contactNCMAPublications (703) 713-1900 534-1 MAYWOOD RoAD MC> UND; MN 5~364-" 687 CITY OF MOUND PH: (952) 472'0600 FA,',',',',',',',','><: (952) 472-0620 WE B: www.¢ityofmound.corn February I5, 2002 Paul Bergquist 4778 Northern Road Mound, MN 55364 David Logelin 4790 Northern Road ' Mound, MN 55364 ~Proposed Minor Subdivision / Variance(s) Application - Northern Road Dear Mr. Bergquist and Mr. Logelin: Based upon review of the application materials that were submitted on or around February 4, 2002, you are advised that the application has been deemed to be complete and has been forwarded to City departments for review and comment. Please be advised that it is anticipated that the application will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review at its meeting to be held on Monday, March 4, 2002. If' you have any questions regarding any of this information, please contact me at 952- 472-3190. Sincerely, Community Development Director SS printed c~: r~:,v~ed paper - 1549- February 28, 2002 Ms. Sarah Smith, Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Bergquist Minor Subdivision / Variance(s) Case #02-01 MFRA #13667 Dear Sarah: As requested, we have reviewed the subject request for a minor subdivision, which would create two (2) new building sites. The following are our comments and recommendations: General It appears there are a number of setback issues, which need to be reviewed by the planning staff. The two most obvioUs ones are the 50-foot setback from the Ordinary High water (0m) and the front yard setback on Parcel A. The corner of the proposed garage on Parcel A is shown with a 1.9-foot setback and is only about three feet behind the curb line. Preliminary building plans for proposed Parcel A have been provided. It appears that the proposed garage on Parcel A is a side entry design. I would question if the 20-foot setback from the side lot line is sufficient for turning movements to and from the garage. The recommended standard for larger vehicles is approximately 24-feet. Preliminary building plans for Parcel B have also been submitted. The proposed driveway for Parcel B is shown as 30-feet wide. The maximum width allowed by the City Code is 24-feet. The existing driveway aprons should be removed and new concrete aprons installed for the proposed driveways. - 1550- Ms. Sarah Smith, Community Development Director February 28, 2002 Pa e 2 Drainage and utility easements are normally required along all lot lines, five feet wide on the side lot lines and ten feet along the street side. Parcel A presents a problem due to the setback distance requested. The existing parcels appear to have paid sufficient street unit charges to accommodate these two building sites. The original sanitary sewer and watermain assessment records should also be checked for any deficient unit charge. The driveway areas are not included in the hard cover calculations. They are shown as permeable; however I understand the applicants intend to use paver bricks with open joints that according to the data submitted, to provide for reduced stormwater runoff. The data indicates that permeable pavement such as paver bricks, if properly designed and constructed is much more effective for removing water than just the percent of open area (joints) of the paver surface. Without specific data, such as the groundwater table, soil information, etc. and a more complete design, it is very difficult to assign a permeability factor to the proposed paver brick driveways at this time. Grading and Drainage As you are aware, the City's 100-year flood elevation is 931.0, whereas the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) uses 931.5. The entire area of both parcels lie within the flood plan as defined by the MCWD. They have a no net loss requirement, which means compensating volume must be provided to compensate for the areas filled. Until such time that the City assumes the permitting responsibilities as part of their Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), the MCWD remains the permitting agency for activities such as this. A final grading, drainage and erosion control plan will need to be submitted when application is made for each building permit. For the purpose of formal review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the preliminary gradinWdrainage information that has been submitted as part of the application is deemed to be acceptable. U~H~es The survey shows new water and sewer Services to be connected at the City's main in the street. However, the City's records indicate that sufficient services already existl At the time of construction, the exact location of these services will need to be verified. Public Works also requires that new service lines be installed from the right-of-way line to the new structures and that the water service value not be located in the driveway. -1551 - Ms. Sarah Smith, Community Development Director February 28, 2002 Page 3 Thank you for,the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced matter. Sincerely, John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry s:~main:\Mou 13667:~,Correspondeneeksmith2 -27 - 1552- Page 10fl garah Imith From: To: Sent: Subject: "John Cameron" <jcameron@mfra.com> "Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Thursday, February 28, 2002 1:23 PM Re: MP/Staff Meeting Sarah, I'm open all week except for Monday morning 8:00 to 9:30 and of course Wednesday afternoon from 2:30 on. John .... Original Message From: Sarah Smith To: Loren; John Cameron; Vern Hanson; Larry OIson Cc: Kandis M. Hanson; Dean, John B. Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2002 1'10 PM Subject: MP/Staff Meeting I would like to coordinate meeting with MP / City staff early next week to discuss the revised site/parking plan and final plat issues. At your 'earliest convenience, please share your schedule time(s) with me so that I can coordinate. Best regards. Sarah S. - 1 553- 2/28/2002 ~ nis ~n-~'u[,~,auu~ a~,e~t U"~Y aummunze~ a poruon OT the reqmremenzs OUZllnea in zne ~Jlty ~ ~ound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact ~e C~ of MOUnd planning DePartment at 4~2.0600. R-1 A Z°ning General Zoning Information Sheet District- Single Family Resiclentiai PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS - Lot Areai Lot Width, and Setback Recluirement-~: Minimum Lot Area , .... . ................................ 6,000 square feet Minimum Lot Width ............ · ................................ 40 feet Front Yard Setback ............................................ 20 feet Side Yard Setback ............................................ 10 feet* Rear Yard Setback ............................................ 15 .feet* Minimum Lbt Depth ............ · ............................ . .... 80 feet Lakeshore / Ordinary High Water Setback., ..... . ...... . ................. 50 feet Minimum Floor Area Requirement: ................... , ....... 840 square feet Minimum lot frontage on an improved public street shall be 40 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac. shall be 40 feet at the front building setback line (i.e. 20 feet back from front property line). *Applicable side or rear yard setbacks apply to lot lines abutting fire lanes or alleys not exceeding 15 feet in width. Building Height: Maximum 2Y= stories or thirty'-f'i~'~"(~'~"~t in height. BUilding Height is defined as "the vertical distance to be measured from the average grade of a building line to the top, tothe cornice of a fiat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on 8 pitched or hip roof.'" LOTS OF RECORD - Special Provisions: Corner Lots: lot w. idth minimum side yard setback 40.- 50 feet 10 feet 51 - 80 feet 20 feet 30 feet 8 l~;e...et or more Side Yard Setback Req'uir.erpents: ' '";'~,"L~:';,~:'~ Side yard setbacks for Ib~ of record shall be six (6) feet unless the structure or site does lnot contain a garage in Wt~ich case, one Side yard setback is required to be ten (1 0) feet ~to accommodate, a drivew~i¥ access. ' HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS: impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record*, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum'of 40 percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1. Impervious cover is any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture, including all buildings, driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios and swimming pools Open decks (1/4" minimum opening between boards shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. Rev. 3/97 -1554' ~ R- lA Zonin£ D/strict General Z~:~ning information DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IGARAGE.$./SHEDS) - Lot.Coverage. and Setback R equirements: An - , , ~ .'~!i?:~', ~'i'''~ :' i:',.i:".".;.:.i~',i' '":. '? .."~.' ~ ~"."i~, 'i".",'''? -- accessory budding shall be considered to 5e an integral pa~ o~ the pnnc~pal structure unle=s )t is five (5) feet - more from the principal structure' or use and providing that ~he structure exceeds 1 20 square feet. Area and Size Requirements (sea hardcover ~eqUlrernents on pare Accessory buildings .~h.all not exceed a total gross..floor area of 3,000 squa re feet or 15 % of the total lot area whiCh'ever is less, Each individual accessory buildincJ shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of g ross floor area. The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring 10,000 square feet or less shall be two (2). O.n tots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall be limited to a total of three (3). Front Yard Setback. All accessory buildings shall meet the same front yard setback requirements as the principal building, except for lakeshore and through 1cts. For detached garages on a lakeshore or through lots, a'minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line. _Side, Yard Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot tine in the rear yard w,ith a minimum of asix (6,) foot setback in side yard location. O.n through and lakeshore lots, a detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of, the side lot line in the:.front yard. Whenever a garage is designed with the doors facing a side lot line, the minimum distance between the doors and the side lot tine shall be twent.y (20) feet. .... ¢,. Rear Setback, A detached accessory building may be located wit.hin four (4) feet o.f the rear lot line. L_akeshore Setbacl~. Detached accessory buildings must maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water, DECKS: See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides .......... ....... Same as AcceSSory Building Setbacks Rear ' 10 feet ELEVATIONS ~ .. Ordinary High Water FlOod Elevation Lowest Floor' Elevation LAKE MINNETONKA 929.4- 931 (CITY) 933 931,5 (MCWD) DUTCH LAKE 939.2 94.0 94.2 LAKE LANGDON 932.1 . 935 ..... · 937 I J~ev, $/97 - 1555- HennePin county MaP server 'il Page I of I Hennepin Cqunt¥, MN Property ID 18-117-23-33~028 Property Address 4782 NORTHERN RD MOUND, MN 55364 Lastupdate:0~06/2002at9:00:00AM Approximate Property Perimeter 293 ff. Market Value Approximate Property Area 4,119 sq.ff. = 0.095 acres Tot&l Tax (2001) $ 123,000 $ 1,708.48 This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of the material herein contained and is r!ot responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. If map discrepancies are found, please contact Bob Moulder with the Hennepin County Surveyors Office at (612) 348-2618 or email him directly at Bob,Moulder~_,co.hennepin_~.m__n.,u_~s The q.Uality ~f the display may be influ~fi~d by you~' screen size and res01uii6~'$etting, and is b~st viewed. at 800x600 screen resolution. This apPlication requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or NetsCape 2.01 or later version for proper operation Copyright © 2000 Hennepin County '" :~"<'me=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VALU... 2/28/2002 http://wwwl 9.co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrim:-- 1 556- Property Information Search by. Street Address Result page Page 1 0f 2 Search By: HOUSE or BUILDING #: STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) UNIT # (if applicable) ~ records per page Henrcpin County, MN Property Information Search Res ult The Hennepin County Property Tax web databc~e i~ updated daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.n~. (CST) Property ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 20 02 :.i'~,?..~: ~4a~ :i i: *~ '* ~" '"'; ~ "~ ' :" ..:~ .... 1 8-117-23-33~028 4782 NORTHERN' RD MOUND 277 Construction year: 1915 3 Parcel Size: S 40X110X40) CALIUND LLC CALIUND LLC cIO ANDREA CARLI N 4790 NORTHERN RD MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale Date: March, 2001 Sale Price: $154,000 Transaction Type: Sale Excluded from Assessment Analysis Tax Parcel Description SUBD SKARP LINDQUIST RAVEN-LOT 1 & 32 , Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: E 1/2 OF LOT 28 AND W 10 FT OF LOT 29 Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2002 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2001 $168,000 $116,200 $116,200 $1,540.20 $22,i4 $1,562.34 Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2002 httP://www2, co.hennepin.mn, us/pins/addrresult, i - 1557- 2/28/2002 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page i ' page 2 ~f' ~ Land Market' Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited · Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status Values Established by Assessor as of Jan ~Jary 2, 2001 ValUes: $132,000 $36,000 · $168,000 $91,300 $24,900 $116,200 RESIDENTIAL LAKE SHORE NON- HOMESTEAD 22'18 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Have a tax related question? Send e-mail to taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Experience a problem searching database, have a technical question or wiSh to co Hennepin County Tax web site? Send e-mail to Don. Kopel@co.hennepin.mn.us Have a comment on any of Hennepin County's web sites or E-Commerce app'licati, Send e-mail to Henn. Net@co.hennepin.mn.us Copyright © 1998 - 2001 Hennepin County http ://www2. co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresul-:.',., -1558- 2/28/2002 i..:II'Y UI' MUUNL,I - LUt',IINU I|",II~UKfFIAIIUf'I $ill{¥l!¥ ON LOT O'F ~t'AR I' I ,Il II E,q'J( )N I FRONT FRON'r SIDE $1I)E R~AR LAKF. 1'01~ OF III.LIFI~ REI~UIRI~I) (;AIJAt|I~., ,ql lit. I) ..... FRON I' FRONT N $ I:. W SlUE N $ E W ZONINO DISTRIC'r, LOT.$1ZG/WlDTH: RI lOrOOO~60 BI 7,$00/0 B1 20,000/80 ~ a3:0,000/60 R2 14,000]80 R3 SE~ ORD, I1 30,000/100 4' SIDE N S Il W 4'OI1 fi' REAR N LAKE N S E W TOP gl: IILUFIt EXkWIINOIPR(}I~$ED ~3'1' BliP'ftt: VARIANCE .'Ills o.tli.~'a i. the City .f M.u.d Zoning Ordinuce, For fur~er lnformnti~m, cont~ct the City of Mound Plan.hq'. Departme.t fit 472.0600. ;( ~ L~ rag ~4~91 .. -1559- .10~ 0 O~ -0 ?:' c~ 0 hJ 0 Po 1! Hennepin County'Map Serv~ i PagbI 6f 1 I-Iennepin County, Minnesota Property ID ~8-~7-23-33~030 Property Address 4778 NORTHEP/qRD MO~, MN 55364 ~stupda~:01/~002~ll:00:~AM Approximate Perimeter 266 fl. Market Value Approximate Area 3,222 Sq.R. = 0.074 acres Total Tax (2001) 114,000 ~ 1,026.52 This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of the material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation . of this information or Its derlvatlVe~':/f map discrepancies are.found, p!ease contact the Hennepln County Surveyors Office at (612) 348-3131. The quality of the display may be influenced by youi; screefi:size and: i;es~lution setting, and is best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires internet Explorer 3.~)2 or Netscape 2.01 or later version for proPer operation Copyright © 2000 Henn~in CountY http://www ~ 9~c~h~nn~pin~mn~us/scripts/~sr~mar~dh?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VALU].. i/22/2002 - 1560- Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 1 bf 2. Search By: ................................ ~ .............. Pmp~;¢ ir.) HOUSE or BUILDING #: STREET NAME: at least first $ characters) Northern Road UNIT # (if applicable) ~ records per page County, Property Information Search Res ult The Plen~epin County Property Tax web database ix updated daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.~. (CST) Property ID: Address: MuniciPality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 21)02 Click Here for State Copy of Payable 2002 Tax Statement T~;>~.~,,'-~ i~>,:~j /::' ~ ~,~,.:... ,.:~ ;.~;,,~..~,: .~::: 1,8;1~ 7-23-33~030 4778 NORIHERN RD MOUND 277 Construction year: 1900 3 Parcel Size: S 35X100X35 PAUL C BERGQUIST PAUL C BERGQUIST 4778 NORTHERN RD MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale Date: November, 1999. Sale Price: $61,000 Transaction Type: Sale Excluded from Assessment Analysis Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: E 35 FT OF W45 FT Tax Parcel Description SUBD SKARP LINDQUIST RAVEN-LOT O29 Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2002 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2001 Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $159,000 $104,900 $104,.900 $1,144.41 $19.99 $1,164.40 http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresui; ~:,, -1561 - 2/28/2002 · Pr°pertgin£ormafi°n search by Street Address ReSUlt page ...... Page 2 of 2 Property Information Detail for Taxes Pa~/able 2002 Values Established byAssessor as of Jan uary 2, 2001 Values: Land Market Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status $128,500 $30,500 $159,000 $84,800 $20,100 $1 O4,9OO RESIDENTIAL LAKE SHORE HOMESTEAD 2210 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public se~/ice. Have a tax related question? Send e-mail to taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Experience a problem searching database, have a technical question or wish to co Hennepin County Tax web site? Send e-mail to Don. Kopel@co.hennepin.mn.us Have a comment on any of Hennepin County's web sites or E-Commerce appticati, Send e-mail to Henn. Net@co.hennepin.mn.us Copyright ~ 1998 - 2001 Hennepin County http://www2.co.hennepin.rnn.us/pins/addrres - 1562- 2/28/2002 CITY OF MOUND - ZONING SURYEY ON FILE') YliS / NO yl~.s I NO INi;ORMATION SI IIiET ZONINU DIS'I'RICI', LO'r SIZE/WID'I'Ih R1 10~000/60' BI. 7.500/0 IRA ~,0oo/~0' B2 2o,ooo/so R2 6,000/40 n3 10,000/60 R~ 1.4, O00/B0 R~ /]RE ORD. 'fl 30,0OO/100 REQUIRED'~-~ EXISTINGIPROI'OSED ~OT 0F RECORD? YARD ......... N S E W N S E W ' OF BLUFF ',. i" oAR.AGE, 811ED ..... N S E W N S E W D[ITAC~ii{D IIUII,I)INO.'{ FRONT LAKE" N $ E W N S G W N S E w N ~ Ii W NS Lt W N $ E w ' OF BLUFF iliARDCOVER ) ::: :' : : 30% OR 40~ ' 0~' Lo¥$ sK IFg) 10' OR 30' E~ ISTING LOT SIZE:. L-Ti~TIi: VARIANCE 4' OR 6: . 4~¢~R{{,',.,.' ,., :. 10' OR 30' ~)ATED: ICONrORMINO?' ' YES'. / !' NO ? ~ '" ' ' Thhi Zoning hdormatlotl Sheel 0n{¥ ~umnlatlzc{ a i)orlion of tile tcqui[cmcnls °uiltnod In Ibc CRy of blound Zoning Ordlnanct. 'For furlher information, collM¢i thc City or Mound i)!atU~, nil Dc. p~,tn!?~t.~_a!.,,4,72-0600 ...... i '.' :.i' ,i "*'~ ....... ! ! "'.~- . .I , ~'~.... ,~ .. LOT ! .." -- tN .0 7.41~91 ( 52} (~) ,'" ,.' -1563- o ~ o -'-h too Hennepin coun~ ~ap se~er Page i~f 1 Hennepin C°unt¥, MN Property ID 18-11 ?-23-$$-0029 P=operty Address 4770 NORTHERN RD MOUND, ~4N 55364 Laat update: 02/062002 at 9:00:00 AM Approximate Property Perimeter 321 ft. Market Value Approximate Property Area 6,145 sq.ft. = 0.141 acres Tot&l Tax (2001) $ 39,500 $ 542.60 This information is to be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of the material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. If map discrepancies are found, please contact Bob Moulder with the Hennepin County Surveyors Office at (612) 346-2618 or email him directly at Bob. Moulder _C~.co.henneoin,mn.u~ The quality of the display may be influenced by your screen size and resolution setting, and is 'best viewed at 800x600 screen resolution. This application requires Internet Explorer 3.02 or Netscape 2,0'1 or later version for proper operation Copyright © 2000 Hennepin County http ://www 19. co.hennepin.mn.us/scr "ts,'~:;r/n' ~'~ 1'~'~ 2x~w--Hennepinacmd=Find&VALU... 2/28/2002 Property Lqfomation Semch by S~eet Address Result page Page i 6f' 2 ' Search By: '"~ ............. 7'"'X~ .................. HOUSE or BUILDING #: STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) Northern Road UNIT # (if applicable) ~.~ records per page Hennepin County, Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Property Tax web database is updated daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9: ] 5 p.,,. (CS?) Property iD: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2002 Click Here for State Copy of Payable 2002 Tax ~tatement 18-117-23-33-0029 477'0 NORTHERN RD MOUND 277 Construction year: 3 Parcel Size: IRRE, PAUL C BERGQUIST PAUL C BERGQUIST 4778 NORTHERN RD MOUND MN 55364 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real EState Value and warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale Date: October, 1 991 Sale Price: $29,000 Transaction Type: Contract For Deed Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: THAT PART E OF W 45 FT Tax Parcel Description SUBD SKARP L1NDQUIST RAVEN-LOT 1 & 32 029 Value and Tax SummarY for Taxes Payable 2002 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2001' Estimated Market Value: $45,400 Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $35,800 $35,80O $474.50 $6.82 $481.32 http://www2, co.hennepin.mn, us/pins/- ' :*,*,,:,',,h: - 1565- 2/28/2002 Prope~ Infomation Search by S~eet AddreSS Result Page '.ii.iii i Pag~ ~2 Property Information Detail for Taxes PaNable 2002 Values EStablished by Assessor as of Jan ~ary 2, 2001 'Values: Land Market Building Market Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status $45,400 $45,4OO $35,8OO $35,8OO VACANT LAND - LAKESHORE HOMESTEAD 2202 Hennepin County is providing this infOrmation as a public service. Have a tax related' question? Send e-mail to taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Experience a problem searching database, have' a technical question or wish to co Hennepin County Tax web site? Send e-mail to Don. Kopel@co.hennepin.mn.us Have a comment on any of Hennepin County's web sites or E-Commerce applicati. Send e-mail to Henn. Net@co.hennepin.mn.us : >~::~.,:::',s:'.;--:.':':'.,:-:,'.'.:.'.',::'.'.'~,:: '-",:';,:.'.:.'.:.',:~:;'.':';':',:.'-'.';'.:,:.'.:.'.'..'.'. · · .:.:" ~i '/'~' '¢.;¢~~i: Copyright © 1998 - 2001 Hennepin County http ://www2. co. henneptn.mn.us/p~ns/addrresu. ' -1566- 2/28/2002 CI:I'Y O1: MOUND , ZONING INI;ORMATION SIII£ET sURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO ( ~OT O1~ RECORD? ~-~NO YA RD DIRECTION ZONING DISTRIL~F, LOT SIZE/WII.)TII: Ri,;QUIRED R1 10,000/60 BZ ~,500/0 -Ri~ ~,ooo/4o9 ~ ~o,ooo/~o R2 6,000/~0 ~3 ~0,000/60 R2 14,oo0/8o ~3 ~gg ORD, ~ 30,000/~00 ExIKriNG/PROPOSEI) EX: ISI'IN6 LOT SIZE: FRONT FRONT SIDE N S E W N S E w N S Il ',v SIDE N S E W N S E W 15' LAKE N S E ',V I0' OR 30' LO-F WI DTI'I: LOT DEPTH: ' OF BLUFF , GARAGE, SIIED ..... DIa'TACIIED BUII.I)ING$ FRONT N $ E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' VARIANCE SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' N S E W 50' TOP OF IILUFF lO' OR 30' iI-[ARI)COVER 30% OR 40% This Zoning Information Sheet only summa~ize'g a portion of thc lcquiremcnta outllm:d itt lite Cily or' Mound Zoning Ordinance. For fnllher information, conlact lhe City of Mound Plasming Department at 472-0600. ' iZVZ$~O~ 0¢ LO'g'$ DOUIST' I ":"(5o) DAK0 C) --'1 -1568- CHANNEL - 1570- - 1572- - 1573- · - 1574- .,. -1575- - 1577- L.~,' - 1578- 200 August 22, 1989 RESOLUTION %89-97 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 30 FOOT LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE, A 5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE, AND A LOT SIZE VARIANCE TO ALLOW RE-CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, PART OF LOT 291 SUBDIVISION OF LOTS i & 32 SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, FID #18-117-23-33 0029 (4770 NORTHERN ROAD) P&Z CASE NO. 89-834 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to remove an existing dwelling and reconstruct a new dwelling with an attached garage 20 feet from the Ordinary High Water eleva- tion, 15 feet from the front property line on an undersized lot at Part of Lot 29, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood, FID 918-117-23-33 0029 (4770 Northern Road); and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single Family Zoning District which allows a 20 foot front yard setback, a 6 foot side yard setback, a 50 foot lakeshore setback, and requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to afford the owner reasonable use of his land due to the shape of the lot; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval upon the condition that the existing 5 foot high chain link fence be removed from the property and that a new survey be submitted with the building permit application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follOws: 1. The city does hereby authorize the 30 foot lakeshore setback variance, the 5 foot front yard setback variance, and a lot size variance of approximately 44 square feet at 4770 Northern Road, FID 918-117-23-33 0029 upon the following conditions: a. The 5 foot high chain link fence be removed from the property, and b. The property be re-surveyed. 201 August 22, 1989 The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation and authorizes the alteration set forth below, pursuant to 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, .subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the .... fol.~9~ing.~__a~tprat~D~t~ ...... a.__nonc~nforming property due to the shape of the parcel: ae A new single family dwelling with an attached garage will be constructed on an undersized lot of approximately 5,956 square feet, 20 feet from the Ordinary High Water elevation, and 15 feet from the front property line with the other regulations of City Ordinance in compliance with the site. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: "That part of Lot 29, Subdivisio~ of Lots 1 & 32 Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying East of the West 45 feet, front and rear, of said Lot 29." PID #18-117-23-33 0029. This variance shall be recorded with the County Re- corder or the. Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restric- tion on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Je~sen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk - ss/Steve Smlth Mayor IF - 1580- N.C. HOIUM AND ASSOCIATES, INC. R O. BOX 33026- COON RAPIDS, MINN. 55433 10731 MISSISSIPPI BLVD. N.W., COON RAPIDS, MN CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY: 45, o ~ ~ 0 ), o,2 GREGORY GRAMS '. ,'/°&~d'.' ',.. ~.5 D That 2, Z3 / i part of Lot 29, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1AND '3~ LAND SURVEYORS Telephone 421-7822 SCALE: 1" = 20' 6449-252/3-4 --~ Denotes Iron / ~Z9.1 Denotes existing elev SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENWOOD, 'lle[lnepin County, Minnesota lying East of the West 45 feet, front and rear, of said Lot 29. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS X TRUE AHD CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND, AND THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS, THEREON, AND ALL VISIBLE Ell. CROACHMENIS, IF AHY, FROM OR ON SAID LAND. 25th August A D 19 ............... AS SURVEYED BY ME Tti~S ................... DAY OF ............................................... 88 N.C. HOIUM AND AS~S~I, CIATE~,.~4C. , ~.~ ...(..~ ~~.,.~ ..... : Min,,.,ol, R,gt,l,,lion No .... .~..4..~.7. ........... ' ....... 4~c/I -1581 - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources DNR Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 March 6, 2002 Ms. Sarah Smith Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re: Paul Bergquist and David Logelin, Minor Subdivision/Variance Application, Lake Minnetonka- Harrison Bay (27-133-15), City of Mound, Hennepin County Dear Ms. Smith: We have reviewed the site plans and supporting materials that were distributed for Case No. 02-01 and 02-05 for the Bergquist and Logelin residences and have the following comments to offer: The Department of Natural Resources does not object to the request to divide parcel 2 and combine the east 15 feet of parcel 2 to parcel 1 and the west 20 feet of parcel 2 to parcel 3. This action would reduce one riparian ownership to Lake Minnetonka while improving the overall standards for parcels 1 and 3 within the shoreland district. The structure proposed on parcel 1 would be constructed within the shore impact zone (50 percent of the required structure setback). An alternative location and/or building design must be imposed to conform to setback requirements within this zone. The city needs to ensure the preservation of shore impact zones. o Permeable paver systems are designed to allow for water to percolate through the ground. However, the paving system needs to be properly installed and maintained to function properly. The design should identify the percent runoffvs, infiltration during the design storm event and certified by a qualified engineer or other qualified professional as applied to the landscape. Portions of the site are within floodplain areas. The proposed project needs to be consistent with all applicable floodplain regulations for both the City and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 ~ Pdnted on Recycled Paper Containing a 5 8 _,~.~l~a,-~_ Minimum of 200/0 Post-Consumer Waste 1 Ms. Smith March 6, 2002 Page 2 The applicants must demonstrate hardship to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: The proposed use is reasonable. It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns". Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. The landowner must not create the problem. The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. Thank you, for the opportunity to comment on this application. Should you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (651) 772-7914. Sincerely, Travis Germundson Area Hydrologist c~ Mike Wyatt, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Ali Durgunoglu, Hennepin Conservation District City of Mound Shoreland File - 1583- Page 1 of 2 From: To: Sent: Subject: "Mike Wyatt" <mwyatt@minnehahacreek.org> "'Sarah Smith'" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:14 PM RE: Northern Road Subdivision policy written in Rule C states that one of the objectives of the Rule is "no net decrease" in the flood storage capacity of Lake Minnetonka. The floodplain on Minnetonka is defined to exist between the OHW (929.4') and the 100-year level (931.5'). Typically, our procedure for dealing with floodplain encroachment is to require the applicant excavate an equivalent volume to the encroachment within the designated floodplain. So any excavation within this range(929.4'-931.5') would be acceptable as long as the excavation occurred in an area contiguous to the shoreline/floodplain of the lake. The other requirement of Rule C th'at would affect this type of project is that the lowest threshold opening of any structure must be no lower than two feet above the designated 100-year floodplain level. This is designed to protect the homeowner/buyer from being subjected to flooding caused by poor planning on the part of the contractor. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Mike inal Message ..... From: Sarah Smith [SMTP: SarahSmith~cityofmound.com] Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:14 PM To: mwyatt~minnehahacreek, org Re: Northern Road Subdivision / Variance Thanks Mike. Can you tell me whether or not floodplain volume compensation can be done below the MCWD minimum of 931.57 As you can see, the Northern Road subdivision application will require the placement of fill. Please advise. Fro,m,,: Mike Wy.a,~t <mwyatt~minnehahacreek. org> To: Sarah Smith <SarahSmi~'h~cityofmound.com> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 6.'~7 PM _ S~~~sion / Vail > Thanks for the heads-up. Please let me know how this one turns out and > feel free to refer the applicants to us following approval from the - 1584- 3/5/2002 Page 2 of 2 planning commission. Thanks, Mike From: Sarah Smith [SMTP:SarahSmith~cityofmound.com] Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 1:41 PM To: mwyatt~minnehahacreek.org > > > > > > Good aftemoon Mike. For your review a copy of the 3/4 PC agenda and Planning Report(s) for # 02-01 (subdivision) and # 02-05 (variance) regarding the application from Paul Bergquist and David Logelin on behalf of Calilund LLC are included. a.. Please forward any and/or all appropriate comments at your earliest convenience. << File: ATT00001.htm >> << File: PCAGENDA-march42002.DOC >> << File: 02-01 northernroadsubvariancefinal.doc >> << File: Bergquistminorsubdivision.doc >> - 1585- 3/5/2002 CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com March 11, 2002 Kandis Hanson City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Fax: 952-472-0620 ROBERT J. LINDALL Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9219 *Certified Real Property Law Specialist VIA FACSIMII,E AND U.S. MAIL Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Fax: 338-6838 John Cameron Mound City Engineer McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55447 Fax: 763-476-8532 3im Prosser Ehlers & Associates 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Fax: 651-697-8555 Re: Proposed Purchase by City of Mound of Lots 23-28, Koehlers Addition to Mound from Balboa Center Limited Partnership Dear Kandis, John, Bruce and Jim: At John Dean's request, I am enclosing a revised form of the proposed purchase agreement which I sent to Balboa Center Limited Partnership some time ago.' Through their attorney, Paul Moe, Balboa's response at that time was that they were not interested in a purchase agreement which included contingencies 6ther than a brief period for environmental review and due diligence before electing whether to proceed with the purchase. It is my understanding that it is proposed that the proposal to purchase the property.be submitted to the city council for approval at the meeting of March 26, 2002, and that if the council approves the purchase, the proposed purchase agreement be submitted to the seller without a contingency relating to city council approval. Please review and comment on the proposed agreement. Very~ yours, Robert J. Lindall RJL:peb Enclosure cc: John Dean RJL-211208vl MU200-92 - 1586- *Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association H A RTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minnea?olis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven.com March 18, 2002 Paul Moe Faegre & Benson LLP 2200 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 ROBERT J. LINDALL Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9219 *Certified Real Property Law Specialist VIA FACSIMILE 766-1600 AND U.S. MAIL Re: Purchase by City of Mound of Lots 23-28, Koehlers Addition to Mound from Balboa Center Limited Partnership Dear Mr. Moe: On January 9, 2002, I submitted a proposed purchase agreement to you which was between the City of Motmd mad Balboa Minnesota Company. Pursuant to your voice mail to me in response to that draft, I mn enclosing a revised form of the proposed agreement. I have changed the Seller's name and I have eliminated contingencies relating to City Council approval and to execution of a contract between the City and the County. It took some time for the City to be persuaded to eliminate these contingencies. The principal contingency remaining is that the City be able to do a Phase II enviromnental assessment mad decide whether it wishes to proceed with the purchase based on what it finds. We intend to begin the Phase II assessment promptly following execution of the purchase agreement and believe it can be completed ha 60 days. We do not believe 30 days is enough. We hope 90 days is not necessary. We intend that the City and its intended .transferees will promptly make their decision as to whether they wish to proceed following receipt of the results of the Phase II assessment. If they wish to proceedl we intend that the City will then accelerate the closing schedule pursuant to Section 5.1. Please review the purchase agreement and adx/ise me if it meets the approval of you and your client. I will be out of the office from March 21 to April 1. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yo PJL:peb Enclosure RJL-211702vl MU200-92 *Certified by Minnesota State Bar Association - 1587- Paul Moe Ltr March 18, 2002 Page 2 CC; Kandis Hanson Bruce Chamberlain John Cameron Jim Prosser John Dean RJL-211702vl MU200-92 - 1588- CYPRESS LA 1589- bO gO 170.4 ~ tOO Jan -29-~ 02 10:22a p,6 LEGEND P E R M AN E N T R IGH T- OF - WA Y PERI, ANENT SIDEWALK ~NIENT 11,914- 28 15,173 S!F. 5 ~4 ~3 2 3 - 1 590- Iw'ral PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of ,2002, between Balboa Center Limited Partnership, c/o United Properties, 3500 80th Street West, Bloomington, 1MN 55431 (hereinafter "Seller"), and City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "Buyer"). RECITALS Seller is the fee owner of certain real property located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, containing approximately 48,884 square feet (1.12 acres), as legally described on Schedule A (the "Land"), together with all improvements and landscaping constructed or located on the Land, if any, with a street address of 5300 Shoreline Drive, Mound, MN 55364, and all easements and rights benefiting or appurtenant to the Land (collectively, the "Property"). Buyer desires to purchase the Property from Seller pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Sale of Property. Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer agrees to buy the Property from Seller, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Purchase Price and Manner of Payment. The total purchase price ("Purchase Price") to be paid for the Property shall be $170,000.00. The Purchase Price shall be payable on the Closing Date in cash, certified funds or by electronic funds transfer. Contingencies. The obligations of Buyer under this Agreement are contingent upon each of the following: 3.1 Representations and Warranties. The representations and warranties of Seller contained in Section 11 of this Agreement must be true now and on the Closing Date as if made on the ClOsing Date. 3.2 Performance of Seller's Obligations. Seller shall have performed all of the obligations required to be performed by Seller under this Agreement, as and when required by this Agreement. 3.3 Title. Title shall have been found acceptable, or been made acceptable, in accordance with the requirements and terms of the Title Examination Section below. RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 -1591 - o o 3.4. Buyer and its environmental consultants being provided access to the Property to perform such soil borings and ground water tests as Buyer's consultant elects and Buyer's consultant confirming that any hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants present on the Property do not exist in amounts or concentrations which cause Buyer or its intended purchasers or assigns to be unwilling to proceed with the purchase of the Property in accordance with this Agreement. If any of the foregoing contingencies have not been satisfied on the Closing Date, as defined below, then this Agreement may be terminated, at Buyer's option, by written notice from Buyer to Seller on or before the Closing Date. Upon termination, the Earnest Money, if any, and any interest accrued thereon, shall be released to Buyer, the parties shall sign a recordable cancellation of this Agreement, and neither party will have any further rights or obligations regarding this Agreement or the Property, except that Buyer's duty to protect and indemnify Seller against any costs, claims or liens arising from the activities of Buyer or its agents on the Property, including reasonable attorney's fees in enforcing such indemnification, shall survive such termination. All of the contingencies are specifically for the benefit of Buyer, and Buyer shall have the right to waive any contingency by written notice to Seller. Buyer's Access and Investigation. Buyer and its consultants shall have the right to enter upon the Property for a 90-day period commencing on the date of final execution of this Agreement for the purpose of making such investigations and completing such testing as deemed necessary by Buyer. Seller shall allow Buyer, and Buyer's agents, access to the Property without charge and at all reasonable times during such period for such purposes. Closing Date. 5.1 Closing Date. The closing of the purchase and sale contemplated by this Agreement (the "Closing") shall occur on or before 120 days from the date of this Agreement (the "Closing Date"). The Closing shall take place at 10:00 a.m. local time at the office of Buyer's Title Insurer, or such other place as-may be agreed upon. Seller agrees to deliver possession of the Property to Buyer on the Closing Date. Buyer may accelerate the Closing Date upon 20 days prior written notice to Seller and provided Seller is reasonably available to close. 5.2 The Buyer must close within 30 days following satisfaction of all contingencies listed in Section 3 hereof. Seller's Closing Documents. On the Closing Date, Seller shall execute and deliver to Buyer the following (collectively, "Seller's Closing DocUments"), all in form and content reasonably satisfactory to Buyer: 6.1. Warranty Deed. A Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Blank Warranty Deed for the conveyance of the Real Property to Buyer. 6.2. Seller's Affidavit. A standard Affidavit of Seller. RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 2 - 1592- 6.3. FIRPTA Affidavit. A non-foreign affidavit, properly executed and in recordable form, containing such information as is required by IRC Section 1445(b)(2) and its regulations. 6.4. Other Documents. All other documents reasonably determined by Title to be necessary to transfer the Property to Buyer free and clear of all encumbrances, except the Permitted Encumbrances. Buyer's Closing Documents. On the Closing Date, Buyer will execute and/or deliver to Seller the following (collectively, "Buyer's Closing Documents"), all in form and content reasonably satisfactory to Seller: 7.1 Purchase Price. The Purchase Price, by wire transfer of U.S. Federal Funds to be received in Seller's account on or before 2:00 p.m. local time on the Closing Date. 7.2 Title Documents. Such Affidavits of Purchaser, Certificates of Value or other documents as may be reasonably required by Title in order to record the Seller's Closing Documents and issue the Title Policy. Prorations. Seller and Buyer agree to the following prorations and allocation of costs regarding this Agreement: 8.1 Title Insurance and Closing Fee. Seller will pay: (a) the cost of providing an abstract or registered property abstract certified to date; and (b) the fees charged by Title for any escrow required regarding Buyer's Objections. Buyer will pay all premiums required for the issuance of any commitment for title insurance ("Title Commitment") and title insurance policy ("Title Policy"). Seller and Buyer will each pay one-half of any closing fee or charge imposed by Title. 8.2 Deed Tax. Seller shall pay all State Deed Tax payable in connection with this transaction. Buyer shall pay all Mortgage Registry Tax payable in connection with Buyer's financing (if any). 8.3 Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Real estate taxes payable for all years preceding the year in which Closing occurs shall be paid by Seller. Real estate taxes payable in the year in which Closing occurs shall be pro-rated upon a 365-day calendar year based upon the Date of Closing, with Seller paying through the Date of Closing. Installments of Special Assessments payable therewith shall be pro-rated on a 365-day calendar year based upon the Date of Closing, with Seller paying through the Date of Closing. Subject to the limitation below, Seller shall pay all other Special Assessments which are levied or pending as of the Date of Closing. Seller's provision for payment of a pending assessment shall be made by payment into escrow of one and one-half times the estimated amount of the assessment, with the right to a refund of any excess of the escrow. Seller agrees RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 - 1593- to pay any required repayment of any real estate taxes deferred under Minnesota Statutes Section 273.111 (commonly known as "Green Acres"). 8.4 Other Costs. All other operating costs of the Property shall be allocated between Seller and Buyer as of the Closing Date, so that Seller pays that part of operating costs payable on and before the Closing Date, and Buyer pays that part of operating costs payable after the Closing Date. 8.5 Attorney's Fees. Each of the parties will pay its own attorney's fees. 9. Title Examination. Title Examination will be conducted as follows: 9.1 Seller's Title Evidence. Seller shall, within 20 days after the date of this Agreement, furnish to Buyer an abstract of title or registered property abstract ("Abstract") updated and certified to date including appropriate name searches. Buyer may choose to obtain a commitment ("Title Commitment") for title insurance at Buyer's option and expense. 9.1.1 Buyer shall not object to the permitted encumbrances ("Permitted Encumbrances") listed on the attached Schedule B and agrees that it will take title subject to such Permitted Encumbrances. 9.2 Buyer's Obiections. Within 30 days after receiving the Abstract, Buyer may make written objections ("Objections") to any title matter which is not a Permitted Encumbrance. Buyer's failure to make Objections within such time period will constitute waiver of Objections. Any matter not objected to by Buyer shall be an additional "Permitted Encumbrance" hereunder. Seller will have 30 days after receipt of the Objections to cure the Objections, during which period the Closing will be postponed, if necessary. Seller shall use its best efforts to correct any Objections. If the Objections are not cured within such 30-day period, Buyer will have the option to do any of the following: 9.2.1 Extend the time period for Seller to cure the Objections by up to 60 days, at the end of which time Buyer may exercise anY of the remaining options set forth below. 9.2.2 Terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Additional Earnest Money, and any interest accrued and unpaid thereon, if any, in which case neither party shall have any further rights or obligations regarding this Agreement or the Property. 9.2.3 Withhold from the Purchase Price an amount which, in the reasonable judgment of Title, is sufficient to assure cure of the Objections, up to a maximum cost to Seller of $10,000.00 less any amounts already expended by Seller to cure any Objection. Any amount so withheld will be placed in escrow with Title, pending such cure. If Seller does not cure such Objections within 60 days after such escrow is established, Buyer may RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 4 - 1594- 10. 11. then cure such Objections and charge the costs against the escrowed amount, with any 'balance being returned to Seller. The parties agree to execute and deliver such documents as may be reasonably required by Title, and Seller agrees to pay the charges of Title to create and administer the escrow. 9.2.4 Waive the Objections and proceed to close. Operation Prior to Closing. During the period from the date of Seller's acceptance of this Agreement to the Closing Date (the "Executory Period"), Seller shall operate and maintain the Property in the ordinary course of business in accordance with prudent, reasonable business standards, including the maintenance of adequate liability insurance and insurance against loss by fire, windstorm and other hazards, casualties and contingencies, including vandalism and malicious mischief. Representations and Warranties by Seller. Seller represents and warrants to Buyer as follows: 11.1 Authority. Seller has the requisite power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement and the Seller's Closing Documents; such documents are valid and binding obligations of Seller, and are enforceable in accordance with their terms. 11.2 THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. 11.3 FIRPTA. Seller is not a "foreign person," "foreign partnership," "foreign trust" or "foreign estate," as those terms are defined in Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code. 11.4 Proceedings. There is no action, litigation, investigation, condemnation or proceeding of any kind pending or threatened against Seller or any portion of the Property. 11.5 Wells and Individual Sewage Treatment Systems. The Seller certifies that there are no "Wells" on the Property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 1031 or "Individual Sewage Treatment Systems" on the Property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 115.55. This representation is intended to satisfy the requirements of those statutes. 11.6 Storage Tanks. To the best of Seller's actual knowledge, no above ground or underground tanks are located in or about the Property, or have been located under, in or about the Property and have subsequently been removed or filled, except as follows: none. 11.7 THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 5 -1595- 12. 13. 11.8 Notices. Seller has not received any notices from any governmental authorities that it is in violation of any law or ordinance. If Seller receives any such notice, Seller shall promptly provide Buyer with a copy of same. Seller will indemnify Buyer, its successors and assigns, against, and will hold Buyer, its successors and assigns, harmless from, any expenses or damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, that Buyer incurs because of the breach of any of the above representations and warranties, whether such breach is discovered before or after Closing. Representations and Warranties of Buyer. Buyer warrants and represents to Seller the following: 12.1 Valid and Binding Obligations. This Agreement and the other documents contemplated by this Agreement when duly executed and delivered by Buyer will constitute valid and binding obligations of Buyer and will be enforceable in accordance with their respective terms. Neither the execution nor the delivery by Buyer of this Agreement or any other agreements contemplated hereby will violate any applicable state or federal law or regulation. Buyer is not a party to or subject to or bound by any law, judgment, order, writ, injunction, ruling or decree of any jurisdiction, court or governmental body that is likely to materially and adversely affect in any manner the net worth of or performance by Buyer of this Agreement or any other agreements contemplated hereby. 12.2 No Litigation Pending. There is no litigation or other legal or administrative proceeding currently pending or known to be threatened against Buyer which would prevent Buyer from carrying out the terms of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereunder. 12.3 No Bankruptcy or Insolvency. During the past twelve (12) months, neither Buyer nor any predecessor or affiliate of Buyer has been involved as debtor in any proceeding under the United States Bankruptcy Code or any state insolvency, receivership or similar statute; and 12.4 No Outstanding Liens. There are no outstanding unsatisfied judgments, state tax liens, federal tax liens or other liens against Buyer which may attach to the Property as a part of closing this transaction. Condemnation. If, prior to the Closing Date, eminent domain proceedings are commenced against all or any part of the Property, Seller shall immediately give notice to Buyer of such fact. There shall be no reduction in the Purchase Price, and Seller shall assign to Buyer on the Closing Date all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to any award made or to be made in the condemnation proceedings. Upon receipt of any notice concerning such proceedings, Seller shall transmit such notice to Buyer promptly so that Buyer may contest any eminent domain or condemnation proceedings. RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 6 - 1596- 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Broker's Commission. Seller and Buyer represent to each other that they have dealt with no other brokers, finders or the like in connection with this transaction, and agree to indemnify and hold each other harmless from all claims, damages, costs or expenses of or for any other such fees or commissions resulting from their actions or agreements regarding the execution or performance of this Agreement, and will pay all costs of defending any action or lawsuit brought to recover any such fees or commissions incurred by the other party, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Assignment. Buyer's rights under this Agreement with respect to all or part of the Property, may be assigned by Buyer to one or more of the following: Metropolitan Council, Xcel Energy Company or Hennepin County, or entities owned or controlled by such entities. Survival. All of the terms of this Agreement and warranties and representations herein contained shall survive and be enforceable after the Closing. Notices. Any notice to be given by a party hereto shall be personally delivered, sent by certified mail, or sent via a nationally recognized courier service that issues a receipt to the other party at the address set forth for that party below (or to such other address as may be designated by notice to the other party), and shall be deemed given upon the earlier of personal delivery, two days after the date postmarked, two days after depositing with such courier for delivery or upon the refusal to accept such service. Address for Notice To Seller: Balboa Center Limited Partnership c/o United Properties 3500 W. 80th Street Bloomington, MN 55431 Address for Notice to Buyer: City of Mound Attn: Kandis Hanson City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627' With copy to: Robert J. Lindall, Esq. Kennedy and Graven 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Miscellaneous. The paragraph headings or captions appearing in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of this Agreement, and are not to be considered in interpreting this Agreement. This written Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior oral or written agreements between the parties regarding the Property. There are no verbal agreements that change this Agreement, and no waiver of any of its terms will be effective unless in a writing RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 7 - 1597- 19. executed by the parties. This Agreement binds and benefits the parties and their successors and assigns. This Agreement has been made under the laws of the State of Minnesota and such laWs will control its interpretation. Remedies. If Buyer defaults under this Agreement, Seller shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Buyer. If Buyer fails to cure such default within 30 days of the date of such notice, this Agreement will terminate, and upon such termination Seller will retain all Earnest Money, and interest thereon, if any, as liquidated damages, time being of the essence of this Agreement. The termination of this Agreement and retention of the Earnest Money and interest thereon, if any, shall be the sole remedy available to Seller for such default by Buyer. If Seller defaults under this Agreement, Buyer may, as its sole remedy, either terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Seller, in which case the Earnest Money and any interest earned thereon shall be returned to Buyer, or seek and recover from Seller specific performance of this Agreement. Nothing in this Section shall prevent either party from recovering damages pursuant to any indemnity obligation under this Agreement. Seller and Buyer have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. SELLER: BUYER: BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CITY OF MOUND By By Its General Partner And Its Mayor Its City Manager RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 8 - 1598- INDEX OF SCHEDULES SCHEDULE A - SCHEDULE B - Legal Description of the Land (first Recital paragraph) Permitted Encumbrances (Section 9.1.1) 1LIL-205238v3 MU200-92 - 1599- SCHEDULE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lots 23 through 28, Koehlers Addition to the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota RJL-205238v3 A- 1 MU200-92 - 1600- SCHEDULE B PERMITTED ENCUMBRANCES Easements, Restrictions and Reservations of Record which do not interfere with Buyer's intended use of the Property. RJL-205238v3 MU200-92 B-1 -1601 - MEMORANDUM TO: City Council, City of Mound DATE: March 22, 2002 ACT II, Inc. Loan Default and Proposed Sale of Collateral In 1999, the City of Mound facilitated a $148,000 loan to American Coating Technology II, Inc. with grant funds received from the State Department of Trade and Economic Development ("DETD") under the Minnesota Investment Fund Grant Program. In sum, the City effectively borrowed the funds from DTED and loaned immediately loaned them to ACT II. The loan was secured by three pieces of equipment, called "slitter/rewinders". The security interest was perfected by filing of a UCC financing statement with the Minnesota Secretary of State. ACT II's obligations to the City also were guaranteed by American Coating Technology, Inc. ("ACT I"), a corporation organized and operating in Wisconsin. ACT II paid a total of $8,690.00 on the loan. ACT I1 defaulted on its obligations to the City in 2001. In August of 2001, the Company ceased operations and, apparently so did ACT I. ACT II abandoned most of its equipment at its place of business, located in Mound in a building owned by Balboa Investments, LLC. Representatives of the City and State visited the facility and were able to identify two of the slitter/rewinders in which the City had a security interest. It was later determined that ACT II had moved the third slitter/rewinder (without the permission required by the security agreement and without the knowledge of the City) to ACT I's plant in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. The City worked closely with the DETD in determining how to respond to the default. Initially, Alliance Bank, which held a security interest in most of ACT II's property other than the City's collateral, agreed to assist in offering the City's collateral for sale; however, the Bank was unsuccessful in finding parties interested in buying the specialized equipment and eventually sold its security interest in its own collateral to a former principal of ACT II, Jodi Dalvey. While Ms. Dalvey stated that she would help market the City's collateral, she would do so only for a percentage of the receipts, and DETD did not think it appropriate for her to profit from ACT II's default. The City, with DETD's help, began assessing ways to sell its collateral and contacted the manufacturer and several parts dealers. Because of the age of the equipment, these sources stated that they had minimal value (e.g., less than $10,000 each). With regard to the equipment in Wisconsin, DETD officials viewed that equipment and, because it had been used to salvage parts, determined it had no value and should not be recovered by the City. In Mound, Balboa Investments wanted to have all of the equipment removed from the site and threatened to impose a $2,500/month "rent" for storage of the City's two pieces of equipment. The City contended that the rent was excessive, but also determined that it was not feasible to move and - 1602- store the slitter/rewinders because of their size and weight. In early December, Balboa Investments, without permission of the City or DETD, sold one of the slitter/rewinders for $18,500, claiming that it was entitled to that money as reasonable rent, and that the City needed to immediately remove the remaining slitter/rewinder. The City challenged the landlord's right to sell the equipment as it did and also the amount the landlord was claiming for rent. Because of the cost of moving and storing the remaining slitter/rewinder, the limited market for resale, and the limited value of the equipment, the City staff and DETD concluded settlement with Balboa Investments would be in the best interests of the City and State. Pursuant to the settlement, Balboa Investments will buy both of the slitter/rewinders located in Mound for a total of $12,000, under the provisions for disposition of collateral set forth in the uniform commercial code. Both parties will be released from any further liability. The City will abandon its security interest in the third piece of equipment, which is located in Wisconsin. The $12,000 payment from Balboa Investments, along with the $8,690.00 previously paid to the City by ACT II, will be paid over by the City to DETD. DETD has agreed that, upon receipt of this payment, it will terminate the grant agreement and any further liability of the City thereunder. - 1603- AGREEMENT This Agreement is made this __ day of March, 2002 by and between Balboa Center Limited Partnership ("Balboa") and City of Mound (the "City"). Recitals A. Balboa is the fee owner of certain real property located in the City of Mound, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota located at 5300-5900 Shoreline Drive, Mound, Minnesota (the "Property"). Pursuant to an Office/Warehouse Lease dated June 30, 1999, as amended by an Amendment No. 1 to Lease dated October 16, 2000 (collectively, the "Lease"), Landlord leased to ACT II, Inc., d/b/a American Coating Technology ("Tenant") the following: that portion of the Property designated as 5330 Shoreline Drive, consisting of approximately 58,000 square feet of office space as shown on Exhibit B of Amendment No. 1 to Lease (the "Premises"). B. Tenant failed to pay to Balboa certain installments of Rent and Additional Rent and so defaulted under the terms and conditions of the Lease. Balboa commenced an eviction action and Tenant was evicted from the Premises on or about August 23, 2001. Tenant abandoned certain personal property at the Premises, including two Stanford Slitter Rewinders in which the City had a secured interest (the "City Equipment"). C. The City Equipment remained on the Premises after August 23, 2001. Balboa has made certain claims for compensation in respect of its storage of the City Equipment. Balboa sold one of the Stanford Slitter Rewinders to a third party and received $18,500 in consideration thereof. A dispute has arisen between Balboa and the City as to the appropriate compensation to be paid for storage of the City Equipment and the entitlement of Balboa to sell the Stanford Slitter Rewinders. To avoid further expense and investment of time, Balboa and the City have agreed to resolve this dispute. Based upon the above Recitals, the mutual exchange of promises in this Agreement and other valuable consideration, Balboa and the City agree as follows: - 1604- Agreement 1. The City will foreclose its interest in the City Equipment. Upon completion of the foreclosure, but in no event later than April 1, 2002, the City will sell the City Equipment or any interest the City has therein to Balboa by a Bill of Sale in the form attached hereto. 2. The City will deliver the Bill of Sale to Balboa, and contemporaneous therewith Balboa will deliver the sum of $12,000.00 to the City. 3. Balboa and the City, for and on behalf of themselves, and any and all of their parent, subsidiary and affiliated corporations, insurers, indemnitors, heirs, successors, predecessors and assigns, and any and all of their former and present directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and attorneys, hereby absolutely and unconditionally release and forever discharge each other, and any and all of their parent, subsidiary and affiliated corporations, insurers, indemnitors, heirs, successors, predecessors and assigns, and any and all of their former and present directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives and attorneys, of and from any and all claims, defenses, demands, actions causes of action, rights, damages, and costs of any kind, nature or description, whether arising in law or equity, in contract or tort, which they have had, now have, or claim to have, against each other for or by reason of any act, omission, matter, cause or thing whatsoever arising out of the storage of the City Equipment, and in particular Balboa's sale of the first Stanford Slitter Rewinder and the compensation to be paid to Balboa by the City for storage of the City Equipment. This release does not extend to any rights and obligations arising from this Agreement. 4. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by all parties hereto, and then such waiver or consent shall be effective only in the specific instance and for specific purpose for which given. 5. The parties acknowledge that they have been represented by competent legal counsel of their own choosing both in connection with the Action and in connection with the negotiation, drafting and execution of this Agreement. Accordingly, the language used in this Agreement will be deemed to be language chosen by all parties to express their mutual intent, and no rule of strict -2- -1605- construction against any party will apply to any term or condition of this Agreement. 6. This Agreement and any documents executed and delivered contemporaneously therewith constitute the entire agreement and understanding of and between the parties with respect to the settlement and compromise of the Action and supersede all prior oral and written understandings, agreements and proposals concerning the matters described herein. All agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied oral or written of the parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement are contained herein. All prior and contemporaneous conversations, negotiations, possible and alleged agreements, representations, covenants and warranties between the parties are merged herein. 7. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall be venued exclusively in Hennepin County District Court, Fourth Judicial District, State of Minnesota. 8. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts which, taken together, shall constitute but a single agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have each duly executed this Agreement as of the date indicated above. BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP By. Its CITY OF MOUND M2:20442863.04 By Its -3- - 1606- BILL OF SALE Know All by These Presents, that CITY OF MOUND (hereafter "CITY"), for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the parties hereto, does hereby grant, bargain, sell and convey unto BALBOA CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (hereafter "BALBOA"), forever, the following described goods, chattels and personal property, to-wit: Two Stanford Slitter Rewinders now or formerly located at 5330 Shoreline Drive, Mound, Minnesota In Testimony }Yhereof, CITY has caused these presents to be executed in its corporate name by its duly-authorized agent this ~ day of ,2002. CITY OF MOUND By. Its -4- - 1607- Partner[ for Lifelong Learninoa 3.19.02 TO: FROM: RE: Kandis Hanson, City Manager, City of~Mound, f/ Pam Myers, Superintendent of Schoo]'~l ~ Striping of cross-walks ~ This letter is a follow-up to our conversation on 2/26/02 regarding changes in student transportation in the Westonka Schools. Reduction in funds from the state has forced us to look at reduction in services to families with children using school transportation. At its meeting on 2/11, the Westonka Schools voted to reduce the cost of student transportation, by providing transportation to elementary students who live more than 0.4 mile from school, and secondary students who live more than 0.6 mile from school. This leads to more children walking to school, and the need to provide as much safety for them as possible. Therefore, on behalf of the Westonka Schools, I am requesting that the City support our request to stripe cross walks on the intersection of Maywood and Wilshire Boulevard, as well as on the intersection of Bartlett and Wilshire Boulevard. Also, I am requesting that school crossing signs (yellow), with flashing lights during school crossing hours, be installed on Wilshire Boulevard, stating a lower speed limit during school hours. I strongly support the suggestion that the intersection of Maywood and Wilshire become a four-way stop. I believe this change will provide additional safety for our community's primary students who will be walking to school. I understand you might install temporary stop signs, with flashing red lights, to help the public adjust to this change in traffic pattern, Thank you, and many thanks to city staff, for your support and consideration in working with the Westonka Schools to provide the safest possible access for students to Shirley Hills Primary School. If I can provide additional information, please call me at 952-491-8001. independent School District z77 Administrative Offices,, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A* Mound_~6~4 * p: 952.491.8007 · f: 952.491.8012 · www.westonka.kl2.mn.us Co Rich Nicoli, Principal, Shirley Hills Primary School Kevin Borg, Principal, Grandview Middle School Andy Bright, Student Transportation Coordinator, Westonka Bus Company Chuck Herdegen, Business Administrator, Westonka Public Schools Dave Botts, Chair, Westonka School Board Change in traffic patterns-Mound 3.19.02 - 1609- ..... Original Message ..... To: Pam Myers Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:22 PM Subject: Request for Student Safety Measures Greg, Len and I met on Monday. We discussed your letter and our meeting with you, as we perceived it. I hope you will not be offended, but I edited your letter as we thought we could support it. After you have read it, we should talk, if you wish, so I can further explain our rationale. Some other points that were brought out in this week's meeting include the following: P#5 of your letter: A change in speed limit requires a traffic study. A traffic study can take a long time, cost a lot of money, and backfire if they raise the speeds, due to existing speed patterns. As an alternative, we suggest the yellow signs suggesting a lower speed limit. They are not enforceable, but can help slow traffic. P#4&7 of your letter: Since we are not addressing matters connected to Grandview, we suggest not mentioning it in this letter. In our response back to the District, staff comments will include, but will not be limited to, the following: --the crosswalk should remain at Lakewood, but activities there will be monitored. --the cost represented in the proposal is about $500, and should be shared between the parties. This does not include the signs recommending lower speeds. --striping cannot occur until after the streets have been cleaned and temperatures are consistently above 50 degrees. (That won't meet your April 1 schedule.) Other work can only be performed once frost is out of the ground. Internal review will be done by Mound Police, Fire and Street Departments, and by Hennepin County for their portions of the intersection of Wilshire and Barlette Boulevards. We will create and attach a suitable map when we receive your letter on letterhead. It can be considered by the CC on March 26, if received by March 21. Let me know how I can help. Kandis We are wondering if you are considering using our parks as neighborhood pickup points? -1610- All) ~PIANGE TO FOUR-WAY STOP X SCHOOLS REQUEST X- SCHOOL CROSSING SIGNS WITH FLASHER !~-CROSSWALKS c~ I ~ __J L ..... I'L , -1611 - AID CHANGE TO FOUR-WAY STOP X CITY OF MOUND~'~S PROPOSAL X - SCHOOL CROSSING SIGNS WITHOUT FLASHER IL CROSSWALKS Lakewood & Wilshire- will remain pending further study II I I c ._J L -1612- 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 CITY OF MOUND To:Mayor, City Council and City Manager From:Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com 2001 Annual Report Last year was one of many events and circumstances that led to ours ,as well other business's,ups and downs. In these times of uncertainty it is necessary and prudent to address the down side,unlike companies such as ENRON, as to an industry's current conditions. Perhaps it would be wise to commence with this report by discussing any negative factors that happened in 2001.I must admit they are minor and probably known to you already but should be aired in the open before talking about all the positive occurrences of the previous year. During the early summer of 2000 when I was formulating the budget and predicting the sales for 2001, I noticed that the decade long Bull Market was becoming stagnant and in a slight decline. Having been through recessions before in this business I knew we would survive but not grow at the capacity we were accustomed to. You might say, to some extent, we are recession proof. My forecast for sales for 2001 was $1,900,000. I was off by $143.00. Sales came in at $1,899,857. A meager 2.05% increase over 2000.Mr. Greenspan has just recently indicated that we are slowly climbing out of our malaise. The Stock Market sure has been agreeing with him. If this is indeed the trend I would estimate, all things being equal, that is if we were not moving to another location, sales for this year will be up 4.0% or around $1,980,000. Operating income, again all things being equal, that is we were not paying the exorbitant rent we are now paying, would be approximately $157,000. Another event which stymied sales for our business and all others was the obvious 9/11 terrorist incident. For the last 1/3rd of the year we were fortunate to keep abreast of the previous year's sales. This brings me to an up point which was really a down point for us and many many retailers. Unemployment rose to the highest its been in twenty years. Consumer confidence was shaken. Most unemployed customers tend to take care of the essentials needs and limit their l~ivolous ones. On to more desirable and upbeat events of 2001. Operating expenses were above expectations but by only $4,427.00. And $7,100.00 of this can be attributed to a few minuscule items. Dues and subscriptions were up by $1,500.00 for a much needed contribution to our lobbyists to fight wine in grocery stores. Overtime rose $2,300.00 above expectations for two unexpected reasons. 1) My absence ~om the liquor store in January. 2) With the m-rival of our new computerized register system we had to do an inventory merchandise count on a Sunday. It seems our General Liability Insurance prtnted on recycled paper -1613- premium was actually $2,700.00 more than in 2000. The more business we do the higher the insurance. You should probably ask Gino this to get a better clarification. Lastly but not unlikely our gas service was up $600.00. Finally for the first time in the 18 years I have been managing the Mound Liquor Store we are fully staffed, both full time and part time employees. This was Deb Grand's, our Senior Lead Clerk, first full year of employment. Her expertise and knowledge of computers is exemplary. Plus with her here I am now able to take an occasional vacation. I also have an excellent part time crew. In the past I was often grossly under staffed in this department which resulted in frequent 55hr. weeks for myself. Due to earlier incidents, which you are all aware of, I have found it necessary to delegate some of my activities for other coworkers to handle, under my supervision. It is no longer possible or necessary for me to try and attempt to do everything. My Assistant Manager, Julie Luedke, under my training, is learning how to order liquor. She is performing an outstanding job. In these areas you are in good hands. Last but not least two more positive items of information occurred in 2001. I wish to thank you all for extending our current lease in our existing location. Had you not we would be out on the street until we move into our new facility, hopefully sometime this fall. If for some unknown circumstance, building is delayed, we have until April 2003. I would also like to congratulate you on resolving and settling the new liquor store bond issue. Long term versus short term is always a step in the right direction. Attached you will note a preliminary UN audited Comparative Statements of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings that Gino has provided. Should you have any questions on this matter please feel free to ask either Gino or myself. Thank you. Sincerely, Joel Krumm -1614- CITY OF MOUNI), MINNESOTA E~ibit E-5 S::MENTS OF REVENU:, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN ~TA~ED YEARS ENDED D~CEMB~R ~1, 2001 AND 2000 OPERATING REVENUE Sales Cost of goods sold 2001 2000 Percent Percent Amount of Sales Amount of Sales $1,899,857 10o.oo% $1,861,914 100.0056 1,426,182 75.07% 1,406,548 75.54% 473,675 24.93% 455,366 24.46% GROSS PROFIT OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services Supplies Professional services Communications Insurance Utilities Repairs and maintenance Rent Other contractual services Depreciation Other 226,987 11.95% 196,667 10.56% 3,996 0.21% 4,823 0.26% 18,216 0.96% 2,500 0.13% 2,245 0.12% 1,870 0.10% 24,219 1.27% 21,630 1.16% 7,600 0.40% 7,287 0.39% 1,418 0.07% 1,834 0.10% 32,515 1.71% 30,287 1.63% 17,590 0.93% 13,075 0.70% 1,315 0.07% 996 0.05% 776 0.04% 1,561 0.08% TOTAL OPERATING EXPENS ES 336,877 17.73% 282,530 15.16% OPERATING INCOME 136,79S 7.20% 172,836 9.30% NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPI:NSI.:) Interest on investment Cost of bond issuance Interest and service charges 41,719 2.20% 26,869 1.44% (38,706) -2.04% - - (26,o18) -1.40% - - TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENtJE (EXI~I:NSI:) (23,605) -4.84% 26,869 1.44% INCOME BEFORE TRANSFEP, S OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHEP, FUNDS NET INCOME (LOSS) RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBEP, 31 I 13, t 93 1.12% 199,705 10.74% (219,000) - 11.53% (79,500) -4.27% (105,807) -10.41% 120,205 507.640 387,435 $ 4()1,~33 $ 507,640 6.47% -54- -1615- CITY OF MOUND, MINNES()TA I.IQtJOR FUND '()M PA RATIV E BA LANCE SHE ETS I)I:K'F. MBEI~ 31, 2001 AND 2000 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and temporary investments Restricted asset - cash Change funds Prepaid items Inventories, at cost TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS FLXED ASSETS, AT COST LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION NET FIXED ASSETS TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EAI/N 1 CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts payable Accred salaries and compensated absences payable Current portion of long-term debt TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITI ES LONG-TERM LIABILITIES Bonds payable Less current portion above TOTAL LONG-TERM LIABILITI ES TOTAL LIABILITIES RETAINED EARNINGS Unreserved TOTAL LIABILITIES AND RF. TA. JN I!1) IL,\RNIN(iS Exhibit E-4 2001 2000 $ 1,429,490 $ 479,442 $ 66,950 - 925 925 264 - 115,900 138,251 1,613,529 618,618 90,943 56,075 (51,140) (49,824) 39,803 6,251 $1,653,332 $ 624,869 $ 53,787 $ 74,457 $ 42,712 $ 42,772 96,499 1,155,000 1,155,000 1,251,499 117,229 401,833 507,640 $ 1,653,332 $ 624,869 -53- -1616- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 March 18, 2002 Mayor and City Council City of Mound Mound, Minnesota In an overlook of the 2001 year for the Parks Department, the enclosed annual report will point out accomplishments met, and will provide direction for the future. These accomplishments were arrived through the cooperation of efforts from the City Council, City Manager, Park and Open Space Advisory Commission, Dock and Commons Advisory Commission and the city staff. The benefits of these efforts are enjoyed by the citizens of Mound, they have seen improved recreational opportunities that will last into the future, assuring them a quality neighborhood park and dock program. Parks Department 2001 .Annual Report PERSONNEL ROSTER The Parks Department has two full-time employee's, the Park Director and a maintenance worker. The rest of the staff is made up of seasonal employees. During the busy spring, summer, and early fall, there are as many as five full-time seasonal employees, between eight and ten part-time seasonal recreational program leaders, twenty-one lifeguards, and one contracted cleaning service. 2001 Employees Date Hired Park Director Park Maintenance Park Maintenance Park Maintenance Commons Maintenance Mowing Crew Mowing Crew Dock Inspector Summer Recreation Beach Supervisor Janitorial Service Jim Fackler July 1, 1985 Brian Swatzer April 23, 2001 John Taffe May 12,1983 Pat Hanley June 5, 2000 Brad Jayko April 14, 1995 Ronnie Henke June 5, 2001 Peter Harrell June 5, 2000 Katie Hoff May 2, 2001 Emily Lindgren May 15, 2000 Kelly Brady May 15, 2000 Service Masters January 1, 2002 2000 Non-Returning Employee Jake Thelen, Mowing Crew Brian Johnson, Mowing Crew Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector West Metro Bldg. Mtnc., Janitor GENERAL COMMENTS During 2001 the Parks Department was involved mainly with maintaining current playground equipment and lands. In the past years, we have seen improvements to the following parks:.Scherven, Philbrook, Langdon, Belmont, Chester, Tyrone, Seton, Three Points, Dundee and Avalon. In 2001 one new play structure was installed at Swenson Park. Two new parks will be added in 2002 from the new developments by Rottland Homes and MetroPlains. A plan has been developed by the City Planner for Veterans Park to create an open sitting area and the VFW is looking into funding this project. We still are looking forward to doing this plan and other parks that are in need of alterations. They are, Highland, Edgewater, and Crescent Parks. Of these parks, Crescent and -1618- Edgewater have no equipment. The Highland Park equipment is in need for replacement for 2002. Not all parks require a play structure, Crescent and Doone could be left as open green space in order to keep the areas natural. Along with development, maintenance for the parks must be planned. Maintenance and upkeep of the parks is a major ingredient for their success. Regular mowing, leaf removal, litter pick up and periodic repairs are unavoidable aspects of these Parks and generally take up the most hours over the year. These improvements and maintenance will provide a visual commitment that the City of Mound has a dedication towards community development. Having moved into the Island Park Garage in 1989, we began to make improvements to the building by following the improvements recommended in a 1987 engineering report for remodeling and repairing the garage. In 1990 a new roof was put on, in 1991 the electrical was updated, new garage doors were added, and the exterior of the building was painted. The major repairs for 1994, 1995, 1996 were taken out of the budget due to budget restraints' and were not asked for since, but are still needed. The minimum repairs needed are: replacing of the concrete driveway in front of the building, grounds repair around the back side of the building which would include a retaining wall, and a drain system to keep water out of the building. It is Staffs feeling that consideration be given to moving the Parks Maintenance department to a joint complex with the Public Works department at the Lynwood site. SUMMER RECREATION PROGRAM In 2001, the City of Mound is sponsored a summer recreation program that lasted seven weeks, from mid-June through mid August. The seven week program schedule provides more recreational opportunity to youths. During 2001 a Program Supervisor oversaw a schedule of events at five parks; Belmont, Swenson, Philbrook, Highland, and Three Points, where there is a Park Leader and an assistant to carry out the daily program. The 2002 program will see a change to a fee based program that will continue its arts and crafts, games, and special events for a broad age of children. "Music in the Parks" that was organized in 1993 and will not continue in 2002 unless Westonka Community Services receives enough donations to sponsor the program. The Parks staff has also assisted in Mound City Days for ground maintenance. -1619- PARKS PROGRAM LABOR Staff Wages Community Education Support Staff EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES (Softball, Parachute, Games, Craft Supplies, Snacks, Etc.) MILEAGE MISCELLANEOUS (Training) TOTAL 1999 2000 2001 $12,218 $12,584 $10,709 $ 2,500 $ 2,400 $ 3,938 $ 3,302 $ 4,026 $ 2,171 $ 80 $ 80 $ 282 $ 150 $ 150 $ 383 $18,250 $19,460 $17,484 CITY BEACHES The beaches are operated under a contract with Westonka Community Services, the costs are 'as follows: BEACH PROGRAM LABOR 1999 Lifeguard Wages $17,966 Community Education $ 2,200 Support Staff TRAINING $ 0 MILEAGE $ 100 EQUIPMENT & SUPPLIES $ 106 TOTAL $20,160 2000 2001 $18,505 $23,983 $1,500' $1,545 $ 0 $ 416 $ 291 $ 105 $ 2,057 $20,110 $28,295 - 1620- These costs cover expenses incurred by Westonka Community Services in supplying lifeguards. They do not, however, reflect the cost of maintenance, weed removal, buoys, portable toilets and life saving equipment. These costs come out of the park fund. MUNICIPAL CEMETERY The Mound Cemetery was established in 1884 and operated under an association until 1944, when the cemetery was turned over to the City of Mound. There are three divisions, A and B are the old sections to the west and the new section C, to the east. Currently, the grounds are maintained by City Parks Department Staff. A seasonal caretaker was used prior to 2000. He supplied his own equipment and was paid for time and machinery. The fertilization and weed control is done though a contract with a lawn care company. A 1995 a survey comparing plot fees at the Mound Cemetery with other municipal and private cemeteries was updated in 2001. A new fee schedule was adopted for 2002 as listed below and was updated for 2002. 2001 Adult, resident $600 Adult, nonresident $850 Baby, resident $250 Baby, nonresident ~ $350 Ash Burial, resident $300 Ash Burial, nonresident $400 Locate $ 0 Maintenance Agreement $10 Ash Burial on top of casket $50 2002 $600 $850 $300 $400 $300 $400 actual cost(Min $25) $15 $50 A "resident" for the plot fee is defined as, "An individual to be interred is a current resident of the City of Mound at the time of his/her death, or at the time of purchasing his/her grave site." In 2001 there werel2 burials, 9 casket and 3 ashes, along with the sale of 6 plots. The operation of the cemetery is at a break even with income from the sale of plots. The current level of maintenance at the cemetery needs to be upgraded to aid in providing a more attractive setting. This could be done through irrigation, and additional planting of trees. - 1621 - HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL As of December 31, 2001, the yearly total of hazardous tree removals from City property were 36 trees removed, 9 stumps chipped, 6 trees trimmed that posed a hazard, and 6 sites had removed brush. From private property 8 trees were marked for owner removal due to hazardous conditions. Diseased and hazardous trees are removed on a complaint basis. When a complaint is received an inspection of the tree is done to determine the need of removal and the ownership. City owned trees are removed by a contractor as soon as possible, while private trees are removed in accordance with City Ordinances. Private trees not removed in the grace period allowed, are forced removed. The cost of a forced removed tree is billed to the property owner. If this bill is not paid, it is then attached to their property taxes. WEED NOTICES In 2001, approximately 15 weed notices were issued by the Community Service Officer for unkept grounds. Of these 15, all owners did comply and a contractor did not have to be hired to perform the work. The cost of mowing incurred by the City for private property would be billed to the owner. If the owner does not pay, the cost is assessed to their taxes. MUNICIPAL DOCK SITES In 2001 the Municipal dock system is made up of approximately 4.5 miles of lake shore, provided dockage for 545 boats at 289 dock sites and 87 slips. The Dock Inspector works under the direction of the Park Director. His main duties are the processing of dock applications, inspections of the dock sites, notification of the discrepancies to permit holders, and an informational source for the general public and City. For 2002 the Mound City Dock Program LMCD licence will only allow for 538 boats. This is a matter that the City Council and the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission should address on how we are to limit boat registration. In 2001 the dock fund showed a approximate balance of $192,820 on 1-01-02. This balance will allow for future improvements to the dock program where we have seen cost of dredging and shoreline repairs increase dramatically over the past years. In 2001 working with the Dock and Commons Advisory Community (DCAC) the city installed seven multiple slip docks for the Woodland Point settlement agreement along with - 1622- four stairways. The concept in general is to allow for current accessibility to non-abutting dock site holders while allowing for less congestion in front of homes abutting the commons. Although there are some details that need to be worked through, the multiple slip dock site is a success. Currently there are funds in the 2002 Dock Fund budget that will allow for the installation of more multiple slip docks, the DCAC is looking into possible sites. DEPOT AND ISLAND PARK BUILDINGS The Depot building had improvements in 1998, work was done to the interior of the building, which' included carpet, painting, cabinets, fans and lighting. This greatly improves the aesthetics of the building. Currently the facility is being used for meetings of local organizations and for rental by private individuals for parties. Response from these users has been positive. The current improvements to the Depot will reinforce the building as an asset to our City. DEPOT RENTAL RATES $400 Damage and Clean-up Deposit $200perday $100 per day Non-Mound Residents. (sample sales, plus the purchase of a Peddlers License.) Civic and Non-Profit Charitable Organization from other Communities (rummage sales, parties, craft sales, etc.) $75 per day Mound Resident. FREE Mound Westonka Community Civic and Non-Profit Charitable Organizations. The Island Park building is not being used and has had the water, heat and electricity turned off. Vandalism was a problem again last summer, the windows were broken which lead to boarding up rather then replacing the glass. This facility is currently being used as a storage area for Police Department supplies, and the main hall is no longer opened during elections for voting. Only minimum maintenance is being performed on this building. The Island Park Facilities Task Force is currently looking into the possibility of different uses to see if there is a need to improve the building. - 1623- CITY HALL MAINTENANCE/JANITORIAL The Parks Department is responsible for some areas concerning city hall maintenance and janitorial services. The grounds, lawn care and snow removal are seasonal, while responsibilities for heating/air conditioning are year round. All projects within the capabilities of the park staff are performed. This has been in the areas of repairs to plumbing, heating and related equipment. Major repairs or cleaning services are contracted out through the direction of the Parks Department. Currently, we have a contract service for janitorial, carpet cleaning and the heating and air conditioning systems. Other projects have been assigned to the Parks Department as instructed by the City Manager. CITY OWNED RETAINING WALLS The replacement and repairs to retaining walls on street right-of-ways continue to be a expense that does not seem to have a end. The original walls constructed of flat stone or wood timber continue to deteriorate faster than the budget will allow replacement. At this time I have a list of work to do that has a two to three year wait for replacement walls. The cost of work done in 2000 and 2001 projected costs for 2002 is as follows (note Exhibit C): Actual Actual Projected 2000 2001 2002 Repairs 825 475 0 Replacements 15,869 5,370 500,000 Insurance 0 0 0 The walls that have received work are only a reaction to immediate problems, and generally from a complaint or hazard. All of the replacement walls have been composed of concrete block. This type of construction has been done at a comparable cost to that of wood or stone and will last much longer. In 2001 the budget for wall replacement was $10,000, as it's been in previous years, and $5,845 was spent because there were walls that collapsed or were unsafe. Currently, there is $500,000 from bonds that have been set aside to begin working on wall -1624- replacement. A'study was done in 2001 noting all walls in the City of Mound and their condition. Based on this study wall replacement will begin the summer of 2002. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION The Park Commission is made up of nine members and a Council Representative. The Commission's activities are: Parks/wetlands and related concerns. Cemetery, Operations. Island Park Hall and Depot buildings repairs. Nature Conservation Areas Swimming beaches and lifeguards. Depot rental and uses. Summer Recreation Program. Budget preparation. Park Improvements. Some of the · topics reviewed by the Park Commission in 2001 were: Distribution of funds allotted for park improvements. Park planning for new developments. Overseeing summer recreation/lifeguard programs. Outdoor skatinl~ facilities. DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION The City Council, on February 11, 1997 established the Dock and Common Advisory Commission. The objective of the Commission is to identify problems and frustrations that the current dock program has. They have had a very aggressive schedule of items for discussion at their meetings, below is a review of some of the activities for 2001. · Commons maintenance permits. · Commons dock fees. · Dock location map update. · Review of LMCD rules and regulations. · Establishing of possible sites for city multiple slip dock. · Establish multiple slip dock rules. -1625- Some of the topics reviewed by the Dock Commission in 2001 were: Three to five year fee changes. Assigning slip size limitations. Procedure manual for Public Lands Permits. Future maintenance needed on Commons shoreline. City Multiple Slip Docks. EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT Preventive, daily, and unplanned maintenance of all related equipment is the responsibility of the Parks Department. Please note Equipment Inventory on the attached Exhibit A. An Equipment Replacement Schedule is maintained to allow for updating of major capital outlays, see Exhibit A. This schedule when observed, will allow the Parks Department to operate efficiently and provide safety for the general public and the park crew. The Equipment Inventory, Exhibit B, allows you to see all of the Park Department equipment, its projected service years, and replacement costs. ESTIMATED BUDGET EXPENDITURES AS OF DECEMBER 2000 YTD PERCENT GENERAL FUND BUDGET EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED Parks 247,740 224,384 23,355 90.57 % Summer Recreation 42,260 42,260 0 100 % Cemetery Fund 7,500 8,198 (698) 109.37% *Docks Fund '144,620 '215,440 (*70,820) *148.97% TOTAL 442,120 *The dock fund saw charges for non budgeted items due to the Woodland Point settlement that provided the city install seven docks and four stairways. - 1626- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE EXHIBIT A - 1627- REC#' 1 4 5 CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTION/HISTORY YEAR 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 EQUIPMENT BRUSH CUTTER 3/4 TON 4X4/PLOW 1 TON DUMP 4X4 CHEMICAL SPRAYER COST PUSHMOWER GROUND AIRATOR FLAIL MOWER WATER SPRINKLER 55O 14,990 24,000 950 400 2,000 24,000 4,000 REPLACES MARCH 1, 2002 1980 3/4 TON PICKUP 1976 3/4 TON 4X4 WEEDWHIP (2) PUSH MOWER 600 400 1987 PUSHMOWER 1974 FORD TRACTOR 1987 WEEDWHIP (2) GROUND AIRATOR WATER SPRINKLER BOBCAT BUCKET 72" FRONT MOWER METAL LOCATOR 6000 lb TRAILER FLAIL MOWER (USED) 1 TON DUMP 4X2 2,900 4,000 1,000 15,000 700 2,000 15,000 24,300 1989 PUSH MOWER 1987 BOBCAT BUCKET 1984 72" MOWER 1982 TRAILER 1974 FORD SICKLE PUSH MOWER (propel) WEEDWHIP (2) METAL DETECTOR POWER WASHER BEACH BOUYS 3/4 TON 4X4 PLOW PLAY STRUCTURE METAL DETECTOR 450 750 800 1,200 1,950 24,250 19,600 850 1978 1 TON DUMP 4X2 1991 PUSH MOWER 1991 WEEDWHIP (2) 1985 METAL DETECTOR WORN OUT BOUYS 1982 3/4 TON 4X4 PL. OLD STRUCTURE PURCHASED YES YES YES YES YES NO NO NO YES YES NO NO NO YES NO YES NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES - 1 - - 1628- CkPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTION/HISTORY MARCH 1, 2002 IYEA/~ 6 1995 7 1996 8 1997 9 1998 10 1999 EQUIPMENT .mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm~ WEEDWHIP (2) GRASS CATCHER (6) PICNIC TABLES WATER FOUNTAINS (3) BASKETBALL GOALS COMPUTOR / LAP TOP FLAMABLE LOCKER RESURFACE COURTS PUSH MOWER / Propel FLAIL MOWER 72" BOBCAT TRACKS BOBCAT GRAPPLE FORKS DOCK/MOUNDBAY BASKETBALL GOALS MULTIP. DOCKS BACKPACK BLOWER 72" FRONT MOWER BRUSH CUTTER PUSH MOWER WEEDWHIPS (2) ONE TON 4X4 W/PLOW BASKETBALL GOALS DEPOT TABLE / CHAIR COST 775 3e730 1,800 8,000 1,500 1,400 1,000 10,500 650 30,000 5,000 2,900 2,350 1,700 22,000 450 27,000 750 700 850 35,000 1,900 3,500 REPLACES 1993 WEEDWHIP (2) NONE 1987 FOUNTAINS UNKNOWN 1988 COMPUTOR NONE UNKNOWN 1992 PUSH MOWER JD NONE NONE 1988 GRAPPLE FORKS UNKNOWN UNKNOWN NONE 1988 BACKPACK BLOWER 1988 72" MOWER J D 1990 STHIL BRUSH CUT 1993 PUSH MOWER JD 1995 WEEDWHIPS (2) 1990 '3/4 TON 4X4 THREE POINTS PARK PURCHAS ED YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES NO YES YES - 2 - - 1629- CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTION/HISTORY MARCH 1, 2002 REC# 11 12 13 14 15 YEAR 2000 2001 2O02 2003 2003 Cont. EQUIPMENT ONE TON 4X4 W/PLOW ALUMA. BOAT BASKETBALL GOAL WEEDWHIPS (3) ROLL DOCK ONE TON 4X4 DUMP ALUMA. BOAT/MOTOR MOWER 54" BOAT RAMP MOUND BAY BASKETBALL GOAL ONE TON 4X4 DUMP 7,000 LB TRAILER 72" FRONT MOWER & 60" BROOM HALF TON 4X4 SKIDSTEER LOADER ROTORY BROOM PUSH MOWER 21" ONE TON 4X4 / PLOW BRUSH CUTTER 5,000 LB TRAILER WEEDWHIPS (3) 72'FRONT MOWER & CAB & 60" ROTORY BROOM COST 39,500 2,200 1,000 1,500 2,500 40,000 3,000 7,500 10,000 1,200 36,000 2,500 26,700 15,000 40,000 8O0 1,000 35,000 825 3,000 2,000 26,700 REPLACES 1990 3/4 TON 4X4 1961 14' ALUMA BOAT SETON PARK 1998 WEEDWHIPS (2) MOUND BAY PARK 1990 1 TON DUMP 4X4 1961 MTR. 1970 BOAT NONE REPLACE EXISTING REPLACE EXISTING 1990 1 TON 4X4 DUMP 1988 7,000 LB TRL. 1992 72" FRONT MOWE 1988 60" JD BROOM 1994 BLAZER 4X4 1987 BOBCAT (ATTACH) 1998 SHINDAIWA 1997 PUSH MOWER JD 1994 3/4 TON 4X4 1990 STHIL 1982 2,000 LB TRL. 2000 WEEDWHIPS (3) 1992 JOHN DEERE 72" 1998 ROTORY BROOM PURCHASED YES NO NO YES NO NO NO YES DONATED NO YES NO NO NO YES - 3 - - 1630- CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTION/HISTORY MARCH 1, 2002 16 17 18 19 20 YEAR 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 EQUIPMENT ONE TON 4X2 DUMP METAL DETECTOR PUSH MOWER WEEDWHIPS (3) CHEMICAL SPRAYER 48" RIDING MOWER OUTBOARD 35HP BOAT/TRAILER WEEDWHIPS (2) 1997 4X4 PICK-UP 10,000LB TRAILER 6,000 LB TRAILER PUSH MOWER TRUCK 4X4 PUSH MOWER BACKPACK BLOWER 72" FRONT MOWER 47" SNOWBLOWER COST 40,000 1,000 1,000 2,000 3,500 10,000 1,500 10,000 1,700 24,000 7,000 2,500 1,200 24,000 1,000 1,000 30,000 6,000 REPLACES 1993 1 TON DUMP 1994 METAL DETECTOR 1998 PUSH MOWER 2000 WEEDWHIPS 1990 CHEM. SPRAYER 1993 48" MOWER 1961 OUTBOARD 10HP 1991 BOAT/TRAILER 2004 WEEDWHIPS (2) 1997 CHEV S10 4X4 1987 10,000 TRAILER 1992 6,000 LB TRL. 2002 PUSH MOWER 1998 CHEV S10 4X4 2003 PUSH MOWER 1998 BACKPACK BLOWER 1998 72" FRONT MOWER 1988 JD 47" BLOWER PURCX-XAS ED - 4 - - 1 631 - REC# 21 22 23 24 25 CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTION/HISTORY YEAR EQUIPMENT COST 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ONE TON 4X4/PLOW 62" FRONT MOWER ONE TON 4X2 DUMP ONE TON 4X2 DUMP 48,000 16,000 45,000 46,000 MARCH 1, 2002 REPLACES PURCHASED 2000 FORD 4X4/PLOW 2000 62" MOWER 2001 ONE TON DUMP 2002 1 TON DUMP - 5 - - 1632- CAPITAL OUTLAY PROJECTION/HISTORY EC~ IYEAR EQUIPMENT COST 26 2014 27 2015 28 2016 29 2017 55 HP MOWER/FLAIL 42,000 REPLACES 1997 JD 55 HP FLAIL MARCH 1, 2002 PURCHASED - 6 - - 1633- EQUIPMENT INVENTORY EXHIBIT B - 1634- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE MARCH Ir 2002 {Curren%_Equlp 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 John Deere 60" Broom Pushmower John Deere 21" self propel Skidsteer Bobcat 843 Planer, P.Forks, G.Forks, Bucket Rotory Broom Shindaiwa Utility Trailer 2000 LB 3/4 Ton Ford 4X4 W/Plow 72" Mower John Deere & Cab Brush Cutter Pushmower John Deere 21" self propel 1 Ton Ford 4X2 Dump Metal Detector Weedwhips (3) Utility Trailer 7,000 LB Zodiac Jet Boat & Trailer 48" Mower John Deere Outboard 10 HP Johnson Chemical Sprayer Model Year 1988 1997 1987 1998 1982 1994 1992 1990 1998 1993 1994 2000 1988 1991 1993 1961 1990 Replace_Year 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 Service Year~ 15 6 16 5 21 9 11 13 6 11 10 4 16 14 12 44 15 Replace_Cost INCLUDE WITH TRACTOR 1,100 40,000 800 1,500 35,000 $ 26,700 825 1,000 40,000 1,000 2,000 2,500 $ 10,000 10,000 1,500 3,500 - 1 - -1635- EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE MARCH 1, 2002 REC# 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Current_Equip Chev Blazer 4X4 Utility Trailer 10,000 LB Chev Sl0 4X4 Utility Trailer 6,000 LB John Deere 47" Snow Blower 1 Ton Chev 4X4 Dump Blower Sthil Backpack 72" Mower John Deere & Cab 1 Ton Ford 4X4 W/Plow 62" Mower Toro 55 HP Mower / Flail John Deere Blower John Deere Backpack Model Year 1999 1987 1997 1992 1988 1990 1998 1998 2000 2000 1997 1988 Replace_Year 2006 2006 2006 2007 2008 2OO8 2008 2008 2009 2010 2017 Service Years 20 9 15 20 10 10 9 10 SPARE ONLY 20 Replace_Cos' 15,000 7,000 24,000 2,500 6,000 36,000 1,000 25,000 48,000 16,000 42,000 - 2 - - 1636- ~O'd ~WIO± AMM FAX Mixed Housing Bill Moving Through Senate The recommendations of the Com- missioner of the Minnesota Hous- ing Finance Agency (MHFA) re- garding inclusionary housing have been incorporated into SF 3169, which was approved by the Sen- ate Committee on Jobs, Housing and Community Development on Monday, February 18. The bill, which is sponsored by Sen. Ann Rest (DFL- New Hope), now goes to the State and Local Govern- ment Operations Committee. AMM supports the provision that would allow cities to establish street utilities to fund collector streets, but opposes parts of the bill related to zoning authority changes. Additional information is available online, through the AMM bill tracking system and the Legislature's website. If you have comments on the bill, please con- tact AMM and your legislator. Association of Metropolitan Hunicipaliries AMM Fax News is faxed to all AMM ~lty managers and a~n~o~, l~e ~ t~ ~d Boar~ ~b~. Pte~e sn~e this with your ~on, eounetl~ ~d ~ ttaff ~ keep th~ ab~a~ of t~on~t ~ro 1,t5 University Avenue ~Yes~ ,.~t, Ptm~ M2g 55105.2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fox: (651) 281.129y E.mall: amm~amml4$.org Pa nemhips in ProViding and solution February 18 - 22, 2002 Senate Passes Bonding Bill The Senate passed a record $1.2 billion capital budget bill on Monday by a vote of 51 - 13. The bill authorizes $1.08 billion in state bonds, $2.2 million in general fund appropriations and $104.4 million in user funds. The bill includes funding for state facilities, the University of Minnesota and MnSCU systems, and several local government projects that have regional or statewide sig- nificance. Among the proposed projects that will impact the Twin Cities region and metro-area cities are: · $t0 million to the Metropolitan Council for the Livable Communities Pro- gram. This money would replace the Redevelopment Grant Fund operaLed by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED). It would be distributed through the Livable Communities Program in grants to sup- port public infrastructure projects related to development and redevelopment activities. DTED will continue to operate the Redevelopment Program but it will be limited to Greater Minnesota. · $10 million to the DNR for Metropolitan Regional Pa~k Acquisition and Improvements, . $28,$ million to the DNR for Flood Hazard Mitigation Grants, The cities of St. Anthony, St. Louis Park, Eagan and Minneapolis would be among those receiving grants. · $2.$ million to the DNR for Metro Greenways and Natural Areas. · $2.S million to the DNR for Scientific and Natural Area Acquisition and Imprevement, Of the total, $1.5 million is earmarked for acquisition, restora- tion and development of the Seminary Fen in Carver County. There are also grants for specific projects in Minneapolis. Minnetonka, New Brighton, St. Louis Park, St. Paul, Savage, and Stillwater. Met Council Bills Advance to House Local Government Committee The Metropolitan Council's bills relating to the Livable Communities Act, reconvey- ance of wastewater facilities, contracting of services and aggregate fees were ap- proved by the Subcommittee on Metropolitan Council and Agencies and sent to the full committee. They are scheduled to be heard by the Local Government and Met- ropolitan Affairs Committee at 12:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 20. The aggregate bill received a significant amount of discussion and was sent to the full committee without recommendation. The bill will be discussed further by the author and interested parties, including AMM, prior to the full committee meeting. The amount of the fee, geographic application and use of the fee are among the issues to be discussed. ZOB ]O ZBB a6g& uosu~H s!pu~x OZBBZ,-1637- <- x~ ~!~ 5~:95:£~ zoBz GU qa& liar 8B ?.BI]7. 1B:11:2S I/ia )'ax -> AMM FAX Il I March 4 - 8, 2002; no. 2 Met Council to Set Housing Affordability Limits At it's March 4 meeting, the Metro- politan Council's Livable Communi- ties Committee was asked to set purchase price and rent limits for projects to be considered affordable under the Livable Communities Act. The recommended rent limits were relatively uncontroversial, however several Councilmembers felt the recommended purchase price lim- its were too high. Therefore, the committee decided to table the is- sue until its March 18 meeting in or- der to seek input from housing ad- vocates, builders and cities. Homeownership The Council has traditionally set pur- chase price limits based on what a family of four with an income at or below 80 percent of the area median can afford at prevailing interest rates. The current median income for a family of four in the me'a'opolitan area is $76,700 - 80 percent of that is $61,360. Therefore, Met Council staff recommended that the com- mittee set the maximum purchase price for affordable homeownership programs at $170,000 for 2002. This would be a significant increase over previous years, largely because the Council has followed the Minne- sota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) lead and kept the purchase price limit at the artificially Iow "safe harbor" level of $134,250 since 1999. MHFA now believes this is no longer a reasonable purchase price and is in the process of updating it's defini- tion of affordable. It appears that the MHFA will adopt a new policy that sets the maximum purchase price for it's programs at $199,000 for new construction and $175,000 for exist- ing homes. Rental For new construction rental housing, the Council has traditionally followed the rental limits used for the Iow-in- come housing tax credit program, which are set at a level affordable to households earning 50 percent of the area median income. This year, those rents would equal $671 for an efficiency, $719 for a 1 bedroom, $862 for a 2 bedroom, $996 for a 3 bedroom and $1112 for a 4 bedroom apartment. Impact on Cities Cities have a significant stake in how the Council defines affordable hous- ing because whatever number they settle on will be the standard by which cities' compliance with their Livable Communities goals will be evalu- ated. if the Council continues to use an artificially Iow definition of what's affordable, cities might not get credit for some of the housing built in their communities. If the Council ultimately approves a maximum purchase price of $i70,000, based on a goal of reach- ing people earning no more than 80 percent of median income, it still has the option of targeting actual grant dollars at projects serving families earning 50 or 60 percent of median income. Yet cities would still receive credit toward their housing goals for anything below $170,000. If you have any thoughts or questions about this issue, please contact Kris Lyndon Wilson at (651) 215 -4003 or kristine@amm145.org. A ocJation of Hetropolitan Hunicipalities 145 Univ~i~ .dvemt¢ Pbon.: (651) 215-~000 Fax: (6517 281-1299 F. mail: arnm~}arnml 4$.org AMM Fax News is faxed to all AMM city managers and admtntstrators, legtsttm've ton- facts and Board members, Plett~e ~hart this fax with your mayors, councilmembers and staff to Iw~gp them abreast of imPortant metro House Releases $844 Million Bonding Bill Rep. Jim Knoblach, chair of the House Capital Budget Committee, has reteased an $843.7 million bonding bill. Of the to- tal, $740.7 million will be financed by state general obligation bonds. The bat- ance will be financed by user funds gen- erated by educational institutions, trunk highway funds, cancellations and a gen- eral fund appropriation. The bill (H.F. 3618) appropriates $10.8 million for regional parks in the metropoli- tan area. It does not include appropria- tions for busways or the Livable Commu- nities Act. The Redevelopment Fund would receive $22 million, but the entire amount is earmarked for Greater Minne- sota cities, cities uder 5,000 or specific city projects. The House Capital Invesrnent Committee heard the bill Fri- day afternoon and amended it to providt $30 million for Northstar Commuter Rail. The bill now goes to the House Ways and Means Committee. - 1638- TOTRL P. 02 March 11 - 15, 2002 III Phase II Budget Plans Underway Senate On Friday, March 8, the Senate Finance Committee adopted a budget bill to ad- dress the additional $439 million deficft projected for the remainder of the 2002/ 2003 biennium. The committee bilJ, which was introduced on Monday as S.F. 3436, has now been referred to the Senate Tax Committee. The bill would balance the budgetthrough use of one-f, ime money, accounting shifts and project refinancing. It does not fur- ther reduce state spending, but actually restores some of the cuts made to K-12 and higher education during Phase I. At dis time, the bill does not make any cuts local government aid (LGA) or the mar- ket value homestead credit. The use of one-time money and balance transfers includes $155 million of the un- obfigated balance in the cash flow ac- count and $52 million from the Workers Compensation Special Fund. The bill also eliminates $245 million previously ap- propriated to MnDoT for road improve- ments, and replaces it with transporta- tion bonds. House On Monday night (March 11)the House Ways and Means Committee approved its own budget balancing plan that reduces state spending and uses revenues from a variety of accounts to balance the state's budget for the remainder of the 2002/2.003 biennium. The House plan reduces spending by $107 million and uses the tobacco endowment and other revenues to address the remaining projected deficit of $439 million, Like the current Senate plan, it does not make cuts to local government aid (LGA) or the market value homestead credit, House committees are meeting today (Tuesday, March 12) to mark up the bill, which could be debated on the floor before the end of the week. The spending reductions and transfers/refinancings include: Additionally, the payment schedule for several school aids is adjusted to shift a larger portion of the payment to the next biennium and the payment schedule for TOTAL county social service aids is changed to create a single payment in July of each year rather than periodic payments throughout the year. Money for Northstar Derailed n Monday evening, the House Ways a,nd Means Committee amended the duse bonding bill to eliminate the $30 milhon for Nodh Star Commuter Rail and Tthen sent the bill to the House floor. The money was not in the original bill, but had been added by amendment in the Capital Investment Committee last week. Spending Reductions Agriculture & Rural Development Environment and Natural Resources Family and Early Childhood Education Health and Human Sen/ices Higher Education Jobs and Economic Development Judiciary K-12 Education State Government Transportation Transfers~eflnancings TAN F Refinancing Tobacco Prevention Fund Transfer Special Revenue Transfer Non-General Fund Transfers Adctitional Spending Capital Investment - 1639- 0 ($~0,000,000) ($6,020,0oo) ($61,612,000) 0 ($3,000,000) 0 0 ($12,215,000) 0 ($1o, o0o,ooo) ($31o,ooo,o0o) ($5,ooo,0oo) ($26,700,000) $2,615,000 $441,932,000 A ociation of Hctropolitan Hunicipalitio 145 tlniversiry Avenue West St. Paul, MN t~hone: (651) 215-4000 Fa.~: (65l) £-rnall: amrr~amml 4 $. a rg A_MM Fax New~_ is fa~ed to alI AMM city man. age, s and adrnl~tiMrators, legislative colffact$ arid Board members. Please share tids far wtth your mayors, coundlmember~ and ~gtjf to keep them abreast of important o~etro city issu e~. TOTRL P.82 AMM FAX Ill ._ J I rtnershiPS in providing aervioes and solulJons March 18 - 22, 2002 Legislative Commission Discusses Blueprint 2030 On Monday, March 18, the Metropolitan Council presented information regarding Blueprint 2030 to the Legislative Com- mission on the Metropolitan Council. Met Council Chair Ted Mondale and Deputy Regional Administrator Caren Dewar made the presentation, which in- cluded an overview of the forecasts, the goals of the Blueprint and [he schedule to complete it. In recent weeks, commission members have been inquiring about the new Blueprint's impact on city's comprehen- sive plans. In a letter to the commission, Regional Administrator Lee Sheehy stated that the adoplJon of Blueprint2030 would not trigger a requirement for local units of government to revise or update their comprehensive plans. However, the letter further states that Blueprint 2030 will "provide a context for the review of voluntary comprehensive plan updates un- dertaken by local govemments and serve as a basis for investment decisions the Metropolitan Council might make regard- ing capital facilities and local support." Ms. Dewar told the Commission that vol- untary comp plan amendments would be reviewed for alignment with the existing system plans, but that the Council's comments on the policy aspects of any amendments would be based on the new BluepdnL In an effort to implement the proposed review procedure the Metropoli- tan Council is developing a resolution outlining ~s intentions regarding Blueprint 2030, the blueprint's relationship to com- prehensive plans and regional systems. A draft resolution is scheduled to be dis- tributed to the Metropolitan Council Wednesday afternoon, and a copy will be posted on the AMM web site (www.amm145.org) Thursday. Please re- view the resolution and contact Kris Wil- son at I<ristine~_arnm145.or.q or 651-215- 4003 with your comments, House, Senate Transportation Plans Move Forward The House and Senate Transportation Packages both took a step fon~ard Tues- day, but continueto be miles apart. The bills still have to go through the tax com- mittee and floor of each house - then reconciled in conference committee- then signed by the Governor. A daunt- ing taskl HOUSE: The House's Transportation Funding Package (H.F. 3364- Kuisle), was approved by the House Capital In- vestment Committee and sent to the House Tax Committee. The bill autho- r'~zes a total of $1.25 billion in trunk high- way bonding over ~e nextten years, with the bond proceeds to be deposited in a new "Major Projects Account" of the TnJnk Highway Fund. Money in the Major Projects Account would be split three ways in 2003, with one-third dedicated to addressing highway bottlenecks in the metro area, one-third dedicated to high- way corridors in Greater Minnesota and one-third dedicated to safety and capao- ity improvements around the state. In 2004 and beyond, 47.5 percent of the money would go towards bottlenecks in the metro area, 47.5 percent toward outstate corridors and 5 percent would be used for transit advantages (i.e. park and ride lots, bus lanes, eec.). Debt service on the trunk highway bonds would be paid for by an increase in the gas [ax. The bill authorizes the Com- missioner of Revenue to adjust the gas tax on an annual basis to raise the amount necessary to cover the debt ser- vice. As required by the constitution, the CSAH and MSA accounts would still re- ceive their respective shares of the new gas tax revenue, so this bill would in- crease the amount of money available for both Coun[y State Aid Highways and Mu- nicipal State Aid Streets, as well, How- ever, the House bill does not include any changes to the metro vs. outstate distri- bution of these funds. SENATE: An amended version of the Senate's Transportation Finance Pack- age (S.F. 2812 - Dean Johnson) was approved by the Senate Finance Corn- metes and sent to the Senate Tax Com- mittee. The Finance Committee amended the bill to reduce the gas tax increase from 7 cents down to 6 cents, but kept the provision that indexes the tax to inflation. The increased tax would take effect on July 1, 2002. Of the six-cent increase, four-cents would provide what is essentially "new" money Association of HeLTOpolitan Hgnicipalities /IMM Fax News. L~ /axed to all AMM ci(~ managers and administrators, flgi.~lative oan- tacO tttld Board members. Please share ~i,, fax with your mayors, councilmember$ an ~o4ff lo keep them abeeast of important metro 145 Univer~#y Avenue West ,Vt. Paul, MN 55105-2044 Phone: (65l) 215.4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-ma#: amn~mml 4$.org Egg JO ZOg aa~a uosuoH s!puo~ gzgBz-1640- <- other ~o~en~ would ~place a po~on of the money now coming into the fund ~m the MoOr Vehicle Sales T~ The ~reed-uP MVST money (approxi- mately $64 million in 2003) would ~en be shlEed over to a new "Mulfimodal Fund," which would ~ spli~ be~n ~e Me~politan Council (60 ~rcent, o~ $38 million in ~03) and MnDOT (40 pe~nt, or $26 million in FY03). MnDOT would be required to allocate 2~ parent o~ money to small cEies (those with popu- lations under 5,000), 20 ~ment to tran- sit in G~a~er Minneso~, and ~5 ~r~nt to so-called "multim~al pu~ses." The Finance Committee also amended the section of the bill that deals with the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) dis- tribution formula. The bill had originally adjusted the formula so that 50 percent of the new money going into the CSAH fund would be distributed based on popu- lation and 50 percent based on need. As amended Tuesday, the bill would distrib- ute CSAH money resulting from any gas tax revenues in excess of 22 cents per gallon (essentially the CSAH portion of the 4 cents of "new" money) as follows: 30 pement based on population, 50 per- cent based on need, 10 percent based on lane miles and 10 percent equally amongst all 87 counties. The result of this amended language would be that the seven metro counties would receive 27 percent of the new money, up from the 18 percent they would receive if the dis- tribution formula went unchanged. The gas tax would also generate additional MBA revenue, but that would continue to be distributed according to the current formula. Finally, the Senate bill still provides for a referendum in an expanded 11-county metropolitan area, composed of the tra- ditional seven counties plus Chisago, Isanti, Sherburne and Wright. If voters approve the referendum in November, there would be a half-cent general sales tax increase and a $20 per vehicle ex- cise tax at the time of sale imposed in these 11 counties. The revenue raised would be divided two ways, with 75 per- cent dedicated to major highway projects and 25 percent dedicated to transit. The voter-approved sales and excise taxes would be in place for 10 years and are projected to raise a little more than $2 billion dollars. Coming up ..... Metropolitan Council Practicum: Applying Smart Growth Principles "Livable Streets" Wednesday, March 27, 8:00 a.m. Doubletree Park Place 1500 Park Place Boulevard, St. Louis Park This practicum will examine the interaction between road speed and land use, and focus on how design pricniples fo rliavable streets have been ap- plied in eal Twin Cities places intersected by arterial roads. Participating will be local speakers and Walter Kulash, a nationally know transportation en- gineer and oonstulant. To register, please call (651) 602 -1633. AMM's 2002 Annual Meeting Thursday, May 30 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Four Points Sheraton- St. Paul Privatization of Building Inspections The House's State Government Finance Bill (H.F. 3270 - Kfinkie), which is part of the House's plan to address Phase II of the s~ate bu(~get shortfall, continues to include a section related to pfivatJzation of residential building inspec- tions. Section 9 of the bill states that inspection of owner occupied residential buildings of four or fewer units "must be performed by an inspector selected and paid for by the building owner." The bill creates an exception for "fire or other life safety inspections" and "inspections nec- essary to obtain the first certificate of occupancy upon initial construction of a residential building." The League of Minnesota Cities and AMM are continuing to work to eliminate this section of the bill, possibly through an amendment on the floor of the House. Currently there are no similar provisions moving through the Senate. House Passes Capitol Bonding Bill Alter removing funding for Northstar Com- muter Rail, the House passed its capital investment bill on Tuesday. The House bill includes approximately $840 million in spending, while the Senate bill, which was passed back on February 18, in- cludes approximately $1,18 billion. The Governor had orginally proposed a $834 bonding bill, but has since called for a smaller amount as a result of the state's ongoing budget deficit. Members of the conference committee have been appointed and include; Sen. Langseth (DFL-Glyndon), Sen. Samuelson (DFL- Brainerd), Sen. Wiener (DFL-Eagan), Sen. Cohen (DFL - St. Paul), Sen. Larson (R-Fergus Falls), Rep. Knoblach (R- St, Cloud), Rep. Bishop (R - Rochester), Rep. McEIroy (R-Burnsv[lle), Rep. James Clark (R- New UIm), and Rep. Osthoff (DFL-St. Paul). A comparison of the two bills, as they relate to the metropolitan area, will be posted on the AMM web site (www. amm145.org) by the end of the week. EBB JO £gg a6=~ uosu=H s!puo~ OZgBZ-1641- <- x~ ~!A L£:£5:5~ Z~OZ OZ =~N -FridayFax- A wee/dy legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities March 8, 2002 Phase H Budget Resolution Stalled? A package to address the remaining $439 million state budget deficit has stalled in the House while the Senate Finance committee this afternoon unveiled their package, noting that the House Republicans have not agreed to the components. At this time, information on the Senate plan is sparse but the summary information released this afternoon shows that the plan does not cut LGA or the market value homestead credit in 2002 nor does it appear to cut municipal aids in the 2004-05 biennium. The proposal saves state resources through a number of creative financing techniques. The bill refinances $245 million in transportation projects that were originally funded in the 2000 omnibus transportation bill. At that time, the governor and legislature agreed to use more than $400 million in surplus revenues to accelerate many highway projects. Although the money was appropriated, MnDOT has not been able to spend all of the appropriation to date. By "refinancing" the projects, the state could free-up resources to cover the short- term deficit. In addition, the bill delays payments to K-12 education from the current biennium to the 2004-05 biennium, saving $312.5 million in costs. The remainder of the state's cash flow account is tapped and the remainder of the workers' compensation special fund reserve is used to cover the shortfall. The bill will also restore some of the cuts for the current biennium that were enacted in Phase I. The assumed inflation for K-12 expenditures for the 2004-05 biennium will be restored along with other expenditures in human services and higher education. All told, the Senate package would result in an end- of-biennium balance of $336 million while the structural deficit for the 2004-05 biennium will be increased by slightly more than $400 million. The House and Governor have not yet reacted to the Senate proposal. However, earlier this week, the governor reduced his recommended bonding package and warned legislators that he would count any refunding of transportation projects against his bonding target, which would even further reduce the available bonding targets for the legislature. We're sure to see fireworks, whether they are legalized by the legislature or not. Transportation Packages Emerge On Thursday, the Senate transportation committee finalized its $7.5 billion transportation-funding package, which includes a 7 cent gas tax increase, future indexing of the gas tax, an increase in new car license tab fees and a referendum to allow voters to decide whether a new l/z cent sales tax should be implemented to pay for traffic congestion relief in an expanded eleven-county metro area. One of the controversial amendments added to the Senate package in committee was a modification to the county state aid highway (CSAH) formula that will distribute a larger share of the increased funding to the metro-area counties. Despite this CSAH change, the impact of the bill will be greater transportation funding throughout Minnesota. Whether this change will remain intact when the bill hits the Finance committee or the Senate floor next week remains to be seen. The House package is largely based on a bill introduced by Representative Bernie Lieder and includes a fluctuating gas tax increase to cover the debt service costs related to the issuance of up to $1.25 billion in bonds. The bonds would be issued over a ten-year period and would be credited to a newly created "major projects account" in the trunk highway fund. The gas tax increase would be annually established by the commissioner of revenue based on the debt service needs of the major projects account. After the committee approved the compromise bill, Representative Workman withdrew his bill, which was supported by the Business Transportation Coalition. That bill included a constitutional dedication of the motor vehicle sales tax and a 3-iA cent gas tax increase. For more information on city legislative issues, contact any member of the League of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1642- Xar 88 2882 17:89:91 Via Fax -> 9524?ZOGZO ~d~inis~ra~or ~age 80Z Of 882 - Frid ay F ax - A weekly legislative u£datefrom the League of Minr~esota Cities March 8, 2002 Bonding Packages The House Capitol Investment committee, chaired by Rep. _lira Knoblach (R-St. Cloud) released its $838 million bonding package on Thursday. Of the $839 million total price tag, $737 million would be borrowed through general obligation bonds and repaid by state tax receipts. The remaining $102 million is directly related to higher education projects and therefore the benefited higher education institutions would pay the debt service. The House bill is smaller than the Governor's initial proposal and the Senate's proposal released earlier this year. House leadership indicated that their bill addresses priorities in higher education, road and bridge projects, housing and the environment. Earlier this week, the governor indicated that he was going to reduce his bonding recommendations to reflect fact that the Phase I budget that became law over his veto was exposing the state to long- term financial instability and that the higher debt service required by the larger bill would be financially irresponsible· While he did not make specific recommendations on what should be trimmed, he will have the opportunity to line item veto specific projects after the House and Senate send him any final bonding bill compromise. Below are the governor's original recommendations compared to the House and Senate. Flood Hazard Mitigation Closed Landfill Bonding Local Govt. Road WetLand Replacement Local Bridge Assistance Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail Greater MN Transit Statewide Public Safety Radio System (800mhz) 10 Ton Road Upgrades Local Share Trunk Highways Redevelopment Grant Funds MPFA State Matching funds WIF Grants Greater MN Business Development Grants Gov Senule House $15.5 $28.5 521.8 $10.0 510.0 510.0 $0.0 $3.0 55.2 530.0 $40.0 $48.0 $120.0 $8.0 $0.0 $0.0 52.0 52.0 50.0 $0.1 $26.0 50.0 50.0 510.0 50.0 50.0 525.0 510.0 $11.0 522_0 516.0 516.0 516.0 5a.o $40.0 $15.7 $0.0 $15.0 $0.0 Transitional Housing Loans $4.5 $0.o $2.0 Transitional Veterans Rousing $0.0 510.0 $19.5 Compromise Clarifies City Authority to Negotiate Inclusionary Housing Development The House Jobs & Economic Development Finance Committee gave final approval to HF 3169 (Vandeveer) on Thursday evening, giving cities specific authority to negotiate measures designed to provide affordability for housing developments with developers or builders when considering approval of inclusionary housing development applications. The Senate version of the legislation, SF 2881 (Cohen) is pending on the Senate floor. As now drafted, HF 3169 provides that when approving a development that includes all or a portion of either single-family or rental units for persons of low or moderate income (inclusionary housing), the city may offer and negotiate the following measures with the developer to assure affordability: · Housing prices or rents that would be affordable to those with low and moderate incomes; · Maximum income limits for those who initially and subsequently purchase or rent the units that are provided at affordable (below market) prices or rental rates; · Methods such as equity sharing, land trust agreements, and other means to provide for long- term affordability of those units. The League worked with Representative Vandeveer to amend another portion of the bill that was previously added in the House Local Government Committee and later modified in the Commerce Committee. That provision would leave to the discretion of cities in counties with populations of 30,000 or more to prepare a "housing fiscal impact note" prior to a public hearing on zoning, development fees or other land use regulation that would increase the cost of housing development. For more info;malion on cily legislalive issues, contacl any member of Ihe League of M innesola Cilies lntergovemmenlal Relalion~ learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1643- Har 15 Z88Z 1B:4B:07 Via Fax -> 95Z47ZOfZ8 fldministrator Page 001 Of 88Z 'd -Fn ayFax- A weeMy legislative upclatefrom the League of Minnesota Cities March 15, 2002 Will There Be a Tax Bill? The Senate Tax Committee met today to outline the rough parameters of what might become their version of an omnibus tax bill. At the meeting, Chair Larry Pogemiller offered several draft compilations of articles for a bill. He indicated that the committee would mark-up the bill on Monday. Although the Senate is moving forward with an omnibus tax bill, the House has yet to make any official determination on whether an omnibus bill would even be crafted this year. In fact, many key House members have publicly suggested that there will be no tax bill this year. That said, the legislature may need to address several tax items like the sales tax on bread and a new federal tax conformity issue related to the Bush economic recovery package that could reduce state tax collections by more than $200 million. In addition, the House Tax Committee has scheduled several hearings for next week, with most of the agendas marked "to be announced." establish a tax rate that would effectively increase state revenues as the valuation of commercial, industrial and cabin properties increases. The draft property tax article currently contains a number of property tax provisions including possible changes to the market value homestead credit and an LGA base increase to replace aid reductions under the 2001 tax bill. This latter provision would only impact cities under 1,000 population located outside the seven-county metro area. The draft bill also includes a new public utility tax base replacement aid, which would compensate communities that were severely impacted by public utility class rate changes in 2002. The drafts also contain several provisions that would moderate the impact of levy limits for 2003, including an adjustment for cities that lost mobile home HACA under the 2001 tax bill. We will report on the outcome of the Monday Senate Tax Committee hearing in next week's Cities Bulletin. The Senate draft tax articles include three tax increases to address the 2004-05 state budget shortfall--a tobacco tax increase, a temporary income tax increase and an increase in the state property tax. The tobacco tax rate increase is unspecified in the draft bill but would increase the rate beyond the current $0.48 per pack effective March 31, 2002. The temporary income tax increase, which is also currently unspecified in the draft bill, would remain in effect until the state's budget reserve is replenished and school aid payment delays under the Senate Phase II budget balancing proposal are restored. The state property tax increase would eliminate the reference to a state levy of $592 million and would instead Bonding Saga Continues With the snow piling up outside, the House debated their bonding bill until after 11:00 P.M. Thursday night. The bonding bill was the last bill considered during a marathon 12-hour floor session. Thursday's session had started earlier in the morning with hours of debate on the various parts of the House version of the Phase II budget balancing package. The most intense debate of the evening surrounded the Northstar commuter rail project, which has been amended in and out of the bonding bill over the last week. As the bill went to the House floor, it did not contain For mote informalion on ¢ily legislalive i~sues, conlact any member of the l.,¢ague of Minnesota Oil[es Intergovernmental Relations team. 651,281.1200 or 800.925.1122 - 1644- Hat 15 Z002 1B:4G:49 Via Fax -> 95Z4?ZOGZO fldainistrator Page 00Z Of 882 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities March 15, 2002 funding for the project. Rep. Kathy Tingelstad (R-Andover) successfully amended the project and funding onto the bill with a 71-61 vote. Other amendments were offered that would have redirected the Northstar fundings including amendments for the new Guthrie Theater, affordable housing projects and road improvements. Friday. Referencing the current investigation into plumbing inspection matters involving the Minneapolis regulatory and inspections departments, Representative Krinkie indicated that the time is ripe to consider giving property owners the ability to self-select private residential home inspectors to determine code compliance and that his bill would do that. After an emotional speech by Representative Tinglestad about the "politics" that were being played with the Northstar funding by members of her own party, the floor session was rather abruptly halted so that the Republicans could caucus. After nearly an hour of delay, the House reconvened, three members withdrew their remaining amendments and members quickly voted. The bill failed on a 59-68 vote. The bonding bill will most likely be taken up again next week on the floor, but it remains to be seen whether the Northstar commuter rail project will stay in the bill. The bonding bill needs a 60 percent majority, or 81 votes to pass. Even if the House passes the bill next week, the House and Senate will have to negotiate a compromise package, which could take a substantial amount of time given the differences in the bills. And then there is the governor's veto pen. Private Residential Building Inspectors Suggesting that privatization of residential building inspection would be a small step to eliminate fraud and impropriety in municipal housing inspection departments, Representative Krinkie (R-Shoreview) defended section 9 of HF 3270, a provision in the Omnibus State Government Finance bill during a hearing in the House Ways and Means committee on On behalf of the League, Representative Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapolis) offered an amendment to delete the Krinkie provision, citing concerns that the section would allow conflicts of interest, reduce uniformity of inspections, create duplication of inspections, and reduce protection of homeowners. Representative McElroy (R-Burnsville) urged committee members to leave the section in the bill and to allow the item to take shape either as a stand-alone bill or through conference committee debate between the House and Senate. As a former mayor, Representative McElroy indicated that it was appropriate to discuss the level of inspection service provided by municipal inspectors in light of the peak and valley nature of inspection workloads. The bill was laid on the table due to the committee's time constraints and the amount of debate Dibble amendment had generated. The bill and the private building residential building inspectors section will be discussed again on Monday, March 18, 2002 at 10:30 a.m. in the House Ways & Means Committee. To express your concerns about the bill please contact members of the House Ways & Means Committee. For more inforrnalion on cily legislative issues, contacl any mernb¢lr of the l..¢agu¢ of Minn¢$ola Cili¢a lnlergovernm¢nlal Relations team. 651,281.1200 or 800.925,1122 - 1645- "Let's Keep Zebra Mussels Out of Lake Minnetonka" MEMO Date: To: From: March 8, 2002 Lake Minnetonka Zebra Mussels Stakeholders Dick Osgood, LMA Executive Director Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director Suspension of Zebra Mussel Stakeholders Meetings The Zebra Mussel Stakeholders group has met three times between October 30, 2001 and January 24, 2002. Two other meetings are planned this month on the 14th and the 2gth. The purpose of this memo is to inform you that both the LMA and LMCD Board of Directors have directed us to suspend the March meetings and work directly to negotiate a prevention plan that includes some kind of access inspections with MN DNR staff. Although the stakeholders meetings have been suspended, the goal of establishing an Action Plan to prevent the introduction of zebra mussels into Lake Minnetonka will continue forward. This will shift to a staff driven project rather than including the stakeholders group on Lake Minnetonka for a number of reasons. Two of them include poor attendance and the apparent unwillingness of the stakeholders present at the past meetings to consider going down the path that included any kind of access inspections. Both the LMA and the LMCD remain concerned that Lake Minnetonka is at a high risk for a zebra mussel infestation. To significantly reduce this risk, both organizations maintain that preventative actions targeted to Lake Minnetonka must occur, including some kind of access inspection. The time for actions is now because once zebra mussels are in Lake Minnetonka, there is no known remedy! Feel free to call either at Dick Osgood (952) 470-4449 or Greg Nybeck at (952) 745-0789 if you have questions relating to this matter. Thank you again for your interest! LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT - 1646- Page 1 of 5 Kandis M. Hanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> Friday, March 08, 2002 2:03 PM weston ka.news westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 23 March 8, 2002 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Minnetonka HS Arsonist Misidentified: NOT Westonka Student --Still Time to Join New Administrative Budget Task Force --Correction re County Road 110 Construction --What Parents Need to Know About Their Children 2. Focus Topic: Budget, School Board Updates 3. Upcoming Events 4. Tell Us What You Think NEWS BRIEFS **Minnetonka HS Arsonist Misidentified: NOT Westonka Student** In its first report on last weekend's fire at Minnetonka High School, the Star Tribune incorrectly stated that one of the teen arsonists was a student at Mound Westonka High School. All the teenagers involved have been publicly identified, and none of them are students at Mound Westonka High School. - 1647- 03/08/2002 Page 2 of 5 The Star Tribune has been notified and will run a correction tomorrow. **Still Time to Join Administrative Budget Task Force** If you're interested in helping identify areas for cost savings at the administrative level, please join us on Tuesdays, at 7 p.m., beginning March 12, in room 200 of Shirley Hills Primary School. Meetings will continue throughout March, and perhaps into April (not including break), depending on task force progress. Please contact Dr. Pam Myers at 491-8001 or myersp@westonka.k12.mn.us if you would like to be part of this group. **Correction re County Road 110 Construction** In last week's issue of westonka.news, one of the streets was misidentified. Here is the corrected sentence: The construction could affect bus transportation because the construction might have an impact on access via West Branch Road north to County Road 26. **What Parents Need to Know About Their Children** Two resources will be available in the coming weeks to help parents understand their children. "What Teens Need Adults to Know (but don't know how to tell)" will be the topic of a community conversation on Monday, March 25, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. at Mound Westonka High School. Parents will learn the results of the Minnesota Student Survey (highlighting local results), learn about current teen behavior trends, and gain skills in recognizing items and behaviors associated with alcohol and drug use. A light meal will be served, while it lasts, from 6-6:15 p.m. Watch the Laker and future issues of westonka.news for more information, but mark your calendars now! "Misunderstood Minds," a deeply moving and personal look into the world of learning problems, will premiere on Twin Cities Public Television - Ch 2, Wednesday, March 27, at 8 pm. "Misunderstood Minds" tracks the stories of five families over a three-year period as they, together with experts, try to solve the mysteries of their children's learning difficulties. A companion Web site will be launched March 13, providing more detail on the five stories in the film, as well as strategies for addressing learning difficulties, background on current issues surrounding the topic, and resources to learn more. An interactive feature called "First Hand" will allow visitors to sample what it's like - 1648- 03/08/2002 Page 3 of 5 to have ¢eei{ie [ arninc problems, uch di ¢u[ties decoding the components of words, or problems with memory. FOCUS TOPIC **Budget, School Board Updates** 'The School Board will meet Monday, March 11, at 7:30 p.m. to take further action on tackling the school district's budget deficit for 2002-2003. Three budget-related items will be discussed for possible action by the Board: 1) eliminating the Assurance of Mastery program at Hilltop Primary School Background: The State of Minnesota has cut all funding for this math and reading tutoring program. The elimination of state funding eliminates this program. The district will search for ways to continue to support students who are struggling with math and reading at Hilltop Primary School. 2) revised budget reduction goal of $600,000 for 2002-2003 Background: Now that some budget legislation has become law, the School Board has a sense that the impact of that legislation will be less than the Governor's proposal. 3) reduction of five student days, effective with 2002-2003 school year Background: The School Calendar Task Force has recommended that the School Board reduce the student calendar by five school days in order to save 1.5 teaching positions. In Human Resources action items of special interest to parents, the School Board will be asked to approve Joe Wacker as principal of Hilltop Primary School. Wacker has served as interim principal since August 2001. In addition, the Board will be asked to approve Keith Randklev as interim principal at Mound Westonka High School for the 2002-2003 school year. Randklev, currently activities director, will serve in the interim principal position upon the retirement of principal Gene Zulk. UPCOMING EVENTS --March 11, Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment in Writing, Grade 5. --March 11, Superintendent's Roundtable, 5-6 p.m., Room 200, Shirley - 1649- 03/08/2002 Page 4 of 5 Hills Primary School. The Superintendent's Roundtable is an informal opportunity to chat with Supt. Pam Myers, to ask questions and learn more about the school district. --March 11, School Board regular meeting, 7:30 p.m. (The Share the Success portion of the meeting starts at 7 p.m.) Shirley Hills Primary School --March 12-13, Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments in Math, Grades 3 & 5. --March 14, Hilltop PTA, 7 p.m. --March 15, Kindergarten Roundup, 9:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., at both Hilltop and Shirley Hills Primary Schools. **No school for kindergarten on March 15** --March 15, Spring Fling dance, 6-8 p.m., Grandview Middle School. --March 25, "What Teens Need Adults to Know (but don't know how to tell)", a community conversation about the lives of teens in our community, 6:30-8 p.m., Mound Westonka High School. FUNDAMENTAL FINANCE FACT Here's an easy way to remember one aspect of school finance: Levies are for Learning (paying the operating costs of providing education, such as salaries, utilities, and bus service) An operating levy failed in Nov. 2001. Bonds are for Buildings (keeping buildings in good repair and providing certain equipment, such as computers) A maintenance and technology bond referendum was passed in 2001. State law prevents school districts from using bond money to pay for operating expenses. TELL US VVHAT YOU THINK! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> - 1650- 03/08/2002 Page 5 of 5 It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka School District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. According to the State of Minnesota, the subscriber list for this newsletter is public data. - 1 651 - 03/08/2002 Page 1 of 2 Kandis M. Hanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka. k12. mn. us> VVednesday, March 13, 2002 2:57 PM important update on school district budget westonka.news special edition A message to westonka.news subscribers from Superintendent Pamela J. Myers Using information supplied by the Westonka School District, this weekend's issue of the Laker will carry news of a dramatic error in the revenue projection model the school district uses to plan its annual budget. The error means that the financial situation for the Westonka School District is much more dire than we previously believed. Unfortunately, we now have an additional $900,000 shortfall in revenue for 2002-2003, on top of the approximately $420,500 we already had projected. How did it happen? The error is a result of faulty revenue projection software produced by and purchased from the Association of Metropolitan School Districts. The software is specially tailored to meet school district budget planning needs. It incorporates new legislation, so that school districts can tell how current legislation will affect their own district. We have purchased this software for years and have used it without problems--until this year. Because he is so thorough, business director Chuck Herdegen picked up on what appeared to be an anomaly, and he pursued it until the software error was discovered. The error The error has to do with a tax shift calculation for the referendum levy. In plain English, it means that a regular accounting procedure that defines school district revenue was miscalculated by the software. The tax shift works like this: every year, school districts include about one-third of levy referendum dollars in the prior year's revenue budget. This is something all Minnesota school districts do with referendum levies, in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures and state law. The error in the software, however, caused a miscalculation in estimated revenue, overstating projected revenue by $918,446. Who's at fault? Can the district file a lawsuit? The producer of the software has acknowledged the error and fixed it. Correcting the software at this time, however, doesn't change the stark reality for the Westonka Public Schools. - 1652- 03/13/2002 Page 2 of 2 District legal counsel is exploring the liability issue. At this time, however, Jt appears unlikely that the software vendor would bear any liability beyond the cost of the software ($500). The School District has, however, made Jt clear that we would like the vendor to provide, for publication, a formal apology for the mistake, on top of any other possible concessions. Are other districts affected? It is our understanding that only one other school district in Minnesota purchased this particular version of the software. This version of the software allowed tracking of General Fund and Transportation monies collectively, which is a helpful accounting tool for school districts that are in Statutory Operating Debt. Other school districts purchased a different version that apparently did not carry the mistake. Where do we go from here? The School Board believes our current budget planning has gone too far down the road for 2002-2003 to add another $900,000 in cuts to next year. At Monday night's board meeting, however, they did revise the budget reduction goal from $691,667 (which included the $420,500 revenue shortfall, plus other budget reductions related to projected legislative impact and planned Statutory Operating Debt payments) to $738,000. This higher reduction goal means that some of the budget cut options already identified as "low- to mid-range impact" will be considered at the "maximum impact" end of the scale, instead. The School Board is also considering another operating levy referendum for next fall. It's important to note, however, that because operating levy caps are regulated by state law, even if Westonka voters choose to provide the maximum level of support allowed by law, there will still be a $300,000 shortfall--requiring additional cuts for 2003-2004, even if the levy passes. Your School Board and adminstrative staff are working on these issues every day. We will continue our current budget planning calendar, reporting to the School Board on March 25 what those $738,000 in budget cuts will look like for next year. We are determined to get through this unfortunate and unexpected situation. We face challenges every day, and this happens to be a big one. While it's not the school district's fault, the school district will bear the burden of solving the problem. And we will persevere. Dr. Pamela J. Myers Superintendent - 1653- 03/13/2002 Page 1 of 6 Kandis M. Hanson From: Sent: Subject: ~'Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12. mn. us> Thursday, March 21, 2002 5:23 PM weston ka. news westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 24 March 22, 2002 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. **Please note: there will be no westonka.news next Friday, March 29. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka, k12.mn, us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Kindergarten Round-Up Rescheduled for March 27 --What Teens Need Adults to Know --GMS Parent Muscle Power Needed --Realtors Workshop Shows Westonka Works 2. Focus Topic: How the Budget Planning Math Works 3. Upcoming Events 4. Tell Us What You Think NEWS BRIEFS **Kindergarten Round-Up Rescheduled for March 27** Kindergarten Round-Up has been rescheduled for March 27, at 9:30 a.m. and 1 p.m, at both Hilltop and Shirley Hills Primary Schools. The event was originally scheduled for March 15, but was postponed because of the weather-related school cancellation. - 1654- 03/21/2002 Page 2 of 6 No reservation is needed to attend Round-Up. If you have questions, please call either primary school: Shirley Hills, 962.491.8400; Hilltop, 952.491.8500. **What Teens Need Adults to Know** Two resources will be available in the coming weeks to help parents understand their children. "What Teens Need Adults to Know (but don't know how to tell)" will be the topic of a community conversation on Monday, March 25, from 6:30 to 8 p.m. in the Little Theater at Mound Westonka High School. Parents will learn the results of the Minnesota Student Survey (highlighting local results), learn about current teen behavior trends, and gain skills in recognizing items and behaviors associated with alcohol and drug use. A light meal will be served, while it lasts, from 6-6:15 p.m. This program is free and open to the public. "Misunderstood Minds," a deeply moving and personal look into the world of learning problems, will premiere on Twin Cities Public Television - Ch 2, Wednesday, March 27, at 8 p.m. "Misunderstood Minds" tracks the stories of five families over a three-year period as they, together with experts, try to solve the mysteries of their children's learning difficulties. A companion Web site will be launched March 13, providing more detail on the five stories in the film, as well as strategies for addressing learning difficulties, background on current issues surrounding the topic, and resources to learn more. An interactive feature called "First Hand" will allow visitors to sample what it's like to have specific learning problems, such as difficulties decoding the components of words, or problems with memory. **GMS Parent Muscle Power Needed** An invitation from a group of volunteers working to improve the facilities at Grandview Middle School: Let's all pull together and s-t-r-e-t-c-h building and maintenance funds at Grandview Middle School by offering our time and talent on a demolition/remodel project. Your time and energy is invaluable. We will be removing lockers and fixtures from the Grandview boys' locker room. This space will be turned into an exciting in-house "School Within A School" program, which will offer alternative education to students within our own district. With your help, we can save valuable dollars and create a learning environment to be proud of. Initially, we are requesting "muscle" power and tools to remove lockers and fixtures. Special kudos to Al Fochiatti, a licensed contractor and owner of Al's Plumbing, for contributing his time and talent on Grandview projects. If you know of licensed - 1655- 03/21/2002 Page 3 of 6 painters, electricians, tile layers, etc. (or are one, yourself) who could donate their time and talent to assist Grandview Middle School's building and maintenance projects, please contact Chuck Walerius, (952) 472-8761; e-mail cwalerius2@mchsi.com, or Sheryl Hill, (952) 457-6111; e-mail uphill@citlink, net. Many hands make light work. You will be working with Chuck Waierius, Sheryl Hill, Dick Kunz, John Johns, and George Jones (all Grandview parents) with full support from Dr. Myers, Jerry Brenden, Tracy Gunderson, and Kevin Borg (Westonka staff). This is a great opportunity to meet new friends and work on a visible project with long-lasting positive impact. Please join us! **Realtors Workshop Shows "Westonka Works"** Evaluations from the third annual "Realtors Workshop" held this week show that area realtors agree that "Westonka Works?' The realtors workshop offers real estate professionals to earn continuing education credits while giving realtors an opportunity to see first-hand the excellent education offered in the Westonka Public Schools. Forty-five area realtors attended the workshop, which included a tour of Grandview Middle School. Some comments from their evaluations include: "Presenters are passionate about these schools!", "Your focus on personalization--I'm very impressed!" "Now I can really promote your school district." "Far better than I knew? "It's better than I thought!" FOCUS TOPIC **How the Budget Planning Math Works** Tomorrow's Laker will carry the following message from School Board Chair David Botts, outlining how the math works with the current budget planning/deficit reduction efforts. Editor's note: The generic text format of this newsletter makes the layout of the arithmetic a little less visually clear than it will appear in the Laker. But we hope you'll get the idea below, and read the Laker, as well. As always, if you have questions about the budget, please send an e-mail message to welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Please note: the staff - 1656- 03/21/2002 Page 4 of 6 person who receives these messages will be out of the office next week, but will reply to all messages during the week of April 1. >From Chair David Botts: The budget deficit facing the Westonka Public Schools is on all our minds lately. As a school board, we've heard from many citizens who would like a simple explanation of how the numbers add up. The total deficit for 2002-2003 is approximately $1.3 million. The School Board and administrative staff believe that the full $1.3 million cannot be absorbed in one single year, so we have chosen to spread the deficit reduction process out over the next few years. Therefore, we'll tackle more than half of that amount next year, and deal with the balance in subsequent years. The basic arithmetic (using rounded numbers) looks like this: $420,000 (with the legislative override of Gov. Ventura's budget, expenses are projected to exceed revenues by this amount for 2002-2003) plus (+) $918,000 (error in software program: once fixed, we learned that projected expenses would exceed revenues by this amount, on top of the $420,000 we already knew about) equals (=) subtotal of $1,338,000 (total amount expenses are projected to exceed revenue for 2002-2003) minus (-) $738,000 (the amount the School Board has directed staffto cut for 2002-2003) equals (-) total of $600,000 (balance of current debt to be reduced over subsequent years) There are two steps we can take toward getting out of debt: cut expenses, and generate revenue. The current thinking of the Board is to do both. Expenses can be cut as described above. To generate revenue, we are considering holding an operating levy referendum on Primary Day, September 10, 2002. The amount voters will be asked to approve and the duration of the levy are yet to be determined. Remember this basic rule of thumb: operating levies are used for learning (paying for the service of education); bonds are used for buildings, maintenance, and technology. - 1657- 03/21/2002 Page 5 of 6 As always, citizens are urged to share questions and comments by e-mailing welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us or calling the feedback line at 952/491-8260. Please also feel free to contact me personally at dbotts@pentapure.com. UPCOMING EVENTS --March 25, Joint Parent Advisory, 3:30 p.m., Early Childhood Center. --March 25, "What Teens Need Adults to Know (but don't know how to tell)", a community conversation about the lives of teens in our community, 6:30-8 p.m., Mound Westonka High School. --March 25, School Board Study Session, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills School 26, Hilltop Gr. 2 & 4 Music Concert, 6:30 p.m. 26, Shirley Hills Title I Advisory Council, 7:30 a.m., Shirley Primary --March --March Hills. --March 26, --March 26, Hills. --March 27, and Shirley 27** GMS Parent Advisory 7 p.m. Administrative Task Force, 7-8:30 p.m., Room 200, Shirley Kindergarten Roundup, 9:30 a.m. and 1 p.m., at both Hilltop Hills Primary Schools. **No school for kindergarten on March --March 29, End of Quarter Three --April 1-5, Spring Break FUNDAMENTAL FINANCE FACT Here's an easy way to remember one aspect of school finance: Levies are for Learning (paying the operating costs of providing education, such as salaries, utilities, and bus service) An operating levy failed in Nov. 2001. Bonds are for Buildings (keeping buildings in good repair and providing certain equipment, such as computers) A maintenance and technology bond referendum was passed in 2001. State law prevents school districts from using bond money to pay for operating expenses. - 1658- 03/21/2002 Page 6 of 6 TELL U8 WHAT YOU THINK! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Qlson at <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka School District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. According to the State of Minnesota, the subscriber list for this newsletter is public data. - 1659- 03/21/2002 " rules, were unanimously adopted at the ar~uaI of the 'LA~'ND POINT~DREAMWOOD IMP. ~ssOCIATIQiN,' · .. .~.~ - Rule l~Garbage and ~unk.~ 'All garba~h not kept in air-.tight garbage cans should be buried daily~ If put in a covered ga~b~ge h~le, then dir~ or disi~C- 'tant'sh~uld,be used frcquent.ly enough to ~estrsy smell or"ve~min T.o ~eep . opefi ~arba~e hole.w~th ~arbage exposed to sun and wind is an 'o~ns~ a~ainst 'yo~ir~.elf and the entire neighborhood. Junk anal other rubbish should be piled on you~'tot and the cl~an-u~a~on w~ll Come and ~e~ same. ~ou have no ri~h~ to ~row i't on any street or on your ne or's ; -" Rule 2 Dist~bance. Music, n.oise~ or anY'o, the~-for~ of disturbance MU8~: ceas~ at 1'2 o~cl6[k night.- This includes bathing a~..~VoOd'land Point beach. ,Rule 3 Docks and Launches. ~ Launches fo~ hi~e are not to:.'iay up i' 5:,~,,...: . Association d~ck OniOn 30 minutes. '-~ ~t · .~ .... , .. ?:,';':~",:.:~Ule d':~'.~,¢~tal o~ CO~tages. Eve~y~ }~t'~ige °~ner sh0Uld knO.w who his ~'ena~:S are?~e Yalue of y0ur~.:pr~pe~tY~:and ~!1 o~her.:properti~s in a c;mmu-'. ~nity. is .so.o~ decreased, by ten~'~'~:"~fi0'h~v:~.'' no~ ~e~Pe~'*~p;~':~the rights 0f °ther~ ' ~ " · ,¢- . - ~.~-~. - ~ ~ '~. · . . X~ -. -;~.~, - ... ' '. q. . . . ' :.:.~:~ d?'ho:a.[e a:nm:~,gce..t0, the cqmm.m~. -... ':- ... . ;::::Rule'~ne~ii' Rul&' fOr All'":"'~:; unto '°?t:~;'g.:i''~: ' } '~'"w°~i'~ ~a ::~:'gnto:~'ySu~'-: to':~h'~ "end 't)at Peace;"h~~:~'~:/'~:~' :c~?m'a~:'Ue ~th'~'I.o{ of ~:):~.~.q, 9wn or..ogc~p~-~roperty':~:.:~,~0dl:ah~' ~oi:nt ~0' D'r~'a~:~o°~::'::-'''' · .......' :*,'.-. ' ..... -' · . - ' ~ -..'-.-'...:" ', .; -.: Z:::~.: ',?. ~: ~'-.,~ . · .. .... : ....... ........ ............ - 1660- RAMSTAD REPORTS INSIDE: Congress backs President in War on Terror Because of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, a bipartisan Congress authorized the President to use "all necessary force" against the terrorists and provided $40 billion in emergency funding for national security. A new anti-terrorism law was also enacted to give law enforcement new tools to investigate and appre- hend terrorists in our own country. Congress and the President also passed a new aviation security law to improve air travel safety and will soon consider legislation to protect the American people against bioterrorism. I'm also pleased Congress passed and President Bush signed into law a bill I authored -- the Fallen Heroes Survivor Benefits Act. This means all families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty will receive tax-free survivor benefits. Ramstad visits troops. U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad met with our troops at Guantanamo Base, Cuba, and is pictured with Marine Corporal Nick Thunker of Carver, Minnesota. Jim was a member of the Congressional delegation inspecting Camp X-Ray, the terrorist detention facility. -1661 - Congressional Update Here are the key issues of the 107th Congress: ANTI-TERRORISM. An important new law provides extended detention for suspected terrorists and roving wiretaps and electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists. The law also cuts off funding to terrorists with stiff new penalties for money laundering and tougher punishment for harboring terrorist.q. I strongly supported this anti-terrorism legislation. BIOTERRORISM. I am a strong supporter of the bioterrorism preparedness bill to prepare state and local health agencies for a bioterrorism attack, improve the public health system and invest in a national pharmaceuti- cal stockpile of life-saving drugs. This bill is essential to homeland defense and will be considered soon. AVIATION SECURITY. I cosponsored the new aviation security law to improve the safety of air travel with armed sky_ marshals, secure cockpits and bette____rr screenin__gg of checked baggage, carry-on baggage and passengers. NATIONAL GUARD SUPPORT. Our National Guard has been called to prosecute the war and protect our airports, nuclear power plants and other public places. Many have been forced to take huge paycuts. That's why I have introduced legislation to provide financial protections for members of the National Guard who have been called to active duty. TAX RELIEF. I supported the President's tax relief plan, which lowers marginal tax rates, cuts the marriage penalty, phases out death taxes, doubles the child tax credit, reforms pensions and increases contribution limits for IRAs. This $1.3 trillion tax relief package passed the Congress on a bipartisan vote and became law. ECONOMIC STIMULUS. The House passed an economic stimulus package to accelerate income tax cuts, provide job-creating tax incentives for businesses and extend unemployment and health benefits for unem- ployed workers. I support this bill to put people back to work, and I am disappointed the Senate failed to pass it. Air National Guard goes to war. U.S. Rep. Jim Ramstad thanks members of the 133a Airlift Wing, Minnesota Air National Guard, as they leave for active duty to defend America. Ramstad told the troops, "You are Minnesota's best and bravest, and you will make America proud!" HEALTH CARE. Without further delay, Congress should pass a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, the Patients Bill of Rights, Medicare reimbursement reform and parity for chemical dependency treatment. EDUCATION BILL. I voted against H.R. 1, which is a financial disaster for Minnesota schools and taxpayers. The new federal testing mandates alone will cost Minnesota schools $4.3 million annually. Minnesota will also lose $3.2 million under the new targeting formula for disadvantaged students and special education was again not fully funded, costing Minnesota schools $187 million. TRADE PROMOTION AUTHORITY. The House passed this critical trade bill to open new markets for American products, create jobs and grow the economy. I am h~peful the Senate will pass this important trade legislation soon. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM. I am again a sponsor of the Shays-Meehan bill (McCain-Feingold) to ban soft money to national parties, require "sham" issue ads to be treated like other campaign ads, increase disclosure and strengthen enforcement. The House and Senate have both passed this reform bill, and I expect it to become law soon. - 1662- The 107th Congress is considering a wide range of important issues. Your input is very important to me. Please take a few minutes to fill out this questionnaire and let me know your opinions and suggestions. Resident I Resident 2 Yes No Yes No Do you support continuing the income tax cuts passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last summer? o Should Congress pass an economic stimulus package to provide job-creating tax incentives for businesses, accelerated tax relief for individuals and health and unemployment benefits for displaced workers? o Should the War on Terror be widened to include any nations that harbor and support known terrorist organizations? 4. Do you support Medicare reform to include coverage for prescription dmgs? [] [] 5. Do you support a national missile defense system to protect our nation from [] [] attack by rogue nations and international terrorist organizations? 6. Should Congress provide incentives to increase energy conservation and encour- [] [] age the development of renewable energy sources? 7. Do you support Social Security reform that would allow individuals to invest a [] [] portion of their payroll taxes in individual savings accounts? 8. Should the U.S. government restrict the issuing of student visas that allow non- ~1 [] U.S. citizens to study in the United States? 9. Should the federal government fund 40 percent of the special education costs of [] [] our public schools? 10. What do you believe are the most important issues facing our nation? - 1663- Nation's Top Cops. Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus Co-chair Jim Ramstad proudly honors Edina Police Officers Billie Moir, Jim Rygg, Mike Blood, Scott Kuyper and Shelby Lane who were chosen "Top Cops in America" by the National Association of Police Organizations. (Please Print) Name Address City, Zip. CONGRESSMAN Jm RAMSTAD 103 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515-0001 To M^m - Fold this panel with the address facing out, affix a $.34 stamp and mail Jim Ramstad Invites You to Attend His Spring 2002 Town Meetings Tuesday, April 2 City Hall Council Chambers 2215 West Old Shakopee Road Noon - 1:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 2 Eden Prairie City Hall Council Chambers 8080 Mitchell Road 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. For more information, please call: (952) 738-8200 Wednesday, April 3 City Hall Council Chambers 1010 1st Street South 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Thursday, April 4 Creek Center Room A 14800 34th Avenue North 7:00 - 8:00 p.m. Congress of the United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Official Business Resident 3rd Congressional District Minnesota M.C. Pre-Sort Standard ECRWSS THIS MA/LING WAS PREPARED, PUBLISHED, AND MAILED AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE. - 1664-~ ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.L.L.P. March 1, 2002 444 Cedar Street - Suite 2100 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2160 Firm (651) 290-6500 Fax (651) 223-5070 E-Mail v~leOlawOjlolaw, com brite www. jlolaw, com Gerald M. Linnihan * Alan R. Vanasek John M. Kennedy, Jr. * Eugene J. Flick * Charles E. Gillin * Jamea J. Galman * Pierre N. Regnier Mark A. Fonken * George W. Kuehner Patti J. Skoglund * Sean E. Hade * Timothy S. Crom * Lawrence M. Rocheford * G. Golembeck * E. Flynn * Thomas L. Cummings Mary P. Rowe Diana L. Brennan Stephen F. Buterin Gretchen H. Voorhees * Jessica E. Schwie Sarah L. Sanville Susan S. Tice Todd D. Gardner John R. O'Brlen *- of counsel Some members also admitted to practice law in Wisconsin*, North Dakota, and Iowa Linda 2L Cockrell /]dministrator Jerre E Logan (1923-1983) Donald M. Jardine (Retired) CITY OF MOUND ATTN: KANDIS HANSON CITY MANAGER 5341 MAYWOOD RD MOUND MN 55364-1627 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO A TTORNE Y-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP AND WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE Re: 30839(872) Kevin F. Biegler v. City of Mound and County of Hennepin Dear Ms. Hanson: Please find enclosed herein a copy of the District Court's Order and Memorandum dismissing Kevin Biegler's claims against the City of Mound. The D/strict Court reviewed the facts of the case and determined that Mr. Biegler was prevented from filing a lawsuit against the City for claims arising out of the alleged negligent design of the drainage swale near his property because he had not brought those claims within the period of time allowed by statute. While we had also argued that the City was entitled to statutory discretionary immunity, the District Court did not reach that issue because it had already found in our favor on the statute of limitations issue. We are pleased with the outcome. At this time, we have not communicated with either Mr. Biegler or his counsel. Mr. Biegler has the right'to file an appeal of the District Court's decision to dismiss his claims against the City within sixty (60) days from the entry of judgment in favor of the City. Although we do not believe that Mr. Biegler intends to appeal this matter, we are not aware of his 1rue intentions. Therefore, we will continue to keep this matter open until the time for appeal has expired. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact me. Established 1918 Equal Opportunity Employer - 1665- CITY OF MOUND March 1, 2002 Page 2 We will continue to keep you advised. Very truly yours, JARDINE, LOGAN & O'BRIIEN, P.L.L.P. Jessica E. Schwie ~ Direct Dial: (651) 290-6591 E-mail Address: jschwie~jlolaw.com JES:slf Enclosure Copy: LMCIT CLAIMS ATTN: CARLA HEYL 145 UNIVERSITY AVE W ST PAUL MN 55103-2044 LMCIT CLAIMS ATTN: DARIN RICHARDSON 145 UNIVERSITY AVE W ST PAUL MN 55103-2044 (LMCIT ClaimNo: 11010404) MS MARY TIETJEN KENNEDY & GRAVEN CHTD 470 PILLSBURY CENTER 200 S 6TM ST MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-1403 - 1666- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound,com March 12, 2002 TO; Greg Skinner FROM: Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator SUBJECT: Spring & Fall Clean-up's SPRING'S EXPENSES FALL'S EXPENSES Morrel $4,213.87 Morrell $2,599.67 Nash 100.00 Nash 100.00 JR Appl $2,706.00 JR appl $1,400.00 Tires 652.00 Tires 467.00 Blackowiak (TV's) 496.04 Blackowiak 400.00 Total $8,167.91 Total $4,566.67 Money received $9,309.67 Money received $4,495.50 Net $1,141.76 Loss $71.17 These figures do not include any labor for the two days. Total labor for the two days amounts to $5,431.30. Page 1 of 1 Kandis M. Hanson From: To: Sent: Subject: "John Cameron" <jcameron@mfra.com> "Kandis Hanson" <KandisHanson@cityofmound.com> Friday, February 08, 2002 7:19 AM Langdon Lane - Sewer Back-up Kandis, I talked to Bill Moeller of MCES late last night about this topic. He said they are working on the problem; however, how diligently is another question. He said and I know this is a fact, since we submitted a proposal, that they have hired a consultant to look at using the old wastewater treatment ponds as temporary storage during high flows that can't be handled by their system. They are also investaging the amount of flow coming from the area of Minnetrista north of Mound and hopefully analyzing their entire system that accommodates this area. I guess we knew that there was not going to be an overnight solution and that's the reason the City opted to pay for the back flow valves. I had called Bill about a couple of other issues, including the agreement concerning the relocation of the MCES lift station downtown. He promised that he would call you today to discuss the issue of the City of Mound paying the cost of any easements necessitated by the relocation. I believe %) that their position is that MCES paid the City of Mound approximately $45,000, for the easements at their present site, less then 10 years ago and think the City should pay for these easements, since we are requesting If you want to discuss either of these projects, please give me a call./ John / - 1668- 03/13/2002 ZGSP Task Force meeting minutes for March 6, 2002 In attendance: Gene Hostetler Derek Hostetler Stefan Anne Wilbur Kandis Hanson John Cameron Gene and Derek talked about the advantages of cement skate parks. Gene said he had seen many skate parks around the country, many in Colorado. He said he thought there were advantages to cement over wood parks or metal parks. He said he thought we could solve any problems by keeping the park dry. He said it was no less dangerous than one with wood, if ramps are trowel-smooth there is little difference in safety. With other kinds of parks there are problems with nails coming out and rusting of the edging. Kandis said there is potential for liability where a park cracks and buckles. Derek said wood parks also become unnailed. Gene said with a wood park, you have to go over the wood daily. He said the other reason to support a cement park is that if we get all components, launch ramps, etc., its cheaper. We would pay $100,000 to do the same kind of park as we are doing with cement. So having cement is allowing us to have a much better park. John also noted that any park would have a base of cement. Gene said this has so much more going for it. I think it's safe Derek said other parks hurt more than cement, because if you fall on wood, you slide and stop and that's how you break your arm. Gene said the kids on the committee went to a metal park and said it wasn't very interesting. Kandis reiterated that she had concerns for liability and the drainage was going to be key. John said the drainage problem could be handled with a drain tile, because the park is on the crown of a hill and everything will dome away from the park. Gene added that we'd still like to use some moveable parts for some of these areas. May do east section with components. Gene said he would like to go ahead with the removal of trees, because he was worried about losing some opportunities. Kandis said that from the cities standpoint will, it would proceed with what it could until it reached $3,000. She explained that the city doesn't have any extra funds, fight now. Gene said, the skate park committee needs to know what the costs what be, it wouldn't be back charging for work done. $3,000 was reallocated again this year, Kandis said. John said the $3,000 was gone from last year. Gene told them that Tom's crew has time to take out trees right now. -1669- John said they had done some work on setting grades. He pointed out the problem area is right here with some larger trees that the city didn't want to take down. He said we need to talk to Sara about permitting. Gene said we would like to keep those types of things moving. He asked for a list of what John and the city think we need to do? John said he'd talk to Sara. We need two things for the MCWD. 1. sewer 2. wetland mitigation Tom was going to have his wetland guy look at, Gene said. For that reason we need to get a form, or documentation of what TOm Stokes is donating. ' Kandis suggested we could see the forms from form from another city. Or to ask Peter Johnson. Kandis said, as far as proceeding beyond the $3,000, the city would look at forwarding invoices to ZGSP committee, but wouldn't do the work without discussing it with us first. The city will ask that the committee has 50 percent of its pledges before it begins construction on the project. Gene and Anne said that was understandable. John said the biggest problem could be permitting from the MCWD. He said Jim Fackler knows where mitigation would go. Gene said he would talk to Peter Johnson about an in-kind giving form. - 1670- Business priorities front and center at the Legislature By David 01son, president, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Business people across the state have told the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce that reducing health care costs, g funding for transportation and preserving the property tax reform passed last year are their top priorities. These issues also have the greatest impact on their employees. The Minnesota Chamber has brought these issues to the 2002 Legislature, and all three are in the spotlight. Reducing the growth of health care costs The Legislature has heard the voice of Minnesota employers regarding consistent and dramatic increases in health care premium costs. HF 2755/SF 2681 authored by Representative Bill Haas (R-Champlin) and Senator John Hottinger (DFL- Mankato) provide needed reforms to the small group market that will help stimulate competition and provide greater product options for employers. It also promotes pooling among employers as a wayto reduce costs. HF 1580/SF 1516 authored by Representative Fran Bradley (R-Rochester) and Senator Dallas Sams (DFL-Staples) allow more flexibility and co-payments to encourage companies to offer consumer driven health plans. Both of these bills will improve cost, stability and accessibility in the small group market. This legislation has momentum in the House, but neither bill has been scheduled for a hearing yet in the Senate. Call your Senators today and urge them to support SF 2681 and SF 1516. Increasing funding for transportation The Minnesota Transportation Coalition is leading the transportation funding debate at the Legislature.' The Coalition, led by the Minnesota Chamber is comprised of more than 150 organizations representing businesses and labor, including more than 50 local chambers of commerce to date. The Coalition's funding bill has been introduced. The bill authorizes $2.27 billion in new funding over a five year period. Over five years, the funding bill includes $100 million in general obligation bonds per year and $150 million in trunk highway bonds per year financed with a 3.5 cent fuel tax increase phased-in in FY2004 and FY2005. The bill also includes dedication of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax (MVST) with phase- in transfer over two years. If successful, this funding package will result in an increase of $1.48 billion for the state system, $444 million in new transit funding and $333 million increase in local road funding. Unlike the health care issues mentioned above, the transportation funding legislation has more support in the Senate than in the House. Senator Dean Johnson (DFL-Willmar) is carrying this legislation, SF 2888, in the Senate. The companion bill, HF 2939, is authored by Representative Tom Workman (R-Chanhassen). Call your Representatives and urge them to support HF 2939. Solving the budget deficit without raising taxes Both the House and the Senate are proposing to solve the $1.95 billion budget deficit projected for the current biennium without raising taxes.., or so it appears. I am hedging because one provision, in the House, Senate and Governor's plans, will increase employer costs significantly. This proposal transfers money from the workers' compensation Special Compensation Fund to balance the budget. If they do this, the assessment for employers will increase from 20% to 32%. The House and Administration's bill will increase employer costs over four years by $70 million, although the House does make a provision to reduce the amount of the transfer depending upon the outcome of the November 2002 forecast. The Senate proposal raises employer costs by $110 million over four years. There have not been any proposals to solve the current budget problem by "undoing" the 2001 property tax reform legislation passed last year.., at least not yet. The February revenue forecast along with pressure to deal with the $2.5 billion deficit projected for FY 2004/FY2005 could change the political environment and put greater pressure on legislators to try to solve the shortfall for the next biennium this year. We believe that it is too difficult to predict what the economy will be like 2 years from now, and that significant progress can be made toward eliminating the FY2004/FY2005 problem by cutting spending in this biennium. As such, encourage your legislators to focus on the current biennium and urge them to protect the property tax reform legislation passed last year. Minnesota Chamber will continue to lead the business community on these and dozens of other important issues at Capitol this year. If you have any questions, call the Chamber at 651-292-4673. -1671 - Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative Agenda -March 15, 2002 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. Announcements (15 min.) 5. PrimarY Project (30 min.) Betsy Hedding, collaborative coordinator in Hopkins, made this short video about the Primary Project. With Alliance/Collaborative funding, most of the Hennepin county schoOl districts are implementing this project. 6. Budget (30 min,) Each work group will discuss their budget for our UPcoming fiscal year, July 1, 2002 - June 30 2003. Approval on the budget outlines will be voted on at this meeting. "Life shrinks or expands in portion to one's courage." Anais Nin Any comments or questions, call Leah Weycker, Collaborative Coordinator, at 952-491-8058 or WeyckerL @ westonka.kl 2.mn.us - 1672- Work Group Updates Health Sandy Olstad, Laurie Fitz, Mary Goode, Jeanette Metz, Mark Brekke' i~ The'Health Group's Depression Awareness is ordering the cards and holders and has a plan to diStrib- ute the cards throughout the commUnity. Other activities are being planned for dePressiOn and suicide awareness. The normal health group hasn't met. Youth Activities Sandy Rauschendorfer-temp chaff, Jean Ann Thayer, Patsy Kiesow After School Activity Bus data has been compiled. The later time has attracted more riders but many are still using passes instead of paying the dollar fee. The skate park task force needs funds! We are working with a developer, that has offered a big portion of the labor and supplies, to see how much his donation will take off the total price. Parenting Sandy Wing, Sandy Olstad, Bill Erickson The Parent Education group is working on developing a "Parent Mobilization" web site and a parent newsletter for middle and high school families. COmmunitY Margaret HOlste, Cathy Bailey, Cheryl FiSCher This group has not met. -It could become the future Family Resource Center team. Communications Anne Wilbur, CarOl Olson The communications grouP is concentrating on skate park communications and will look at the ·volun- teer information packet when there is less to do. Finance and Operations Mary Hughes, Len Harrell, Margaret Holste, Craig Anderson The executive work group decided to combine their duties with the finance and operations group. Lenny, the only member that did not overlap the two groups, will be asked to participate on another group. Say yes Lenny. .. Executive Craig Anderson, Carol Olson, Margaret Holste, Sandy Wing, Sandy Raushendorfer The Executive Group went over the State and CountY report and Margaret and Leah continue to work on it. The final report is due on April 1st. (a cUrious date to choose) Alliance for Families and Children in Hennepin County Primary Project and an attendance project, both funded from Alliance funds, continue to t~elp children succeed in school. - 1673- Westonka Health Community CollabOrative Minutes - February 15, 2002 Present: Craig Anderson, JeanAnn Thayer, Sandy RauschendOrfer, Deb Truesdell (Hennepin CountY Rep.), Mary Goode, Kathy Jones, Margaret Holste, Amy Lien, Beth Fagen, Laurie Fitz, Bill Erickson, Mary Hughes, John Braland, and Leah Weycker 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda or Minutes: The summer school bus and finding a new chairperson were added to the agenda. NO changes were made to the minutes from January '18, 2002. 2. Announcements: * The Executive Committee met and made a decision to combine with the Finance and Operations Work Group. A plea was made to have members join a work group or task force. * We received a thank you for the $3,000 the WHCC'donated to the Domestic Violence Support Program. * City Days will likely be canceled due to a lack of wOrkers to do the necessary planning. We recently received $550 from the Jaycees for our work on the' parade last year. Craig suggested thatthe "committee" who has sponsored the celebration previously share information with the community as to why it will be discontinued. * The Spring Welcome Back for students will not be held this year. Leah will notify each building and encourage them to do something. She will offer to help' with graphics for anything they might want to do. * Leah will send a survey to WHCC .members asking for input on a variety of potential meeting times. Please respond! . * Planning for the Skatepark is continuing. The Taskforce continues to meet every other' Wednesday at 5:30 p.m. at Westonka Library and is looking for additional "kid" participation. We recently learned that an engineering study and additional permits are needed, according to the city of Mound. Brenshell' Homes has offered to donate materials; and Craig has contacted a cement supplier. We ara sharing information packets and donor jars with surrounding cities~ * Margaret has tiCkets for the WeCAN Prayer Breakfast which will be held on March 14, 2002 at 7:00 a.m. at Our Lady. Speaker is Lonnie Titus, chaplain for the MN House of Representatives. 3. The Breakfast Club, a Junior High Ment°ring Program: Ross Braland, school counselor, shared information including a handout about the peer helper group he facilitates at Nicollet Junior High in Burnsville, MN. It is a proactive program that uses trained students to offer support and · referral to students experiencing difficulty. It was begun in 1987 and currently involves 18 - 1674- students who meet twice a week with the counselOrs for on-going support and training. Ross emphasized the need for adequate staff time to run a successful program as well as the need for administrative support. 4. Family Resource Center: Several WHCC members toured the JUbilee building to check out the possibility of using it as a family resource center once the grocery store has moved to a new location. Leah is checking with the property manager about the cost of renting the space. Several area groups have indicated interest in sharing the space, but many questions need to be answered. For example, what is the vision of shared space, who would be in charge or would a tenant association be an option, are groups willing and able to make a Iongterm commitment. Anticipated' date to occupy the space would be Summer, 2003. However, we need at least tentative committment Soon from groups who would occupy the space to continUe the planning process. 5. Budget: Leah shared budget work sheets and asked that work groups submit information about anticipated financial needs to her by February 27, 2002. She will cOntact chairpersons who were not present today and will also share information with each group about what they've been spent this year. Family Service Collaborative funds have expired, but we still have $12,000 from the county for "Planning" as well as LCTS dollars. The Youth Group will be reviewing information about the Activity Bus to determine whether we should continue funding it. 6. "Start Items": Leah will share the "start" items from the list developed at the last meeting with the appropriate work groups for their consideration. The fiscal impact will be looked at as part of the review process. 7. Summer School Bus: We provided 7 scholarships for Middle School students last summer for a cost of $420. An additional $580 was used to supplement the bus for elementary students. The Executive Committee recommended that we provide up to $1,000 for sCholarships for transportation for the summer school programs after we receive documentation. (The community education scholarship form will be used by building staff to verify the need for the scholarship. Numbers will be shared with the WHCC for the required documentation rather than names.) Sandy Rauschendorfer madea motion to this effect with a second by Kathy Jones. Motion approved. 8. Chairperson: Craig asked that members consider becoming the chairperson. Leah will share the description of responsibilities and time commitments with us. If no one steps forward, we may need to consider rotating the chair position or setting a shorter term. For now, Craig will continue. Thank you, Craigl Margaret made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mary. Motion approved unanimously. Margaret Holste, Recorder -1675- Minnesota Lawful Gambling " LG555 - Government Approval or Acknowledgment For Use of Gambling Fun(is Organization Inf~mation (please Expenditure Description (aEach additional sheets ifne~essa~) 2. Cheek th~ a~ropriat~ ~xp~nditum mt~o~: ~on~ibufion to a unit of ~owrnm~nt - United Stat~S, ~tato a~nei~, or in~t~montaliti~. ~OTE: ~ cont~guflon may not ~ mad~ dim~l~ to a law onfomement or ~ro**cuto~al aO~ncy, ,uch a~ a police d~pa~ment, coun~ ~ wildlif, mana~m,nt proi~ot ~at ~n~fl~ ~ ~ublio at Grooming a~d mainlining snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle trails with approval by DNR. All trails must be . open to public use. '" Describe the proposed expenditure, including vendors. Oath. · I affirm that the c0n{ribution or expenditure, in accordance With Minnesota Rule 7861.0120, s'ubpart 5D(10), does not result in any net monetary gain or other pecuniary benefit to our organization. · I affirm that when lawful gambling funds are used for grooming and maintaining snowmobile or ali-terrain vehicle trails or for any wildlife management project for which reimbursement is received from a unit of government, the reimburse- ment f.u. nds~j3)~st b~e d~epos)ted inj)e~awfu[ gambling account and recorded on the LG1010- Schedule C/D report. Chi'~!~Sutive officer's signature ~ number Date Government Approval/Acknowledgment By signature below, the representative of the unit of government · approves the project as described above, and/or · acknowledges the contrib[Jtion, which will not be used for a pension or retirement fund. Go .m,..nt Lc"., Keep this completed form attached to the LG1010 - Schedule CID in your organization's records. This form Will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. If you use a'FIY, you can call us by using the Minnesota Relay Service at 1-800-627- 3529 and ask to place a call to 651-6_39-4000. The information requested on this form will become public information, when requested by the Board, and will be used to determine your compliance with Minnesota statutes and rules governing lawful gambling activities. For additional information, check our web site at ww.g. cb.state.mn.us - 1676- Minnesota I. awful Gambling Government ...... Acknowled! lment Form . LG$03 ,, .., /, ~ Use 'o~ ~h~s Form Ce~in Con~buflon~ Prohibi~d 1. ffan o~ati~ wis~s to ~ib~e gambling ~nds Minn~ S~, s~ ~9.12, subdivision ~(b)~), to a unit of government, the organization and unit of government must complete this form. · 2. Approval of the Gambling Control Board is n~t required. ~. The form must be ke~t on file by the licensed organi- z~tion. 4, Attach a copy of this form to your Schedule C report for the month in which the funds are spent. prohibits "a contribution to a statutor~ or home rule or charter city, county, or town by a licensed organization with the knowledge that the governmental unit intends.to use the contribution for a pension or retirement f~nd." Minnesota Rutes, part 7861.0120, subpart 5D(10), prohibits "any contribulion or expenditure to th~ extent that it results in any net monetary gain or other pecuniary benefit to the organization making the contribution or expenditure." Organization Information O~g,~nization , Phone Number License Number ~ POST 5113 (952~ 472-1621 MN A. OO~!S9 A~lress City State ..': .Zip ' COMMERCE BLVD MOUND MN ^m°unt °f lawful purp°se c°ntributJ°n t° the unlt'°f g°vernment: 1 $1'000'00 We are aware of the res~i~ons contejged in Mim~eso~a~tatutes, section 349.12, subdivision 25(b)(6); and WILLIAM ANDERSON Pnnt ~,,T,,~ ' Date i Government Information N4m~ of (~...mm; CrTY OF MOUND Photo. Number (952) 472-601)0 ~;~mss City Stme Zip 6341 MA~VOOD RI) MOUND MN 55364 Ci-m,~, type of gove,~,,,,~a~ I~ City ~ County ~'-1 Township I-'-] ~chool Dbtrlct No. _ r'~. state of Minnesot~ De;artmen~ of , Division of ~ .United Stste~,.De~rtmant of , Oiviaion of [] Other Oovemment Entity. Am°unt °f lawful purp°se centdbuti°n m~ived: i*'$ 1"000'00 We are awa, e oflhe restdc~ns contained in Mir~esofa Statutes, ~-~ion 349.12, subdivision 25(b)(6); and M~nnesota Rules, part 7861;0120, sul?part 5D(10). oiia,-;.~m -~ s~,, ',t Agent .*,., .... ' - 1677- BRIGGS M o RGAN 2200 FI1LST NATIONAL BANK BUILDIN 332 MINNESOTA STREE SAllNT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 TELEPHONE (651) 223-6600 FACSIMILE (651) 223-6450 PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION February21,2002 W~TER'S DIRECT DIAL (651) 223-6620 WRITER'S E-MAIL mippel~bfiggs.com VIA E-MAIL Kandis Hanson City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364-1627 Re: City of Mound, Minnesota Dear Kandis: As a follow-up to my February 14, 2002 letter concerning the issuance of general obligation bonds for the fire hall facility, I received an email from Jim Prosser of Ehlers & Associates indicating that the timeframe contained in my February 14, 2002 letter is the worse case scenario. Because the City will be selling improvement bonds and, therefore, Ehlers will be preparing an Official Statement, the City will be in a position to sell the fire hall bonds within two weeks after the referendum is approved, if necessary. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Mary L. Ippel MLI/tfy cc: Jim Prosser (via e-mail) 1380205vl MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE · IDS CENTER · WWW.BRIGGS.COM To: Mayor and City Council City Administrator From: Danny Barth, Fire Chief Dennis Feller, Finance Director John Hennen, Assistant to the City Administrator Date: December 11, 2001 Re: December 17, 2001 City Council meeting Agenda Item. Consideration of an Architectural Services Agreement with Tushie Montgomery & Associates for construction of Fire Station No. 4 Lakeville has been the second fastest growing Minnesota City for more than a decade. Fire and emergency response calls tend to correlate with increases in population. - 1679- Lakeville currently has three fire stations, which were constructed during the past two decades as shown below: Year Year Station No. Address Constructed Remodeled 1 20190 Holyoke Ave 1980 1995 2 16720 Dodd Blvd. 1976 1994 3 10775 - 175th St. W. 1987 It is our opinion that steady residential grOwth will continue during the next decade due to Lakeville's quality of life. The City Council approved amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and adopted a new zoning map at the July 17, 2000 meeting. The areas of future growth will occur within the MUSA expansion areas as shown on attached Exhibit A. In addition to increased residential growth, Lakeville is perceived as a community that possesses great economic opportunities and potential. Given the underlying diversification of the community, employment base and prime location, the future economic outlook is very favorable. As such, commercial and industrial development has grown significantly in recent years. Year Valuation of Commercial/ Industrial Development 1996 $ 12,497,044 1997 16,814,292 1998 14,614,074 1999 14,366,000 2000 31,470,909 2001 41,810,865 The most significant commercial development involves the recent undertaking by the Avalon Group to develop TimberCrest. The commercial center is anchored by an 182,000-square-foot Super Target including a full-sized upscale Archer Farms Market grocery store. The project will provide a total of 540,000- square-feet of retail, office and restaurants when fully developed. The TimberCrest project, located at 185th Street and 1-35, is within two miles of the proposed Fire Station #4. The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) has for many years, anticipated the need for the construction of Fire Station #4. The construction of a fourth fire station will enable the City to meet the fire safety needs of its growing community. 2 - 1680- Fire and emergency response times are critical for life safety and preservation of property. In recent years, new developments have been constructed further away from the existing fire stations and available firefighters. Construction of a fourth station at a strategic location in the proximity of recent or proposed future developments will improve response times. L0Cafioh The City Council has for many years anticipated the need for a fourth fire station. As such, adequate land was purchased for a fourth station adjacent to the Water Treatment Facility located at 185th Street and Ipava Avenue. The strategic location is a geometric center of the City with convenient access to major highways including County Road 60 (185th Street), Dodd Boulevard and Ipava Avenue as shown in exhibit B. The proposed location for Fire Station No. 4 also provides quick access to five schools including Lakeville Senior High School, Century Junior High, Eastview, Cherryview and Christina Huddleson. The City Council has also anticipated the eventual construction of fire station in the proximity of County Road 70 and the 1-35 interchange. As such, a City owned parcel in the Fairfield Business Campus immediately North of the McStop water tower has been designated as the eventual site of a future fire station. Staffing The Fire Department currently has authorization to retain a staff of 70 volunteer firefighters. Lakeville currently has the eighth largest volunteer firefighting department in the State of Minnesota. The proposed 2003 budget provides adequate appropriations to recruit, equip and train additional personnel for the Fire Department in anticipation of completion of Fire Station No. 4. The Fire Department will endeavor to assign the volunteer firefighters to a station within two miles of their residence. Each station will have an adequate balance of veterans and rookie personnel. Equipment The 2003 Equipment Fund budget includes appropriations for the purchase of a 1250 GPM pumper rescue fire truck to replace Unit 8390, a 1989 custom van. In addition, a grass rig is also proposed to be purchased in 2003. Both equipment acquisitions will be financed with Certificates of Indebtedness and be repaid with ad valorem tax levies over a five,year period. 3 -1681 - Upon completion of the fourth fire station, fire fighting equipment will be re- deployed to maximize the fire suppression effectiveness within the community. Unit # Make ~ ~partan Aerial 48184 1994 Peterbuilt 48192 2001 International 48193 1993 Chevy Pickup 4x4 48195 1980 Spartan 48282 1991 Peterbuilt 48294 1986 GMC 1Ton 48285 1981 Amer LaFrance 48386 2000 Peterbuilt 48390 1989 Chevy Custom 48391 1991 International 2003 Proposed Budget 2003 Proposed Budget Proposed Use Location 7'Y'Tele-Squrt/1750 GPM ~ 1500 GPM Pumper FS #1 Heavy Rescue FS #1 Grass Rig FS #1 Tanker FS #1 1250 GPM Pumper FS #2 Grass Rig FS #2 2000 GPM Pumper/Rescue FS #2 1500 GPM Pumper FS #3 4x4 Rescue/Mini Pumper FS #3 Heavy Rescue FS #3 1250 GPM Rescue Pumper FS #4 Grass Rig FS #4 Fire Station Design A Fire Department committee has reviewed and recommends approval of a preliminary design for Fire Station No. 4. The committee is comprised of the following: Danny Barth, Chief Doug Nelson Jim Kill, Assistant Chief Brian Kluck Brian Carstensen, District Chief Greg Stommes Jim Munson John Podominick Phil Leibfried The design addresses the functional characteristics of a contemporary fire station with traditional architectural design features. The proposed station will be approximately 12,700-square-feet in size and provide adequate space for four firefighting apparatus vehicles, ALF ambulance quarters, offices and physical fitness training facilities. Architectural Design Features Tushie Montgomery Architects (TMA) has submitted copies of the proposed site plan, floor plan and elevations (see Exhibit C). The features are compatible to those of the adjacent Water Treatment Facility. 4 - 1 682- ALF Ambulance The ALF Ambulance crew currently is housed at the Water Treatment Facility. At such time as Fire Station No. 4 is completed, the ALF quarters will be relocated to Fire Station #4. The ALF Ambulance staff has participated in preparation of the proposed plans and housing facilities for the ambulance crews and submitted the attached Exhibit D expressing their support of the project. The ALF mass casualty incident trailer and the 1938 antique fire truck will be stored at the Water Treatment Facility bays currently occupied by ALF Ambulance emergency vehicles. Police Patrol Satellite Office As with Fire Stations No. 2 and 3, Fire Station No. 4 will serve as a satellite office for police patrol officers. In other words, police patrol officers can utilize office space at remote fire station locations for reporting purposes thereby reducing travel time to and from headquarters for report preparation purposes. The offices at all fire stations include adequate workstations and computers. Physical fitness room The station will also provide approximately 1,600-square-feet for a physical fitness exercise room. Equipment currently housed at the police department will be moved to this location. Relocating the physical fitness equipment to Fire Station No. 4 will enable approximately 450-square-feet at the Police Department to be utilized for other purposes such as a briefing room. The physical fitness room will be utilized by approximately 150 personnel, including 85 firefighters, 45 police officers and 15 police reservists. At such point in the future, when a community center becomes available, the fitness area can be converted into a classroom capable of seating 74 persons. Architectural Services As per direction of the City Council from the November 26, 2001 worksession, enclosed is an Architectural Services Agreement with Tushie Montgomery Architects (TMA) for the construction of Fire Station No. 4 (see Exhibit E). Based in part from the City's construction experience with Liquor Store No. 4, City Hall and the Arts Center, staff is recommending the fire station project be designed and constructed on a general contractor basis rather than utilizing construction management. The architect would be responsible for all aspects of the design, preparation of plans and specifications, bid analysis and inspection services related to the construction project. Of the six engineering and mechanical firms proposed by the architect, the Fire Department Building Committee selected two for interviews. The Committee recommends the firm of Gausman and Moore be selected as the electrical and mechanical engineers for the project. LS Engineering is the recommended 5 - 1683- structural engineer; Schoell and Madson, Inc. will be the civil engineer. The electrical, mechanical, structural and civil engineer services are provided for in the Architectural Agreement. TMA is proposing a fee based on 9% of the construction contract costs. In addition, the architect will receive payment for reimbursable expenses such as mileage, plan reproductions, overtime, professional liability insurance and other similar direct project related expenses. The professional service expenses proposed by TMA are very similar to the architectural and construction management costs related to the City Hall, Liquor Store No. 4 and Area Arts Center project. City Hall I Liquor Store #4 [ Art Center % of % of % of Total Contract Total Contract Total Contract Architect (base only) 84,615 8.0% 70,969 6.7% 118,000 8.3% Architect reimbursables 8,693 0.8% 6,948 0.4% 4,534 0.3% CM 33,412 3.2% 58,800 5.6% 38,514 2.7% General conditions 97,884 9.3% 72,549 6.9% 80,482 5.7% Contract 1,053,805 1,053,015 1,419,376 Total 1,277,624 1,589,815 3,226,684 The general conditions expenses incurred under the construction management basis (i.e. dumpsters, project office, cleanup, temporary enclosures, portable toilets, project vehicles, equipment rentals, etc.) will be the responsibility of the · general contractor. Project Costs Staff is recommending Fire Station No. 4 to be constructed utilizing general contractor method. Based on a plan provided by the architect, Kraus-Anderson estimates the project contract costs, including architectural services will to be approximately $2.2 million. ~//~Financing The Fire Station No. 4 project was originally intended to be financed from the Building Fund with cash on hand transfers from the Liquor Fund. The 2001 Legislature, however, entertained "Wine in Grocery" legislation that would have authorized grocery stores to sell wine. Although the bill did not pass in the last session, the proposed legislation will be reconsidered during the coming year. If the legislation were to pass, the Liquor Fund would experience a significant loss of income ($2-300,000 per year). The degradation of the Liquor Fund net 6 - 1684- income would therefore seriously jeopardize the cash on hand financing for construction of Fire Station No. 4. As discussed at the September City Council work session, the Lakeville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would issue Lease Revenue Bonds to finance the construction and issuance costs associated with the fire station project; liquor store profits would be pledged to repayment of the debt. If for whatever reason, liquor net revenues are not adequate and sufficient for debt repayment, the City can levy property taxes; the property tax levy would not be subject to levy limits. Springsted Inc. has provided a debt service schedule for a Lease Revenue Bond issue. The proceeds from the bonds would be appropriated as follows: Fire Station Project Costs Less: Liquor Fund cash-on-hand Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF) Capitalized Interest Costs of Issurance Underwriters discount (1.35%) Total bond issue $2,200,000 215,115 80,980 53,550 30,355 $ 2,180,000 At this point in time, the interest rate environment is very favorable. The bonds would bear an interest rate of approximately 3.5% - 5.6% over the 15-year term of the bonds. The bonds would be callable in 10 years. The average annual debt service payment would be approximately $212,000; the available liquor fund net worth and capital prior to transfers to other funds is estimated to be $400,000 in 2002. The net worth and capital to debt service payments is therefore a two to one ratio, which is adequate and sufficient. The HRA Lease Revenue Bonds provide a no-risk solution to financing the fire station construction project. The bonds would be issued after award of the construction contract. The HRA would own the land and facility for the term of the debt. When the last bond payment is made, the property would revert to the City of Lakeville. 7 - 1685- To: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Executive Director From: Dennis Feller, Finance Director Date: February 13, 2002 iRe: Fire Station #4 Financing As discussed at the September City Council work session, the Lakeville Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would issue Lease Revenue Bonds to finance the construction and issuance costs associated with the fire station project; liquor store profits would be pledged to repayment of the debt. If for whatever reason, liquor net revenues are not adequate and sufficient for debt repayment, the City can levy property taxes; the property tax levy would not be subject to levy limits. The City Council, at its December 17, 2001 meeting, approved an Architectural Services Agreement with Tushie-Montgomery and Associates, Inc. for the construction of Fire Station #4. The approval was based on the staff report, which delineated the various issues relating to construction and financing of Fire Station #4. The staff is recommending that the Fire Station #4 financing be modified as follows: The Liquor Fund 2002 contribution ($400,000) originally designated for Fire Station #4 is proposed to be re-appropriated to the Public Works Maintenance Facility architectural design. b) Finance the 1250 GPM pumper rescue fire truck ($280,000) with a twenty year lease rather than with Certificates of Indebtedness which are limited to five years. Fire trucks typically have a useful life that equals or exceeds twenty years. c) Term of the lease be extended from 15 years to a proposed 20 year maturity schedule. The extended maturity minimizes the annual debt payments. The liquor store profits would continue to be pledged to the payments as originally proposed. Springsted Inc. has provided a debt service schedule for a Lease Revenue Bond issue. The proceeds from the bonds would be appropriated as follows: - 1686- Fire Station Project Costs Fire Track Less: Liquor Fund cash-on-hand Debt Service Reserve Fund (DSRF) Capitalized Interest Costs of Issurance Underwriters discount (1.35%) Total bond issue Original Proposed Financing Financing $2,200,000 $2,200,000 280,000 215,115 236,620 80,980 107,377 53,550 59,550 30,355 46,453 $ 2,180,000 $ 2,930,000 At this point in time, the interest rate environment is very favorable. The bonds would bear an interest rate of approximately 2.35%-5.30% over the 20-year term of the bonds. The bonds would be callable in 10 years. The average annual debt service payment requirements would be approximately $223,162. The last tax levy for the Fire Station #3 bonds ($78,887) is in 2003. The City Council always has the option to continue a tax levy ($78,887) in 2004 and future years for the fire station #4 project to reduce the liquor fund contribution. As such the net annual liquor fund contribution would be $144,275. Average Annual Debt Service Payments Liquor contribution Tax levy Net average annual debt service Annu~ $ 144,275 78,887 $ 223,162 If for whatever reason, (such as the Legislatures approval of Wine in Grocery Stores) liquor net revenues are not adequate and sufficient for debt repayment, the City can levy property taxes; the property tax levy would not be subject to levy limits. If the entire debt service were financed from taxes rather than liquor funds, the City tax levy would increase approximately 1.3%. The City Council will transfer the fire station #4 property title to the HRA. The HRA would own the land and facility for the term of the debt. When the last bond payment is made, the property would revert to the City of Lakeville. The HRA Lease Revenue Bonds provide a low-risk solution to financing the fire station construction project. Since these are Lease Revenue bonds, it is anticipated that Moody's Investor Service will rate the bond issue as an A2. The bids for sale of the bonds would be opened on April 1 and awarded that same day. The following is a proposed project schedule. 2 - 1687- City Council approval of resolution approving Plans and Specifications and set bid date HRA approval of resolution calling for the sale of $2.93 Million Facility Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2002A Bid Opening City Council approval of resolution awarding Construction contract for Fire Station No. 4 City Council approval of Lease Agreement HRA approval of resolution awarding sale of $2.93 million Facility Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2002A Construction commences Completion of Fire Station No. 4 Tues. February 19, 2002 Tues. February 19, 2002 Fri. March 8, 2002 Mon. March 18, 2002 Mon. April 1, 2002 Mon. April 1, 2002 April 8, 2002 January 17, 2003 RECOMMENDATION Lakeville Housing and Redevelopment Authority approval of a Resolution Calling for the Sale of $2,930,000 Lease Revenue Bonds Series 2002A (Fire Station Project). 3 - 1688- Schedule of Events In order to accomplish completion of construction of Fire Station No. 4 by the first quarter of 2003, the project is anticipated to proceed as follows: City Council approval of Architectural Agreement and authorizing preparation of Plans and Specifications for Fire Station No. 4 December 17, 2001 City Council approval of resolution approving Plans and Specifications and authorizing taking of bids January, 2002 Bid opening February, 2002 City Council approval of resolution awarding construction contract for Fire Station No. 4 March Construction commences April HRA approval of resolution authorizing the sale of bonds April City Council approval of Lease Agreement May HRA approval of resolution awarding sale of Lease Revenue Bonds May RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending City Council approval of an Architectural Services Agreement with Tushie Montgomery Architects for the construction of Fire Station No. 4. g:\firekmerno_council 12 17 01 incl_graphs.doc 8 -1689- BRIAN T, GROGAN (612) 347-0340 E-Mail: g roganB(~ moss- bam e tr. corn ww~.m unicipalcomm unication slaw, corn TO: From: Date: Communications Law Update Moss & Barnett Clients and interested Parties Brian T. Grogan, Esq. February 13, 2002 1. TRANSFERS OF CONTROL/OWNERSHIP TO DOMINATE 2002 In the next several weeks over 5,000 franchising authorities across the country will be receiving Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") Form 394 requesting transfer, or a change in the control, of the cable television operator serving their community. FCC Form 394 will include numerous attachments that will provide information regarding the proposed transferee's legal, technical and financial qualificalJons. The transaction between AT&T Broadband and Comcast will likely require approval from most AT&T and Comcast franchising authorities. Other system swaps, trades and sales are also due to seek regulatory approval. The rules goveming a transfer review are found in federal law at 47 U.S.C. § 537 and FCC regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 76.502. Franchising authorities must also carefully consider applicable state law and relevant provisions of the local franchise. Particular attention should be paid to the local franchise as it may contain additional transfer obligations and deadlines and may trigger rights for the franchising authority in the event of a change of ownership. Under federal law, a franchising authority has 120 days from the date of submission of the completed FCC Form 394 to complete its review. The franchising authority must notify the cable operator within thirty (30) days of the filing of FCC Form 394 if it questions the accuracy of the Form 394 information. If the franchising authority fails to act upon such transfer request within 120 days, such request is deemed granted unless the franchising authority and the requeslJng party otherwise agree to an extension of time. A recent case, Charter Communications, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (N.D. Cal. 2001) provides an excellent review of the applicable federal timeframes in a transfer proceeding. (See www. munidpalcommunicationslaw, com for additional information regarding this derision). Legal Qualifications When reviewing a proposed transfer of control, franchising authorities should document the ownership structure of the proposed transferee. Is the transferee a corporation or parlnership? Who are the principals? In addition, inquiries should be made into the following items: 1) Current cable franchises. 2) Cdminal or civil proceedings involving the transferee. 484979/1 - 1690 - 3) Revocations, suspensions, non-renewals of any business license of the transferee. 4) Other cable systems sold by the transferee or any pending cable franchise applications. 5) Cable franchise violations. Technical Qualifications With respect to the technical qualificalJons of the transferee, it is essential to identify any changes it may seek in the operation of the cable system or the franchise document. Inquiries should be made into the following items: 1) Changes to the system. Is the transferee proposing, or will the transferee undertake, any changes in the system including, but not limited to, programming, PEG access support, equipment, institutional network services, customer service, reporting, etc.? 2) Changes in the operation of the system. Is the transferee proposing or will the transferee undertake any changes in the operation of the system, including, but not limited to, billing practices, personnel, technical oversight, call center consolidation, etc.? 3) Changes to the franchise. Is the transferee requesting or will the transferee request any changes to the franchise document?. In other words, will the transferee be seeking relief from any obligations which may require capital contributions or other burdensome requirements contained within the franchise. Is the proposed transferee willing to accept all of the franchise obligalJons or will it seek to challenge the enforceability of certain obligations? Financial Qualifications A review of the financial qualifications of the proposed transferee is a critical element in the transfer review process. The financial capability of the transferee will impact directly on the quality of service and the ability of the transferee to live up to its commitments under the franchise. The franchising authority should be provided with the documentation necessary to enable it to evaluate the transferee's financial qualifications. At a minimum, the franchising authority should receive the following information: 1) Copy of a letter of intent and/or purchase agreement. These documents will assist the franchising authority in identifyin9 the transferee and the content of the agreement to transfer the cable system. 2) Corporate or business information documents, such as articles of incorporation, partnership and limited partnership agreements as well as management agreements. 3) Financing documents, such as a bank loan agreement or commitment letteq for limited partnerships, a proposed prospectus or offering circular, terms, and condil~ons of a limited partnership agreement; for a publication corporation, registration statements S-1 and all other forms filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. 4) Current and historical financial statements of the transferee, including growth and revenue projections, income statements, sources and uses of funds, anticipated capital expenditures, 484979/1 -1691 - justifications, depreciation schedules, charges for services, expenditures, other system new- build commitments, cash flow analysis, balance sheets, and proposed penetration rate. This financial information and other documentation will help the franchising authority assess the financial impact of the proposed transfer on the system and its subscribers. The following elements and assumptions are cdtical to the determination of whether the financial projections provided by the transferee are reasonable: 1) Profitability. There are several components to consider a) operating ratio, b) operating margin, c) operating expenses, and d) pre-tax profit margin. 2) Market Factors. Several factors should be addressed in the proforma finandal statements, including basic service penetration, pay-to-basic penetration, revenue per subscriber and household density. These projections should be reviewed carefully against past performance in the market. 3) Capital Expenditures. There are many components to the category of capital expenditures, including plant distribution costs, pre-operating expense, headend costs, converter costs, connection costs, building costs or leasehold improvements. The capital costs projected in the proforma financials for such categories should be scrutinized for the reasonableness of the assumptions compared to the general industry standards. 4) Debt-to. Equity Ratio. The debt-to-equity ratio is a significant measurement in the context of a transfer transaction. This measurement shows long term debt as a percentage of overall capitalization. A Iow or conservative debt-to-equity ratio suggests the capadty to borrow additional funds. A high debt-to-equity ratio suggests a highly leveraged entity vulnerable to slight shifts in revenue or costs. 5) Cash Flow. Debt Service. The proforma financials should include a cash flow or source of funds schedule indicating projected annual income or depredation which in turn would indicate projected cash flow, i.e., net income plus depredation. Each of the foregoing components should be examined and compared to industry standards to determine whether the projections demonstrate the proposed transfer and subsequent operation of the cable system is financially feasible. Conditions for Transfer Approval To the extent a franchising authority determines to approve a proposed transfer, careful consideration of the transfer resolution should be undertaken. Be particularly careful when utilizing a form resolution submitted as part of FCC Form 394. Often cable operators may include provisions within such a resolution which may result in a waiver of exisling franchise violalions resulting in a "dean slate" for the proposed transferee. In other words, there may presently exist a latent franchise violation such as failure to pay the proper franchise fee to the franchising authority. If a transfer resolution is executed with language indicating that the transferee assumes the franchise free and clear, the franchising authority may be prevented from thereafter pursuing the collection of past due franchise fees. Other common conditions for approval may include an acceptance agreement, guaranty, performance bond/letter of credit/security fund, and a certificate of insurance. Settlement of existing franchise obligations is also a possibility as well as resolution of franchise violations. 484979/1 - 1692 - Denial of Trangfer If a franchising authority chooses to deny the proposed transfer of control it may be based on a variety of reasons: 1) The transferee may lack the necessary legal, technical or finandal qualifications; 2) The transferee may not agree to comply with valid franchise obligations; or 3) The transferee may eliminate or reduce competition in the community in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 533. Moreover, in the event there is an existing franchise violation which has not yet been cured, a franchising authority may seek resolution of such a matter as part of a transfer proceeding. Moss & Barnett will be working on behalf of a number of franchising authorities to review the proposed transfer by and between AT&T Broadband and Comcast. Moss & Barnett will be conduclJng a review of the legal, technical and financial qualifications of proposed transferee and providing recommendations for consideration by franchising authorities. Issues spedfic to franchising authorities are being handled on a case by case basis. For additional information regarding this proceeding please feel free to contact Bdan Grogan at 612- 347-0340 or via em ail at gro~anb(~moss-barnett, com. ow dditional presentation papers and more detailed materials are available regarding transfers of nership at our new web site: www.municipalcommunicationslaw.com. Brian T. Grogan is a shareholder with the Minneapolis law firm of Moss & Barnett practicing in the areas of telecommunications and cable television law. Brian represents entities throughout the country on franchise renewals, transfers of ownership, competilJve franchising, telecommunications planning, right-of-way management, first amendment issues, tower siting, leasing and zoning, litigation and other related communication matters. He is a frequent presenter at state and national conferences regarding communications law and he is a member of the American Bar Association (Forum Committee on Communications Law), National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, International Municipal Lawyers Association (Contracts, Franchises and Technology Section), and is past chair of the Communications Law Section of the Minnesota State Bar Associa~on. If you would like to begin receiving this Communications Law Update via email or facsimile or if you have updated contact information, please notify: Terri Hammer, Moss & Barnett 4800 Wells Fargo Center, 90 South 7th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 Phone: (612) 347-0349; Fax: (612) 339-6686 E-mail: hamm ert~moss-bamett, corn The materials in this Communications Law Update have been complied from a variety of sources and address only a portion of the relevant issues within hundreds of pages of regulations and decisions. We have not addressed many important points that may apply to your situation. You consult with legal counsel before taking any action on matters covered by this Communications Law Update. 484979/1 - 1693- 05-21-2002 09:01AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4720620~ P.O1 4071SunsetD~e~ SOng Par~ MN 55384-0385 Phone- 952-471-7125 Fax- 952-471-9151 E-mall- Imcc~uswes~net - 1694- 03-21-2002 09:01AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4?20620 P.02 = 0 -- ~ ..'~ .. o~ ~ [ - 1695- 03-21-2002 09:02AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4?20620 P.03 -1696- TOTRL P,OS