Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2002-11-12
PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 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. PAGE 1. OPEN MEETING 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE o APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS SWEARING IN OF PATROL OFFICER ZACH PETZ *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: OCT 22, 2002 REGULAR MEETING OCT 24, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING OCT 28, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING OCT 28, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS *C. PAYMENT REQUESTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1. APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST #2 FROM BUFFALO BITUMINOUS FOR THE WESTEDGE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS o APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST #2 FROM DAVE PERKINS CONTRACTING, INC.FOR THE 2002 STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS o APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST #1 FROM SUNRAM'S FOR THE 2002 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT 4876-4881 4882 4883 4884 4885-4911 4912-4914 4915-4919 4920-4924 *D. *E. *F. ACTION ON REQUEST FOR PARKING ON BALSAM LANE APPROVE CANCELATION OF SPECIAL MEETING: NOV 21 APPROVE RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE MUNICPAL ELECTION AS PRESENTED, AS THE CANVASS OF THE VOTE OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2002, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION 4925-4927 4928 *G. *H. PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ACTION ON MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY, MOUND HRA AND MUELLER-LANSING PROPERTIES PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ACTION ON CASE #02-40: PAM WEATHERHEAD/DAN HILL 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE VARIANCE 4929-4934 4935-4972 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. ACTION ON ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA 4973-4977 APPROVE RESOLUTION RECEIVING AMENDED FEASABILITY REPORT AND SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR CSAH 15 PROPERTY ACQUISITION ASSESSMENT WELL PROJECT A. PRESENTATION/ACTION ON BILL FOR TEST WELL B. REPORT ON FINDINGS OF TEST WELL 4978 4979-5003 10. PRESENTATION OF BID RESULTS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR OLD POST OFFICE DEMOLITION 11. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS A. ACTION ON CASE # 02-38: TOM & TARA STOKES 5201 WATERBURY ROAD VARIANCE 12. DISCUSSION/ACTION ON ASSESSMENT POLICIES 13. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Correspondence: Mound Westonka Schools B. Update: Dreamwood lawsuit C. Correspondence: CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco D. Newsletter: Lake Minnetonka Association E. Report: Public Safety Building F. Correspondence: Metropolitan Council G. Report: Police Department - Oct 2002 H. Newsletter: Gillespie Center I. Acknowledgement: Charitable gambling proceeds J LMCC calendar for November K. Report: 2002 Spring and Fall Cleanup Days 14. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. agendas may be viewed at Cie Hall or at the City of Mound web site: um, w. citvofinound, com. 5004-5025 5026-5041 5042-5050 5051-5067 5068-5070 5071-5074 5075-5078 5079 5080-5102 5103 5104 5105-5107 5108 More current meeting COUNCIL BRIEFING November 12, 2002 Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Nov 11 - Closed for Veteran's Day Nov 12 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Nov 12 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Nov 14 & 15 -Police Chief interviews Nov 14 - 6:30-7:30 - Meet the Candidates for Police Chief Nov 18 - Tree Lighting Ceremony Nov 25 - 6:30 - CC special meeting Nov 26 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Nov 26 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Nov 28 & 29 - Closed for Thanksgiving Dec 2 - 7:00 - Special meeting for Truth in Taxation and other business Dec 9 - 7:00 - Continuation for Truth in Taxation and other business, if needed Dec 10 - 6:30 - HRA regular meeting Dec 10 - 7:30 - CC regular meeting Dec 24 & 25 - Closed p.m. of24~ and all day Dec 25, for Christmas Absences Dec 11-18 Dec 19-24 Kandis Hanson Kandis Hanson Surgery Telecommute part-time from home, as recovery allows #5.D. Parking on Balsam Lane I believe the Council took action on this sometime in the past couple of years, but we were unable to locate the related paperwork. The stance of the Department Heads hasn't changed, recommending denial. #5.E. Cancel Special Meeting The property owners affected by the relocation of County 15 have all received their notifications from Hennepin County. In lieu of the public meeting previously set, the County will hold a more subdued meeting opportunity for those people at which they will individually address their concerns. Once we know more about the status of the railroad, the timing of the road realignment, and the status of Mound Harbor Renaissance, the City will hold a public presentation and bring the community up to date on those and other projects, pending or underway. #5.G. Mueller/Lansing Agreement Some time back the City verbally agreed to provisions that would enable Mike Mueller, Sr and Phil Lansing to rebuild within the redevelopment district. They have been encouraged all along to reduce it to writing, which they now are ready to do. This is a three way agreement with the City, HRA and M/L. If it is approved without changes at the HRA meeting, it is suitable to approve among the consent items. If there are changes, it will need to be pulled and addressed independently. tt8. CSAH 15 Property Acquisitions Financing the downtown projects depends upon leveraging through bonded debt. Also, making the financing affordable for the City depends upon the benefiting property owners sharing in that cost to some degree, which needs to be determined. However, certain groundwork needs to be laid, including the adoption of the related resolution. There is more documentation that could not be available in time for the assembly of this packet, which will be provided at the meeting. #10. Old Post Office Demo Sin larly, paperwork regarding bid results could not be acquired in time for this agenda packet. prOvide the documents and lead the discussion at the meeting. Jotm C will Human Resources Liquor Store Manager applications close at noon on Nov 12. Many very qualified candidates, including those with extensive liquor store management experience, are applying. We will do interviews Nov 21 and 22. BTY: The Liquor Store is adding gift certificates to its mix of products and services available. Think of Mound Liquor when you must purchase a gift or are picking up stocking stuffers. Attach it to a ½ pint with a ribbon for a novel gift. Mike Wocken will become the new CSO, replacing Zach Petz, as Zach is sworn in as a licensed peace officer for the City of Mound. Mike lives at Big Lake and retired with a police background. He is a former canine officer. The Police Chief"Meet the Candidates" event is expected to draw a large number of community members. Emailed invitations have gone out to Chamber staff and member businesses and school district staff. Mailed notices have gone to City committee members. Department Heads and staff, Mound area senior citizens and community members city-wide have been notified through the Laker and other means. Refreshments will be served and your written comments are encouraged. They will be taken very seriously. Other Following the Truth in Taxation Hearing on Dec 2, there will be a one-hour presentation on the public safety building project, intended to bring all the stake holders up to date on the project. Included among those invited are police and fire staff and their families, retired firefighters and their spouses, police reservists, city staff and council. The presentation will be among the listed agenda items on the Dec 2 meeting agenda. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 22~ 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Rifler, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Phillip Mitchum, Bryan Helland, Marc Hope, Kristin & John Beise, Mary Jo Larson, Lois & Al Sage, Deb Grand, Randy & Gretchen Olson, Rick & Barb Roberts, R. Goodfellow, Ann Eberhart, Bart Roeglin Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVE AGENDA Councilmember Brown requested the addition of item 14N, information from the Planning Commission, and Hanus requested the addition of 10B, Post Office Lease. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve the consent agenda as presented. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes from the August 20, 2002 special meeting and September 24, 2002 regular meeting. B. Approve payment of the October 8, 2002 claims in the amount of $258,360.90. Approve payment of the October 22, 2002 claims in the amount of $217,543.14. C. Acknowledge that no bids were received for snow removal for parking lots in the Central Business District. D. Approve contract with Widmer, Inc., per quote dated 9/19/02. E. Approve payment request #1 to Dave Perkins Contracting in the amount of $154,923.51 for the 2002 storm sewer improvement project. F. Approve final payment request to S.M. Hentges for $5,054.33 for the Westedge Boulevard Watermain Improvements. 1 -4876- Mound City Council Minutes - October 22, 2002 G. Approve setting bid opening for old post office demolition for November 6, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. H. Approve setting public hearing to amend business subsidy criteria for November 12, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. 5. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. None were offered. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Central Business District Maintenance Assessment Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and asked for public comment. No comments were offered and the public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Osmek and Meyer. The following voted in the negative: None. Mayor Meisel abstained from voting because she owns property within the CBD. RESOLUTION NO. 02-'100: RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2002 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT ROLL TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 6% INTEREST. LEVY #15603. B. Delinquent Water & Sewer Bill Assessments Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m., and asked for public comment. comments were offered and the public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. No MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-'101: RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER ASSESSMENT ROLL TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 6% INTEREST. LEVY #'15604. C. Hazardous Tree Removal Assessment Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and asked for public comment. No comments were offered and the public hearing was closed at 7:46 p.m. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-'102: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR HAZARDOUS TREE REMOVAL, TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 6% INTEREST. 2 -4877- Mound City Council Minutes - October 22, 2002 D. Assessment for Wested.qe Boulevard Improvement Project City Engineer John Cameron gave the history of this project, stating that the total project costs that the preliminary assessment roll was figured on, was $291.905. The total cost was spread, having the City share 15%, Rottlund Homes 75%, and Mound Properties 10%. Since the preliminary roll was prepared, additional costs have been incurred that raise the project cost to $299,505, and the project is not yet completed. Cameron feels the remainder of the project will be pretty close to preliminary estimates. It is noted that written objections for this assessment have been received from R.H. Development, Phil Mitchum & Colleen Hentges, Richard Roberts, Alfred & Lois Sage, Mary Jo Larson, and Bart Roeglin. A written objection was also received from Randy & Gretchen Olson and was withdrawn at this meeting. Cameron stated that the City's assessment policy of 1976 bases street assessments on front footage, but this preliminary assessment is based on a per/unit basis because the parcels are of similar size and use. There are 6 % parcels on Westedge being assessed. The % parcel comes from the property that is on the corner of Lynwood and Westedge because this property has a driveway off of Lynwood rather than Westedge. City Attorney Dean stated that the manner of front footage assessment is used more in commercial settings in the Metro area. The per unit assessment used in this preliminary roll is an acceptable and widely used method. Mayor Meisel opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Brian Helland, 6261 Ladyslipper Circle, questioned his assessment because he has zero footage on Westedge and is in the Langdon Bay Development. It was explained to him that the Westedge Boulevard improvement was part of the Langdon Bay Development approval and agreed to by the developer. Lois Sage, 6351 Lynwood Blvd., respectfully disagreed with the city engineer, stating that she's not against paying an assessment but feels that it should be a fair one - that $2200 is not fair for 30' of property. Bart Roeglin, 2260 Westedge Boulevard, presented a "Refusal for Cause Without Dishonor" to the Council and read it aloud. Al Sage, 6351 Lynwood Blvd., stated that he previously asked Cameron how they were being assessed and was told the parcels were being assessed equally except his because he doesn't have a driveway on Westedge. Philip Mitchum, 2232 Westedge, questioned the council as to why he's being asked to pay for Rottlund's streets and the Minnetrista portion of Westedge. The project share percentages were again reiterated. There was also discussion regarding the additional traffic and speed that an improved street will encourage. 3 -4878- Mound City Council Minutes - October 22, 2002 Mary Jo Larsen, 2246 Westedge Blvd., stated she is a single income household and can't afford this assessment. She doesn't feel that it adds any value to her property. Barb Roberts, 2274 Westedge Blvd., stated that the only reason to improve the street was because of the new housing development. She feels her property value is affected negatively, not positively. Richard Roberts, 2774 Westedge Blvd., informed the Council that since the watermain has been improved his water pressure is less than before and he's had rusty water. Randy Olson, 6253 Ladyslipper Circle, stated he doesn't feel it fair to put the burden on six property owners. After discussion, it was the decision of the Council to have Cameron refigure the assessment for the abutters of Westedge, using the frontage formula. Osmek requested the new calculations, but that no property's assessment can go over what was presented on the preliminary roll. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adjourn the Westedge Assessment Hearing until Monday, October 28, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-103: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR WESTEDGE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mayor Meisel called a recess at 9:23 p.m., and the meeting reconvened at 9:37 p.m. 7. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY PROJECT Kandis Hanson provided the Council with an update on the Public Safety Facility Project. 8. REQUEST FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY OF RELEASE OF TAX-FORFEIT PARCEl Sarah Smith reviewed the request for a parcel at Cardigan Lane and Wilshire Blvd. Discussion followed regarding why this request wasn't reviewed by the Parks Commission and Smith informed the Council that the Parks Director had signed off on the request, stating that he didn't think it applicable to the Parks Commission. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, and Meisel. The following voted against: Osmek and Meyer. Motion carried. 4 -4879- Mound City Council Minutes - October 22, 2002 RESOLUTION NO. 02-104: RESOLUTION APPROVING RELEASE OF HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX-FORFEIT PARCEL LOCATED AT INTERSECTION OF WILSHIRE BOULEVARD AND CARDIGAN LANE AND AUTHORIZING SALE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. 9. REQUEST FOR REDUCTION ON LETTER OF CREDIT FROM R.H. DEVELOPMENT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the reduction on the letter of credit from R.H. Development to the new amount of $246,986.76. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Case #02-27/02-37: Marshall & Stacy Mittelstaedt- Waiver of PlattinqNariances. Sarah Smith reviewed the application to create a new "buildable" parcel which would front Dove Lane., along with an additional variance to recognize the existing house size of 757 sq. ft. on Lot 7, which is less than the 840 minimum. 'Hanus made a statement of fact that the former lot has a substandard size home, but there is ample space on the new lot to provide a home that meets the 840 sq. ft. and 30% hardcover requirements. Meyer feels that an individual is being given special treatment in this case and strongly disagrees with this and will vote against it. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adopt the following resolution. The following voted in favor: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-105: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REQUEST FROM MARSHALL AND STACIE MITTELSTAEDT FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING AND VARIANCE(S) APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS 7,8,9,16 AND 17, BLOCK 10, WOODLAND POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. P& Z CASE #02-28 AND #02-37. PID #13-117-24-12-0178. 10B. POST OFFICE LEASE EXTENSION Hanus stated that he disagrees with extending the post office lease until December 15, 2002. A letter to the USPS from the City Manager dated October 15, 2002, states that they can occupy the site until December 15, past the expiration date of September 30, at the same lease rate. He feels that this rate should be higher to put some pressure on the USPS to vacate the premises. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Meyer to extend the post office lease agreement until December 15, 2002, as presented. The following voted in favor: Brown, Meisel, Osmek and Meyer. The following voted against: Hanus. Motion carried. 11. ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ON ASSESSMENT POLICIES John Cameron presented a draft of the proposed assessment policy and a suggested 2003 project area for consideration at the November 12, 2002 Council meeting. 5 -4880- Mound City Council Minutes - October 22, 2002 No action was taken on this item and it will be revisited on November 12, 2002. 12. SET SPECIAL MEETINGS There were three dates specified as future special Council meetings. Two are needed for budget workshops and one is needed for a development update with Hennepin County on CSAH 15. These special meeting dates are: November 7, November 21 and November 25, 2002. The budget meetings will begin at 6:30 and the Development Update at 7:00 p.m. More details of which meetings will be held when, will be forthcoming. 13. SRA REPORT - COUNCILMEMBER HANUS Hanus reported that the previous pre-buy program offered by Minnegasco was discovered to have some questionably bidding processes. Several groups got involved in the mediation, one of them being SRA. They settled for $1 million credit to to back to the people of this program. This was an update, with no action needed. '14. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Correspondence: Mound Westonka Schools B. Redevelopment Project Team update C. Report: Finance Department through September, 2002 D. Correspondence: LMCD E. Update: Deamwood lawsuit F. Report: Mound Police Department- September, 2002 G. Update: Relocation of lift station by Met Council H. Report: HRA insurance premium for 2002 I. Notice: CenterPoint Energy/Minnegasco J. Newsletter- Gillespie Center K. Award: Finance Director Gino Businaro L. Report: CDBG Project Status report M. FYI: Notice to vacate US Postal Service N. Planning Commission - Brown stated that the Planning Commission would like to have the nuisance ordinance looked at where PODS are concerned, among other things. It was suggested that after the first of the year the Planning Commission and Council have a joint meeting to discuss amendments to the nuisance ordinance. '15. ADJOURN MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Rifler, City Clerk 6 Mayor Pat Meisel -4881- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 24, 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Thursday, October 24, 2002, at 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Pete Meyer. Others Present: City Manager Kandis Hanson and Finance Director Gino Businaro. 1. OPEN MEETING Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. 2. 2003 BUDGET WORKSHOP The meeting consisted of a dialog of questions and answers between Councilmembers and Staff regarding budget line items and staffing needs. 3. ADJOURN MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: City Manager Kandis Hanson Mayor Pat Meisel -4882- MOUND CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Monday, October 28, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, City Engineer John Cameron, Danene Provencher, Lois & Al Sage, Mary Ann Sells, Phill Mitchum, Colleen Hentges, Rick Roberts 1. OPEN MEETING Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.. 2. ADJOURNED ASSESSMENT HEARING ON WESTEDGE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Mayor Meisel reconvened the hearing adjourned from October 22nd. John Dean gave the background and status of the proceedings. He stated that at the October 22na hearing, the council took two actions; 1) adopting a resolution approving the assessments for the Langdon Bay Subdivision, and 2) directed the City Engineer to provide further information relative to the formulas for assessment purposes, and the comparison of applying both methods (the policy adopted in 1976 and the per unit policy) Councilmember Brown arrived at 7:06 p.m. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution (which uses the policy adopted in 1976, or the per unit assessment, whichever is less), Meyer stated that he doesn't approve of using two different assessment policies. The following voted in favor of the motion: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Osmek. The following voted against: Meyer. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 02-106: RESOLUTION ADOPTING ASSESSMENT FOR WESTEDGE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT 3. ADJOURN MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adJourn at 7:20 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Rifler, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -4883- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Monday, October 28, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of City Hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, City Engineer John Cameron, Danene Provencher 1. OPEN MEETING Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. PROPOSED TEMPORARY LEASE FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to authorize the City Manager to sign the temporary lease for the Fire Department as presented, contingent upon the Fire Chief's review. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. REDUCTION OF LETTER OF CREDIT FROM R.H. DEVELOPMENT City Engineer John Cameron requested the Council to approve reducing the original $217,771.00 letter of credit of R.H. Development to $165,287. This reduction is the result of some of the Westedge Assessment money being received by the City. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to reduce the Letter of Credit No. 21052 dated September 20, 2001, from $217.771 to $165.287. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. ADJOURN MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 7:36 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -4884- NOVEMBER 12, 2002 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 103002SUE $692.80 OCT 102302SU E $1,358.15 OCT 101902SU E $204.18 OCT 110602SU E $155,938.95NOV 111202SU E $535,122.20NOV TOTAL $693,316.28 -4885- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/06/02 3:36 PM Page 1 Current Period: November 2002 Batch Name 110602SUE User Dollar Amt $155,938.95 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $155,938.95 $0.00 In Balance Refer 110602 LUEDKE, JULIE M. Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $600.00 Invoice 110402 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $600.00 Refer 110602 NELSON, DOUGLAS SAM Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $415.44 Invoice 110502 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 ...... ~. ~ . Total $415.44 Reier 111202 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA PAYMENT REQUEST #1 $154,923.51 Invoice 101602 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $154,923.51 Fund Summary 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND $1,015.44 602 SEWER FUND $154,923.51 $155,938.95 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $155,938.95 $155,938.95 -4886- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/06/02 2:34. PM Pacje 1 Current Period: October 2002 Batch Name 101902SUE Payment Computer DollarAmt $204.18 Posted Refer 101902 MOUND POST OFFICE Ck# 008526 10/18/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $102.09 Invoice 101902 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage UTILITY BILLING'POSTAGE $102.09 Invoice 101902 Transaction Date 10/18/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $204 18 Fund Summary BATCH Total $204.18 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 601 WATER FUND $102.09 602 SEWER FUND $102.09 $204.18 Pre-Written Check $204.18 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $204.18 -4887- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/06/02 2:35 PM Pa ge t Current Period: October 2002 Batch Name 102302SUE Payment Computer Dollar Amt $1,358.15 Posted Refer 102302 PROTECTION ONE Ck#008699 10/29/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-16-02 THRU 01-15-03 FIRE MONITORING $47.60 invoice 100602 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-16-02 THRU 01-15-03 FIRE MONITORING $47.60 invoice 100602 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-16-02 THRU 01-15-03 FIRE MONITORING $47.60 Invoice 100602 Transaction Date 10/21/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $142.80 Refer 102302 HARRELL, LEONARD Ck# 008695 10129/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow REFUND GOLF HARRELL, PETER $34.00 invoice 102302 Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow REFUND GOLF HARRELL, LEONARD $34.00 Invoice 102302 Transaction Date 10/23/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $68.00 Refer i02302 HOFF, KATIE Ok# 008696 1~/29/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow REFUND GOLF OUTING $34.00 Invoice 102302 Transaction Date 10/23/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $34.00 Refer 102302 RITTER, BONNIE Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow REFUND GOLF OUTING $45.75 Invoice 102302 Transaction Date 10/23/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Cash Payment E 101-42110-210 Operating Supplies REPLENISH PETTY CASH $118.28 Invoice 102502 PO 17517 Transaction Date 10/29/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $118.28 Cash Payment E 609-49750-322 Postage MAILING $949.32 Invoice 102302 Transaction Date 10/29/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 .......................... Total $949.32 -4888- CITY OF MOUND Payments 1/06/02 2:3,5 PM Page 2 Current Period: October 2002 Fund Summary BATCH Total $1,358.15 101 GENERAL FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $313.63 $47.60 $47.60 $949.32 $1,358.15 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $1,358.15 $o.oo $1,358.15 -4889- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/06/02 2:35 PM Current Period: October 2002 Batch Name 102802SUE Payment Computer Dollar Amt $975,00 Posted Refer 102802 CRETE WORKS, INCORPORATED Ck# 008694 10/28/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials ELM RD/GRANDVIEW BLVD $975.00 Invoice 092702-B Transaction Date 10/28/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $975.00 Fund Summary BATCH Total $975.00 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND $975.00 $975.00 Pre-Written Check $975.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $975.00 -4890- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/06/02 2:35 PM Page 1 Current Period: October 2002 Batch Name 103002SUE Payment Computer DollarAmt $692.80 Posted Refer 103002 PROTECTION ONE Ck# 008712 10/30/2001 Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic 11-01-02 THRU 01-31-03 MONITORING $142.80 Invoice 12681094-A Transaction Date 10/29/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $142.80 Refer 103002 SIMONEAU, MATTHEW W, Ck# 008713 10/30/2001 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $500.00 Invoice 102702 Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $500.00 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training CERTIFICATION HENKELS $50.00 Invoice 110102 Transaction Date 11/1/2002 Due 0 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $50.00 Fund Summary BATCH Total $692.80 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND $642.80 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $50.00 $692.80 Pre-Written Check $692.80 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $0.00 Total $692.80 -4891 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34. PM Page 1 Current Period: November 2002 Batch Name t11202SUE User Dollar Amt $535,122.20 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $535,122.20 $0.00 In Balance Refer 111202 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise Fo~ R BULK ICE Invoice DC230313 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R BULK ICE Invoice DC228912 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R BULK ICE Invoice DC229508 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $88.64 $148.72 $58 ,O4 10100 Total $295.40 Refer 111202 ASPEN EMBROIDERY AND DESIG Cash Payment E 101-42400-218 Clothing and Uniforms CLOTHING EXPENSE $29.00 Invoice 101402 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $29.00 ~EN Refer 111202 EQuIpMENT Cash Payment E 101-45200-400 Repairs & Maint Contract LEVER, CABLE,CLEVIS $247.08 Invoice 750471 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $247.08 Refer 111202 AT&T ..... Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells THRU 09-28-02 612-810-4029 $100.86 Invoice 093002 Transaction Date 10/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $100.86 Refer 111202 BEARCOM Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Page~s-Fire Dept. REPAIRED HOUSING $85.50 Invoice 1996685 Transaction Date 10/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $85.50 Refer 111202 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS $10.99 Invoice 36301900 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS $284.72 Invoice 36302000 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1.988,85 Invoice 24944200 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,751.95 Invoice 24841600 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,162.95 Invoice 36301900 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $7,199,46 Refer 111202 BEST MEETINGS Cash Payment E 670-49500-434 Conference & Training REGISTRATION FALL CONFERENCE $115.00 Invoice 091802-A PO 17328 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $115.00 111202 BIC CORPORA TION Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training MULTIMEDIA KIT $12.00 Invoice 111202 -4892- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34. PM Page 2 Current Period: November 2002 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $12.00 Refer 111202 BRIMEYER GROUP, INC Cash Payment E 101-42110-300 Professional Srvs SEARCH FEE PAYMENT $4,833.00 Invoice 120-B Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $4,833.00 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs PAYMENT #2 THRU 11-01-02 $131,692.43 Invoice 110502 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $131,692.43 Refer 111202 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHE Cash Payment E 101-42110-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 3RD QTR CJDN CONNECT CHARGE Invoice P07MN02713003C Transaction Date 10/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $630.00 Total $630.00 Refer 111202 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREN T Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training DARE OFFICER TRAINING $350.00 Invoice 490 PO 17434 TransactiOn Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $350.00 R~ier 111~02 CARDIACS~I~NCE Cash Payment E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies DEFIBRILLATOR PADS $153.60 Invoice 065869 PO 17507 Transaction Date 1012412002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $153.60 Refer 111202 CARGIL SAL T DIVISION Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials BULK ICE CONTRQL $878.91 Invoice 555898 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials BULK ICE CONTROL $799.62 Invoice 556727 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,678.53 Refer 111202 CHAMPION AUTO Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies OIL FILTERS Invoice D160632 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials Invoice D168528 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials Invoice D168528 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials Invoice D168528 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Refer 111202 CHANHASSEN, CITY OF Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptio~s 2002 WAFTA Invoice 100902 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $6.38 $0.00 MISC CABLE $13.38 MISC CABLE $13.38 MISC CABLE $13.18 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $46.32 $1,241.00 10100 Total $ t ,241.00 Refer 111202 CLASSIFIEDS, ROUNDUP, LAKER, Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising Invoice 20290 10-19-02 CLASSIFIED $102.60 -4893- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34- PM Page 3 Current Period: November 2002 E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 10-17-02 CLASSIFIED $102..60 Cash Payment Invoice 20290 Cash Payment Invoice 20290 Cash Payment invoice 20290 Transaction Date E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 10-24-02 CLASSIFIED $102.60 E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 10-26-02 CLASSiFiED $102.60 10/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $410.40 Refer 111202 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $137.64 Invoice 61205083 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $137.64 Refer 111202 CY'S UNIFORMS Cash Payment E 101-42110-218 Clothing and Uniforms NAME TAGS $11.40 Invoice 14444 PO 17445 Cash Payment E 101-42115-218 Clothing and Uniforms NAME TAGS $11.39 Invoice 14444 PO 17445 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $22.79 Refer 111202 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,035.30 Invoice 196699 Cash Payment E 609-49750~252 Beer For Resale BEER $936.80 Invoice 196058 Cash Payme'nt E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $65.00 Invoice 189597 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,037.10 Refer 111202 DOCKMASTERS OF LAKE MINNET Cash Payment E 281-45210-440 Other Contractual Servic REMOVE DOCKS Invoice 200252 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $3,110.00 10100 Total $3,110.00 Refer 111202 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $29.40 Invoice 314974 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,991.65 Invoice 314973 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $907.50 Invoice 317150 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $283.00 Invoice 313399 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $32.50 Invoice 312081 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,720.25 Invoice 312080 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,761.45 Invoice 310328 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $10,725.75 Refer 111202 ENVIRO~MEN~-"AL'~I~ORM~I -4894- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34- PM Page 4 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-440 Other Contractual Servic WINTERIZE SPRINKLER SYSTEM $69.95 Invoice 2504 Transaction Date 10/2412002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $69.95 Refer 111202 EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings 10-01-02 THRU 04-30-03 PREVENTATIVE $896.00 MAINTENANCE Invoice S258-1002 Transaction Date 10/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $896.00 Refer 111202 EXEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC Cash Payment E t01-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-16-02 DRUG TEST $18.00 Invoice 406499 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-16-02 DRUG TEST $20.00 Invoice 406499 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-16-02 DRUG TEST $18.00 Invoice 406499 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-16-02 DRUG TEST $20.00 Invoice 406499 Transaction Date 10/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 111202 EXTREME BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX invoice 85616 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $76.00 $32.00 Total $32.00 Refer 111202 FACKLER, JAMES Cash Payment E 101-45200-434 Conference & Training invoice 103102 Transaction Date 10/31/2002 Refer 111202 FULLERTON BUILDING CENTER REIMBURSE CONFERENCE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $121.31 Cash Payment Invoice 2053804 Transaction Date E 101-45200-221 Equipment Parts 10/24/2002 CONCRETE/TUBE Marquette Bank Mou Total $121.31 $94.66 10100 Total $94.66 Refer 111202 G & KSERVICES o Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms Invoice 363417 Cash Payment Invoice 363417 Cash Payment Invoice 363417 Cash Payment Invoice 363417 Cash Payment Invoice 363417 Cash Payment Invoice 363417 Cash Payment Invoice 363420 Cash Payment Invoice 377387 E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602~49450-230 Shop Materials E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies t0-15-02 UNIFORMS 10-15-02 UNIFORMS 10-15-02 UNIFORMS 10-15-02 MATS 10-15-02 MATS 10-15-02 MATS 10-1-5-02 MATS E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 10-29-02 MATS $37.29 $37.29 $37.28 $15.62 $15.62 $15.62 $44,09 $54.22 -4895- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34- PM Page 5 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment 10-29-02 MATS $84-.34 Invoice 363417 Cash Payment 10-29-02 MATS $21.29 invoice 363417 Cash Payment t0-29-02 MATS $45.27 invoice 377389 Cash Payment 10-15-02 MATS $104..70 invoice 363417 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $512.63 Refer 111202 GARY'S DIESEL SERVICE o Cash Payment E 101.43100.404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TAILGATE REPAIR $250.68 invoice 57625 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $250.68 Refer 111202 GRIGGS COOPERAND COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR -$71.90 E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services Invoice 599465 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $976.98 Invoice 620380 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $998.98 Invoice 620381 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $0.00 Invoice 617090 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $188.50 Invoice 616955 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,783.80 invoice 613829 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $440,48 Invoice 613828 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WiNE $29.90 Invoice 613827 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $5,346.74 Refer 111202 H & L MESABI AGGREGATE CONS Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts EDGERS,LOADER BOLTS,ETC $0.00 invoice H55406 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts EDGERS,BOLTS,NUTS,BLADES $620.47 Invoice H55405 PO 17485 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts EDGERS,BOLTS,NUTS,BLADES $1,015.92 Invoice H55408 PO 17485 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts EDGERS,BOLTS,NUTS,BLADES $643.68 invoice H55407 PO 17485 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts EDGERS,BOLTS,NUTS,BLADES $590.01 Invoice H55409 PO 17485 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts EDGERS,BOLTS,NUTS,BLADES $1,016.01 Invoice H55410 PO 17485 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $3,886.09 ORefer 111202 H_.ARRELL, LEONARD Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous FITNESS ASSESSMENTS $125.00 Invoice 012402 PO 17515 -4896- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 6 Current Period: November 2002 ~ Transaction Date 10/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Tota ,~,,~125.00~ Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners 09-02 ROOM AND BOARD $1,810.00 Invoice 000739 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,810.00 Refer 111202 HOME DEPOT/GECF Cash Payment Invoice 6022039 Transaction Date E 281-45210-220 RepaidMaint Supply 10/24/2002 SAFETY FENCE Marquette Bank Mou $123.97 10100 Total $123.97 Refer 111202 HUDSON MAP Cash Payment E 222-42260-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 1399 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Refer 111202 IKON OFFICE MACHINES MAPS Marquette Bank Mou $772.13 Cash Payment E 101-43100-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23441286 Cash Payment E 601-49400-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23441286 Cash Payment E 602-49450-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23441286 Transaction Date 10/21/2002 10100 Total $772.13 10-12-02THRU01-12-03COPIER MAINTENANCE 10-12-02THRU01-12-03COPIER MAINTENANCE 10-12-02 THRU 01-12-03 COPIER MAINTENANCE $33.10 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $33.10 $33,10 Total $99.30 Refer 111202 INFRATECH Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply CAMERA CH-3 Invoice 021770S Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 RepalriMaint Supply PAINT invoice 021953 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,711.45 Refer 111202 ISLAND PARK SKELLY $1,573.00 $138.45 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery EMERGENCY FLASHERS $63.00 Invoice 11488 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery FRONT HUB ASSEMBLY $668.94 Invoice 11522 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AUTO TRANS FLUID $303.09 Invoice 11618 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery BELT TENSIONER $516.64 Invoice 11630 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,551.67 Refer 111202 JEFFERSON FIRE AND SAFETY, IN Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies BOOTS $230.87 Invoice 093165 Transaction Date 10/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $230.87 Refer 111202 JERRY'S TRANSMISSION SERVIC Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR MACK TACK TRUCK $183.93 Invoice 17783 -4897- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 7 Current Period: November 2002 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $183.93 Refer 111202 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR $300.00 Invoice 1452729-B Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR $132~00 Invoice 1455273 Cash Payment CREDIT-WINE -$31 Invoice 206307 Cash Payment CREDIT-WINE -$5.40 Invoice 206574 Cash Payment WINE $151.00 Invoice 1477087 Cash Payment LIQUOR $609.47 Invoice 1477086 Cash Payment WINE $1,678.73 Invoice 1477085 Cash Payment CREDIT-LIQUOR -$10.81 Invoice 205527 Cash Payment CREDIT-WINE -$6.20 Invoice 205528 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $62.25 Invoice 1473957 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $468.10 Invoice 1473956 Cash Payment E 609.49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $108.95 Invoice 1473955 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $521.79 Invoice 1473954 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,137.00 Invoice 1470875 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $181.00 Invoice 1470874 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,967.65 invoice 1470873 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $255.90 Invoice 1470872 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $249.00 Invoice 1470871 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $33.00 Invoice 1464745 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $7,802.43 Refer 111202 KENNEDYAND GRAVEN E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 HRA MISC BILLABLE $199.50 Invoice 53743-A Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT #1 $361,00 Invoice 53743-B1 Payment E 455~46380-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 POST OFFICE RELOCATION $58.50 Invoice 53743-B2 -4898- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 8 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 354-43140-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 DEFICIENCY AGREEMENT $43.50 Invoice 53743-B3 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 POST OFFICE RELOCATION $121.80 Invoice 53743-C Cash Payment E 354-43140-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 DEFICIENCY AGREEMENT/UNITED $1,092.50 PROPERTIES Invoice 53743-D Cash Payment G 101-22908 Landform Development 09-02 MHR DEVELOPMENT Invoice 53743-E Cash Payment G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 09-02 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT Invoice 53735-A Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 CTY RD 15 REALGNMENT Invoice 53735-B Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 PJW FRANCHISE ORDINANCE Invoice 53735-C Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings 09-02 NEW LIQUOR STORE Invoice 53735-D Cash Payment G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 09-02 KELLS LANE VACATION invoice 53735-E1 Cash Payment G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 09-02 KELLS LANE VACATION invoice 53735-E2 Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs invoice 53735-F Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-G Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-H Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-1 Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-J Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs invoice 53735-K Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-L1 Cash Payment G 609-16200 Fixed Asset-Buildings Invoice 53735-L2 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-L3 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-M1 Cash Payment E 222-42260-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-M2 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-M3 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-M4 Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-N 09-02 PUBLIC EMERGENCY BUILDING 09-02 DREAMWOOD LAWSUITE 09-02 WELL SITE LAND PURCHASE 09-02 XCEL LINE RELOCATION 09-02 BALBOA LAND PURCHASE 09-02 SKAALERUD LOT SURVEY 09-02 SKAARLERUD LOT SURVEY 09-02 NEW LIQUOR STORE 09-20 EXECUTIVE 09-02 WESTEDGE ASSESSMENT 09-02 RELIEF ASSOCIATION ISSUES 09-02 AQUILLINA CLAIM 3030 IVD 02-11 09-02 ADMINISTRATIVE 09-02 PUBLIC EMERGENCY BLDG $650.00 $90.00 $1,530.10 $10.60 $871.80 $24.00 $24.00 $36.00 $90.00 $115.20 $1.20 $1,434,17 $1,455.62 $182.16 $62.16 $1,292.16 ' $60~00 $36.00 $72.00 $138.00 $248,00 -4899- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 9 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-01 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-02 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 invoice 53735-03 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-O4a Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735~O4b Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-O4c Cash Payment G 101-22857 Three Points, Becket Propert 09-02 BECKER ISSUES Invoice 53735-P1 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs invoice 53735-P2 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 53735-P3 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 09-02 WESTEDGE ASSESSMENT 09-02 RETAINING WALL 09-02 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 09-02 MISC STREET ISSUES 09-02 MISC WATER ISSUES 09-02 MISC SEWER ISSUES 09-02 AQUILLINA 3030 IVD 02-11 09-02 MISC PLANNING ISSUES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $254.38 $599.08 $113.08 $72.59 $72.59 $72.58 $201.00 $33.00 $265.5O Total $11,983.77 Refer 111202 LAKE MINNETONKA CONVERSATI Cash Payment E 101-41110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 4TH QTR LEVY PAYMENT $4,697.94 Invoice 091602 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $4,697.94 Refer 111202 LAKE REGION MUTUAL AID ASSO Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 ANNUAL DUES $10.00 Invoice 101502 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $10.00 Refer 111202 LAKER NEWSPAPER Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow 07-20-02 LEGAL ORDINANCE $59.70 Invoice 262 Cash Payment E 101-41410-351 Legal Notices Publishing 10-26-02 LEGAL ADS $53.73 Invoice 419 Cash Payment E 101-43100-351 Legal Notices Publishing 10-05-02 SNOW REMOVAL QUOTE $55.00 Invoice 358 Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs 10-26-02 POST OFFICE DEMO $51.74 Invoice 411 Transaction_~Date 10/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $220.17 Refer 111202 LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising LIQUOR STORE MANAGER AD $241.50 Invoice 25263 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $241.50 Refer 111202 LARSON, MARY JO Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials TOW FROM WESTEDGE $90.52 Invoice 59303 Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $90.52 Refer 111202 LA WSON PRODUCTS, INC -4900- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 10 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials ClRCUITTESTER $31.86 Invoice 0247234 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $31.86 Refer 111202 LINDSTROM ENGINEERING/CONS Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs ROLL-OFF $310.00 Invoice 29600046 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $310.00 Refer 111202 Lo~/ELL;~-"AUTOM~-iV-E Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts BALL JOINT $36.03 Invoice 5-351311 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery DISC BRAKE PADS $48.48 Invoice 5-351188 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery WATER PUMPS $83.86 Invoice 5-351390 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $168.37 Refer 111202 LUBE TECH, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials Invoice 891670 Cash Payment Invoice 891670 Cash Payment Invoice 891670 E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials Transaction Date 11/7/2002 ANTIFREEZE ANTIFREEZE- ANTIFREEZE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $71.38 $71.38 $71.38 $214.14 Refer 111202 Cash Payment Invoice 473124 Cash Payment invoice 473123 Cash Payment Invoice 473122 Cash Payment Invoice 470756 Cash Payment Invoice 470755 MARK WI DISTRIBUTOR E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER BEER BEER BEER BEER BEER BEER $18.40 $56.85 $2,238.25 $117.60 $2,839.00 -50.01 $1.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 405805-B Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 432434-B Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $5,271.09 Refer 111202 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 09-30-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $16.80 Invoice 11613 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10-03-02 DELIVERY CHARGE ~ $102.50' Invoice 11635 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10-07-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $14,40 Invoice 11648 Cash Payment E 809-49750-265 Freight 10-t0-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $187,40 Invoice 11670 -4901 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 11107102 12:34. PM page 1 1 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10-17-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $158.10 Invoice 11697 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10-23-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $22.40 Invoice 11711 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10-24-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $79.50 Invoice 11732 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10-28-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $20.80 invoice 11743 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10-31-02 DELIVERY CHARGE $142.60 Invoice 11763 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $744.50 Refer 111202 MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCI Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 WESTEDGE WATERMAIN EXTENSION $49,50 Invoice 41298 Project 07953 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 WESTEDGE MISC ENGINEERING $6,129.70 invoice 41297 Project 07827 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 MISC PLANNING ENGINEERING $1,287.00 Invoice 41299 Project 08901 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 MISC ZONING ENGINEERING $39(~.00 invoice 41300 Project 08902 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 MISC STREET ENGINEERING $92.90 Invoice 41301 Project 08903 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 MISC WATER ENGINEERING $49.50 Invoice 41302-A Project 08904 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 MISC SEWER ENGINEERING $49.50 Invoice 41302-B Project 08904 Cash Payment E 402-43120-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 AUDITORS ROAD 145-108-02 $34.00 invoice 41303 Project 09968 Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 STORM SEWER $99,00 Invoice 41304 Project 10213 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 09-02 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT $99.00 Invoice 41305 Project 12252 Cash Payment E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 POST OFFICE DEMOLITION $198.00 Invoice 41306 Project 12379 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 CTY RD 15 RELOCATION $1,376.50 Invoice 41307 Project 12533 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 DOWNTOWN TIF DISTRICT $99.00 Invoice 41308 Project 12534 Cash Payment G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 09-02 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT $593.60 Invoice 41309 Project 12754 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 MCES LIFT STATION $166.90 Invoice 41310 Project 13132 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 WESTEDGE EXTENSION SOUTH $148.50 Invoice 41311 Project 13142 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 XCEL SUB-STATION $99.00 Invoice 41312 Project 13190 Cash Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 RETAINING WALL REPLACEMENT $1,930.47 Invoice 41313 Project 13215 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 2003 STREET REPLACEMENT $173.50 invoice 41314 Project 13276 -4902- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 12 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment invoice 41315 Cash Payment invoice 41316 Cash Payment Invoice 41317 Cash Payment Invoice 41318 Cash Payment Invoice 41319 Cash Payment Invoice 41320 Cash Payment Invoice 41321 Cash Payment Invoice 41322 Cash Payment Invoice 41323 Cash Payment Invoice 41324 Cash Payment Invoice 41325 Cash Payment Invoice 41326 Cash Payment Invoice 41327 Cash Payment Invoice 41328 Cash Payment Invoice 41329 Cash Payment invoice 41330 Cash Payment Invoice 41331 Cash Payment Invoice 41332 Cash Payment Invoice 41333 Cash Payment Invoice 41334 Cash Payment Invoice 39704-B Transaction Date E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 WELL/PUMPHOUSE Project 13313 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 6384 WALNUT LANE GRADING Project 13488 G 101-22860 2642 Commerce, Bristol Clas 09-02 MAHOGONY BAY CUP Project 13495 E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 SKAALERUD LOT SURVEY Project 13501 E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 LONG LAKE/AUDITORS GREENWAY Project 13566 G 101-22855 MetroPtains Develop 00-64 09-02 ASSESSMENT PROJECT Project 13646 G 101-22892 4778/4790 Northern Road #0 09-02 BERGQUIST MINOR SUB-DIVISION Project 13667 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 STORM SEWER PROJECT Project 13677 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 WATER FUND Project 13681 G 101-22896 Lake Mtka Trail Sub-div #02- 09-02 LAZNIZRZ LAKE MTKA TRAIL Project 13724 E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING Project 13747 G 101-22899 Pastuck Natural Homes #02- 09-02 PASTUCK SUB-DIVISION Project 13770 G 101-22909 Steve Coddon 02-27 WaiveP 09-02 SPRUCE RD WAIVER PLATTING Project 13827 G 101-22908 Landform Development 09-02 MHR DEVELOPMENT Project 13832 E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs 09-02 PETERSON DRAINING ISSUES Project 13939 G 101-22910 WCA Bartlett Violation 09-02 WCA BARTLET VARIANCE Project 13946 G 101-22900 2331 Driftwood, Johnson, su 09-02 2331 DRIFTWOOD JOHNSON SUB-DIV Project 13970 G 101-22911 5925 Ridgewood,Bedell,#02- 09-02 5925 RIDGEWOOD BEDELL WAIVE PLATTING Project 13971 G 101-22913 2586 Avon Dr Madsen Var 0 09-022586 AVON DR MADSEN VAR Project 13972 G 101-22912 4841 IVD Reckinger Varianc 09-02 4841 IVD RECKINGER VAR Project 13982 G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi CREDIT BALANCE $2,371.30 $346.50 $247.50 $2,304.10 $3,013.50 $1,455.20 $49.50 $7,486.77 $1,864.00 $49.50 $49.50 $99.00 $500.60 $49.50 $652.5O $159.50 $148.50 $413.40 $198.00 $247.5O -$10.00 11/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $34,767.44 Refer 111202 METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEM Cash Payment E 101-41310-431 Meeting Expense Invoice 445 Transaction Date 10/25/2002 Refer 111202 METROPOLITAN COUNClLENVIR MAMA LUNCHEON 10-16-02 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $16.00 Total $16.00 -4903- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12.:34 PM Page 13 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste Disposal-MCIS Invoice 0000745541 Transaction Date 10/21/2002 Refer 111202 MID-MINNESOTA WIRE 11-02 WASTE WATER Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies SALES TAX FOR #14994 $25.35 Invoice 15052 $48,974.50 Total $48,974.50 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total ................................. ~ $25.35 Cash Payment E 101-45200-140 Unemployment Comp 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY JAYKO $88.00 Invoice 101102 Cash Payment E 222-42260-140 Unemployment Comp 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY POIKONEN $3.82 invoice 101102 Cash Payment E 10t-42110-140 Unemployment Comp 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY BUETOW $1,589.86 Invoice 101102 Cash Payment E 101-41110-140 Unemployment Comp 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY CHARON $175.91 Invoice 101102 Transaction Date 10/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,857.59 Refer 111202 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO · Cash Payment E 602-49450-433 Dues and Subscriptions Invoice 101602 PO 176011 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice VIC 16350 Transaction Date 10/21/2002 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL GIESE, L. $23.00 06-19-02 THRU 09-24-02 $840.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $863.00 Refer 111202 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA Cash Payment E 601-49400-470 Water Samples COLIFORM, MF - WATER Invoice 140598 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 111202 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIO Cash Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contrib 11-02 FIRE RELIEF Invoice 111202 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $72.50 $72.50 $9,088.33 $9,088.33 Refer 111202 MOUND, CITY OF Cash Payment Invoice 101702 Transaction Date E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities 10/24/2002 09-02 WATER AND SEWER Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $17.42 Total $17.42 Refer 111202 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS Cash Payment Invoice 71947 Cash Payment Invoice 72034 Cash Payment Invoice 72035 Cash Payment Invoice 71875 Payment Invoice 71205 E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Material~ E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 10-17-02 BANK FILL 10-16-02 BLACKTOP 10-18-02 BANKFILL 10-16-02 CONCRETE 10-03-02 BLACKTOP $252.68 $200.75 $212.81 $417.51 $2O5.96 -4904- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 14 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 10-04-02 PRODUCT $762.70 Invoice 71206 Cash Payment 10-04-02 BANK FILL $374.00 Invoice 71207 Cash Payment 10-08-02 BLACKTOP $428.00 Invoice 71420 Cash Payment 10-11-02 BLACKTOP $158.10 Invoice 71615 Cash Payment 10-14-02 CONCRETE $443.56 Invoice 71947. Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $3,456.07 Refer 111202 NELSON, JOYCE Cash Payment E 670-49500-331 Use of personal auto REIMBURSE MILEAGE $48.18 Invoice 103002 Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total ..................................................................... ~ $48.18 Refer 111202 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (POLl .............................................................................................. Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells 09-19-02 THRU 10-18-02 CELL PHONES $477.45 Invoice 102202 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $477.45 Refer 111202 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $260.50 invoice 0201184-1N Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $260.50 E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials Refer 111202 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 36973249 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 36973209 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 36973174 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $92.40 $70.24 $27.84 $190.48 Refer 111202 PERKINS, DAVE CONTRACTING, I Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay (GENE~RA PAYMENT #2 THRU 11-01-02 invoice 110602 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $90,343.77 $90,343.77 Refer 111202 Cash Payment Invoice 888117 Cash Payment Invoice 888118 Cash Payment Invoice 888119 Cash Payment invoice 3268387 Cash Payment Invoice 888117 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR $304.97 $115.00 $98,00 -$12.5o -$8,17 -4905- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/07 1;';;~4. PM Page 15 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa CREDIT-MIX -$5.17 Invoice 3268389 Cash Payment E 609--49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$6.83 Invoice 3268390 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $791.50 Invoice 885762 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,075.48 invoice 885761 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WiNE $374.95 Invoice 883445 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $804.55 Invoice 883444 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,662.50 Invoice 870699 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $5,194.28 R;ier 1112o2 PINNACLE DIS~:RiBU~'I~I'~ ................. Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARE'FI'ES $607.49 Invoice 3490 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $486.07 Invoice 3043 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES $961.35 Invoice 2590 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,054.91 Refer 111202 PRESS NEWS PUBLICATIONS Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 10-14-02 MANAGERAD $107.80 Invoice 02526677-0001 Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 10-21-02 MANAGER $107.80 Invoice 0526677-0002 Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $215.60 Refer 111202 PROTECTION ONE Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic 11-01-02 THRU 04-30-03 MQNITORING $435.77 Invoice 101302 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $435.77 Refer 111202 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 185902-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 185902-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 186570-00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 183532-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 182979-00 Cash Payment E invoice 182968-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 180823-00 WINE WINE 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $3,083.39 $76.34 $2,396.74 $759.59 $1,298.63 $136.04 $564.30 -4906- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 16 Currant Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $5,436.79 invoice 180209-0 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $13,751.82 Refer 111202 R.C. ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-45200-221 Equipment Parts 10-16-02 FIXTURE VETERAN'S PARK $620.00 Invoice 101602 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total ........................................................................... $620.00 Cash Payment E 101-41910-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 10-02 SANITATION SERVICE $161.88 Invoice 1787 Transaction Date 10/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $t61.88 Refer 111202 RECYCLING ASSOCIATION MINNE Cash Payment E 670-49500-434 Conference & Training 2002-2003 MEMBERSHIP DUES $65.00 invoice 930-A PO 17327 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank MOu 10100 Total . $65 00 Refer 111202 RIDGEVlEW MEDICAL, MOUND Cash Payment E 101-42110-300 Professional Srvs EE EXAM SUSSMAN, M $108.00 invoice 080802 PO 17442 Transaction Date 10/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $108.00 Refer 111202 ROSEMOUNT, CITY OF Cash Payment E 101-42400-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES $50.00 Invoice 100302 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 111202 SERVICE MASTER CLEAN Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies DEPOT CLEANING $772.13 Invoice 12895 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 11-02 CLEANING OF BUILDING $1,096.95 Invoice 111202 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 11-02 CLEANING OF BUILDING $39.05 invoice 111202 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 11-02 CLEANING OF BUILDING $39.05 Invoice 111202 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 11-02 CLEANING OF BUILDING $39.05 Invoice 111202 Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,986.23 Refer 111202 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE Cash Payment E 281-45210-533 Tree Removal 2640 SHANNON TREE REMOVAL $303.53 Invoice 4291 Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal 4828 LENARK REMOVE TREE $303.53 Invoice 4292 Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $607,06 Refer 111202 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, I Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0092556 Cash Payment E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0092555 09-02 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 09-02 PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING $1,886.50 $71,211.28 -4907- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34 PM Page 17 Current Period: November 2002 Transaction Date 10/25/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $73,097.78 Refer 111202 SPEEDWA Y SUPERAMERICA (P/W Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels THRU 10-20-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $707.86 Invoice 102002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels THRU 10-20-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $462.64 invoice 102002 Cash Payment E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels THRU 10-20-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $149.70 invoice 102002 Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,320.20 Refer 111202 SPEEDWA Y SUPERAMERICA (PAR Cash Payment E 101-42400-212 Motor Fuels THRU 10-20-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $38.97 Invoice 102002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-212 Motor Fuels THRU 10-20-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $14.50 Invoice 102002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-212 Motor Fuels THRU 10-20-02 GASOLINE CHARGES $274.21 Invoice 102002 Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $325.68 Refer 111202 ST. JOSEPH EQUIPMENT, INOORP Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery VEHICLE SERVICE/REPAIR $967.07 Invoice SF00313 PO 17486 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery UNIT #10 PARTS AND SUPPLIES $644.75 Invoice SX00833 PO 17487 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,611.82 Refer 111202 STAR TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 10-13-02 MANAGER $229.80 Invoice 114Z01607744600 Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 Employment Advertising 10-20-02 MANAGER $229.80 Invoice AA4Z01608046830 Cash Payment E 609-49750-328 EmpJoyment Advertising 10-27-02 MANAGER $229.80 Invoice AA4Z01608344100 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $689.40 Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES $79.72 Invoice 321787.1 PO 17450 Transaction Date 10/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs THRU 10-12-02 BALBOA LAND PURCHASE $5,624.25 invoice 236172 Transaction Date 10/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $5,624.25 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery TIRES $129.80 Invoice 10006306 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $129.80 Refer 111202 T & T MAINTENANCE, INCORPORA Cash Payment E 602-49450-400 Repairs & Maint Contract REPAIR SERVICES $214.83 Invoice 100702 -4908- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34. PM Page 18 Current Period: November 2002 Transaction Date 11/4/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $214- 83 Refer 111202 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $290.00 invoice 278905 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $48.00 Invoice 237591 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $12.85 invoice 278443 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $8,724.02 Invoice 278442 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $38.00 Invoice 277761 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,596.20 Invoice 277760 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,313.95 Invoice 277189 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $214.15 Invoice 277188 Cash Payment E 609.49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $254.00 Invoice 236533 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $100.00 Invoice 268323-B Cash Payment E 609.49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $265.00 Invoice 189052 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $10.00 Invoice 224532-B Cash Payment E 609.49750-252 Beer For Resale CREDIT -$9.75 Invoice 267989-B Transaction Date 11/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $17,856.42 Refer 111202 THYSSEN-KRUPP ELEVATOR COR Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic 10-02 ELEVATOR SERVICE $158.60 Invoice 30458 Transaction Date 10/21/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $158.60 Refer 111202 TOLL GASAND WELDING SUPPLY Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials WELDING SUPPLIES $17,46 Invoice 208830 Cash Payment invoice 208830 Cash Payment Invoice 208830 Transaction Date E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 10/24/2002 WELDING SUPPLIES WELDING SUPPLIES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $17.46 $17,47 Total $52.39 Refer 111202 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $21,12 $21.12 $21,12 -4909- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12;3~- PM Page 19 Current Period: November 2002 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 361532-0 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 360806 Cash Payment Invoice 362350-0 Transaction Date E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies E 281-45210-200 Office Supplies E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies 11/4/2002 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $39.26 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLlES $21.12 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $7.04 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $7.04 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $10.56 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $10.56 CALENDAR $25.95 CALENDAR $197.14 CALENDARS $25,51 CALENDARS $21.69 CALENDARS $7.23 CALENDARS $31.91 CALENDARS $31.91 CALENDARS $12,34 INK JET CARTRIDGE $185.31 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $697.93 Refer 111202 UNIFORMS LIMITED Cash Payment Invoice 145266 Transaction Date G 101-22803 Police Rese~es PO 17516 10/29/2002 BADGE MarquetteBankMou $77.74 10100 Total $77.74 Refer 111202 US FILTER Cash Payment Invoice 8868974 Transaction Date E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply PO 17488 11/7/2002 VALVE ,GASKETS ,ETC Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $956.53 Total $956.53 Refer 111202 WIDMER, INCORPORATED ~ .............. Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials DUG UP CURB BOXES $665.00 Invoice 5621 Cash Payment E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials CRESTEDGE WATERMAIN $830.00 Invoice 5622 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $1,495.00 Refer 111202 WINE SPSECTATOR .... Cash Payment E 609-49750-433 Dues and SubscriPtions SUBSCRIPTION ANNUAL $45.00 Invoice 111202 -4910- CITY OF MOUND Payments 11/07/02 12:34. PM Page 20 Transaction Date 11/7/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $45.00 Refer 111202 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies CENTERPULL WIPERS $87.31 Invoice 57979904 Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts ZEP 40 $59.14 Invoice 57981216 Transaction Date 10/24/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $146.45 Fund Summary 10100 Marquette Bank Mound 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 354 Commerce Place Tlr 1-1 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 455 TIF 1-2 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND $46,713,60 $3,069.82 $3,549.84 $1,136.00 $220,912.14 $34.00 $4,096.34 $7,113.51 $141,965.85 $81,917.90 $228.18 $15,296.69 $9,088.33 $535,122.20 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0,00 $535,122.20 $535,122.20 -4911 - Engineering · Planning ° Surveying November 5, 2002 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound West Edge Boulevard Street Improvements Partial Payment MFRA #7827 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is Buffalo Bituminous' Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through November 1, 2002 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $131,692.43. We have reviewed this request and change order, find them in order, and recommend approval and payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry Enclosure cc: Gino Businaro, Finance Director, City of Mound s:Xrnain:Wlou07827 :\CorrespondenceXhanson 11-5 -4912- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-maih mfra@mfra, com ton =o o oo~ oo Z -J Z~ I~J e (D 0 . 0 z : n = : 0 -4913- I- ~) w L~ I-- I- -1 I.LI o~o~o ~ooo ~o oo 88o8o~o8888o8o8o8888o880o88888888888 oo~ ~o~ ~ o~ ooo~o ~o~~oo~ ooo 8888888888888888888888888888888888888 88~8~888888888888888888888888888888 ~ §§§ 8 ~ ~ 8 88888~888888888888888888888888888888 888 88888 8888888~8888~88 8888888800 o~o~8~~8o8~o8~~o8~o~8~oo~ q~q~q~~89~q~q~Sqq~8~q~ qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqoqqqqqqq~q ooo -4914- Engineering · Planning · Surveying November 6, 2002 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound 2002 Storm Sewer Improvements Partial Payment MFRA #13677 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc.'s_ Payment Request No. 2 for work completed through November 1, 2002 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $90,343.77. We have reviewed this request, find it in order, and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:pry cc: Gino Businaro, Finance Director, City of Mound Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent, City of Mound Enclosure sAmain:Wlou 13677:\CorrespondenceXhanson 11-5 -4915- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra, com 8~@ Z >. ~ = o~ o I- ~ 8~: o ~ ° o ~: o ~'~ ~ -4916- O3 ~ 0 000 0 0 888o8ooo8-8o888~8888 ~ 88888888~888~888888 ~ ~ ~~~~ ............. ~ ooooooooooooooo~ooo oooooooo~ooo~oooo '~ '~N '~N~ 'dd~d ....... ~ ....... 888888888~88888~88888 ~ 8888888888888888888 ooooooooooooooomooooo 0000000000000000000 ~E O~mO ~ O~ 888888888888888888888 ~ 8888888888888888888 D B~ 888888888888888888888 8 8888888888888888888 8~8o~88888o~8~8~ 88~~°°°8°°°°~8888 88888°°88888888888888oo 8888888888888888888 ~ 000000000000000000000 00000o0000000000000 .~.g - =~ ' ~ ~ ,~[~o, ~-oo~ ~ ._..~ ~ ~ o~OOO ~o~ C C ~C LLI '"'1 I-- r~ I..U $ I- n -4917- ooooooooooooooooo 88888888888888888 8 888888888 8 ooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo 88888888888888888 8 888888888 8 8~8~oo 88888888888888888 ~ 88888~888 8 8888888888888888~ 888888888 -4918- 88888 8 8888 8 88888 88888 8 8888 8 88888 88888 8 8888 8 88888 88888 8 8888 8 88888 ~D~ ~ ~'~ ..... 88888 8888 -4919- Engineering o Planning · Surveying November 6, 2002 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound 2002 Retaining Wall Replacement MFRA #13215 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is Sunram's Payment Request No. 1 for work completed through November 1, 2002 on the subject project. The amount of this payment request is $48,430.38. We have reviewed this request, find it in order, and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:rth cc: Gino Businaro, Finance Director Jim Fackler, Parks Director Enclosure s:hnmin:kmou 13215kspecs\part-pay 11-6 -4920- 15050 23rd Avenue North o Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.com ~.- Z ILl I-- i Z t-- Z >.. -"3 :::) a: 0 0 z .jO 0 ~:'~' o _z(~ ~ °° $i oo ooo o§ oo oo oo 88 i 88 8 8~8 ~ ~8 8 88 8 8~ ~ 88 8 88 O0 Z o o~,- o~ ~ -4922- 8~ ~ 8888 88 8 ~ 8 8~ ~ 8~88~888888~ Z ~ · ~ ~ 888~ ~ 8 ~8 8 8~ ~ ooo8oo8ooo~ ~ 8 ;~ O0 000 O0 O0 Og 0 _ dd ddd dd dd d d 88 8 8888 88 8 88 8 8~ ~ 8~88~888888~ ~ 8 ~ 85 ~ 8~8~ 88 8 88 8 8~ ~ 8~888~85~88~ 8 8 ~C ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '' ~ ~ ~o~ 8~ 8~8 8~ 88 8~ i~ o.- ~ o.- o ~ §.: ' Z LU 0 LU Z n.. o ---I, q -4923- -4924- MEMO TO: FROM: DATE: Kandis Hanson, City Manager John McKinley, Acting Chief of Police Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent Greg Pederson, Acting Fire Chief November 7, 2002 SUBJECT: PARKING ON BALSAM LANE Balsam Lane currently has parking on the south side of the street. This is consistent with all other streets in Mound (see latest parking plan proposed by the street department and approved by the council in 2001). I believe Balsam Road parking was given consideration at that time. Balsam Road is a 40 foot street. The width of the street does not allow for parking on both sides of the street. The street width should be at least 60 feet to allow for parking on both sides of the street. For safety masons, there should be parking on one side of the street only. Regarding unauthorized vehicles being ticketed and towed, the city can only enforce fire lane violations and handicapped parking violations on private property. Unauthorized vehicles may be towed at the owners expense if the lot is properly signed. To stay consistent with the parking plan for the city and for safety reasons, parking should be restricted to one side of Balsam Road which, according to the plan, is the south side of said road. -4925- MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDIAN KNOLL MANOR 2020 Commerce Blvd. Telephone/Fax Mound, Minnesota 55364 (952) 472-5078 October 23, 2002 Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn 55364 Re: Parking on Balsam Road Dear MaYor and Enclosed is a copy of a letter submitted on June 6, 2001 requesting permission to park on the North Side of Balsam Road. There is nothing in my files to indicate that this letter was given consideration. If it would be a problem to park on both sides of Balsam Road, would you consider allowing parking on the North side of the road? This would be safer as visitors would not have to cross the street. There are only (22) parking spaces for a (50) unit building. We currently do not have enough spaces for the residents, much less staff or visitors. I recently updated the parking spaces and identified authorized residents with permits placed in the rear window of their vehicle. Unauthorized vehicles will be subject to a ticket and being towed. ' We ask that you consider our request to parko,~" ~,,,,~'." ~a~"~',w ~ .~.~..,c~ of. B~lsam Rd.. Thank you for your concerns. ly, Kat'~ VIP Properties encl: -4926- MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY INDIAN KNOLL MANOR 2020 Commerce Blvd. Telephone/Fax Mound, Minnesota 55364 (952) 472-5078 June6,2001 Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Parking on Balsam Road Dear Mayor and Concilmembers: As you know, I manage the Indian Knoll Manor Apartments on Commerce Boulevard and Balsam Road. We have (22) parking spots for a (50) unit building. We have recently implemented a tenant only parking program in our parking lot. That' means that day to day visitors are not allowed to park in our parking lot so they must park on the street. Balsam Road is the closest street other than Commerce Boulevard. Commerce is a dangerous street to park on because there is such a high traffic volume, speed and no parking between 7:00 - 9:00AM and 4:00 - 6:00PM. There is parking allowed on the south side of Balsam, but not on the north side. I am requesting you to change the current parking so that people can park on the north side of Balsam Road too. Please let me know if there is any additional information you need to process this request. Sincerely yours, Karol "Pinky" Charon Executive Director -4927- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE RESULTS OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION AS PRESENTED, AS THE CANVASS OF VOTE OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2002, GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: That the City Council does hereby certify the results of the Municipal Election as presented on the Canvass of Votes for the November 5, 2002, General Election as: Pct Pct Pct Pct Pct Pct Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mayor Pat Meisel 341 262 959 536 575 393 3066 Write-ins 26 16 82 30 49 60 263 Overvotes 1 1 U ndervotes 126 118 402 230 290 208 1374 Councilmember Bob Brown 205 153 552 362 378 281 1931 David Osmek 249 181 669 389 401 275 2164 Danene Provencher 145 119 403 227 298 246 1438 Write-ins 7 3 32 8 23 18 91 Overvotes 2 2 Undervotes 380 336 1230 606 728 502 3782 Councilmember to fill vacancy in term to expire January 3, 2005 Mark Hanus 214 155 604 322 395 235 1925 Pat Murphy 179 147 518 306 298 291 1739 Write-ins 2 9 3 9 2 25 Overvotes 1 1 2 Undervotes 98 94 312 165 212 132 1013 The Canvassing Board hereby certifies that election to a two-year Mayoral term is Pat Meisel. The two, four-year Council terms are Bob Brown and David Osmek. The Council term to expire January 3, 2005 is Mark Hanus. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted this 12th day of November, 2002. and seconded by Mayor Pat Meisel -4928- DRAFT 10/31/02 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, is entered into as of the day of'. , 2001, by and between the CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, (the "City"), the HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, (the "HRA") and MUELLER-LANSING PROPERTIES, a Minnesota partnership, ("Mueller- Lansing") BACKGROUND 1. The City and Hennepin County are contemplating the upgrade, reconstruction and realignment of portions on CSAH 15 and Commerce Boulevard in downtown Mound. (The "Project") 2. Mueller-Lansing is the owner of land described in the attached Exhibit A. (The "Property") 3. Portions of the Property will be needed as right-of-way for the Project. Additionally, the acquisition will necessitate the removal of structures located on the Property; and the portion of the Property not needed for right-of-way will have limited development potential. 4. In the Spring of 2001, Mueller-Lansing made a series of'requests to the City and the HRA concerning the future use of the Property, and opportunities for Mueller-Lansing to remain in downtown Mound. 5. Following review and consideration of the request, and further discussions with Mueller- Lansing, the staff presented to the HRA at its July 10, 2001 seven options for the future use of the Property, the relocation of Mueller-Lansing and related issues. 6. Following discussion and input from the public and Mueller-Lansing, the HRA approved Option 7 as the preferred option and directed staff to proceed on that basis. Option 7 is more fully shown on the attached Exhibit B ("Option 7") This Agreement is intended to memorialize the understandings of the parties, and to reflect any modifications due to changes in the process by which the Property will be acquired. RECITALS In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises hereinafter contained, which consideration is deemed full and adequate by the parties, the parties stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Precondition to Undertaking. The City and the HRA's undertakings hereunder assume: JBD-205588v4 MU195-13 -4929- · The City enters into a cooperative agreement with Hennepin County providing for the acquisition of the Property by Hennepin County, and for the conveyance of any residue of the Property not needed for roadway purposes at a price that is acceptable to the City and the HRA. · Hennepin County actually acquires the Property, and conveys the residue portion to either the City or the I-IRA. · The HRA is satisfied that the residue portion of the Property can be remediated from any pollution, contamination or unstable soils in a timely and economically practical manner so that the residue portion can be made available for development in a manner consistent with the approved Option 7. · Mueller-Lansing notifies the HRA by not later than July 1, 2002 that it is satisfied that the Option Land can be remediated from any pollution, contamination or unstable soils in a timely and economically practical manner so that the residue portion can be made available for development. If no agreement with Hennepin County is made by May 1, 2002, if the Property is not acquired by Hennepin County by May 1, 2003, or if either the City or the HRA is, for whatever reason, unable to make the determinations described above by those dates, then this Agreement shall terminate and no party shall have any further obligation hereunder. 2. Option Agreement. On the date that Hennepin County acquires title to the Property, assuming that all of the preconditions in Section 1 of this Agreement have been satisfied, the HRA will deliver to Mueller-Lansing an option agreement, granting to Mueller-Lansing an option to acquire the parcel of land at the east end of the block (the "Option Land") and shown on the Development Scenario for Options 3,4,5 and 6 which is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The option agreement will incorporate the relevant provisions of the memorandum from Jim Prosser to Mike Mueller dated July 3,2001 and attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D. The option agreement will also contain provisions subjecting the Option Land to special assessments for the Project, assessments for any special services district created to serve the Option Land, and requiring administrative design review to determine conformance with Mound Vision. Special assessments and special service district charges will be uniformly assessed against similarly situated and developed properties in the downtown district. 3. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Option Land will be its fair market value. If the parties are unable to agree upon a Purchase Price within 180 days from the date the Property has been acquired, each party will select a real estate appraiser to appraise the Option Land and render an opinion as to fair market value. If the appraisals differ by more than 10% (based on the lower value), the purchase price will be determined on the basis of the square foot raw land value paid by Hennepin County in acquiring the Property. Once determined, the purchase price will be modified to reflect value changes (as determined by assessment data) between the valuation date and the date the Option Land is conveyed to Mueller-Lansing. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands of the day and year first above written. JBD-205588v4 MU195-13 -4930- City of Mound. By. Its By. Its Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Mound, Minnesota By Its By Its Mueller-Lansing Properties By Its [ACKNOWLEDGMENTS] JBD-205588v4 MU195-13 -4931- -4932- o -4933- EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC To: Mike Mueller From: Jim Prosser Subject: Proposed Agreement Points for Sale of Property for CSAH15 Date: July 3, 2001 The following is a draft of the proposed agreement points for the purchase of the Mueller/Lansing property for CSAH 15 please review and call me with changes, clarifications or better ideas. After we reach conceptual agreement a document would be drafted for City considerations. Thanks. 1. M/L sell property at value set by appraiser. M/L reserve right to follow condemnation to determine value. 2. Park and Ride would relocated off site. 3. A building pad on the east side of the site would be designated for development. The size (about 10,000 s.f.) and location of the pad would be an attachment to the agreement. 4. M/L would have a two year option (time starts at closing of the sale of their property) to purchase the designated pad. 5. Purchase would be contingent on approval of development plan. 6. Development guidelines would be an attachment to agreement. 7. Purchase price of designated pad would be established by appraisal and included within agreement. Value would be adjusted at time of sale to include interest cost to city to finance purchase. 8. USPO drop off mail box location would be relocated on site after consulting with M/L. 9. City would build public parking lot adjacent to building. The building would be assigned non specific spaces adequate to meet building parking requirements. 10. M/L agree to special assessment/service area to cover proportional cost of building and maintaining parking. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 - 4934- jim@ehlers-inc.com 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: November 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Pam Weatherhead / Dan Hill PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-40 LOCATION: 4640 Island View Drive PI]): 30-117-23-22-22-0019 ZONING: R- lA Single-Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY At its November 4, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request from Pam Weatherhead and Dan Hill to allow construction of an attached upper deck on the front side of the house located at 4640 Island View Drive. The requested variance is described below: Proposed Required Variance Front 18 f~ 20 ft 2 fl PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the variance application are contained in Planning Report No. 02-40. BACKGROUND A variance for the deck project was approved by the City Council in 1999. However, since the project was not undertaken nor an extension granted, the variance became null and void. Therefore, the applicants have requested a "new" variance for the deck. -4935- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance application as requested subject to conditions. The Planning Commission also unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council waive the application fee for the "new" variance since the City's review was essentially the same as in 1999 and the property owners have already incurred project costs. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. -4936- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 02- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, DEVON PID# 30-117-23-22-0019 PLANNING AND ZONING CASE NO. 02-40 WHEREAS, the applicants, Pam Weatherhead and Dan Hill, were granted a setback variance on September 19, 1999 to construct a deck at 4640 Island View Drive; and WHEREAS, the variance expired as the use as permitted was not completed or utilized within a one (1) year period and an extension pursuant to City Code Section 350:530, Subd. 2 (E) was not requested therefore the variance became null and void; and WHEREAS, the applicants submitted a new variance request on October 15, 2002 to allow construction of the deck. WHEREAS, the requested variance is outlined below: Front Proposed Required Variance 18R 20ft 2ft WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which according to the City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a (20) foot front yard setback and other required setbacks for lots of record; and WHEREAS, the deck would provide access at the front of the house to the garage; and -4937- WHEREAS, due to the slope of the property, a deck is a good alternative to a sidewalk; and and WHEREAS, all of the deck except the corner will meet the setback requirements; WHEREAS, hardcover on the subject property is under (40) percent; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at its November 4, 2002 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the variance as recommended by staff; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the variance as requested subject to the following conditions: The variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute Section 462.36, Subdivision 1. This shall be considered a restriction on how this property shall be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying for all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been submitted to the City. c. The variance shall expire after one (1) year unless an extension is granted pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:530, Subd. 2 (E.). The $250.00 application fee for the new variance shall be waived since the applicant incurred review fees previously in 1999 and the City's review of the application is essentially the same. 2. The variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lots 16 & 17, Block 3, Devon, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: -4938- Adopted November 12, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -4939- D AFT Excerpts from the MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 2002 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #02-40 Variance for front setback of (18) feet for upper level deck 4640 Island View Drive - Pam Weatherhead / Dan Hill MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to recommend approval of the variance. MOTION carried unanimously Weiland asked if the applicant asked for an extension previously. Pam Weatherhead indicated they did not apply for an extension. MOTION carried unanimously. -4940- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director ])ATE: October 29, 2002 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Pam Weatherhead / Dan Hill PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02~40 LOCATION: 4640 Island View Drive PII): 30-117-23-22-22-0019 ZONING: R- 1A Single-Family Residential COMPREtIENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY The applicants, Pamela Weatherhead and Danny Hill, have submitted a variance request to allow construction of an attached upper deck on the front side of the house located at 4640 Island View Drive. The requested variance is described below: Proposed Required Variance Front 18 ft 20 ft 2 fl SITE CONDITIONS The subject site includes a single-family dwelling that fronts Island View Drive to the east and includes a 24' x 30' detached garage that was constructed in 1999 upon issuance of Building Permit No. 13209. PREVIOUS VARIANCE APPROVAL The City Council approved a variance for the aforementioned deck improvements in 1999 to allow a (18) front setback. Details regarding the City's approval are contained in Resolution No. 99-87 which has been included as an attachment. -4941 - While the resolution was recorded at Hennepin County, the deck improvements were not undertaken. Pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:530, Subd. 2 (E) states that whenever within one (1) year after granting a variance, the use as permitted by the variance has not been completed or utilized, the variance becomes null and void unless a petition for an extension has been submitted. Since the variance for the deck improvements was not utilized and a variance extension request was not granted, the City Attorney has determined that the variance is not valid. Therefore a "new" variance for the deck improvements has been requested. 60-DAY PROCESS The application was received and deemed to be complete on October 15, 2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All property owners abutting the subject site were mailed a copy of the Planning Commission agenda on or around October 30, 2002 to inform them of the variance request. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: City Engineer John Cameron Refer to memorandum to Building Official dated September 9, 1999 provided as supplemental information to Building Permit No. 13209 for detached garage. No objection to deck improvements. Public Works Director Skinner No objections. Parks Director Jim Fackler No comments from Parks Department. Building Official Matt Simoneau A building permit is required for the deck including the submittal of all required information. The exterior of the detached garage should be completed. Acting Police Chief McKinley No objections. -4942- GENERAL COMMENTS 1. Background information regarding the 1999 approval have been provided as attachments. 2. The subject property is irregularly shaped and gently slopes to the west. 3. It is reasonable for a property owner to construct a deck to capture and enjoy lakeviews. 4. Due to topography, there are no other area(s) which would provide adequate space for a deck nor would other location(s) provide such significant view(s). 5. The applicant has demonstrated a good faith effort to utilize the variance by undertaking construction of the detached garage and retaining wall improvements on the property. It is City staff's understanding that the applicant was unaware that the City Code places time restrictions on the validity of the variance. 6. The deck will provide good access to the garage. 7. The proposed deck has been "notched" so as to reduce the encroachment. 8. Hardcover for the property following completion of the garage and deck improvements will be less than (40) percent. 9. Members of the Planning Commission and City Council may wish to discuss waiving the $250.00 fee for the "new" variance since project review fees were incurred by the applicant previously and, in general, the City's review of the application is essentially the same. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested with the following condition(s): 1. The building permit shall not be issued until the variance resolution is recorded at Hennepin County. 2. The variance shall expire after one (1) year unless an extension is granted pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:530, Subd. 2 (E.) -4943- CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Tentatively, the variance application is scheduled to be forwarded to the City Council for review at its November 12, 2002 meeting in the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is made at its November 4, 2002 meeting. -4944- ' City'of Mound VARIANCE APPLICATION Planni J~ .,~('/ City Planner ".'~-.- City Engineer DNR Public Works Please type or print legibly PROPERTY DESC. Subdivision ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone (h)~& ~t~W)~(M) . APPLICANT Name ' ' (IF OTHER THAN Phone (H). (W) PARKS other~,~ 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use perm zoning for this property? Yes iX) No (). If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, nu and provide copies of resolutions. · 2. ~ Detaile,d, description of proposed construction or alte/ation (size. Variance Application Page 1 of 3 Revised 03/20/02 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (/~/) No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): .~.T_J~.~Z~: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. (NSEW) ft. ~,ft. Street Frontage: ~ ft..~~. Lot Size: sq ft sq ft Hardcover: sq ft .sq ft ff. ft. ft. ft. sq ft : 4; Does the ·present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is ,:"~. located?. Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: ' 5: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent !ts reaSo~ "' uses permitted in that zoning district? too narrow ( ) topography too small ( ) e too shallow ( Variance Application Page 2 of 3 6. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No j~. If yes, explain:~' ' · 7. Was the hards, hi.p created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~). If yes, explain: ~ o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only ,to the prope,rty described in this petition? Yes (/~{f), No (), If no, list some other properties which are simi, Comments:~ ,! certify that all of the above statements and submitted herewith are true and accurate, I acknow!~ge ~ :' p~yide~:i:'l consent to the'entry in or uPOn :': Offi(Ji~li~[ the City of Mound for the purpose; notices as may be required by law. gnature ~nt's Signature .Variance Application Page 3 of 3 Revised 03/20/02 -4947- CITY OF MOUND HARDCOYER CALCULATIONS ~,OPERTY ADDESS: ~//~ .............. .............. ~~~_..~.~.~., LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .......................................' | ,o~ ^,~^ ? .,~,'/-].~so. ~. x ~0o,0: ~,or ~ots o, ~oo~ ............................. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .................. * Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B,1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE LENGTH WIDTH ! SQ FT DETACHED BUILDINGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC, TOTAL HOUSE .................................................... TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ......... ' TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious.surface under are not counted as hardcover. TOTALDECK ....................................................... TOTAL OTHER ................................. TOTAL HARDCOVER I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ................................................... VER (indicate difference) ..................................................................... Revised 03/20/02 -4948- , : DATE This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank -4949- //////I/?/// 993.07 ! X 983.66 I X 984.(~9 978.3F- ,--107.00----- X 978.99 S 89"49'4.3" E ---111.4-0 .... 972.43 X 982.06 972.24 968.98 977.62 ~ x 977.77 977.31 X 976.92 0 ~ -~-50.00-- 967.69 ~ 966.50 I EDGE OFIBIT. DI -- 1 ]STORY FRAME w~o. //4.64.0 ;XlST1NG DECK PROPOSED 971 RET. POSED X970.0 ' / 2O GRAPHIC SCALE 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. 971.57 /1 80 /968.82 968.66 JOB NO. 981111 9811 WEATHERHEAD, PAMELA ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 stmwYFm: PAMELA WEATHERHEAD SURVEYED: October 1998 DRAFTED: October 7, 1998 REVISED: June 3, 1999 to show new irons set LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 16 and 17, Block 3, DEVON, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such a.s easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing spot elevations at selected points on the site. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "o" Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug beating State License Number 9235, set, if"o" is filled in, then denotes found iron monument. CERT~ICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional'Engin,~d a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. sH. Parker P.E. &~P.S. No. 9235 .,'.i., < -. Fine Une DESiGn m~' ~' ~ o ~ox ~ I~d / Did 5~t 10/2/01 M~.~ ~12/~-~2~ i~U~/~VI~I~H~ PATE I T ? T Fine I.Jne D~$i~n PAM WEAThErhEAD P 0 BOX 1~11 15~umd / ~id Set 10/2/01 ~~, Mlmmm Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 1 of 2 Search By: ................................................ ;:.:~:!: :~ ~ddress HOUSE or BUILDING #: STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characters) Island View Drive UNIT # (if applicable) ~ records per page Property ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Hennepin County, lVlN Property Information Search Result 7'he PJennepin County Property Tax web database is updated dai& (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9: l S p. m. Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2002 Click Here for State Copy of Payable 2002 Tax Statement "',;'i~;,,,-;~ ::"¢i;~:p: i~i 'r;.~.. ~, .'.'~:,, .. 30-117-23-22-0019 4640 ISLAND VIEW DR MOUND 277 Construction year: 1970 3 Parcel Size: E 97X55XSOX P J WEATHERHEAD & D C HILL PAMELA J WEATHERHEAD DANNY C HILL 4640 ISLAND VIEW DR 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, 1998 Sale Price: $88,000 Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Tax Parcel Description Addition Name: DEVON Lot: Block: 003 Metes & Bounds: LOTS 16 AND 17 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: $102,800 $93,2OO $93,2O0 $946.34 $17.76 http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult-4955_ 10/30/2002 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Total Tax: $964.10 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2002 Values Established by Assessor as of January 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 $39,700 $63,100 $102,800 $36,000 $57,200 $93,200 RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD 390O 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( e-mail to Henn. Net@co.hennepin.mn.us Copyright © 1998 - 2001 Hennepin County -4956- Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County, MN Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info Last ~da~: 1~03~002 at 1:00:00 PM Approximate Approximate Property ID Property Perimeter Property Area 30-117-23-22~019 358 ff. 7,042 sq.f. = 0.162 acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2002) 4640 ISLAND VIEW DR MOUND, MN 55364 $ 102,800 $ 964.10 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected : 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) 348-2618 or email him directly at Bob. Moulder~co.hennepin.mn.us 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 2.01 or later version for proper operation Copyright © 2000 Hennepin County http ://www 19. co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrima_--~_me=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VAL... 10/30/2002 Hennepin County Map Server Page I of I Hennepin County, Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info Property ID 30-117-23-22~019 Property Address 4640 ISLAND VIEW DR MOUND, MN 55364 Last~da~:lWO3QOO2atl:OO:OOPM Approximate Property Perimeter 358 ff. Market Value Approximate Property Area 7,042 sq.fl. = 0.162 acres Total Tax (2002) $ 102,800 $ 964.10 Click on Property Information Button below to view main tax information page for the property you have selected 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) 348-2618 or email him directly at Bob. Moulder~.co.hennepin.mn.us 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 2.01 or later version for proper operation Copyright © 2000 Hennepin County http://www~9~c~hennepin~mn~us/scripts/esrima-.2~T.ne=Hennepin&Cmd=Z~M~U~ 10/30/2002 CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at Such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION #99-87 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, DEVON BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 AND 17, PI]} # 30-117-23 22 0019 P & Z CASE # 99-34 37870 Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on September 28, 1999. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the sale of said City, this 22nd day of October, 1999. seal CITY CLERK -4959- September 28, 199g RESOLUTION ~99-87 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DECK AT 4640 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, BLOCK 3, LOTS 16 & 17, DEVON, PID# 30-117-23 22 0019, P & Z CASE #99-34 37870 WHEREAS, the applicant, Pamela Weatherhead, has applied for a front yard setback variance to construct a deck at 4640 Island View Drive; and, WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setback: Front yard WHEREAS, Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance 18ff 20ft 2ft the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet,. 20 feet front yard setback, and other required setbacks as listed above for lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the deck would provide access from the front of the house to the garage; and, WHEREAS, due to the slope of the property, a deck is a good alternative to a sidewalk; and, WHEREAS, all but a corner of the deck meets setback requirements; and, WHEREAS, Hardcover is under 40 percent; and, -4960- Sep~mber28, lggg 4640 Island View Dr - Wea~erhead Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommend approval of the variance recommended by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a front yard setback variance listed below as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a deck with the following condition: Existing/Proposed Reauired Variance Front yard 18 ft 20 ft 2 fl .8, The proposed new driveway will be finished with bituminous concrete or other surface accepted by the Building Inspector. The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express understanding that the structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a deck. o This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated on Certified Survey from Advance Surveying & Engineering Co: LOTS 16 & 17, BLOCK 3, DEVON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction 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. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. -4961 - September 28, 1999 4640 Island View Dr - Weatherhead Page 3 The foregoing was moved bY CoUncilmember Hanus, seconded by Councilmember ^hrens. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Brown, Hanus, Meisel, and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None. A~t'est: City Clerk SS/Pat Meisel Mayor -4962- BUILDING PERMIT CITY OF M.OUND 0,77oF. ~vood Road Mound MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 L~,.1~ I IVl~ywuuu nu~u, S,e Address TenanVBusiness Name The applicant is: ~owner .contractor . .tenant Owner Nam/'~. Address Address Phone (H) ~ (U) Description Add,ion ESTIMATED VALUE ......... :;....$ /~,, .4~)_~'-''- ZONING DISTRICT: R1 (~R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 RES. # & DATE DATE FILED PERMIT FEE (BASE) ................................... $ 1-3251 NOTICE: Separate permits are required for electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilation or air conditioning. This permit becomes null and void it work or construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or if construc- tion or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. All exterior work must be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit Issuance, according to City Code Section 300:10, Subd. 5. I hereby certify that I have read and examined this application and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and city ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specified herein or not. The granting of a permit does not presume to give authority to iolateor cancel the provisions of any other state or local law regulating,,,--) I nstru~°n °r the perf°rmance °f c°nstructi°n' ' //~///~':"" --~'"~ /~ PERMITAPPROVED BY ~, / / / WI'rite - Finance Cop), PLAN CHECK FEE ...................................... $/'~/9,P3 ~..,PD 01-3253 SURCHARGE .............................................. $ '~, ~ ~J~') 01-2222 DRAINTILE ................................................... $ 01-3254 S.A.C. (99%) ................................................ $ 78-2304 S.A.C. (1%) ..................................................$ 78-3774 CiTY SEWER CONNECTION ..................... $ 78-3158 CITY WATER CONNECTION ...................... $ 73-3155 WATER METER ........................................... $ 73-3744 STATIONARY ROD ...................................... $ 73-3842 OTHER ......................................................... $ " TOTAL .......................................................... $~ xx-xxxx Canary- Inspector's Copy pF4963-;opy Gold- Applicant's Receipt 1 3 2 0 3 BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364' Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 The applicant is: ~'~own~er ~contractor ~tenant DESCRIPTION Subdivision Address Phone (HI ~ ~ _ Contaat Person Address Phone (HI (Wi (M) &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (HI (WI (MI ../ · ..--- ~:~ / OF WORK: ....,~,~--~--,./-.~ = ~" ~!:)O~..~::~ VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 1BO DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO SE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN ED FOR NEWCONSTRUCTION. REPAIRS, REM ODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTEFilORS OF ANY BUILDING OF{ STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY' SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE0 ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMI'rTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY 130) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. NAME T'S SIGNATURE DATE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: m CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP/DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD m COPIED APPROVED I m ZONING BLDG SIZE (SQ FT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER Engineering e Planning · Surveying SURVEY REVIEW FOR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND RECEIVED .~p - 9 1999 I~OUND PLANi~IIN6 & LEGAL DESCRIPTION: l~CoT% t ~ ~ ~ ~, -:2--~, 'iZ:'~_V/O I~. REVIEW COMMENTS p:h~as:Lmoundlsur-rcv 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 · faX 612/476-8532 e-marl: mfra@mfra.com -4965- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: September 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Front Yard Variance OWNER: Pamela Weatherhead CASE NUMBER: 99-34 HKG FILE NUMBER: 99-5 LOCATION: 4640 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R- lA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request for a front yard variance to construct a deck. The associated variance is as follows. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front yard 18 ft 20 ft 2 fi The deck is planned in conjunction with a detached garage project. The property does not currently have a garage, so the plan would be an improvement to the property. All off-street parking occurs on a gravel area in front of the home. The deck would provide access from the front of the house to the garage. Given the slope of the yard a deck is a good alternative to a sidewalk. The second story would provide good views of the lake. As noted on the plans, most of the deck will be conforming. An attempt to reduce the encroachment is made by notching the encroaching comer. Hardcover after construction of the garage and deck will be under 40 percent. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning 'Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 3~-~ -4966- VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) g~,~- ~(~ City Planner B~:~:-'~ '-~(~ City Engineer ~-~-(,~;¢ Public Works Other DNR Address,~ PID~~//~~~2~ ' - ' Address~~ Phone(H} ~~ 1. 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." 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 6-16-99) -4967- r! Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. ~-,~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ./l~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or exis[in.g) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~0'; No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage D() existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: .~) Variance Application, P. 3 Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No j~. If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? (), No ~. If yes, explain: Yes Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes 0(~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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. Applicant'sSignat-.- ~. ~ ,, . -,, (Rev. 6-16-99) VARIANCE *APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) ~',o~- ~') City Planner DNR ~:E:~-~-~;~/~ City Engineer Other ZONING DISTRICT R-1 ~ R-2 R-3 B-~ B-2 B-3 1. 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 cbpies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): -4970-~ J :Xue t.~ ,uo!:~ell~su! [~u¢.uo oq:~ u! sa~ueqD -4971 - ~ CITY OF MOUND 5341. MAYWOOD RE)AD MOUND, MN 55384-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 F,~X: (952) 472,0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com October 28, 2002 Ms. Pam Weatherhead 4640 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 RE: Variance AppliCation Dear Ms. Weatherhead: This letter is in regard to the variance application you submitted on October 15, 2002 for the property located at 4640 Island View Drive. Based upon review by City staff, the application has been deemed to be complete and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review at its November 4, 2002 meeting. In the event you have any questions or would like to speak with me personally, please contact me directly at (952) 472-3190. I will be happy to visit with you. Community Development Director SJS CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, has adopted business subsidy criteria according to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993-116J.995 (the "Act"). A public hearing on the adoption of an amendment to such criteria will be held as follows: WHEN' Tuesday, November 12, 2002 7:30 p.m. - City Council meeting. WHERE: Mound City Hall Council Chambers 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 HOW TO COMMENT: Attend the hearing and you will be heard, or submit written comments. Copies of the proposed business subsidy criteria amendment will be available for public inspection on and after the date of this notice at Mound City Hall during normal business hours. Bonnie Ritter City Clerk Published in The Laker November 2, 2002. -4973- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION ADOPTING AMENDED BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA WHEREAS, pursuant to notice as is required by Minnesota Statutes Sections 116J.993 through 116J.994, City Council of the City of Mound has held its hearing on the adoption of an amendment to such criteria which are attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Mound that the amended business subsidy criteria contained in the attached Exhibit A are hereby adopted. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of November, 2002. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -4974- EXHIBIT A (Resolution No. 02-~) CITY OF MOUND BUSINESS SUBSIDY CRITERIA Purpose 1.01 This document includes the criteria to be considered by the City of Mound ("City") to evaluate requests for business subsidies. It is the intent of the City in adopting these criteria is to comply with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993- 116J.995 (the "Act"). The City hereby adopts the definitions contained in the Act for application in the criteria. 1.02 The City shall have the option to amend or waive sections of these criteria when doing so is determined necessary or appropriate. Amendments to these criteria are subject to public hearing requirements of the Act. 1.03 These criteria .are intended to set specific minimum requirements which grantees must meet to be eligible to receive business subsidies. The City will not adopt business subsidy criteria on a case-by-case basis. II. Statutory Limitations. 2.01 In accordance with the Act, all business subsidy requests must comply with the Act and other applicable Minnesota statutes. The City's ability to grant business subsidies is governed by the limitations established in the Act. III. Goals and Objectives 3.01 It is the City's intent to advance the following goals and objectives in granting business subsidies: a) b) All projects, by not later than the benefit date, must be consistent with Mound's comprehensive plan and any other plan or guide for development of the community or a sub-area of the community.. Business subsidies must be justified by evidence that the project cannot proceed without the benefit of the subsidy. Potential grantees shall be required to provide such studies, reports, appraisals, information or other data as may be requested by the City prior to consideration of a request for business subsidy. If tax increment financing is used to grant a subsidy, the grantee must demonstrate compliance with all statutory requirements of the TIF Act, including the "but for" test. The potential grantee will be ! -4975- c) required to provide all documentation necessary to make the requisite findings under the TIF Act and the Act. Grantees will be required to enter into an agreement with the City that is consistent with statutory requirements, and which contains measurable, specific and tangible goals. The Agreement shall include a commitment to continue in operations within the City for a minimum of five years after the benefit date, unless waived by the City, and shall comply with the specific job and wage goals established for the project, if any. IV. Business Subsidy Criteria 4.01 The City recognizes that every proposal is unique. Nothing in these criteria shall be deemed to be an entitlement or shall these criteria establish a contractual right to a subsidy. The City reserves the right to modify these criteria from time to time and to evaluate each project as a whole. 4.02 A business subsidy must meet a public purpose. The following criteria shall be utilized in evaluating a request for a business subsidy: Co Increase in tax base. While an increase in the tax base cannot be the sole grounds for granting a subsidy, the City believes it is a preferred condition for any subsidy. Jobs. It is City's intent that the grantee maximize the number of jobs at the site. This may include jobs to be retained but only if job loss is specific and demonstrable. Wage Floor. The jobs created as a result of any business subsidy approved by the City shall pay wages at an hourly rate not lower that 110 percent of the Federal minimum wage for full-time and part-time employees. Any deviation from the established wage floor must be documented in conformity with the requirements set forth in the Act. The provisions regarding wage floor do not apply in an instance in which the City, following a hearing, determines that job creation or retention is not part of the public purpose of the subsidy. 4.03 Economic Development. In addition to the criteria in Section 4.02, projects should promote one or more of the following: Co Encourage economic and commercial diversity within the community; Contribute to the establishment of a critical mass of commercial development within an area; Provide basic goods and services, increase the range of goods and services available or encourage fast-growing or high technology business location or expansion; JBD-221046vl MU 195 - 1 2 -4976- Promote redevelopment objectives and removal of blight, including pollution cleanup; Promote the retention or adaptive reuse of buildings of historical or architectural significance; Promote additional or spin-off development within the community; or Encourage full utilization of existing or planned infrastructure improvements. Compliance and Reportin.q Requirements. 5.01 Any subsidy granted by the City will be subject to the requirement of a public hearing, if necessary, and must be approved by the Mound city council. 5.02 It will be necessary for both the grantee and the City to comply with the reporting and monitoring requirements of the Act. JBD-221046vl MU195-1 -4977- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (COUNTY 15/2002 PROJECT) Resolved by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota (City): Section 1. Background: findings. 1.01. The Council has received a report (Report) from McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., regarding a proposed public improvement consisting of various improvements to County State Aid Highway No. 15 (County 15/2002 Project). The Report is a supplement to a similar report received by the Council on February 12, 2002, regarding Improvement Project (Mound Vision 2nd) 2002 now being constructed by the City. 1.02. The Report contains information regarding whether the County 15/2002 Project is necessary, feasible and cost effective and a recommendation that the County 15/2002 Project be consolidated with Improvement Project (Mound Vision 2nd) 2002 and constructed as one improvement as contemplated in the feasibility report for the Mound Vision 2na Project and as contemplated by the Council when it ordered the Mound Vision 2nd Project. Section2. Approvals: authorization. 2.01. The Report is accepted. 2.02. The Council will consider the County 15/2002 Project in accordance with the Report. 2.03. The Council states its present intent to consolidate the County 15/2002 Project and the Mound Vision 2"d Project as a single improvement project as permitted by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 and Section 435.56. 2.04. A public 'hearing on the County 15/2002 Project will be held on Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. 2.05. The Clerk is authorized and directed to give published notice of the hearing in substantially the form attached as Exhibit A in the manner required by law. ATTEST: Mayor Clerk DJK-222942vl MU200-92 -4978- Engineering · Planning ° Surveying November 7, 2002 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound Municipal Test Well MFRA #13313 Dear Kandis: Enclosed is an invoice in the amount of $24,780.00 from Traut Wells of Waite Park, Minnesota for installation of a test well adjacent to the water tower on Evergreen Road. The City awarded a contract to Traut Wells on August 27, 2002 in the amount of $13,264.00. A copy of their Bid Proposal is attached. As you can see, we have substantially exceeded the contract price which was based on a 150 foot deep test well. McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MFRA) personnel and Stuart Gmbb, a Hydrogeologist from Emmons & Olivier Resources (EOR), the consulting firm retained by the City, were on hand to oversee the drilling process. Because of the water quantity we are trying to obtain, the drilling process had to be extended much deeper then first anticipated. The test well was extended to 309 feet, which doubled the depth in the original proposal. Most of the extra cost is for this greater depth and includes some related items such as the screen required for the test pumping. The decision on proceeding with the drilling of the test well had to be made at the time or the cost would have been even higher. We are recommending payment in the amount of $24,780.00 to Traut Wells for the completion of the test well. The good news about the end product is that we should be able to achieve the 1,200 gallons per minutes (gpm) that was our objective. Attached is a report from EOR which outlines test results from the observation well. -4979- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 · fax 763/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra@mfra.com Ms. Kandis Hanson November 7, 2002 Page 2 If you have any questions, or need additional information, I will be present at the Council meeting on November 12, 2002. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron JC:rth s:knain:kmou 13313\correspondenceXhansonl 1-7 -4980- September 30, 2002 Emmons & Olivier Resources 3825 Lake Elmo Ave N Lake Elmo, MN. 55042 ATTN: Stuart Grubb RE: Test Well / City of Mound SERVICE MOBILIZATION DRILL & SAMPLE SONIC (0-150') DRILL & SAMPLE SONIC (150-200') DRILL & SAMPLE SONIC (200-250') DRILL & SAMPLE SONIC (250-300') DRILL & SAMPLE SONIC (300-350') GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS WELL SCREEN BLACK STEEL RISER GRAVEL PACK HIGH BENTONITE SOLID GROUT PRO TOP WELL DEVELOPMENT TEST PUMP INVOICE JOB# CREW UOM LS FT FT FT FT FT EA FT FT FT FT EA LS LS 141 28th Ave South Waite Park, MN 56387 320-25t-5090 Email Iwille@trautwells.com 705947 RIG # 250 / 343 DK, Mike A & Dave / Buck & Paul RATE PER QUANT UNIT TOTAL 1 3000.00 3,000.00 150 25.00 3,750.00 50 30.00 1,500.00 50 35.00 1,750.00 50 40.00 2,000.00 20 45.00 900.00 7 25.00 175.00 20 110.00 2,200.00 290 12.00 3,480.00 29 15.00 435.00 280 8.00 2,240.00 1 50.00 50.00 1 800.00 800.00 1 2500.00 2,500.00 INVOICE TOTAL 24,780.00 -4981 - nuo.~v, ~vv~ ~.o~rm oLu ~v~ u~ HO,6OO~J ~', 6/:3 BID SHEET OBSERVATION WELL CONSTRUCTION AND PUM. P TEST CITY OF MOUND, M~SOTA Corl.tra~tor: Fark J Mt WelX~, Lnc. Address: Traut Wel~, Inc. 141 28th Ave 8o Waite Park, ~i 56387 Confact Phone: los WiLlie (32O) Drllliag method: C~$ing di. araeter: Sonic 4" Core Sm~ple 4 Ccmpr~ .ALt Well devclopm~t method: Pump teR equipmrn.t: Sub C, ener~tor M, obiHza,tion/Demobi, liza.tion Dr~lJJl%g anLI sampl~mg Grain size ar~alysis 150 4 Uni,t__.~s Lump sum. Well ,~creea. 20 ft 1LLser pipe 132 ff ~av:l pack 22 ff B~atonit¢ seal I each Neat cem~,t ~ou.t 128 ff P~ve e~Mg I each Well deveI,opm,eat 24-hour pump te~t Lump sum. L~mp s~, Total Unit Cost Total Cost 100.00 ' 15.00 330.00 10o,o0 100.00 8.00 1,024.00 2,100.00 ' Received -4982- Pump Test Report Observation Well City of Mound Introduction The City of Mound plans to construct a new water supply well. The preferred location is a vacant lot adjacent to Sorbo Park, near the water tower, in the southwest part of the city. The address is 6155 Evergreen Road (Note: The well log mistakenly lists the address of the landowner's house on the adjacent lot.) A 4-inch observation well was constructed at the site to investigate the geology and aquifer properties at the site. A 24-hour pump test was conducted in the observation well. This report provides details about the well, pump test, and test results. Well Description The well was constructed by Traut Wells of Waite Park, Minnesota. The well was drilled using a roto-sonic drill rig. The rig advanced a 6-inch casing. A 4-inch casing inside the larger casing collected cominuous core samples during the drilling (Figure 1). Drill cores of this quality and depth are rare, so the core was collected by the Minnesota Geological Survey and placed in permanent storage. Figure 1: Roto-sonic drill core The well was constructed with a 4-in diameter, 20-ft length, 0.018 slot, continuous wrap Johnson well screen. The riser pipe was black steel. The bottom of the well screen is at 309 ft below ground surface (bgs.) Well construction information is included in Attachment A. Aquifer Description The well log is also included in Attachment A. The geology at the site is 309 ft of glacial deposits over sandy shale bedrock (St. Lawrence Formation). The glacial deposits vary - DRAFT- -4983- widely from red to brown to gray and contain many different gradations of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The glacial deposits are part of the Des Moines Lobe till, Superior Lobe till, and probably older till formations. Although it was not recorded on the well log, shallow groundwater was likely encountered about 30 ft bgs. After well construction, the water level in the well was at 84.08 ft bgs. The best water-bearing parts of the formation extend from 216 to 309 ft bgs (Figure 2). Shallower soils were judged to be too silty or not thick enough to likely produce enough water for a municipal water supply. Within the water-bearing zone, a clay layer extended from 278 to 283 ft (Figure 3). For purposes of the pump test, this clay layer was considered to be a confining layer. Figure 2: Aquifer soil around the well screen. Brown medium sand, 300 ft bgs. Figure 3: Confining layer soil immediately above the well screen. Gray silty clay, 283 ft bgs. Pump Test The pump test was also conducted by Traut Wells, and their record is included in Attachment A. The well was screened between 289 and 309 ft bgs. The well was pumped using a submersible pump. Pumped water was discharged about 75 ft east of the well to a swale in Sorbo Park. The weather before and during the test was light rain, but this would not likely have any effect on a confined aquifer over 200 ft below ground. The well was pumped at a constant rate of 86 gpm for 24 hours. After about two hours, the water level stabilized and did not change for the remainder of the test. The static water level was 84.08 ft bgs, and the maximum drawdown was to 96.25 ft (12.17 ft). A recovery test was also performed after the pump was turned off. The well returned to its static water level in less than three minutes, and only two measurements were recorded in that time. The measurements indicate that the water level during recovery was above the static water level, suggesting a measurement or recording error. These data were not analyzed further. -4984- Pump Test Analysis Pump test calculations are included in Attachment B. The data were analyzed using AQTESOLV, a popular pump test analysis program. The data were analyzed using the Theis method, which is applicable to confined aquifers. As mentioned above, the clay layer that extended from 278 to 283 ft bgs was assumed to be an effective confining layer for purposes of this pump test. It is not known how far the clay layer extends, and it would probably not act as a regional confining layer when a larger, continuously-pumping production well was completed. The St. Lawrence formation encountered at 309 ft bgs is usually also considered to be an effective confining layer. Because the well was screened between 289 and 309 ft bgs, water was pumped only from this confined part of the glacial drift aquifer. The aquifer thickness was therefore 26 ft (309 fi - 283 fi). The graph in Attachment B shows that the pumped well reached a steady state very quickly. The storage coefficient was very low, which is typical of confined aquifers. There was no evidence of delayed yield. The Theis curve that best fit the data is shown on the graph in Attachment B. It was impossible to fit the curve through the first, early data point and the later data points. This is probably because the first point reflects the delayed drawdown due to pumping the storage capacity of the well. The calculated transmissivity of the aquifer was 2.6 ft2/min. After dividing by the aquifer thickness, the calculated hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer is 144 fi/day. Production Well Capacity The data from the pump test can be used to determine the capacity of a larger production well. The analysis differs from the pump test analysis in that a thicker, unconfined aquifer is considered. The well logs indicate that the site has approximately 80 ft of sand of similar grain size distribution to the formation around the observation well. This was analyzed as an unconfined aquifer. The well design was completed using WELLCALC software developed by Emmons and Olivier Resources and is included in Appendix C. The design calculations show only one possible configuration of well diameter and screen length. Other designs could be considered based on the type of pumping equipment, screen construction, and other construction alternatives. The goal for pumping capacity was 1200 gpm. The calculations show that the aquifer will support this flow rate. The drawdown just outside the well would be approximately 40 ft (approximately 124 ft bgs.) Assuming a well efficiency of 60% , the drawdown insidethe well casing would be approximately 70 ft (approximately 154 f't bgs.) The well efficiency could start out higher (higher water level) but will likely decrease over time. - DRAFT- -4985- Well Design The well calculations in Attachment C show a 12-inch well with a 20-ft screen with 60% open area. The well screen length and diameter were selected to meet recommended entrance velocity and uphole velocity criteria (Johnson Screens, Groundwater and Wells, 2nd Edition, 1995.) These calculations and well design should be revisited after the final pump equipment, well diameter, and screen size are selected. Water Quality A water quality sample was collected and analyzed by the Minnesota Department of Health for common water quality parameters of concern. The sample was collected from the discharge line for the pump test. Analytical results are shown in Table 1. The hardness and manganese concentrations may pose a problem for the city's water distribution system. It may or may not be possible to avoid these conditions by placing the well screen above the confining layer found at 278 to 283 fi bgs and drawing water from different geologic strata. Because the required well screen is relatively short, other depths should also be considered. A second water quality sample is recommended to confirm the results shown in Table 1. Table 1. Water Quality Data - Observation Well Sample date: SePtember 26, 2002 Analyte Concentration Radon 269 pCi/L NO2 + NO3 <0.05 mg/L SO4 28 mg/L F 0.26 mg/L Total ammonia 0.48 mg/L (as N) Fe 150 ug/L Mn 510 ug/L Ca 240 mg/L (as CaCO3) mg 200 mg/L (as CaCO3) Hardness 440 mg/L (as CaCO3) pH 7.7 (in lab) Alkalinity, Tot. 420 mg/L Arsenic 1.49 ug/L Conclusions The pump test indicates that the glacial drift aquifer below the observation well site will produce at least 1200 gpm. Water quality and pumping equipment issues should be -4986- considered further before settling on a final well depth and well screen design. At least one more water quality analysis is recommended to confirm the results o£the first analysis. -4987- Attachment B Mound Pump Test Data Pumping Rate 86 11.50 gpm cu. ft/min Time (clock) 11:15 11:16 11:17 11:18 11:19 11:20 11:25 11:30 11:35 11:40 11:45 11:55 12:05 12:15 12:30 12:45 13:00 13:15 13:45 14:15 15:00 16:00 17:00 20:00 0:00 8:00 11:15 11:16 11:17 Water Level 84.08 91.91 95.19 95.29 95.39 95.50 95.79 96.00 96.08 96.08 96.08 96.15 96.17 96.17 96.19 96.21 96.21 96.21 96.25 96.25 96.25 96.25 96.25 96.23 96.25 96.25 96.25 '83.75 83.67 Time since pumping began (min) 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 5O 6O 75 9O 105 120 150 180 225 285 345 525 765 1245 1440 Drawdown 7.83 11.11 11.21 11.31 11.42 11.71 11.92 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.07 12.09 12.09 12.11 12.13 12.13 12.13 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.17 12.15 12.17 12.17 12.17 -0.33 -0.41 -4988- 11:18 84.08 11:19 84.08 11:20 84.08 11:25 84.11 11:30 84.08 11:35 84.08 3 4 5 10 15 20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 Aquifer thickness Casing diameter Effective diameter Transmissivity (from AQTESOLV) Permeability 26 ft 0.17 ft 0.25 ft 2.6 ft2/min 0.10 ft/min 144 fVday -4989- ;0 o 8 0 0 0 ? -4990- -4991 - c~.~,,,,, · · WELL AND.BORING RECORD "'~ . Ti , , FI ,~o1~''t0~ff~'' ~ o,~ -~-- -f- ~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ GEOLOGIC~ MArRIeS COLOR ~RDNESS OF . ~.~ _ A~DO~ ~Lt~ V~CE R~R~, ~A~ON, ~OURCE OF D~T~ e~ ~e in~n ~ In ~ ~ WO~ CO~ ~ -4992-~ -4993- VISUAL FIELD CLASSIFICATION Geological Color From To ' .~ /j ,~/X ~ ~ SetBe~,~n ~ ' bags Map Water Lavel ~O~O~ ~ BoSom Of ~re Sarn, p!ep 0 ~0 f~'~ - " BoSom .~o ' / 5-~ 1~-- .......',~' '~. ~- ~ ~. - ~., . v ':...,. , ,:~... We~i #: Date: Well ~nforrnation: Length of Casing Length of Scraen Total We, Depth Static Water Level We~ CaPacity Hp of Pump i~ode~ of Pump. Specific Capac~ Take Readings From Grads ~P~ @ ! q~ ' PWL @ Page The da~ ~at~d above is representative of the time spent pumping at [~e capables ata[ed. Deviation from either time spent pumping or capacity or b~63coul~ change the outcome of ~ese resuEs. ~,~©'~: On RECOVERY need:5-~ minute checks 5-5 minute checks 2-30 minute checks 1-per hour es n~ded -4995- PROJI~CT:/// Test E~¥: Well #: Date: Well Inforrnation: Length of Casing Length of Screen Total Well Depth Static Water Leve~ Well Capacity Hp of Pump Model of Pump. Specific Capac'~7 Take Readings From Grade G.P.F.D.D. Page ~ of ~ The data stated above is representative of,' the time spent pumping al the capacities stated. Deviation from eith®r time spent pumping or capaci~ or bothcould change the outcome of these r~ul~. [~OT~: On RECOVERY ne~: 5-1 minute checks 5-5 minute checks 2-30 minute checks l-per hour as needed -4996- MARK. J. TD, AUT W~LL$: INC. 141 28'" AVE SO: WAIT~ PARK; ~N 5S3~7 SA~¥D ~qNAL Y$~$ REPORT Job N~rn~: /F~,,.~ ~ S~: ~ Zip: From W~ Of: .~'/ D~r: U,5, STANDARD ~EVE NUIt~BER$ 9q 8O · 7O ~ ~o 100?0 50 40 30 20 ~S ~2 8 ::: :i' :: ~o ~o 30 40 ' so ~o 7o ~o so loo rio Izo $~ot Opening And Orain Size, ~n Thousandths Of An ~nch 9O 8O 70 50 40 3O 20 0 ~n L~n~th: ir~ US SlF-VE S~E.V~ OPENING CUMULATIVE % RETAINED NOi "INCHES 8 .O~ 2.38 .... DUSTPAN ,~ ~ /o ~ ...... ~O ~JY CONS)DEPJkTION~ ENTER ~NTO THE ~AKING OF A GOOD W~[LL THAT, WHILE WE ~EL)EVE SLOT FUrNiSHED O~ ~O~END~D FRO~ ~D $A~PL-4997-o~scT wE Assu~s ~o RESPONSI~ILI~ FOR THE SUCCESSFUL OPE~TiON OF JOHN~N WELL ~A'~K.J. T,AAUT Wr::LL$: ~C. t41 _~ZS"" AVE SO; WAITIE PA~K; ~/'~N 5~387 SA~D A~'~AL Y$#$ REPORT Sample Sent In lity: Job Name: From W=ll Of: 8O · 70 -,-4 -~ 30 U.$. STANDARD SIEVE NUi~BERS 10 90 $0 70 50 40 30 20 0 ~0 ~0 30 ~0 'so so 70 'so so mo ~'~0 ~0 ~30 $~ot Opening And Grain Size, ~n Thousandths Of An gnch lin Len¢l~: · SO ~]ANY CONS~DEP, ATION.$ ENTEF~ INTO THE '~AKING OF A GOOD WELL THAT, WHI..~- WE E~ELIEVE SLOT FUrNiSHED O,. P. ECOI~ENDED FP. OP~ SAND ~A~PI ,~ .O,ARECT WE ASSUME NO RESPONSiBiLITY FOR THE SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF JOHN~=~ON WELL SCRt-%~_FTM- i~V~AP, K.J. TP,.a~JT W~LL$~ ~C. t41 2,8'" AVE. $O: WAtTlE PARK; N~N 5~87 $~hJD AN~£ ¥$~S REPORT Job Nmrn~: From W~U Of: -/-/-// U.$, STANDARD SIEVE NUi~BERS 10070 50 40 30 2O 9O 80 8O · 7O 7O 50 40 ~0 50 4O 30 20 30 20 10 O 10 20 3o ,~o ' so eo 7o 80 so ~oo ~i o $~ot Opening And ~rain Size, ~n Thousandths Of An ~nch 0 120 130 80 B'~cC,~Y CON$1DERATION,$ ENTER INTO THE ~AKING OF A GCOD WELL THAT, WHILE WE BELIEVE SLOT 8[_7.58 FURNISHED OR RECOmmeNDED FRO~'t SAND $A~PLF~ g~.= r-ORRECT WE ASSU~IE NO RESPONSIBtLIT't FOR TH'.= SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF JOHNSON WELL SCREi-4999- ~ARK. J. T~UT WELLS; iNC. 141 _~:3'" AVE ~O; WASTE PARK; ~N 5~87 SA~ .~NAL Y$#$ F~E. POF~T Zip: Oa~: ~'- / ~- ,~ · IO0 80 · 70 -,-.I · ~ 30 I0 10070 50 40 30 20 ~0 20 U.~. ~TANDARD ,~EVE NUI~BER$ ~6 ~2 8 Opening And Grain Size, gn Thousandths Of An ~nch ~ 20 9O 80 7O 6O 5O 4O 30 20 0 130 ~==ornrn®n~)~ ~ot Op=n~ng:. {~=co~~ ~c;r==n: ~=: us Sl~¥~ S~.~VE .OPENING CU~ULATIVF.. % ,, NO. ., INQHES 8 .0~ 2.38 I'~ ~ .o~ o.~ $O ~Y CONSIDERATIONS ENTER INTO TH~ ~AKING OF A GOOD WF-LL THAT, WH~LE WE ~EL~EVE SLOT FURH~$HED OR RECOi~END~D FROI~ S:A~D SA~JPL~-5000-~)RREC:T WE ASSUi~E NO RESPOHSI~iLITY FOR THE SUCCESSFUL OPEP-~TION OF JOHNSO~ WELL SCREE~$. ~APJ(J. TP. AL~T WELLS: ~NC. t41 28'" AVE SO: WAQTE PAP. K; ~N 5=~87 U,~, ~T~J~DARD ~I~VE NUi~i~ERS '~0070 50 40 30 20 96 ~]2 8 9O 80 8O · 70 70 50 40 30 20 5O 40 30 20 ~0 O 70 20 $~o~ Opsning And Grain Size, ~n Thousand]~h$ O[ An ~nch 0 120 730 'US ~IF-VE ~i~V~ OPEN§NG CUMULATIVE. % RETAIN'~D N.O. INCHES ~A. ,, "' 8 .0~4 2.38 'DUSTPAN ._ .... L~ ~0 ....~ ¢ ~4~ _, ~O ~ANY CONS.~DERAT~ONS ~NTER INTO THE ~AKING OF A GOOD W',==.LL THAT, WHILE WE ~EL~EVE SLOT t':URN~SH.ED OR RECO~tENDF. D FROF~ ~' ,AND SA~PL-5001 -:ORRECT WE ASSU~!E NO RESPONSibILITY FOF[ THE SUCCESSFUL OPEP, AT~ON OF JOHNSON WELL ~AP-.KJ. 7PAUT W~LL,~: ~tC. 141 2.~'" AVE $O: WAITE PAP. K: ~N 5,~E~7 SamCa ant ~n ~y: Job Na~ne: From W~fl Of: -7-,'-/t Driller: ..~ P. sr~arks: ,¢~) 3 -. ~¢4) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUi~ER$ 80 · 7O I0 go 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 ~o 2o 30 ~o 'so so 70 so so ~oo ~Io ~o ~o $~ot Opening And Orsin Size, in Thousandths Of An ~nch ~0 Ibl~uNY COF, iS.~OEP~A, TION~ ENTER iNTO THE ~AKING OF A GOOD WELL THAT, WHILE WE 8EMEVE SLOT $~E8 FURNISHED OR R.,-COC, fl~:NDED FRO~ S~uND SA~PL ~no OF[~ECT WE AS-~U~JtE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ~U'CCE$SFUL OP=P, AT~ON OF JONN~-;ON W--LL SCRE- - ~..P,K.J. T~AU~' WELLS: ~NC. ~4-~ ~S'" AV-= so: WASTE PA~: MN 5~? U,~, ~TANDARD E~EVE NUi~ER~ 30~?0 50 40 30 20 ~ ~]2 IO0 go 8O 8O · 7O 5O 40 3O 2O I0 5O 4O 3O 20 ~6 ~0 20 30 40 ' 50 60 70 80 90 1 O0 I}'I 0 Slot ©psning And ~rsin Size, In Thoussndth$ Of An Inch ~20 0 130 ,~O ~IANY CO~.IS.~DEP~,TtO~.~ F. NTER INTO THE ~.,AKING OF A GOOD WELL THAT, WHILE WE P~F. LIEVE SLOT FU,~N~SHED O~ RECOmmENDeD FRO~ S:~ND SA~PL!-5003-~RR~CT WE ASSU~= NO RESPONSiBILiTY FOR TH~ SU,CCF.$SFUL ©PEP, AT,ON OF JOHN~N W~LL 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: November 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Tom and Tara Stokes PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-38 LOCATION: 5201 Waterbury PI]): 25-117-24-21-0058 ZONING: R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY At its November 4, 2002 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance request from Tom and Tara Stokes to allow construction of a six (6) foot solid wood fence to be located on a portion of the front property line along Tuxedo Boulevard. Pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:475, front yard fences are allowed to placed along property lines as long as they do not exceed four (4) feet in height. The applicants have indicated that the purpose for the (6) foot fence is to deflect headlights from the vehicles traveling along Tuxedo Boulevard as well as to muffle vehicle noise. Additionally, the proposed fence will help provide safety for the children when playing in the yard. The requested variance is described below: Proposed Required Variance From yard fence height (6) feet (4) feet (2) feet PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the variance application are contained in Planning Report No 02-38. -5004- PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The majority of the discussion at the Planning Commission level involved the current site conditions and the lack of demonstrated hardship that would support the need for increased fence height in this location. Members of the Planning Commission also commented that as there are several lots in Mound that have topographical shifts that are located on County Roads and/or City streets and also expressed concern about creating a "walled" appearance in neighborhoods in the event higher fences are permitted. Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend denial of the variance application as recommended by City staff. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's recommendation has been included as an attachment. -5005- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 02- A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A SLX (6) FOOT FRONT YARD FENCE AT 5201 WATERBURY ROAD LOTS 1, 2, & 3, BLOCK 19, WHIPPLE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PID# 325-117-24-21-0058 PLANNING AND ZONING CASE NO. 02-38 WHEREAS, the applicants, Tom and Tara Stokes, have submitted a request for a two (2) foot height variance to allow installation of a six (6) foot front yard fence to be constructed along the property line in the southeast corner of the property at 5201 Waterbury Road; and WHEREAS, the purpose for the variance is to deflect headlights from the vehicles traveling along Tuxedo Boulevard as well as to mimimize vehicle noise; and WHEREAS, the applicant has also indicated that the increased fence height ~11 help provide safety for the children when playing in the yard; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 350:475 regulates fence height to no more than four (4) feet when located in the front yard measured from existing grade; and. WHEREAS, Staff could not support the variance request as there are other feasibile alternatives available including berming, landscaping, fencing and/or combinations thereof which will accomplish the intended result; and WHEREAS, Staff and the Planning Commission have reviewed the request and recommended that the City Council deny the variance as requested by the applicants. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The City does hereby deny the variance as recommended by the Planning Commission based on the following findings of facts outlined below: -5006- There is no hardship demonstrated for the increased fence height as there are numerous lots in the community that are bordered by public streets including County Roads on two or more sides. b. Allowing a six (6) foot within the front yard setback area may set a precedent. There are other methods by which to adequately screen and/or buffer the property including berming, landscaping, tree installation, fencing permissible by City Code and/or combinations thereof. d. Installation of a (6) foot fence in the front yard may create a "walled effect" in the neighborhood that is visually unappealing. e. Installation of a six (6) foot fence as opposed to a four (4) foot fence provides no additional protection from headlight glare. 2. The variance is denied for the following legally described property: Lots 1, 2, & 3, Block 19, Whipple, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted November 12, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -5007- DRAFT Excerpts from the MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 2002 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #02-38 Variance for Fence Height 5201 Waterbury Road - Tom and Tara Stokes MOTION by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of the variance. Discussion Weiland hates to see a precedent set. Michael felt there should be more discussion. Brown rescinded the motion. Clapsaddle agreed. Smith indicated the City Code require fences in front yards not to exceed 4 feet in height. The applicant wishes to install a 6-foot fence for children's safety and headlight screening. She reminded the Commission of a previous case in the area of A1 and Alma's that was mined down. Staff has a difficult time supporting a hardship for this particular lot and felt that there are alternate ways to accomplish the same thing. Brown visited the site and felt the noise on Tuxedo has gotten worse. Could they berm 2 feet and put a 4 foot fence on top? Smith indicated that the code does not allow for that; fence height is measured from the natural grade. Mueller objected to the "walled city" effect the fence along the street would have. Clapsaddle indicated that a fence would not have much effect on noise reduction. Tom Stokes, 5201 Waterbury Road - Stop sign is 18 feet back from the curb edge on Tuxedo Boulevard. He is asking for the fence to be 19 feet back from Tuxedo. The previous fence request referred to was for a fence fight on the sidewalk. The overhead power lines prevent planting trees. Public Utilities Superintendent Skinner isn't really fond of plantings over his underground utilities. The neighbor would also benefit because the fence would block headlights from his family room. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Brown, to recommend approval of the variance. Burma felt that the kid's safety is important, however, a 4 foot versus a 6 foot fence is not significantly different in that respect. He does not believe the noise would be affected enough to justify it. Clapsaddle called for the vote. Chair chooses to ignore the request. -5008- Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT Randy Beyreis, 5200 Waterbury Road - He is also concerned about the safety of his child. Tom Hoff, 5212 Waterbury Road - He moved into the area because of the beautification that has been done to this particular area. The road is~u~sy_~d.~Tug_~d0___qurves_the_r~._ A 6-foot fence would offer a little more proteeti0n from a ear that doesn't make the turn. Mueller said no fence would protect kids from a vehicle that leawes the mad Glister was afraid that giving in to a 6-foot fence would lead to an 8-foot. MOTION denied. Voting for: Brown and Clapsaddle. Voting against: Mueller, Burma, Glister, Michael, Weiland, and Hasse MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Hasse, to recommend denial of the variance. MOTION carded. Voting for: Mueller, Burma, Glister, Michael, Weiland and Hasse. Voting against: Brown and Clapsaddle. -5009- 5341 May~ood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff DATE: October 29, 2002 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER/APPLICANT: Tom and Tara Stokes PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-38 LOCATION: 5201 Waterbury PED: 25-117-24-21-0058 ZONING: R-2 Single and Two-Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential SUMMARY The applicants, Tom and Tara Stokes, have submitted a variance request to allow construction of a six (6) foot solid wood fence to be located on a portion of the front property line along Tuxedo Boulevard. Pursuant to City Code Chapter 350:475, front yard fences are permitted to be placed along property lines as long as they do not exceed four (4) feet in height. The applicants have indicated that the purpose for the (6) foot fence is to deflect headlights from the vehicles traveling along Tuxedo Boulevard as well as to muffle vehicle noise. Additionally, the proposed fence will help provide safety for the children when playing in the yard. The requested variance is described below: Proposed Required Variance Front yard fence (6) feet (4) feet (2) feet SITE CONDITIONS The subject site includes a single-family dwelling that was constructed in 1999-2000 and fronts Waterbury Road to the north and Tuxedo Boulevard to the east. Topography on the subject lot is higher on the west side and slopes to the east towards Tuxedo Boulevard. -5010- LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1, 2 ~fid 3'~ Bi6~k-i 9~' ~i~i~' H~finepin countY, Minnesotal 60-DAY PROCESS The application was received and deemed to be complete on October 3, 2002. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny a land use request. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION All property owners abutting the subject site were mailed a copy of the Planning Commission agenda on or around October 30, 2002 to inform them of the variance request. CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: City Engineer John Cameron Installation of a (6) foot front yard fence is not supported and may be precedent setting as there are many lots in Mound which are bordered on two sides by public streets including both local and county roads. Installation of a (6) foot fence versus a four (4) foot fence provides no further benefit with regards to protection from headlights. Public Works Director Skinner No objections. Parks Director Jim Fackler No comments needed from Parks Department. Building Official Matt Simoneau Fence(s) are not allowed to be constructed in the sight triangle. Installation of a (6) foot fence in the front yard may be precedent setting. Acting Police Chief McKinley If the sight triangle is preserved, there should be adequate viewing area for vehicles exiting from Waterbury on to Tuxedo. Snow buildup and/or stockpiling in the sight triangle could potentially impede visual area(s) for drivers during the winter months. -5011- GENE~L COMMENTS 1. 2. The subject property is bordered on two sides by public streets. There is an existing play structure located on the east side of the house which appears to be located a few feet from the property line. The property drops off in the south east corner of the lot. There may be other methods by which to accomplish the necessary task including planting of evergreen trees which would provide all season screening. The proposed fence material (wood) is permitted by the City Code. There is split wood currently stored in the southeast corner of the lot which may be encroaching on the ROW. The application was forwarded to Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County who indicated that they have no comments regarding the request. City staff agrees that fencing the area will provide additional safety from the adjacent road however permitting the installation of six (6) foot fence within the front yard setback may be precedent setting as there are many lots in the City of Mound bordered by public streets on two sides including County Roads. Based upon a visual inspection of the subject area(s) by City staff, it does not appear that there are other six (6) foot front yard fences in the neighborhood. 10. To summarize, City staff finds it difficult to recommend in favor of this request given the feasible alternatives available to accomplish the task including berming, landscaping, tree installation and fencing. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission requested due to the following findings of fact: recommend Council denial of the variance as There appears to be no hardship demonstrated for the increased fence height as there are numerous lots in the community which are bordered by public streets on two (or more) sides. -5012- Allowing a six (6) foot fence within the required front setback may be precedent setting. There are other methods by which to adequately screen and/or buffer the property including berming, landscaping, tree installation, fencing permissible by code and/or combinations thereof. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Tentatively, the variance application is scheduled to be forwarded to the City Council for review at its November 12, 2002 meeting in the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is made at its November 4, 2002 meeting. -5013- Cit J of Mound VARIANCE APPLICATION Planning Commission Date Application Fee: $200.00 Case No. City Council Date Distribution City Planner DNR RECEIVEr' City Engineer. PARKS 0CT 1' 2002 Public Works Other Please type or print legibly SUBJECT Address 5 PROPER~ LEGAL Lot /" DEsc. Subdivision PID~ '¢5-/Iq-lq-Z/- 005 Plat ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 P'ROPER~ Name ~0~ OWNER Address Phone (H), qq ~' qOO I (W) .(M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN OWNER) Phone (H) (W), ~(M). 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. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Vadance Application Page 1 of 3 Revised 03/20/02 -5014- Case No. (--~" ~ 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes f~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) sq ft sq ft .sq ft .sq ff sq ft sq ft 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: 5. 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 ~.s~ Please describe: ~I~, ~ : ~'.~¢'_. ~ M~ ~:~',~ , C-¢¢'/"~'r-¢~<:-- Variance Application Page 2 of 3 Revised 03/20/02 -5015- 6. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No i~. If yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~)/,,). If yes, explain: 8. 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? 9. 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 acknowledge that I have read all of the vadance information provided. 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 Signatur ~/'"~- ' ~ ~'-------~ ' Date li~ .....//~ ----O 2_._ Applicant's Sigrlatu re~-"'~-~,''~-~' Date ~"'-/~ ~ Vadance Application Page 3 of 3 Revised 03/20/02 -5016- -5018- % -5019- This Page Is Left .Intentionally Blank -5020- rtl -- N 00'~7' 00' W " 80 O0 ·:~ / CITY OF MOUND FENCES The purpose of City Code Chapter 350:475 is to promote a pleasant physical environment and to protect the public and private property within the City by regulating the location, height, type of construction, and maintenance of all fences. YOU MUST HAVE YOUR PROPERTY STAKES LOCATED AND EXPOSED BEFORE A PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED PERMITS REQUmEMENTS A permit is required anytime a new fence is constructed, or an existing fence is altered or moved. The fee for the permit is $25.00. DEFINITION OF FENCE A fence is defined for the purpose of this Ordinance, as any partition, structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker, barrier, or enclosure and located along the boundary or within the required yard. REQUIRED INFORMATION WHEN APPLYING FOR A PERMIT 1. A completed fence permit application (See last page for application). 2. Two copies of a Certificate of Survey of the property or an accurate, scaled drawing of the property indicating the following: - North arrow - Lot dimensions - Location ofsurvey irons - Location of proposed and any existing fences - Fence height and type of material used to construct the fence - For lakeshore lots, a surveyor must locate the Ordinary High Water elevation 3. Locating the comer iron monuments is the responsibility of the property owner. The comer iron monument can be found by using a certified survey and a metal detector, or, by contacting a registered land surveyor to re-establish the lot comers.- LOCATION OF FENCES The fence, including post holes and footings, shall be located in such a way that the entire fence is completely within the property line. -5022- ,CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCF, Every fence is required to be smacturally sound and constructed of a ma~rial reasonably suited to the purpose in which the fence is to be used. Every fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance by its owner and sl-~l not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair, danger or constitute a nuisance. No electrical or barbed wire fences are allowed on private property in residential zones. Barbed wire may only be used in industrial districts as an anti-vaulting measure on top of a fence and shall not exceed 1 foot in height above the top of the fence. All link fences shall have a top mil and be constructed in a manner that the barbed ends are at the bottom of the fence. The side of the fence considered to be the face (the finished side having no structural supports) shall face the adjoining property or street right-of-way. RESH)ENTIAL DISTRICT FENCES In all single and two-family residential districts, fences shall have the following setbacks and height limitations: Typical Lot Front Yard Sidewalk/Boulevard From. Yard INo more ~ feet in height ~No more than feet in height No' more than 4 feet in height Corner Lot No more than No more than No more than 4 feet in height 6 feet in height 6 feet in height il Front :Yard Sidewalk/Boulevard No more than 4 feet in height Maximum height of four (4) feet above ground level withi~ the required setback of the fi'om face of the residential structure. Rear and Side Yards Maximum height of six (6) feet above ground level within the required setback of the rear and side f,aees of the residential structure. -5023- Comer Lots The required front yard of a comer lot shall not contain any fence that may cause danger to traftie on a street or Public road, by obscuring the view. On comer lots, no fences, structures, objects, plantings, etc. shall be permitted within the Sight Distance Triangle. The Sight Distance Triangle Street Calculating the Sight Distance THangle 1. Stand at the comer of the lot and place a stake 2. MeasUre 43 feet away from comer on both sides 3. Stake both measurements 4. The three stakes will then create a triangle, shape, this is the Sight Distance Triangle SHORELINE DISTRICT LAKES}lORE SETBACK FENCES Fences to be located within the fifty (50) foot lakeshore setback shall not exceed three (3) feet in height and shall remain a see,throUgh visibility level equal to that of a chain-link type fence. All fence materials must be treated so as to blend with the natural surroundings of the setback area. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL FENCES In business and industrial zOnes, fences may not exceed six (6) feet in height above the ground level. INSPECTIONS REQUIRED A final inspection is required when the fence is completed. Property markers must be visible for the inspector. Please call (952) 472-0607 to make an appointment. All inspection requests require a 24-hOur notice. -5024- This Page Is Left Intentionally Blank -5025- Engineering · Planning ,, Surveying November 7, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound Street Reconstruction Program MFRA #13276 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Attached for your review is a draft copy of a proposed street reconstruction policy. Also included for reference is our letter dated October 18, 2002 which included the survey of other City's assessment cost. I will be available at the November 12, 2002 meeting to discuss the proposed policy. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:rth s:Xmain:Xmou 13276Xreportskstreetreconstructionpolicies -5026- 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 763/476-6010 ° fax 763/476-8532 e-ma#: mfra@mfra.com CITY OF MOUND STREET RECONSTRUCTION POLICIES INDEX 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. PURPOSE GENERAL DEFINITIONS COUNTY ROADS MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS MAJOR STREETS LOCAL STREETS ASSESSMENT POLICIES ASSESSMENT FORMULAS DRAFT -5027- 1.01 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 0 3.01 PURPOSE The purpose of policies is to establish a guideline and procedures for the reconstruction of streets within the City of Mound. GENERAL This policy relates to roadway improvements eligible to be assessed under authorization of Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 429. Three basic criteria must be satisfied before a particular parcel can be assessed. They are: mo The land must have received special benefit from the improvement. The amount of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit. The assessment must be uniform in relation to the same class of property within the assessment area. Assessable roadway improvement projects shall conform with the procedural requirements of Chapter 429 which generally are as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Project Initiation by Petition or Council Resolution Resolution Ordering Preparation of Engineers Report Resolution Approving Engineers Feasibility Report and Ordering a Hearing Publication and Individual Notification of Hearing Public Hearing Resolution Ordering Improvement Resolution Ordering the Preparation of Assessment Roll Public Notice of Hearing on Assessments Assessment Hearing Resolution Adopting Assessment Roll Filing of Assessments with Hennepin County In addition to special assessments, other sources of funds are available to the City for street purposes, depending on the type of project involved. DEFINITIONS The City of Mound contains various type of roadways. Descriptions of the City' s street classifications are outlined as follows: Thoroughfares These are important traffic routes which provide community continuity and interconnect the City with neighboring communities. They are usually spaced at one mile intervals, although they may be closer in more heavily developed areas. When upgraded these roadways will DRAFT -5028- e 4.01 4.02 generally have 80'-100' rights-of-way and be of sufficient design to handle anticipated traffic. Collectors Streets which are designed to collect traffic from individual properties and feed into thoroughfares. They have 60-80' rights-of-way with 7 or 9 ton capacity and are generally spaced at one-half mile intervals. Local Relatively short streets which provide access to individual lots in interior areas of development. Minimum right of way is 30-60'. Cul-de-sac Dead-end streets usually designed with a maximum length of 500' and a turn around area of 30'-80' diameter at the property line. They generally are constructed in interior residential developments. Service Road Streets which run parallel and adjacent to a high volume roadway. They are designed to serve individual properties along streets where it is desirable to control access. Alley Roadways which are generally 12-20 feet in right-of-way width which service properties on the rear property line. COUNTY ROADS The county roads in Mound are: CSAH 15 (Shoreline Boulevard and Lynwood Boulevard) CSAH 110 (Commerce Boulevard and Bartlett Boulevard) CSAH 44 (West Edge Boulevard) CSAH 125 (Wilshire Boulevard and Bartlett Boulevard) The total mileage of County Roads in Mound is approximately 7-1/4 miles. These roads were originally designed as part of the County's highway system and were meant to link rural areas with the urban centers. As Mound developed, these roads have become an important part of the network of City streets. However, many of these County roads need to be upgraded in order to facilitate present and future traffic demand. Since this type of improvement is needed in part because of increased urban use it has been the County policy to share the cost of the project with the City. Costs shared in this manner include: 2. 3. 4. Right-of-way Acquisition Curb and Gutter Traffic Controls Storm Drainage DRAFT -5029- 4.03 Payment of the City portion of projects may be assessed and~or paid by City funds. 5. MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS 5.01 Regulations allow a municipality to designate up to 20% of its existing street mileage, excluding County State Aid Highways and State Trunk Highways as MSA streets. The City of Mound currently has approximately 8 miles designated as MSA streets. The City receives MSA funds on an annual basis which are allotted for maintenance and construction of MSA streets. This money is part of the gasoline tax collected in Minnesota and is apportioned to the community according to state guidelines based on population and road needs. Maintenance funds are sent automatically to the City each year while the construction funds are held in an account by the State until such time construction contracts are awarded. 5.02 The following are MSA streets: Street Tuxedo Boulevard Three Points Boulevard Lynwood Boulevard Fairview Lane Grandview Boulevard Bartlett Boulevard Wilshire Boulevard Cypress Lane Maywood Road Hidden Vale Lane Brighton Boulevard Highland Boulevard Idlewood Road Ridgewood Road Auditors Road Belmont Lane Leslie Road Devon Lane Bradford Lane From Wilshire Boulevard (CSAH 125) Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) Lynwood Boulevard Lynwood Boulevard (CSAH 15) Wilshire Boulevard (CSAH 125) Bartlett Boulevard Maywood Road Cypress Lane Maywood Road Tuxedo Boulevard Bartlett Boulevard (CSAH 110) Highland Boulevard Idlewood Road Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) Brighton Boulevard Leslie Road Devon Lane To Minnetrista Border Glen Elyn Road Fairview Lane Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) Hidden Vale Lane Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) Wilshire Boulevard (CSAH 125) Idlewood Road Ridgewood Road West Edge Boulevard (CSAH 44) Shoreline Boulevard (CSAH 15) Lynwood Boulevard Devon Lane Bradford Lane Wilshire Boulevard (CSAH 125) Cottonwood Lane Maywood Road Non-Existent Roads on MSA System Lynwood Boulevard (CSAH 15) Commerce Boulevard (CSAH 110) Belmont Lane Cypress Lane 5.03 It is not the intent of the State Aid Funding Program to totally finance the MSA system. Rather, it is designed to assist communities with street construction projects in an effort to improve the roadway system state wide. Therefore, when an MSA street is constructed or upgraded, assessments will be levied in accordance with the policies for major streets. The DRAFT -5030- e 6.01 6.02 assessment rate will reflect the benefit conveyed by the improved design, additional width, and curb and gutter, and these rates will be set by the City Council on recommendation of the City Engineer. MAJOR STREETS Major streets are considered by the City of Mound to be collector and thoroughfare streets. Streets of this variety generally service local traffic as well as traffic from other areas and therefore are designed in accordance with standards of a higher road capacity. Major streets within the City of Mound are constructed with a minimum capacity of 9 ton per axle. The primary source of funding for major roadways is special assessments and MSA funds. Major new and reconstructed streets shall be constructed with curb and gutter. Street width shall be determined by existing conditions, traffic counts and patterns, and, if applicable, MSA standards. e 7.01 7.02 7.03 LOCAL STREETS Local Streets are generally streets which service a small area and do not typically involve a movement of traffic between areas. Local streets typically connect two collector streets or county roads. Streets of this type include streets, cul-de-sacs, and service roads. Local streets within the City of Mound are constructed with a minimum capacity of 5 tons per axle. The primary source of funding of local streets is special assessments. New local streets shall be constructed with curb and gutter. When reconstructing streets concrete curb and gutter shall be installed in the following instances: All streets with existing concrete curb and gutter or existing vertical asphalt curb. All Municipal State Aid streets. Local streets without curb and gutter. New local street minimum, unobstructed street width, (back to back of curb) is 28 feet. The standard unobstructed street width for reconstructed streets shall be 28 feet. Streets which do not meet this requirement shall be reconstructed at current width (unless a wider street is desired by the affected residents) but not less than twenty-four feet (24') unless the Council finds that: A twenty-four foot (24') width would adversely affect trees or other significant or desirable physical features: and A reduced width would not constitute a distinct hazard to life or property. Factors to be considered shall include, but not limited to, safe access of emergency vehicles, snow storage requirements, availability of parking, and aesthetics. DRAFT -5031 - ?.04 ge 8.01 8.02 8.03 8.04 8.05 Streets which are over twenty-eight feet (28') in width will have parking allowed on both sides. Streets less than twenty-eight feet (28') in width may be subject to parking restrictions on one side. Parking restrictions could be established at the time of street projects or at any future date based upon general City parking requirements. Factors to be considered shall include, but not be limited to, staff report regarding safety and emergency vehicles access and neighborhood input. Where streets are less than twenty-eight (28') in width, the staff shall assist the neighborhood in identifying areas where existing street width can be increased to provide additional parking. ASSESSMENT POLICIES When assessments are levied for roadway improvements, the assessment will be calculated in accordance with the formulas set forth in the section on Assessment Formulas, using a method which combines front foot, area and unit. This method will be used for assessment purposes unless the per lot/unit method is requested by petition by at least 55% of the assessed property owners and/or it is determined that the affected lots have received equal benefits. The City Council shall have final authority on the type of formulas to be used. The total project cost for streets constructed or reconstructed in any given project shall be equal to the actual construction cost, plus associated costs such as legal, fiscal, administrative and engineering. When the City CONSTRUCTS A NEW LOCAL OR MAJOR STREET, 100% of the total projects cost, including all utilities, will be recovered by assessing the benefiting property for actual benefit received. A new street shall be defined as a roadway including curb and gutter which had not previously existed. When the City RECONSTRUCTS AN EXISTING LOCAL OR MAJOR STREET, 2/3 of the total project cost will be recovered by assessing the benefiting property for benefit received. The remaining 1/3 shall be absorbed by the City. A reconstructed street shall be defined as a roadway which existed previously. The addition of curb and gutter when it did not previously exist will be assessed separately at 100% of the cost. When major street construction or reconstruction is partially financed by State Aid Funds to improve the design and capacity, the adjoining properties will be charged an assessment based on the cost of an average street construction. The remainder to be paid by State Aid Funds or General Funds. DRAFT -5032- 8.06 8.07 8.08 The following assessment policies will apply for existing single family property when a major street is improved: Existing single-family residential property abutting two or four lane divided median roads will be assessed based on 1/4 of the cost of a standard local street as if built at the time of the assessment. Existing single-family residential property abutting two or four lane undivided roads will be assessed based on 1/2 of the cost of a standard local street as if built at the time of the assessment. Lots which are split subsequent to a roadway improvement project shall be assessed as if in existence at the time the assessment was adopted, using the formula used at the time of assessment plus interest as per current City policy from date of assessment. The following items are to be assessable as part of a reconstruction project cost: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Remove concrete curb and gutter Remove concrete pavement Remove/replace concrete steps Construct and reinforce concrete steps Remove concrete driveway pavement Remove/construct apron 6" thick concrete pavement (residential) Remove/construct apron 8" thick concrete pavement (commercial) Common excavation Core excavation Construct concrete C & G Design B-618 or surmountable Saw joint in concrete Adjust manholes Adjust catch basin Adjust gate valves Retaining wall Electric conduit Surfacing aggregate ClaSs 5 100% crushed Cultured sod with 4" thick topsoil in place Clearing Grubbing Aggregate backfill Replacement of driveway aprons Construct concrete pedestrian ramps Full-depth asphalt milling and overlay Pavement reclamation Turf restoration DRAFT -5033- 8.9 The following items would not be included in a reconstruction project cost. The items will be billed directly or assessed to the benefited property: Sewer and water service line repairs Random 6-8" concrete pavement Random concrete sidewalk 8.10 The following items will be paid at City expense when part of a reconstruction project: 2. 3. 4. Remove, replace or relocate hydrants Install hydrants and/or gate valves Sanitary sewer and watermains repair and replacement Storm sewer reconstruction or construction 9. ASSESSMENT FORMULA 9.01 The combination front foot, area and unit method shall be calculated as follows: 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed based on front footage. Comer lots shall be calculated to include all front footage (front and sides). All lots shall be deemed to have at least a minimum of 40 front feet. ASSESSMENT = 30% of Project Cost x Total Assessable Front Footage Assessable Front Footage of Lot o 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the square footage of the property to be assessed. ASSESSMENT = 30% of Project Cost x Total Assessable Area Assessable Area Of Lot 3. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on a unit basis. ASSESSMENT = 40% of Project Cost Total Units 9.02 The following are additional factors to be considered in the assessment formula: Triangle Lots - lots that form a triangle on two streets are to be assessed for footage on the long side only. DRAFT -5034- Multiple units other than duplexes are assessed on the basis of 3/4 unit per each residential unit in the building (Example: a 50 unit apartment is assessed for 37.5 units plus footage plus areas). o Lots that front on a County Road and a street improvement will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except that the units and square footage will be reduced by 50 percent. Area of land formerly commons and now under private ownership, to be assessed as part of the private property. o Large parcels (a number of combined lots) to be assessed one unit, plus area and footage. Two separate parcels under the same ownership will be assessed two units, plus area and footage if they both have enough area to qualify as buildable sites under the present zoning. o Single lots under separate ownership from adjacent property that do not meet the area requirements for a buildable site will be assessed only area and footage. Properties abutting alleys that are bituminous surface only, with no curb and gutter, to be assessed the same as any other property except the front footage will be reduced by 50% with a minimum of 40 lineal feet. Properties which have the garage located across the street from the house will be assessed on the same basis as other lots except the parcel in which the garage is located will not receive a unit charge. Lots that front on a street to be improved and which previously paid a full assessment on another street improvement project will be assessed for the footage only with no minimum. 10. Parcels which do not abut a street improvement project but received the benefits from the construction will be assessed for the project. 11. Lots that are adjacent to a 12' wide bituminous street installed for City purposes which front another street in the project will not be assessed for footage on the side street. 12. Triangular lots that are combined with a rectangular lot are to be assessed for footage on the long side of the triangular lot plus the footage of the remaining lot or lots. 13. Duplexes are to be assessed on the basis of two units plus area and footage, with a minimum on the footage of 80 feet. DRAFT -5035- 9.03 9.04 14. Lots that have streets on three sides are to be assessed for footage on the long side and the average length of the other two sides. 15. The cost of driveway entrances over 20 feet wide are assessed directly to the property owner. 16. Commercial or industrial property are assessed the same as residential property except for the unit charge where the assessment will be 1-1/2 units per parcel. 17. There is a maximum of 250 feet and 25,000 square feet per residential parcel. Assessment Cap - The maximum assessment amount may not exceed 120% of the average assessment on the previous three similar street reconstruction projects. This cap applies only to total street reconstruction (public improvements) and the associated assessments. It does not apply to partial reconstruction, i.e. curb replacement and asphalt overlay or full-depth milling/overlay or other assessable roadway improvements. The cost of special neighborhood requests which are nonstandard construction items are excluded when comparing the current project assessment to the assessment cap amount. The project feasibility report will include the per foot assessment cap amount. In certain unusual cases assessments may be determined by a "fair" comparison to other assessed property. This will be recommended by the City Engineer and approved by the City Council. s:Xmain:Xrnou 13276XReports~treet reconstruction policies DRAFT -5036- November 7, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound Street Reconstruction Program MFRA #13276 Dear Mayor and Council Members: During the summer of 2001, the City engaged an Engineering student from the University of Minnesota, through their intern program, to inventory all the streets within the City. This was the first step in implementing a street reconstruction program. The next phase of the program will be to determine how to finance the improvements and what portion should be assessed to the homeowners and how much the City should pay. We have gathered information from nine western suburban cities on how they finance their street reconstruction programs. This data has been tabulated on the attached spreadsheet. It includes not only the percentage of the project assessed to the homeowners, but also some of the rates from the last couple of years. As you will note, the cost of these projects assessed to the property owners varies greatly from no assessment in Minnetonka to a high of 80 percent in Golden Valley. Most of the cities have established a rate that is adjusted each year based on the rate of inflation. The remaining cities use the assessment percentage and set the rate for each years project based on either preliminary cost estimates or final project costs. Most of the cities we contacted generally assess curb and gutter construction in the same manner. If a street is reconstructed and there is no existing concrete curb or it is a bituminous roll type curb, the cost of the new concrete curb and gutter is assessed directly to the benefiting property. On projects with existing concrete curb, where repairs and/or minor replacements are required, the costs are included in the overall project costs. All the cities we contacted use their respective utility funds to repair or replace watermain and sanitary sewer. Most cities that have a storm sewer utility, also use those funds for repairs and/or minor replacements. Most major storm water improvements projects, such as interceptors, detention ponds, etc., are assessed to the benefiting properties. -5037- Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council November 7, 2002 Page 2 The City of Mound has an existing street construction assessment policy that was adopted in 1976, a copy of which is attached. This policy was established for the total reconstruction of the existing gravel roads and does not adequately address the type of reconstruction projects we are now contemplating. We plan to have a draft copy of a revised assessment policy available for the council meeting on November 12, 2002. We will be suggesting that the City of Mound consider an assessment policy that will assess approximately two-thirds of the basic reconstruction costs to the benefiting property. On streets without concrete curb or only a bituminous curb, the total cost of new concrete curb and gutter would be assessed to the adjacent property. Some adjustments may be required on comer lots or lots with double frontage. We will also be suggesting that any storm sewer costs, over and above the normal casting replacement/adjustment or very minor repairs, should be paid from the Storm Sewer Utility Fund. We have roughly estimated the cost to reconstruct a typical Mound street that has bituminous curb and where the bituminous mat could be milled and still salvage the gravel base. New concrete curb and gutter would be installed, the gravel base strengthened and new bituminous paving applied. This rough estimate is very close to the numbers supplied by the surveyed cities. Using an average lot width of 60 feet and an assessment percentage of two-thirds, the assessable cost would be approximately $3,800 for the street reconstruction and $600 for the new curb and gutter, for a total of $4,400. The City share would be approximately $2,200. Please be advised that these are very rough numbers and would need to be adjusted accordingly when field data is available and more accurate estimates can be prepared. We have inserted our estimated unit charge and suggested assessment spread on the survey tabulation sheet to provide a comparison with the other communities surveyed. As previously mentioned, we will provide the City Council with a draft of the proposed assessment policy and a suggested 2003 project area for consideration at the November 12, 2002 meeting. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC :rth Enclosures s:Xrnain :h'-nou 13276\correspondencehmayor-citycouncil 10-16 -5038- -5039- EVENS EN DODGE FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT ADVISORS August 19, 2002 Mr. 6ino Busi~~ Finance D~l~[or City.~lTound 5~l~Maywood Rd &~rclound, MN 55364-1627 RE: 2002 Legislation Regarding Certain Street Reconstruction Projects Dear Mr. Businaro: As you may already know, legislation passed in 2002 has granted municipalities the authority to issue bonds for street reconstruction without an advance referendum. By law, cities have been granted the authority to issue improvement bonds in areas that may not be supportable by special assessment but have substandard streets. To qualify for the referendum exemption, a city must meet the following criteria: - Bonds must be issued trader a 5-year Capital Improvement Plan - Public notice must be provided - Approval of issuance must be made by unanimous council vote - Issuance of bonds is subject to reverse referendum - Bonds are subject to a municipality's net debt limit As an independent financial advisor, Evensen Dodge would like to offer our services related to your City's capital planning and financing needs. Listed below are a few of the Minnesota cities for which Evensen Dodge has served as financial advisor on infrastructure bond issues in the last year: - City of Duluth - $4,800,000 G.O.. Street Improvement Bonds- - City ofThiefRiverFall~- $ 2,755,000 G.O. Bonds' ... ' - City of East Grand Forks $1,045,000 G:O. Bonds - City of Slayton - $ 260,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds - City of Parkers Prairie - $ 435,000 G.O. Improvement Bonds In addition, we have substantial experience advising on financing aspects of capital improvement plans for clients such as: City of Duluth Stearns County Waseca County - McLeod County - St. Louis County Atlanta, GAi Bosl'on, MAt Buffak), NY I Clnicago, It. I Dallas, TX iDes Moines, IA ! Fargo, ND I Hartford, CW Los Angele. s, C-.Al Milwaukee, WI[ Minneapolis,/biN {New York, NYI Orlando, FL I San Francisco, CA! Washington, DC 650 Third Avenue South, Suite 1800, Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.338.3535 FAX 612.338.7264 25040- 2002 Legislation Regarding Certain Street Reconstruction Projects August 19, 2002 Page two Headquartered in Minneapolis, Evensen Dodge has a multidisciplinary staff of over 30 professionals who provide a full range of financial and investment advisory services nationwide. As client financing activities have become more complex, Evensen Dodge has met those client's changing needs by expanding financing alternatives with new revenue sources, enabling legislation, new financing instruments, credit enhancements, and innovative structuring and marketing concepts. Committed to providing the highest quality service to clients, the members of the Evensen Dodge Minnesota Team include Lee Brundell, Wayne Burggraaff, Myron Knutson, Christy Myers, Chuck Upcraft, and Bob Winthrop. If we can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact us at 800-328-8200. Best regards, EVENSEN DODGE, INC. Myron L. Knutson Sr. Vice President Robert M. Winthrop Vice President -5041 - Page 1 of 5 Kandis M Hanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka. k12. mn. us> Thursday, October 24, 2002 1:13 PM Weston ka. news Westonka.news Vol. 3, No. 6 October 25, 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.kl2.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten~westonka.kl 2.mn.us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Westonka Students Score Far Above National Average on College-Level Tests --Grandview PTO to Sponsor Halloween Event --Dane McFarlane Named National Merit Commended Student 2. Focus Topic: Westonka Special Education Advisory Council 3. Upcoming Events 4. How Are We Doing? NEWS BRIEFS **Westonka Students Score Far Above National Average on College-Level Tests** Results from the Advanced Placement (AP) tests taken by Westonka students last spring are in, and the news is terrific. The College Board's Advanced Placement program allows high ability students to take college-level courses while still in high school. Students can choose to -5042- 10/24/02 Page 2 of 5 take an AP exam at the end of the course, and scores of three or higher (out of five) are eligible for credit at most colleges and universities. Almost half of all tests taken last spring by Westonka students (58 out of 119) earned scores eligible for college credit. 64 students (40%) of the Class of 2002 took at least one AP exam, along with ten juniors. Thirteen Westonka students each took three separate AP exams; three students each took four AP exams. Scores were especially strong in Calculus, Studio Art, English Literature, and US Government. In Calculus, 81% of the tests earned scores eligible for college credit, compared to a national average of 60%. 75% of the tests taken in Studio Art, and 56%of the tests taken in English Literature, earned college credit-worthy scores. A newcomer to Westonka's Advanced Placement offerings, US Government, had a spectacular first year, with nearly half of the 40 'students earning scores eligible for college credit. Westonka offers more Advanced Placement courses than many schools of comparable size. Students can choose from seven AP courses: English Literature, Art, Government, World History, US History, Spanish, and Calculus. **Grandview PTO to Sponsor Halloween Event** Grandview's Parent Teacher Organization is planning a "Haunted Hall & Halloween Party" for students in grades 5-7 on Saturday, October 26, from 7-9 p.m. A $3 admission charge is requested to cover costs. According to a PTO representative, PTO "Boo Crew" volunteers are setting up a Haunted Hall for a "screaming good time." Fun games, treats, and music to fit the atmosphere are promised. If you have decorations you could loan for the event, please contact Ginny Kunz (952) 472-4213, Denise Bonnema (952) 472-2177 or Pete L'Allier (763) 479-8253. The PTO Boo Crew welcomes black plastic, capes, cloth, strobe or black lights, flash lights, spray paint in white, black or orange, spooky music, 6-8' dividers, pumpkins with electric lights and other fun 'haunting' props. Thanks for your support, and please come! **Dane McFarlane Named National Merit Commended Student** Mound Westonka High School senior, Dane McFarlane, has been named a National Merit Commended Student by the National Merit Scholarship Program. - 5043- 10/24/02 Page 3 of 5 McFarlane earned the recognition because he was among a select group of high scorers on the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), taken as a junior. More than 1.3 million PSAT tests are taken every year. Of those, approximately 50,000 with the highest combined verbal, math, and writing scores are eligible for some form of recognition. About two-thirds (34,000) of the high scorers are selected as Commended Students, recognizing their "oustanding academic promise." FOCUS TOPIC ** Westonka Special Education Advisory Council** The Westonka Special Education Advisory Council is off and running, with lots of ideas about topics to be discussed with parent members of the group. The parent advisory group meets approximately every other month to discuss topics of interest in the field of special education. Ideas for future conversations include, among others: self-esteem issues for students receiving special education services, transition for students between buildings, transportation issues, and understanding the evaluation process. For information about joining the Special Education Advisory Council, contact Gwenn Spence at spenceg~westonka.kl2.rm~.us, or 952.491.8031. UPCOMING EVENTS --October 25-26, Popsingers Hello Show, 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School --October 26, HT Octoberfest Fall Carnival, 11 a.m. --October 26, GMS Haunted Hall & Halloween Party, 7-9 p.m., $3 admission --October 27, Daylight Saving Time Ends; set your clocks back one hour. --October 31, Shirley Hills and Hilltop Halloween Parades, 1:45 p.m. at each school --November 1, Wrestling Club Dance, 6 p.m., Mound Westonka High School --November 1, Grade 6 students should start MMR and HBV immunizations (see your doctor) --November 2, Early Childhood Craft Show, a fundraiser for the Westonka Early Childhood Program, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Mound Westonka High School Gym - 5044- 10/24/02 Page 4 of 5 BONDS AND LEVIES Levies are for Learning (paying the operating costs of providing education, such as salaries, utilities, and bus service) An operating levy was approved by voters in September 2002. Bonds are for Buildings (keeping buildings in good repair and providing certain equipment, such as computers) A maintenance and technology bond referendum passed in March 2001. HOW ARE WE DOING? We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. E-mail: welisten~westonka.k 12.mn.us District Feedback Line: 952.491.8260 Mail: 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~westorLka.k 12.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 weli stent, we st o nka. k 12. mn. us http://www.westonka.k 12.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 - 5045- 10/24/02 Page 5 of 5 public data. -5046- 10/24/02 Page 1 of 4 Kandis M Hanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka. k12. mn. us> Friday, November 01, 2002 1:50 PM Westonka.news Westonka.news Vol. 3, No. 7 November 1, 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.kl2.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten~westonka.kl 2.mn.us. Comems 1. News Briefs --It's the Season for Weather-Related School Closings --Employee Identifies $4500 in Yearly Savings to the School District --12th Annual (and Final) Early Childhood Craft Show 2. Focus Topic: More Westonka Teachers Seek Advanced Degrees 3. Upcoming Events 4. How Are We Doing? NEWS BRIEFS **It's the Season for Weather-Related School Closings** It's that time of year again. Snowflakes have already fallen, so a reminder about school closings is in order. Decisions to close school are made to protect students and staff from the potential harm of severe weather and other hazards. When possible, decisions to close school or delay the start of school - 5047- 11/1/02 Page 2 of 4 will be made by 6 a.m., and the deeision to dismiss school early will be made by 11 a.m. Notification will be broadcast on WCCO AM 830 and KSTP TV Channel 5. In most cases, notice will also appear on the School District Web site, www.westonka.k 12.mn.us. When District 277 schools close due to severe weather, ALL extracurricular activities, community education classes, and private events using school facilities are also cancelled. If there is a weather-related late start (generally a two-hour delay), there will be no morning kindergarten or morning preschool, but all afternoon and evening activities will take place as originally scheduled. **Employee Identifies $4500 in Yearly Savings to the School District** Westonka employees are always on the lookout for ways to reduce costs. Longtime employee Barbara Dahlke recently found a way to save an estimated $4500 every year by reconfiguring the School District's cell phone package. A limited number of cell phones are used within the district, primarily by building principals for emergency purposes, and by buildings and grounds staff, who are often working out and about in the district and need mobile phone access. **Early Childhood Craft Show Fundraiser** The 12th and final Early Childhood Craft Show Fundraiser is scheduled for this Saturday, November 2, at the Mound Westonka High School gym from 9 a.m.-3 p.m. This, the final year of the event, will be the biggest'craft show ever, with over 80 crafters filling the entire gym space. Early Childhood Coordinator, Sandy Wing, invites all to "Come shop for holiday and all occasion gifts and home show products. There's something for everyone!" The silent auction will feature items from craft exhibitors, theme baskets, and certificates to professional ball games, restaurants and theaters. Stop for lunch, too. You'll find the famous District/t277 sloppy joe lunch and more. "Come join the fun and support our future kindergarten families! See you there." - 5048- 11/1/02 Page 3 of 4 FOCUS TOPIC **More Westonka Teachers Seek Advanced Degrees** Eighteen Westonka licensed staff members were recently recognized for their pursuit of advanced education. As teachers earn certain levels of higher education, they also earn a salary increase (known within education as a "lane change.") Congratulations to: MA + 54 credits Jeanne Brustad, Carmen Diamond, Mara Drill, Brenda Hoogeveen, Gail Howard, Amy Lien, Diane Olson MA + 27 credits Jill Borg, Kyle Gallagher, Brian Gersich Gretchen Campbell, Mary Chase, Marc Doepner-Hove, Kay Ostman, Wanda Rogers, Shalaine Seymour, Pam Veilleux BA + 27 credits Kim Bourne UPCOMING EVENTS --November 2, Early Childhood Craft Show, a fundraiser for the Westonka Early Childhood Program, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Mound Westonka High School Gym --November 4, School Board meeting, 7:30 p.m. "Share the Success" portion of the meeting starts at 7 p.m. Shirley Hills Primary School media center --November 5, General Election Day. Please exercise your right to vote. --November 6, Hilltop ELC Candy Delivery --November 7, End of Quarter One. --November 8, No School E-12; Teacher Workshop Day --November 17-23, American Education Week (**note: this is a correction to the dates listed in the 2002-2003 Activities and Information Calendar) BONDS AND LEVIES - 5049- 11/1/02 Page 4 of 4 Levies are for Learning (paying the operating costs of providing education, such as salaries, utilities, and bus service) An operating levy was approved by voters in September 2002. Bonds are for Buildings (keeping buildings in good repair and providing certain equipment, such as computers) A maintenance and technology bond referendum passed in March 2001. HOW ARE WE DOING? We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. E-mail: welisten~westonka.k 12.mn.us District Feedback Line: 952.491.8260 Mail: 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.k 12.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~we stonka.k 12. mn. us http ://www. we st o nka. k 12. 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. -5050- 11/1/02 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN John M. Anderson, et al., Plaintiffs, VS. City of Mound, et al., Defendants, and Citizens for Commons Association, a non-profit neighborhood association, Applicant for Intervention. DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: OTHER CIVIL Catherine L. Anderson Court File No. 02-11148 PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs oppose the intervention of Citizens for Commons Association (the "Association") pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01 on the following grounds: 1. The Association does not have an interest in the property which is the subject of this action; 2. The Association does not have representative standing because the relief they want requires the participation of individual members; 3. Plaintiffs' lawsuit only seeks a declaration that the City of Mound and the public have no rights in Wiota Common, so the inland lot owners' private property rights, if any, will not be affected by these proceedings; and 2268467vl -5051 - 4. The City has already defended this lawsuit on the grounds that the inland owners are necessary parties to this lawsuit, so the Association's stated interest is adequately represented by an existing party. The legal issues presented by this case were the subject of two prior lawsuits: (1) ..Flack, et al. v. City of Mound, et al., Hennepin County Court File No. 93-15728, the Honorable H. Peter Albrecht presiding (the "Albrecht Case") and (2) Bailey, et al. v. Lien, et al., Hennepin County Court File No. MC 97-15540, the Honorable Steven Z. Lange presiding (the "Lange Case"). These two cases involved two strips of lakeshore land on Lake Minnetonka named Wawonaissa Common and Waurika Common. These "Commons" are shown on the plat of Woodland Point which is a neighboring subdivision to Dreamwood (the subdivision involved in this case). Dreamwood and Woodland Point were both platted by John and Jesse Chipman in the early 1900s. The Plaintiffs in this case seek exactly the same result achieved by the plaintiffs in the Albrecht Case: a declaration that the City of Mound (the "City") and the public at large have no right, title or interest in a privately dedicated common (Wiota Common) and an injunction prohibiting the City from running its dock program on that lakeshore land. See Order dated January 24, 1996, in Albrecht Case (Exhibit A) and Report of Referee Including Findings of Fact, Suggested Conclusions of Law, Recommended Order and Memorandum dated June 7, 1995 (Exhibit B). The legal issue in both cases is identical: where a plat dedicates a strip of lakeshore land to the lot owners in a subdivision, but not the public or the city, does the city acquire any rights in that land? The answer to that question is quite clearly "No." Plaintiffs in this case are entitled to the same declaration of rights that the plaintiffs in the Albrecht Case obtained. The plaintiffs in the Albrecht Case faced the same initial gambit played 2268467vl -5052- by the City and the Association here: an affirmative defense that the plaintiffs needed to do a title search with respect to well over one hundred lots in the neighborhood, and personally name and serve each of the owners and encumbrancers of lots in the neighborhood with the summons and complaint. That gambit failed in the Albrecht Case, and should fail here. Judge Albrecht's Order and Memorandum dated July 28, 1994, which denied the City's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to join indispensable parties is attached hereto as Exhibit C. As Judge Albrecht observed, "Since there are well over 100 families who own lots in Woodland Point, it would be an enormous task to serve all interested parties. The litigation would become unnecessarily complex and expensive, and resolution would certainly be delayed for an extended period of time." In the Albrecht Case, as here, the plaintiffs only sought a declaration that the City and the public at large had no rights in the common and did not seek to adjudicate the rights of the inland owners. Given this posture, Judge Albrecht determined that "this Court is satisfied that the proposed Amended Complaint obviates the need to join all the owners and encumbrancers of lots within the plat of Woodland Point." The Plaintiffs in this case have sought precisely the same relief as the plaintiffs in the Albrecht Case. Indeed, the prayers for relief in the Complaint in this case and the Amended Complaint in the Albrecht Case are nearly identical (with the only substantive change being that the Plaintiffs do not seek a refund of dock fees paid to the City). See Amended Complaint in Albrecht Case attached as Exhibit D. The inland lot owners are simply not indispensable parties to a case seeking a declaration of only the City and the public's rights. The Association seeks to intervene in this case for the limited purpose of asserting that the inland property owners are indispensable parties. As will be shown herein, the Association 2268467vl 3 -5053- has not met the legal requirements for intervention pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01. But, it also makes no sense to allow the Association to intervene for the limited purpose of raising the indispensable parties argument when this Court has previously held under identical circumstances that the inland lot owners are not indispensable parties. LEGAL ARGUMENT I. The Association Should Not Be Permitted to Intervene Because it Does Not Have an Interest in the Property Which Is the Subiect of This Action. The Association correctly states the four legal requirements for intervention pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01 at page two of its Brief. One of the requirements is that the applicant for intervention demonstrate an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action. Under Minnesota law, an unincorporated association cannot take and hold legal title to real estate on behalf of its members. See Mabel First Lutheran Church v. Cadwallader, 172 Minn. 471,476, 215 N.W. 845,847 (1927) (a church organization that is not a corporation either de jure or de facto cannot take title to real estate nor acquire title thereto by adverse possession); Gille v. Hunt., 35 Minn. 357, 359-60, 29 N.W. 2, 2-3 (1886) (an unincorporated, voluntary association of persons has no legal capacity to take or hold title to real property). The Association here, therefore, has neither an interest in the property of the inland property owners nor an interest in Wiota Common that would allow it to intervene pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 24.01. Moreover, the Association does not have representative standing to assert the rights of its members. Again, the Association correctly states the requirements for representative standing at page four of its Brief. One of the requirements for representative standing is that neither the 2268467vi 4 -5054- claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of the individual members in the lawsuit. See Blanding v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 373 N.W.2d 784, 790 (Mirm. App.1985), afl'd, 389 N.W.2d 205 (Minn. July 2, 1986). Here, the only way the Court will ever be able to make a binding determination of the rights of the inland property owners is if they are all named as individual parties to a lawsuit. If the inland property owners want such a binding determination of their tights, they can bring a declaratory judgrnent action in their own names to obtain that declaration just as the plaintiffs in the Lange Case did. But, the Association should not be permitted to intervene in this action and make legal claims relating to the inland property owners' real estate tights, without beating any risk of an adverse determination. Since no final determination in this matter would bind the individual members of the Association, it would be unfair to permit the Association to participate in this lawsuit. II. The Association Should Not Be Permitted to Intervene Because This Lawsuit Does Not Seek to Adiudicate the Private Property Rights of the Inland ProperS. Owners. An applicant for intervention must also demonstrate that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interests. Here, Plaintiffs' lawsuit does not in any way seek a determination of the inland property owners' · rights, so their interests will not in any way be impaired or impeded by the determination of this lawsuit. The Association has at various points in its Brief misrepresented the relief that Plaintiffs seek. Here are some examples: · Plaintiffs "have sued the City of Mound, et al, requesting that the Court find there is no basis for the public (including the in-land owners in Dreamwood) to have access to Wiota Common,...." Association Br. at 2. 2268467vl 5 -5055- · "Plaintiffs maintain that neither the public nor the in-land owners have any interest at all relating to the Common." Association Br. at 3. "The Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin the ability of the in-land owners from having docks on Wiota Common." Association Br. at 5. The Plaintiffs' Complaint does not seek to adjudicate the private property fights of the inland lot owners. Rather, the Plaintiffs' Complaint only seeks a determination that the public has no rights in Wiota Common. The inland lot owners may or may not have certain private property rights in Wiota Common by virtue of owning a lot in Dreamwood; but those rights are different from the rights of the public, and Plaintiffs seek no adjudication of those private fights here. Judge Albrecht took the right approach when he stated in his Order and Memorandum (attached as Exhibit A) that the case could proceed as long as there was a clear understanding that the private property rights of the inland property owners were not implicated by the case. Plaintiffs are willing to live with that stipulation in this case, and intervention should therefore be denied. III. The Association Should Not Be Permitted to Intervene Because the Association's Interest Is Adequately Represented By the Ci~, of M°und, The Association seeks to intervene for "the limited purpose of asserting that Plaintiffs must sue all in-land owners in Dreamwood .... "Association Br. at 4. The City of Mound has taken exactly the same position in this lawsuit. See City of Mound Answer, '~26.b.. Therefore, we fully expect that the City of Mound will adequately represent the inland property owners' stated interest by asserting that the inland lot owners are indispensable parties. The Association claims at page 6 of its Brief that its interests are different from the City of Mound. The Association claims that it has a broader interest in protecting the "in-land 2268467vl 6 -5056- homeowner's interests in maintaining the right, as an owner in the Dreamwood development, to have access to the Lake through the Wiota Common." If the members of the Association want an adjudication of their individual rights to use the lakeshore and gain access to Lake Minnetonka they will need to bear the expense Of bringing all of the proper parties before this Court (which happened in the Lange Case). By contrast, the limited legal defense that the Association seeks to assert in this lawsuit (the indispensable parties defense) is already being adequately represented by the City of Mound. In short, the Association loses both ways. If it only wants to appear in the case for the "limited purpose" of asserting that inland lot owners are indispensable parties, its interest is adequately protected' by the City. But, if it asserts a broader claim on the merits, the Association is not a proper party because all of the individual inland lot owners must be parties before the Court can render a binding determination. CONCLUSION In the Albrecht Case, this Court correctly held that certain plaintiffs who owned lots abutting a privately dedicated "common" were entitled to obtain a declaration that the City of Mound had no property rights in the "common" without being forced to name over one hundred inland lot owners as defendants in the lawsuit. The Association now seeks to set up a new roadblock to Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief: an unincorporated association will intervene for the "limited purpose" of asserting a defense that inland lot owners are indispensable parties. This maneuver should be recognized for what it is: a way for the Association to eventually assert various legal claims and defenses with respect to the merits of Plaintiffs' claim with no risk to its individual members should the Association lose. This Court should reject this 2268467vi 7 -5057- legal maneuver and require individual members of the Association to bear the expense of bringing all proper parties before the Court if the Association's members want a broader determination of their private property rights. Date: October 14, 2002 Marc D. Simpson (#183301) LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Professional Association 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1500 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ACKNOWLEDGMENT Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, Leonard, Street and Deinard, P.A., acknowledge that sanctions may be imposed in this civil action under the terms of Minn. Stat. § 549.211. Date: October 14, 2002 Marc D. Simpson (#183301) LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD Professional Association 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 335-1500 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 2268467v! 8 -5058- THE EXHIBITS HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED WITH THIS MEMORANDUM. IF YOU WOULD LIKE COPIES OF THE EXHIBITS, PLEASE CONTACT WENDY PRICE AT (952) 746-2704. -5059- RIDER BENNETT EGAN&ARUNDEI, Timo~¥ J, NOlSB (6t-~) M0-~91 t Via F~c~imilc & U.S. Mail Cota't Ad. minictrator Civil Filing Hennepin Coulaty Goverran,nt Cetlter 300 South Sixth Street Mirme. apoli~, MN 55487 Court Fag No: 02.III~ Our File No: 1770~R27~71 l~ar Court Adminiztrator: gn¢los~ ~or filing in the above-referenced matter on behalf of Applicant lbr Intervention Citizens for Common~ Aesooiation. pleaee find the followLn$: t. Reply m Plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition to Motion to Intervene; 2. Ch¢ok to "Hcnn~in County Distr/ct Corm" in the amoum of $~,O0 R. Affidavit of gory'ice. By copy oftkb lcttm', coanoel ofreoord i$ ~erv~ wit~ Ibc above. Very truly yours, KIDI~R, BENNETI~ EGAN & ARUNDEL, LIP By.. TJN/~aa Eaciosm'¢s cc: (w/enclo,ureO Mm: D. Simp,on. I~,q. (via Fac,trail, & U.S. M~il) George C- Holt, F. aa. (via Foc,irnilc & U.S. Mail) Tirr~othy J. Nolan -5060- STA'f5 0F MI}~'4ESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CASE TYP]~: OTIIER CIVIL DISTRICT COURT Catherine L. Anderson Cx.,rt Fil~ No.: 02-11148 FOl.f~ TI-[ JT rDTCTAL DISTRICT John M. Artderson~ et al., City of Mound, et al,, and Pl,inti fils, Citize.~ £o, Conunoas Association. Non-Pwfit Neighborhood A~so~iation. Appficant for Intervention. REPLY TO PI.AINTIFI~' MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTRRVRNE Court File No.02-1 ! 148 IIh~TRODUCTION AND Ii'ACTS Plaintiffs Joh~ M. Anderson. et al., representing thc owner~ ofpropcrty ~at abut ~e Wiota Co~on in ~e ~w~d development, mi~enly ~se~ in thdr Memorand~ in ~po~ilion to Ci~z~ for Co~s Mofi~ to ~tc~cne, ~t Pl~nt~, wifl~ ~ Compl~ simply w~t a docl~o~' jud~cnl ~w ~c Cou~ ~hat Dcfcnd~t Ciw of Mo~d, et al.. ~d the public at l~ge, do not ~v. ~y int~r~t in ~e Wio~ Co--on, Pla~fiffs Compla~t, however, b~liss its M~or~um. In p~aph 42 of i~ ~l~n~ ~d~ Co~t U, hi.orion, Plaln~ffs ~il,g~ t~t the City ~ 'licked docks o~ W~o~a Co--on to owugs of~d lots in D~WOOD ~ o~h~ mem~r~ of~ p~ll~.' Anti, aa psg or,he relief requested, fl goes on to ~k for the foUo~ng; 3. That th~ City 1~ prclimlna~y and ite,.,,,av~ull ~ eujuia~ from: -5061 - a. Licensi~p docks alonR the plaintiffs' re~pectlve -lakeshore strips to nnvone, .except to plaintiffs pursuant to such f~xur¢ orClinanees as may ~ &fly enacted by the. City Council for all docks alon$ all privately owned lakeshore in lhe City of Mound. (Complaint at 10-! 1) (Empha~i~ added). With irs Complaint, Plaintiffs are c'lcad? ,llempiiug ¢o obtain absolute right~ to the Wiota Common, and the docks th~ extend from the Common. Tv a~ert anything less is disingenuous, b'iven the gtatement~ ~md n~mre office Compl~ial. Plaintiff..~ also c.ile b'qack et al. v. Oily ¢~f Mound e.l.. al, Henn~in County Court File Nu.: 93-15728, for ~e proposi~on that the Complaints in ~ah c~ses were ~,e ~me, b~ic~lly denudes lids ca~c. Fi~I ~ [ore~nos[, thc Cumpl~iuls i~ Fla~;k ~d significantly ~-otc thc following in its memorandum dismissing the ~ity of Mound's Motion for gummmy Judgment for failure to join indispens~fle I?mti~s (tim in-land landow.ers Woodland Poh~t In actions involving rcaxl m-ouscty~_~ll ucrsons who may have mt interest i. th~ P[Ul~vty aro ~u~tomm"ily joinccl ~Eart_ics to thc liti_-ation. Thus, as to Plaintiffs' original Compl~/nt, thc Court agreo$ with thc City that Plaintiff~ would need to join all of the ownero v, nd eneumbmncors oflot~ located in Woodland Po~nt[.] At ~¢ timo of ~c motion hexring, PlaintiRg' stre~aed th~ it was not fl~e intent of this a~tion to mt~ere with the n~t~ of ~ inl~d lot o~m~ra. By ~ending ~e Complain, Pl~liff~ app~ to have maaejk~l~ ~at IRe ml~d lot ~qmmon and that ~ey e~ ~nfinue ~ ~, Wen t~ .t~ ~he pm~s~ ~ended Compl~nt obvi~e~ t~9..ncca to join on ~..9~c~ md enc~brano~ oflo~ within the plat of Woodl~d point (Memo in Opp, Ex. CXEmpha~i~ ~dded). The Complaint before this cottct is not the game ag that in b'lack, and it does not dcmonsu-at¢ that PIa;.li ~ ~gre~ (hut Ihe ~land lot owners have a right to uae ~e Co--on that they c~ continu~ to do so. Al.-,. the C,,,,,.t h, ~lm:~ assumed as a basi~ for ltv d~i*ion -5062- tho Plaint~ would aJlow the/n-la, nd owners to continue to use the. C~mmnn. This wax unfortunately riot Ibc o~e, ~s tlle evidenced by Bailey et al. v. Li~,_~l al, .l'l.e, nepin County (Joutt ~'ilo No,: MC 97 1~540~ in wlzich tile inland owners had to file ~uit io ait~.~pI to their intereets tom the Plaiatiffs in i;lacl~. ARGUMENT Citizens for Cnmmnn.s r~p~.~,L,~ i,-la,d ow~mr~ of thc D~wood dcv~[opal6nt. As · u~.h, il i~ a~l apl~,'ol~rla~, pmt.¥ tn intervene in this a~tion. Plaintiff~, who own thc lots in Dle. amwood tlmt abnt the. Wk~ta f'.~mmon, aa'~ r~qutsting a d~tcrmination from thc Court thai ll,~), ha¥~ ~ipm'i~ ~ights to thc lakcfzont, and for ~ injunction that wo~ld permazcntly prohibit thc City of Mound from iasuing do~k liecnsc~ relating to th~ Common to anyoae except Ibr the l'lmnt~t~. Thss, m cilt~,~, dcatroys the in-lone owncr~ oI'Dreamwood's ac~e~ mai enjoymezli the Wioto Common, an~ the~ gocgo that abut ihe Common. 'rh~ ownere of the in-land lots in Dreamwood do have a~ i~teret, t m the Common. Plamtd[~ should, therefore, be required to nar~e all of the in land property Owner,J~ os interested partiee to the proper% where Plaintiff~ to eliminate the access and use fights of the in-I~nd owners which h~ve been established by' private dedication and continuous u$¢. I. _C. itizen~ for C~_ m .m. Rn_~_ Ha.$.Sta~dln_u. CiLiz~s f(~r CIm,m~n.s hu.~ I.h~ ahilky t(~ repr~enl, the in-land prnpeny owners' i~Iere.st this matter_ Pla.intiffs i,~nnrre~-.tly cite case~ relating to a/~ ass~-.ia(io~ z~ut be. itt& able to acquire ur hold l~gal tltl~ to ~'r, al c~tat¢ o~x behalf of its mcmbcr~. Cidzcaa £o,' Commous is t,ot to aequ~ro or hold legal titlv. Rather, it mov~ to intervene for thc purpose ofrcquirln~ ?l~intlffa to name ac Defcndante all thoce who have an interest in the Wjot~ Cora~on~ the prol:~rty at issue. ISy smtut¢~ plaintlfl~ axe required to name ~ defenders ~11 thos¢~ lcnown and uO~owr~, -5063- who have an interest in the property upon wbich they ~eek s judicial determination Minn, StaL §§ 559.01; $59.02. The Plaimiffs' priest ~ction direvtly ~1'£~c:1, ~h~ homeowner,s' intere~ in tho property, by anempling to eliminate access and use of Ihs docks. Citizens for Commons, while not seeldng a determination of'its own fights, can .,,]ncak [~)r thc intexests o£at l~l sum~. of It~ i~t-lat~:l ~.~w~e,~s. T~ claim the. r~.lief,sought i~ thc Complaint, Pl,i~li f£~ .shtmhl hc tcqui~cd tf~ serve all in-land ownct~, Citiz=ns fo~- Conunon~ 6ccks intt~,~entio~, ~t. ~fis tlmc, for thc puqmac nf presenting this position. H. ~ti~c~ for Commons Should be P~itt¢d to hte~ene D~u~ thc Comphint D~ S~k to ~ng~ Upon ~ htcgzt of the In-l~d ~e~ in ~e Con~. The Complmm ~ much more th~ ~ply a dete~mation that the Wiog Co--on not public i~. The Compl~nt ~k~ a pe~t inju~aon b~ng ~e City from lieonoo~ for ~ke along ~c Co--on to ~yone bul thc Plaln6[~. (Complaint at 11). ~ek in their lawsuit ~ eliminate fi~te of in ~na 0wne~ to access ~d ~ the doc~ on the Co~on, Plain~ffg ar~e that "l~e inl~ lot owners may or may not haw e~ain private prope~ ~ts in ~e Wiota Co--ont.]," ~a ~at Juage Atbr~ht took the ~ght ~pm~h in Plack by allo~ng the case to p~eed "~ long as thee w~ a cle~ un~t~d~g that ~c private pmpezty fi~ts of the isled gmpe~ ex,em were not implicated in the g~e." (Memo in Opp. at 6). Judge AI]~chl., ht~wcv~r, did m~ allow tbs c~se to go fo~ard with the undergirding ~t · c private p~p~y fi~ts of thc inland lm-q~e,r.y ~',w,~r~ w~ ~au( impllc~ed, rather dete~in~ th~ "Fl~mit]~ ~r to havc ~c cl~ t~t th~ inlaud lot owncr~ hav~ e ~st tu ~ the co--on ~d ~hat [hcy c~ continu~ to do so.' ~o in Opp. Ex. C~Eml~h~is raided). Plmmiflk' assurano~ that they only intend to g~ a doto~ination in ~is lawsuit ~ to th~ City of Mound's iu~es~ in ~e Common ~d the Cit~a administration of ~e d~k p~ ~ ootsttad[ctml by their very C~mplaint ~d the relief ~y seek. In Mdition, ~he out.me m the -5064- Woodlaa~d Pein! ea.~, which wa~ finally r~l¥od not by eo~ o~er but by ~putation, limit~ the number ~d l~tion of d~k~ m ~e eo~on ~a. ~limi~tion of the Ci~s involv~t the doc~ pm~ ia a~ply the tint st~ by Plaintifl~ to ~mze tSe ~impl~ title to pm~y w~ch ~ subjeot to o~er in~s~ ~d tv do ~ ~out even hefting fll pe~on~ who hold The In laud Propma¥ Ownmra' Intmrmoto mm Not Ad~t,l~ CiW of Moun~ Plaiu~ff~ I~ly ar~e ~a~ lhe in.l~d prope~y owners' in~es~ ~ adequately represent~ by ~e Ciw of Mo~ T~s i~ ~ply ~ ~e ca~. Ai~hou~ ~he CiW ha~ ~le$~ one of ~ev~ de$~ t~t P~intiffv have fail~ to jo~ ~1 in~p~able pmies, it~ ~terest · e ~dt ~e differ ~m ~o~e og ~ in-l~d prepay o~. ~e City may not be all coached ~tb. b~g able m continue m license and ~intain lhe doek~, for ex,pie, Ihe in.i~d property uwncm have a s~cmggr initial, in mmnmining their zcv~ss m the l ~ke. Ry state, a pa~ who ~eeks to ~jud~ate ~ve~e claim~ to pml~.y is re, nh'ed t~ m~e all parties ~th ~ intggst, wh~ther ~o~ or ~own. It i~ wo~h noting flxat ~e in-l~d owners do not seek aa ~judic~io, or fl~eir iul.erezt.~ the Con, on ~d l~e a~. T~ i~ter~t~ ~ a ~ c~tablish~ by thc Chlpmun private deO~ea~on ~d by a coat,, of mndnot for n~Iy one hua~ y,~a. It i, ~, Plainfi~. who ,e& to w~Rl, away ~, ~ ~d ~, ~ of~e m-lind o~, without prop,r notice or he~8. The in-l~d own,r~ a~ ~e intis~abl, paai,; in thi, e~. 'lheir int~mB ~ o~y be adeq~[ely r~reg~ted by ordering ~at the P~inaff~ eith,r impl~d ~o,e m-l~d owners di,~,~ t~ir Compla~t. -5065- CONCLUSION Ba~ed on the for¢,qom~., Citizem for Common~ Association, Applicant for Intervention, re'..pectt~lly requests that ~e Court grant its Motion to Intervene, RIDER, BENNETT, BGA.N & ARUNDEL, LLP Dated: /0/{7-' ,2002 By Timothy $. i%i~ (203671) Caroline O&rrom (278476) Al:torn~.~ fi',' O.,itlrens for O.,ommon~ A.~oc. iation 3:33 8ou~ Seventh Street Suit= 2000 Mirm~poli,, MN 55402 (612) 340-$911 901967-1 -5066- STATE OR MINN%~OTA) )sS Cf}lINTY OF IlENNEPIN) SERVICE Crolinc E. Ostrom of th~ City of Minneapolis, County of Hermetic, State of Mirme~ota, b~ing duly sworn, $oy~ that on October 16, 2002she served ~e following: Reply to Pl~inblI~' Motion in G'~ooitioa to Motion to ~t~e; A~id~vR of b~cQ. upon ~ follo~ng pe~on(s) in ~s ~Qo~ by~iling to ~d pe~n(s) a copy ~h~f, ~olosed in ~ envelop, postage pr~d, ~d by de~si~g ~ s~e ~ ~be po~ oSee at Minne~ol~ M~esom, dir~l~ ~o sad p~n(s) as follows: Marc D. Sir~gon, E~q. L~onard, Street and Deinard, P.A. 150 Sou~ Fi~ S~e~ Suite M~e~lis, ~ 55420 O~or~e ¢. I4orr, E~ Hoft, Barry & Kudcr~r, P.A. 160 Flab,,shiP 775 Prairie Crz:tex Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Subscribed ,.nd sworn to b,for, mc on Octob,r 16. 2002 ,/" C$.rolin¢ E. Ostrom TOTRL P.09 -5067- CenterPoinL En;r#y 800 LaSalle Avenue PO Box 5B038 Minneapolis, MN 5545g-0038 November 4, 2002 Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound MN 55364 Dear Ms. Hanson: CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Receives National Award I want to share with you information about a recent study that recognized CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco for high customer satisfaction results. On October 24, 2002, J.D. Power and Associates released the results of a first of a kind study in the U.S. on residential customer satisfaction among local natural gas utilities. In the Midwest region, the study found that CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco tied for first place, with the company scoring high on questions relating to "billing and payment" and "price and value." The national study included over 9,000 customers of the 50 largest local gas distribution companies in the country. We are very excited about these results and for being nationally recognized for our customer satisfaction scores. Enclosed is a copy of the news release announcing the study findings. Please call me with questions about this or any other matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Arne Hendrickson Local Government Relations 612-321-5375 -5068- CenterPoinL Energy Minnegasco FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For more information contact: Patty Pederson Phone: 612.321.4609 Rolf Lurid Phone: 612.321,4879 Public Relations Pager: 612.538.1234 Page 1 of 2 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASCO RECIEVES AWARD FOR HIGH CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RESULTS IN NATIONAL STUDY Study of Gas Utility Industry by J.D, Power and Associates Ranks Company Tied for. First in Midwest Region Minneapolis, MN - J.D. Power and Associates today released the results of a first of a kind study in the U.S. on residential customer satisfaction among local natural gas utilities, resulting in an award for CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco. The study found that CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco tied for first place in the Midwest region, with the company scoring high on "billing and payment" and "price and value." "These high scores reflect our on-going commitment to meet our customers' need for convenience, accuracy and options," said Gary Cerny, president and COO of Center?oint Energy Minnegasco. "We are thrilled with the results and believe they affirm our dedication to customer service, as well as the value of natural gas to consumers." CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco offers a variety of billing and payment options for customers including Budget plan, BankPay® plan, No Surprise Billsm, Summary Billing, electronic credit card or check payment through BillMatrix, "My Account Online," and the future launch of Online Billing in Spring 2003. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco also provides natural gas service at some of the most competitive rates in the nation. In a 2002 survey by the American Gas Association, the company was in the lowest 25 percent for residential rates. CenterPoint Energy, formerly the regulated arm of Reliant Energy, was part of J.D. Power and Associates first-ever study on U.S. residential customer satisfaction among local gas utilities. The study included telephone interviews with over 9,000 residential customers from 50 of the largest local gas distribution companies in the country, including CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco. It measured Company Image, Price and Value, Billing and Payment, Field Service and Customer Service to achieve an overall Customer. Satisfaction Index (CSI). J.D. Power and Associates named CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco among the highest-ranked in the nation, tying with Consumers Energy for the top score of 104 in the Midwestern Region. Additional information about the study canbe found at the J.D. Power and Associates web site: www.idpa.com News Release - October 31, 2002 -5069- oint. Ener Minnegasco For more information contact: Patty Pederson Phone: 612.321.4609 Roll Lurid Phone: 612.321.4879 Public Relations Pager: 612.538.1234 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Page 2 of 2 Headquartered in Minneapolis, CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco is Minnesota's largest natural gas distribution company, serving approximately 700,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in over 240 communities. The companY also provides non-regulated services through its Home Service Plus® business, offering a broad range of home services including: heating, cooling and appliance repair and maintenance service plans; locally monitored home security systems; sales of heating and air conditioning equipment; and other home comfort products. The company web site is minneCasc°.CenterP°intEnerg¥'c°m- CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco is a division of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., a domestic energy delivery company that includes electricity transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution and sales, interstate pipeline and gathering Operations, and more than 14,000 megawatts of power generation in Texas. Headquarter6d in Houston, Texas, the companY serves nearly five million customers primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, MinnesOta, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas. Assets total nearly $19 billiOn. CenterPoint Energy became the new holding company for the regulated operations of the former Reliant Energy, Incorporated in August 2002. News Release - October 31,2002 -5070- THE FALL 2002 A PUBLICATION OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION Are We Loving Our Lake to Death? By Dick Osgood, Executive Director This summer's high water on Lake Minnetonka has magnified lake use issues. Boat speeds, boat densities, shoreline vulnera- bility were all at the forefront of our attention when the water was high. The LMCD's high water emergency declarations served as another reminder that boat use can have environmental impacts. The water will (probably) go down, but lake and lakeshore use issues will remain. The most frequent com- plaint and concern I receive deals with lake use - crowding, congestion, safety, noise, overdevelopment, etc. This issue will not go away and it is time to address it more' carefully. Lake use surveys of Lake Minnetonka have indicated there has been no increase in boat use for about two decades, although the nature of boating activity has changed. Boats are larger and more powerful. Personal watercraft are more frequendy citied as bothersome. People seem to want a quieter, more peaceful experience, at least at certain times. Lake Minnetonka is a highly desirable place to be. Development in marginal, out of the way areas is occurring as land become scarce. Lake access through tributaries, resi- dent docks, public accesses and commercial facilities is in high demand. Lakeshore resi- dents are shoulder-to-shoulder around the. lakeshore and conflicts with neighbors are increasing. The recent exercise of the LMCD in passing an ordinance restricting boating activity in three tributaries to electric-motor-only has been tedious and controversial. The nearly two-year-long process does not appear to over yet. There is little consensus among LMCD Board members, LMCD member cities, tribu- tary residents or lakeshore owners on this topic. Many of these groups are represented by attorneys, a sure sign we are a long way from resolution. While the impetuous and justification for the ordinance is presented to be wetland protection,, the issue has evolved to include riparian and landowner rights. The LMA is concerned with increased access from areas not now tributary to the lake, so this ordinance represents an important landmark for our attention. In fairness, lake use issues are complex. Lake Minnetonka is crowded. Lake Minnetonka has the most boats - per acre and overall - of any Minnesota lake. Lake Minnetonka is a safe place to boat, thanks to the efforts of the water patrol and the LMCD. However, all the boating activity appears to be having other effects. Lakeshore crowding and devel- opment has led to the serious impoverish- ment of the nearshore environment. Recent research is showing boating activity in shal- low water damages valuable aquatic plants and disrupts sediments. More people want and need quietude. 'Watching the sunset' is the most frequent response to surveys of lakeshore owners regarding what they value about their lakeshore homes. We may be loving our lake to death. I have no quick and simple solutions. As I mentioned above, this is a complex issue. The Board of the LMA wants to hear from our members and friends. Please take a few minutes and complete the survey in this newsletter. Your input is important as we develop a strategy to address lake use concerns. FALL 2002 · PAGE 1 -5071 - Access Inspection Pilot Program Successful - Now What? The Lake M_innetonka Conservation donal messages ~or actct~fiona! We expect the LMCD to continue their District and the Lake Minnetonka exotic species cooperation and support of this worth- Association have worked cooperatively While we are still reviewing options and while effort. We are also encouraged by to implement various actions under the the $5,000 pledge from the Legacy scenarios, it is clear that any meaningful Foundation, contingent on the LMCD auspices of a program called, Let's Keep expansion will be costly. At this point, I contributing an equal amount, toward Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka. envision a program in 2003 will cost at this project. A major element of this program is an least $60,000. We will be narrowing our access inspection program aimed at options and recommending a specific Your contribution to the LMfi2s Exotic inspecting watercraft before they enter plan of action in the near future, but it is Species Fund is also important. The earli- Lake Minnetonka and assuring they are time to alert the community of the mag- er we receive your check, the better posi- free of zebra mussels and other exotic nitude of the commitment, tion we will be in to leverage other species, monies and implement the expanded The Lake Minnetonka Association The LMCD and the LMA worked believes this is an investment needed to program in a timely manner. together to plan and implement a pilot inspection program in 2002 as a first protect our lake. step in developing a more comprehensive program in future years. In fact, the LMCD spent almost $8,000 for the additional inspectors to conduct the pilot inspection program for Lake The LMA is now ramped up and ready to go. We have an Minnetonka. Inspectors from the MN executive director who has providdd credible leadership and DNR's Watercraft Inspector Program help us craft meaningful programs to protect our lake. We were added to the rotation serving Lake have published a regular newsletter and send it to 8,000 Mitch OIson Minnetonka and were stationed at three lakeshore owners, businesses and others. We have been active in state,wide lake accesses on the lake - Maxwell Bay, issues through the Minnesota Lakes Association. North Arm and Spring Park - during the We have done our part, now it's your turn. period from July 17 through September 7. The LMA cannot keep this pace without the broad support of the Lake The pilot program successfully demon- Minnetonka Community. We need you to make this effort work. strated that inspectors were able to con- duct meaningful inspections and provide In the past year and a half we have revamped and re-energized the board. We a valuable educational message, and have been gratified in the positive response to our membership campaign efforts. therefore this program should be In that time, we have increased our membership to over 300 members, and about expanded. The Board of the LMA and 40% have contributed more than the $50 minimum membership dues. We now LMCD will be considering whether and have 14 business members. Individuals and businesses have contributed over $3,000 to the Exotic Species Fund. The LMA has been recognized by other lake how to expand the inspection program in 2003 and beyond. At this point, the associations around the state as a model. Ail of these milestones and accomplish- LMA believes the program should be ments represent a significant improvement in the past 18 months. expanded in these areas: However; to sustain this level of service and to make a positive difference in pro- . Number of accesses tecting Lake Minnetonka, here is What we need: · Hours of coverage · We need at least 1,000 members to sustain our operations. This is only · Length of season 20% of the 5,000 lakeshore owners - 2,000 members is surely doable! · Providing inspections and educa- · We need to raise at least $60,000 for our Exotic Species Fund. In addi- tion to zebra mussel, there are other ugly exotic species coming our way. "ON THE LAKE" Without prevention efforts, we rely on fate and good luck to keep these is a quarterly publication of the invaders out. Lake Minnetonka Association, P.O. Box 248~ Excelsior, MN 55331 · We need the support of several dozen lake businesses. There are many businesses that depend on a healthy lake environment. An LMA business ISSUE 2002:3 · OCTOBER 2002 membership is an appropriate way to protect your investment. HOW TO CONTACT THE LMA · We need advertisers for our newsletter. The newsletter reaches about 8,000 The LMA has new contact information and lakeshore residents and others. This is an effective way to advertise. a new web site. Please make note of these num- bers and addresses. Also, check out our web site The LMA is gratified and appreciates the support you have given. This base and feel free to suggest additional information, needs to be expanded. Please send your check today. Phone Number: ............ (952) 470-4449 Fax: .................... (952) 470-8034 E-Mail: .......... Minnetonka@Mnlakes.org Web Site: ...... www. mnlakes.org/Minnetonka Mitch Olson FALL 2002 · PAGE 2 -5072- Membership categories are: BASIC MEMBER ................ $50 About covers the costs of basic member services SUSTAINING 1VLEMBER .......................... $150 Provides resources to sustain LMA' s activities CAPTAIN .......................... $500 The highest membership level BUSINESS MEMBER ....... $250 Lake-related businesses sup- porting the LMA OTHER MEMBER ......... $__ All membership contributions are welcome Support the New Exotic Species Fund. The ESF allows the LMA to aggressively prevent the spread of new exotic species into Lake Minnetonka and helps to better control those already in Lake Minnetonka. See lead article in this newsletter for more infor- mation. Make a contribution. Additional contributions help strengthen the lAMA. Thank You, Contribtitors since last LMA newsletter! CAPTAINS ($500 +) Nell & Antoinette Riley SUSTAINING ($150 - $499) Dean Atkins Gary Blauer Dick Engebretson . Patrick & Patricia Strother BASIC (UP TO $149) American Express Foundation Libby & CarlBerquist Mike & Sandy Bosanko Dong and Karen Brewers C.D. and Mary Campbell George Carisch E.C. Forbes Ron Gramenz Groveland Homeowners Assoc. John and Lucy Hartwell Diane and John Huston Don Jacobsen Betty Jewett David & Virginia Houck Hollis Fritts and Nancy Kallid Lyle and Kath Kasprick Mr and Mrs Richard Knapp Richard and Ann Leavenworth Jim & Linda Meffert John P. Moe Terry and Jill Nagel Dave & Cathy Olson Dick & Jilt Ragatz Sabes Family Foundation John & Arlenne Soranno Mr and Mrs Leland Sundet Douglas Watson Janeil C. Weber Jeffery Werner BUSINESS ($250} Maynard's Restaurant THANK YOU, CONrlrRIBUTORS TO THE FIREWORKS AND THE EXOTIC SPECIES FUND! (F = Fireworks Contribution; E = Exotic Species Fund) $100 + Dick and Kathy Adams Win and Barb Adams Joyce Agnew {F} Pat and Bunny Alexander {F) Baycliff Property Owners Assoc. (E) Joe Carlson (E) Steve and Lois Bergerson (E) Collins Cavender (E) Randy Bickman (F) Frederick P. Clark (E and F) Jim and Lynn Blakeway (F} Gerald Carisch (F} David and Carol Cole (E) Robert Cummins (F) Gene and Carol Dahlin (F) The Danberry Co. (F) Edward Dayton (F and E) Ruth Delnney (E} Don Stadola Well Drilling Co. Inc. {E) Mt and Mrs. W'flliam H. Ellis Rev. Donald and Jean Elmberg (F) David Fink (E} T.H. Frahm (E) James and Catherine Gray (E) Run and Sandy Haberkorn (F) Holli and Michael Johander Monica Kennard, DDS (F) Tom and Marl Lowe (F) David Lundquist {F) Jim and Laura Miles (F) Franklin D. Newell (E) Dick andMarlys 0lie (F) Dick and Deb Osgood (E and F) Warren and Connie Phillips (F) John and Kitty Pillsbury (F} Sally and George Pillsbury (F} Nell and Toni Riley (F} Steve and Karen Sanger (F) Shorewood Yacht Club (F} W. Yale Smiley Allen Sorbo (F) Patrick and Patricia Strother (F) Brian Waller (F) Sharon and Jay Wein (F) Sheldon Weft (F) Angus Wurtele (F) Run and Susan Zemke (F) Alan and Bonnie Ziskin UP TO $99 Paul and Denise Aasen (E) Bob, Betty and Lynne Bat=li (F} Peggy and Jim Beardsley (F) Brad and Deb Blankenship Klm Blievernicht (F) Matt Bracken (F) Lindlex Branson (F) Doug and Karen Brewers (E) Michael and Ann Brilley (F} Mr and Mrs Allan Brittle (F) John and Kathy Cleveland (F} David and Carol Cole (E) Sue and Chase Cornelius (F} John and Many DeRosier Katherine D. Doerr (F) John and Meric Dougherty {F} Ward Edwards {F} Paul and Laura Ekholm (F) Robert E. Evans (F) David E Fink (E) Patrida Flurance (F) Cathie and John Foster (E} Rosemary T. Fruehling (F) Mitch and Asta Gersovitz {F) Robert Gillum (F} Ronald and Jennifer Groat (F} Don and Jan Hanson (F) Libby M. Hazen (F) Louise Heffelinger (E} Robyn Helland (F} J. Hinnenthal (F} Diane and John Hnston John and Suzanne Jack (E) Robert and Ann Jackson {F} Arthur Jewett Paula Johnson (F) Kevin Kennefick (F) Barb Kennedy (E) David Kickhafer (F) Bill and Carly Kimber Darwin Klockers (F} William T. Knox (F) Mr. Gerald E. Krisch (F) Kenneth and Nancy Koehnen (F) Curt and Carol Larsen (F} Richard and Ann Leavenworth Walter Linder (F} Terry Lindgren (E) D.A. Little (F) H.C. Lyman (F) Mike and Linda Maki (F) Judy Manuel Herbert and Leslie Margolis (F) Dn Elmer Martinson (F) Norma May {F) Mn and Mrs. McBride Tom and Pat McGoldrick {E} John Mdc {F) John Minahan {F) CONTRIBUTIONS W£LCOM£! Please complete this form and mail it with your tax-deductible contribution to the Lake Minnetonka Association, RO. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331. Make your check payable to the "LMA." Thanks/. Name(s) E-mail Address Marty Baskerville (F) Mrs. Gladys Burfield (F} Tom Moser {F) mmm m m m m m ama m m m mm m mm m m mmm m m m~m m~m mm m m lmm imm m m im { m m ! ! m m ! City Zip Code Phone - 1. I want to support the LMA at the following membership level: [] Basic $50 - $149 [] Sustaining $150 - $499 [] Captain $500+ [] Business $250 Other or Additional $ 2. I want to support the "LMA Exotic Species Fund" $ The LMA is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. I I TOTAL ENCLOSED: I I THANK YOUI I I L m m mm mil m im mm imm m m m mi m mm m mm m imm m m mi m mil imm m mmm mm m m m mm mmlm mm m m m m m m m m m ~ FALL 2002 · PAGE 3 -5073- Christopher and Nancy Nelson (F) Raymond D. Nelson (F) Bob Newman (F) David Nit= (F) Kent and Lois Norby (F) William Nunn (F) James T. Nystrom (F) Patrida Olson (F) Alan and Maxine Opheim (Ii Dave and Kay Owen (F) Dn Robert Pollock (F) Cleo and Donna Powers (F) Bill Priesmeyer (F) Frank Precopio (F) Gary and Susan Rappaport (F) Ralph Ratliff (F) Jack and Mary Reidhead (F) Tom Rendahl (F) Dennis and Shelley Rust {E) George and Annelies Sayer (E) Eitene R. Schadler (F) Jeff and Pat Schott (F) Scott Schultz (E and F) Bob and Sandy Sevey (F) Dale and Marilyn Simmons (F) Paul and Dawn Sjolund (F) Yale Smiley (F) D. Dean Spatz (F) Mn & Mrs. Richard G. Spiegel (F) Stahl Family (E) Mr. and Mrs. Dennis C. Stanga (F) Sharon Shark (F) Donald F. Swanson (F) A. Skidmore Thorpe (F) R. Tomalka (F) Cliff Traff (F) TM and Natalie Vaughan (F) Lance Wallin (E} Mr. Thomas L. Warner (F) Peter S. Wattson (F) Janeil C. Weber {F) Dr. Dorothy Welch (F) Jeffery Wemer (E) Helen and J. Kimball Whitney (F) James Windorpski {F) Dick Woodruff (F) Jack O. Yost Robert Zambreno (F) Phyllis Zamor (FI Alan and Bonnie Ziskin (F} Zebra Mussels are Moving This came across the internet: Close Call with Zebra Mussels in the Brainerd Area. A boat carrying zebra mussels was cleaned before the mussels reached any lakes in the Brainerd area. The mussels were discovered by Mike Hall, owner of Bob's Welding and Precision Propeller Works in Brainerd, while working on the boat. The DNR confirmed the presence of zebra mussels on the boat. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m Lake Minnetonka Lake Use Survey ! ! Please take a few moments and complete this survey, then send it to the LMA at P.O. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331. I LAKE SURFACE USE I 1. What concerns do you have with surface use of Lake Minnetonka: I 0 Crowded 0 Unsafe 0 Noisy 0 None ~ I 0 Other: Lake Zumbro, north of Rochester, is the only lake in Minnesota where zebra mussels have been found. But neighbor- ing states of Wisconsin and Michigan have many lakes infested with zebra mussels. "This incident shows how easi- ly zebra mussels can be transported across many miles," said Gary Montz MN DNR Zebra Mussel Coordinatoz How should these concerns be better controlled or regulated? 0 Ordinance 0 Enforcement 0 Voluntarily 0 None 0 Other: ! 3. Are certain boating activities inappropriate for Lake Minnetonka? Explain: 4. What do you enjoy the most about Lake Minnetonka? Explain: Recent research has shown that boats can cause damage in water less than about 10 feet deep. What should be done to protect shallow areas of the lake? Explain: LAKE SHORE USE 6. What concerns do you have with the use of the lake shore? 0 Crowded 0 Dock rules 0 Unnatural 0 None 0 Other: 7. Do you have concerns with access to Lake Minnetonka via tributaries? Explain: LAKE ACCESS 8. Should lake access be controlled or limited in any way? Explain: 9. Should limits apply to private residences, commercial businesses or public accesses? Explain: I -- Feel free to enclose longer explanations or e-mall your responsel~'.Minnetobka'@Mhlake~.org ;-- I Lake Minnetonka Clean Up Event Sponsored by Crystal-Pierz Marine and the Lake Minnetonka Assoc. About 30 divers from the Minnesota Frogmen divers club retrieved lots of cool junk for the bottom of Lake Minnetonka on August 10th. The event, planned by Crystal-Pierz Marine, was also sponsored by Maynard's and the LMA. Divers searched the lake bottom in seven locations in the lower lake dur- ing the morning dive. They found the usual array of pop cans and bottles. They also brought back a bowling ball, fishing pole, baseball bat, anchors, bath- mb and a wedding band. The event was fun for the divers who regularly make dives on Lake Minnetonka, but was also used to encourage boaters and others to help keep Lake Minnetonka clean. The LMA plans on sponsoring a larger event next year. NIN 'JO!SleOX3 80L 'ON dlVd ~lS0d 's'n 9~0 J_l:101fld~0N ~O£W~£~INI~OW I£I0 ON,OW I"11'11"'1"1'1'"11'1""11'11'"1"1'"11"11"'1'!"!'1'1 L88SS N~ 'JO!SleOx3 8~g xo8 'O'd NOI.I.VIOOSSV V)4NOI3NNI~ 3:HV'I -5074- CITY OF MOUND Meeting Minutes Mound Public Safety Facility Meeting held on 10/28/02 Date printed 11/04/02 The meeting was convened at 4:00 PM Monday, October 28, 2002 at Mound Fire Station: Present: Todd Christopherson Amcon TC John McKinley City Kandis Hanson City KH Greg Pederson City JM GP Talked about phones, cable TV, security, computer networking. The phone system should include an intercom component. Would also like to interface the 800 MHz system with the phone system. TC has suggested that we make sure we have adequate quantities for box/conduits for these items and show on electrical plans. After bids done and contracts awarded, we can refine Iow voltage needs and make adjustments to the locations as necessary. Some of the phone vendors that have called are on the State contract system and therefore no bidding would be necessary. Also, the individual systems - phones, security, and computer network - would be under $50,000. Next week's meeting will include a discussion about re-establishing a meeting schedule now that the design is done. We will try to keep a standing meeting on a weekly basis so that we can resolve some of the FFE issues and coordination. TC will miss this meeting (11/4), however, he will e-mail a memo related to this for consideration. The lease will be discussed at tonight's Council meeting. Next week meeting at 4 PM will be to discuss schedule for future meetings. TC suggested that coming meetings be focused on issues not yet finalized such as FFE, phones, security, etc. This series of meetings will probably not involve the entire building and design committees and meetings will likely be shorter. TC will not be at meeting on 11/4. 8. Meeting adjourned at 5:30 PM. Minutes by TC. Call if any missing items or discrepancy. C:\WINDOWS\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content. lE5\5J2LV56G~vlPS 10 28 02.doc -5075- Page 1 of 1 -5076- -5077- -5078- Metropolitan Council Building communities that work November l, 2002 Dear Local Official: Every August since 1997, the Metropolitan Council .has communicated two pieces of information to local gov. ernments participating in the Livable Communities Act (LCA) Local Housing Incentives Program. First, we have invited and encouraged cities to renew their participation in the LCA for the following year through passage of a city or town council or board resolution. Second, we have provided to these local governments information regarding their required Affordable and Life-cycle Housing Opportunities Amount (ALHOA) contribution for the following calendar year so that as participating communities they can be made aware of and prepare to ensure that, as required by law, they spend at least 85 percent of this ALHOA on affordable and life-cycle housing by the community. It is with good reason that so far in 2002 we have not communicated this information to LCA participants. Regarding the annual renewal of LCA participation, changes to the LCA made by the 2002 Legislature and signed into law by Governor Ventura mean that communities are no longer required to renew their participation each year. Now, instead of electing to continue to participate, each year participating communities are automatically renewed unless they proactively elect to discontinue participation for the following year. The 2003 ALHOA'calculations and distribution have proved to be much less straightforward. While the 2000 legislature changed property tax rates, it did not change the ALHOA formula in the LCA. The prelimina't.'y results of ALHOA calculations for 2003 lead to some unusual housing opportunity amounts. When legislation eliminated school districts from the normal property tax formula, cities' share of the total t~: increased by approximately 50 percent which meant that the ALHOA amounts were increased by 50 percent without anything else changing. Our preliminary ALHOA calculations further indicate that a number of cities had their total numbers of homesteads in excess of the municipality's market value base amount increase, yet their ALHOA actually decrease from the previous year. We have been reviewing the causes of these unusual results and will provide you a final ALHOA figure shortly. For these reasons we have not as yet distributed the 2003 ALHOAs to local government while we explore methods to determine and. distribute the appropriate amounts. We hope this situation has not caused any confusion or unce.rtainty about continuing LCA participation. If you have'any questions, please call Guy Petersor~fmy~staff~at.651.602~14~l& :: : ~. . :~ : .. ......,-. .- ~;,;.'~2.'2J~,'~ ,~.:%"~'? D.'. ': ', ~'~,~' ,:~-~'~' '"' '.~%~.; ~'"~ .... ';~ ""~';,,,,. ~ ~ ' ..... : :'D2!':':~; -, .3. ' · . i /,; ;,~': : :_ .:,,.~ Housing, and Livabte~Co~unities.,~, ; :: .. : :. ....~ , ~.. ~.met~0~~ M UN D%PETERSO~2~LHOAXl I 0102LAHOA num~.~ Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street * St. Paul, Minnesota SalO-_ 0 79_:6al) 602-1000 * Fax 602-1550 * TrY 291-0904 An Equ~ ~ ....... ~ Employer LEN HARRELL Chief of Police TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-O621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Kandis Hanson Acting Chief John McKinley Monthly Report for October, 2002 STATISTICS The pohce departmem responded to 704 ca!Is fOr service during the month of October:" ;there Were 24 Part I off~hses reported. There were 3 Burglaries~ 20 Larcenies and 1 vehicle theft reported There were 40 Part II offenses re.ed. /Those offenses include 1 child abuse/neglect, "1 forgery/NSF. 7 c~inal ~age to Property, 1 narcotics, 8 liquor law violations, 6 DUI, I1 domestics (4 with assaults), and 5 other offenses. The patrol division .iSsued 93-adult citations and 3 juvenile citations. Parking ViOlations accOunted for an additional 10 tickets. Warnings were issued to 50-individuals for a varietyof violatiOns. Them waS3 adult arrested for a felonyoffenseand22 adults and 5 The de There assisted (2 with injuries). Mound and requested -5080- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - October, 2002 II. INVESTIGATIONS Investigations were conducted on 2 criminal sexual conduct cases, 3 burglaries, identity theft case and 6 child protection cases. Other cases investigated included thefts, sex offender registration, forgery, stolen vehicle, assaults, personal injury accident and recovery of a stolen vehicle, adult protection, found property, domestic assault and damage to property. Formal complaints were issued for Gross Misdemeanor Domestic Assault, 3~d Degree DUI and 3ra Degree Over. 10, Driving After Cancellation as an Inimical to Public Safety, Speeding, Disorderly Conduct, 5t~ Degree Assault, Disorderly Conduct, 2nd Degree DUI and 2nd Degree Over. 10, DUI Test Refusal, Identity Theft and Misdemeanor Domestic Assault. III. PERSONNEL/STAFFING Officers used approximately 127.5 hours of overtime during the month of October. Officers used 69.25 hours of comp-time, 27 hours of sick time, and 225.5 hours of vacation. Officers earned 44.25 hours of comp time. Dan Niccum has finished both his School Resource Officer and DARE Officer training and is working full time in the schools in Mound. Officer Schoenherr went to Emergency Medical Technician 0EMT) basic training and Sgt. Swensen Acting Chief McKinley attended EMT refresher during the month. Officer Sussman attended Intoxilyzer Refresher training to re- certify as an intoxilyzer operator. V. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER Zach took his Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) test in October and passed. Zach was given a conditional offer of employment as a police officer with Mound by City Manager Kandis Hanson. Zach may start as a Police Officer for Mound on, or about, November 13th. This void is going to be filled by Michael Wocken who tested with the City of Mound for the CSO position. In October Zach responded to 27 animal complaints, 40 ordinance violations and 221 miscellaneous calls for service. There were 4 citations were issued by Zach during the month. -5081 - MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - October, 2002 VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 80.25 hours to the community in October. The unit currently has eight active who contribute on a regular basis. -5082- 0 ..q 0 , Z -I 0 ° 0 0 -5083- -5084- -5085- ooooo~5~ -5086- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 2002 OFFENSES CLF~%RED EXCEPT- C~ BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLF~%R~D AP.~EST ADULT Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL Child Abuse/Neglect Forgery/NSF Checks Criminal Damage to Property Weapons Narcotic Laws Liquor Laws DWI Simple Assault Domestic Assault Domestic (No A~sault) Harassment Juvenile Status Offenses Public Peace Trespassing Ail Other Offenses 24 0 4 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 8 0 0 8 8 2 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 i 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 TOTAL 40 0 3 22 22 5 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 5 2 0 30 45 15 501 596 HCCP Inspections 2 40 TOTAL 24 25 5 -5087- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRI/~E ACTIVITY i~EPORT OC~DBER 2002 GENERAL ACTIVITY SU~A~/tY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 44 564 561 31 318 390 5 25 137 13 196 385 76 728 712 10 192 403 6 48 51 5 38 49 15 103 87 2 32 16 0 0 0 3 30 24 24 249 303 0 10 23 7 100 162 24 249 372 40 549 686 30 260 289 45 337 547 40 284 384 501 4,271 5,609 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 911 8,583 11,190 35 360 425 21 147 486 2 25 27 15 136 126 2 47 53 -5088- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 2002 DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 6 5 0 6 2 34 3 2 9 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 10 0 0 5 3 0 4 93 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 -5089- POLICE DE PA/~T~q~RTT OCTOBER 2002 WARNINGS Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WAiRRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor Adult 7 5 5 0 2 22 0 0 0 7 48 Juveniles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -5090- Property Value Report Property Class Class Extension Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 CaseProperty. RecordType Equal STOLEN A - Motor Vehicles Unknown TOTAL: A - Motor Vehicles Monday, October 28, 2002 Record Type Items Dollar Value Stolen 1 25,000.00 1 25,000.00 B - Bicycles Unknown Bicycle TOTAL: B - Bicycles E - Consumer Items PoP TOTAL: E - Consumer Items Stolen 1 100.00 Stolen 1 1,200.00 Stolen 2 1,300.00 1 1.00 1 1.00 J - Jewelry & precious Metals Rings, NECKLACES, BRACELETS Watch TOTAL: J - Jewelry & precious Metals P - Personal Accessories PWC OPERATOR'S PERMIT WALLET TOTAL: P - Personal Accessories Stolen 1 500.00 Stolen 2 8,130.00 3 8,630.00 Stolen 1 1.00 Stolen 1 20.00 2 21,00 R - Radio/TV/Sound Entertainment CD Audio MP3 PLAYER TOTAL: R - Radio/TV/Sound Entertainment Stolen 1 158.00 Stolen 1 500.00 2 658.00 T - Currency, Negotiable bonds CREDIT CARDS Pain MEDICATION TOTAL: T - Currency, Negotiable bonds X - Equipment/tools Ak Compressor Paint Sprayer Snowblower Stolen 1 1.00 Stolen 1 20.00 2 21.00 Stolen 1 385.00 Stolen 1 1,036.00 Stolen 1 830.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1 -5091 - Property Value Report Property Class Class Extension TOTAL: ,X - Equipment/tools Y - All Other GaS LaWN ORNAMENT Tape TOTAL: Y - All Other Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 CaseProperty. RecordType Equal STOLEN Monday, October 28, 2002 Record Type Items Dollar Value 3 2,251.00 Stolen 1 30.00 Stolen 1 100.00 Stolen 1 3.00 3 133.00 OVERALL TOTAL... 19 38,015.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 2 -5092- Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 CaseProperty. RecordType Equal RECOVERED Property Value Report Property Class Class Extension Record Type Monday, October 28, 2002 Items Dollar Value A - Motor Vehicles Unknown TOTAL: A - Motor Vehicles Recovered 1 25,000.00 1 25,000.00 B - Bicycles Unknown TOTAL: B - Bicycles Recovered 1 100.00 1 100.00 R - RadiofrWSound Entertainment CD Audio MP3 PLAYER TOTAL: R - Radio/TWSound Entertainment Recovered 1 158.00 Recovered 1 500,00 2 658.00 X - Equipment/tools Air Compressor TOTAL: X - Equipment/tools Recovered 1 385.00 1 385.00 Y - All Other Tape TOTAL: Y - Ail Other Recovered 1 3.00 1 3.00 OVERALL TOTAL... 6 26,146.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1 -5093- Crime gummary Report MOC Mound Police IncidentDateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Total Tuesday, October 29, 2002 MOC Literal Translation 9000 9002 9004 9012 9015 9021 9038 9040 9200 9220 9250 9301 9302 9309 9312 9313 9314 9430 9440 9450 9561 9567 9720 9730 9731 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 3 1 1 1 1 3 5 3 1 1 5 1 1 1 28 1 SPEEDING NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L RESTRICTED D/L OPEN BOTTLE J-STOP SIGN J-CARELESS/RECKLESS MISC CITATIONS/TRAFFIC NO SEATBELT DAS/DA1UDAC NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF B CARD VIO/PROHIBITS ANY USE OF LOSTfMISSING PERSONS LOST ANIMALS FOUND/RUNAWAY FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS FOUND PROPERTY FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS H/R PERSONAL INJURY ACC. PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS DOG BITE DANGEROUS DOG MEDICAL/DOA MEDICALS MEDICALS/DX Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1 -5094- Crime Summary Report MOC Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Total Tuesday, October 29, 2002 MOC Literal Translation 9741 9750 9800 9801 9802 9804 9812 9900 9904 9910 9912 9920 9921 9930 9933 9944 9951 9980 9991 9992 9993 9994 AK351 AL351 AL354 B1264 B2364 4 1 10 7 4 1 4 2 11 1 1 2 5 8 1 2 1 2 2 11 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 911 HANG UPS FIRES ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT PUBLIC ASSIST NOISE COMPLAINT TRESPASS NOTWICATION LT ALL HCCP CASES OPEN DOOR/ALARMS MISC. SERVICES BY OFFICERS K-9 USED/REQUESTED INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS CITATION HANDGUN PURCHASE GRANTED RESTRAINING ORDER ON FILE UNWANTED GUEST SEX OFFENDERS WARRANTS J-MISC. VIOLATIONS MUTUAL AID/8100 MUTUAL AID/6500 MUTUAL AID/ALL OTFIER DOM ASLT-GM-HANDS FIST FEET-AD-FAM DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 2-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP~COM THEFT Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 2 -5095- Crime ~ummary Report MOC Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Total Tuesday, October 29, 2002 MOC Literal Translation B3894 DA540 JE501 JEF01 JF501 JFR01 JG5 01 JGF01 M3001 M4140 M5350 N3390 03991 Plll0 Pl130 P2110 P3110 P3120 P3630 Q1227 TB029 TC029 TQ029 TQ159 TQ169 TR019 TR029 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK TRAF-AC-GM-2ND DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV TRAF-AC-GM-2ND DEG DWI-10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV TRAF-AC-GM-3RD DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV TRAF-AC-GM-3RD DEG DWI-REFUSAL TO TEST-MV TRAF-ACC-M4TH DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV TRAF-ACC-M-4TH DEG DWI-10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER-UNDER 18 YRS LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY DISTURB PEAC-MS-ViOL DOM ABUSE NO CONTACT ORD OBSENITY-MS-OTHER ACT-OTH MATERIAL-MINOR PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-COM-BUSINES STLN PROP-FE-POSSESS-VEHICLES-501-2500 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-251-500-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT-251-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-251-500-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 250-MS-FRM PERSON-OTH PROP THEFT-250 OR LESS-MS-BUILDING-OTHER PROP Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 3 -5096- Crime Summary Report MOC Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Total Tuesday, October 29, 2002 MOC Literal Translation GRAND TOTAL: TR059 TR099 TR151 TR161 TR169 U1062 U1063 U255D U302D U3060 U306D U3280 U349D VA021 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 217 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-LESS 250-MS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 250-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY THEFT-LESS 250-MS-WATERCRAFT-MONEY THEFT-LESS 250-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP THEFT-FE-THFT BY SWINDLE TRICK-2501-19999 THEFT-FE-BY SWINDLE-TRICK-501-2500 FRAUD-GM-F1N-TRAN-CARD-NO-CONSENT-250-LES S THEFT-MN-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-250 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-UNK THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-250 OR LESS THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-UNK LOSS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-250 OR LESS THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 4 -5097- Citation Summary Report MOC Mound Police Citation. DateCited Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Literal Translation Monday, October 2g, 2002 9OO0 33 SPEEDING 9001 1 J-SPEEDING 9014 1 STOP SIGN 9O38 MISC CITATIONS/TRAFFIC 9040 2 NO SEATBELT 9100 10 PARKING/ALL OTHER 9210 9 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE GRAND TOTAL... 58 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1 -5098- Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Offense. OffenseCode Greater Than or Equal A0000 Case Status Report Un= Except- Cleared Pending/ Total MOC Total Founded Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Tuesday, October 29, 2002 Ref. To GOA Assisted Otb. Agen /UTL '/Advised Other AK351 DOM ASLT-GM-HANDS FIST FEET-AD-FAM 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 3 0 0 3 0 3 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM 1 0 1 0 0 1 percent 00.00 100.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 B1264 BURG 1-OCC RES NO FRC-N-UN WEAP-COM TI-IEFT 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 B2364 BURG 2-UNOCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 B3894 BURG 3-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 0 0 0 1 0 percem 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 JE501 TRAF-AC-GM-2ND DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00,00 100.00 00.00 100,00 JEF01 TRAF-AC-GM-2ND DEG DWI-10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV 1 0 0 1 0 1 percem 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 JF501 TRAF-AC-GM-3RD DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 JFR01 TRAF-AC-GM-3RD DEG DWI-REFUSAL TO TEST-MV 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 $G501 TRAF-ACC-M-4TH DEG DWI-UI ALCOHOL-MV 4 0 0 4 0 4 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 JGF01 TRAF-ACC-M-4TH DEG DWI- 10 OR MORE WIN 2 HRS-MV 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00,00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 1 -5099- Mound Police lncident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Offense. OITenseCode Greater Than or Equal A0000 Case Status Report Un- Except- Cleared Pending/ Total MOC Total Founded Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Tuesday, October 29, 2002 Ref. To GOA Assisted Otb. Agen /UTL /Advised Other 4 0 0 4 0 4 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER-UNDER 18 YRS 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 2 0 0 2 0 2 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 N3390 DISTURB PEAC-MS-VIOL DOM ABUSE NO CONTACT ORD 1 0 1 0 0 1 percent 00.00 100.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 03991 OBSENITY-MS-OTHER ACT-OTH MATERIAL-MINOR 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 P1110 PROP DAMAGE-FE-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 Pl130 PROP DAMAGE-FE-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00,00 100.00 00,00 P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 0 0 0 2 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC~UNK INTENT 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00,00 100.00 00.00 P3630 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-COM-BUSINES 1 0 1 0 0 1 percent 00.00 100.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 Q1227 STLN PROP-FE-POSSESS-VEHICLES-501-2500 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00,00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00,00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 2 -5100- Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Offense. OffenseCode Greater Than or Equal A0000 Case Status Report Un- Except- Cleared Pending/ Total MOC Total Founded Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Tuesday, October 29, 2002 Ref. To GOA Assisted Oth. Agen /UTL /Advised TB029 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TQ029 THEFT-251-500-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 0 0 1 percent 00.00 100.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 TQ 159 THEFT-251-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TQ169 THEFT-251-500-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TR019 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-FRM PERSON-OTH PROP 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TR029 THEFT-250 OR LESS-MS-BUILDING-OTHER PROP 2 0 2 0 0 2 percent 00.00 100.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 TR059 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP 1 0 0 0 I 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TR099 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TK151 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TR161 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-WATERCRAFT-MONEY 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 TR169 THEFT-LESS 250-MS-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 U1062 THEFT-FE-THFT BY SWINDLE TRICK-2501-19999 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 Other 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00,00 00.00 00.00 00,00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00,00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00,00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 3 -5101 - Mound Police Incident. DateReported Between 09/26/02 10/25/02 Offense. OffenseCode Greater Than or Equal A0000 Case Status Report Un- Except- Cleared Pending/ Total MOC Total Founded Cleared Arrest Inactive Cleared Tuesday, October 29, 2002 Ref. To GOA Assisted Oth. Agen /UTL /Advised Other U1063 THEFT-IrE-BY SWINDLE-TRICK-501-2500 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100.00 U255D FRAUD-GM-F1N-TRAN-CARD-NO-CONSENT-250-LES S 1 0 0 1 0 1 percent 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 100,00 U302D THEFT-MN-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-250 OR LESS 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 U3060 THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-UNK 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 U306D THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-250 OR LESS 1 0 0 0 1 0 percem 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 U3280 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-UNK LOSS 1 0 1 0 0 1 percent 00.00 100.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 U349D THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-250 OR LESS 1 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 VA021 THEFT-FE-AUTO-MORE THAN 2500 I 0 0 0 1 0 percent 00.00 00.00 00.00 100.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00,00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00,00 0 0 0 0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00,00 TOTAL 57 0 7 24 26 31 0 0 0 percent 00.00 12.28 42.11 45.61 54.39 00.00 00.00 00.00 0 00.00 Licensed to Mound Police Department Page: 4 -5102- The Gillespie Gazette VOI~ X NO 11 November. 2002 October 23, 2002 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE Dear Members and Friends, I see the signs of the changing season. The leaves are changing and falling. This has been a very rainy year for us. It has been very dry in many pares of the country, some not that far from us. The furnace kicks on at night. What kind of winter will it be? Daylight Savings ends on October 27th. Turn your clock back on Saturday evening before going to bed. Election time is here. We will be electing fifteen members to our Gilles?ie Center Advisory Council for 2003. This will mean more people on our Advisory Council. We are hoping to get more people involved in our activities. Those running for the Advisory Council are: Marilyn Byrnes, Barb Calhoun, Gerry Dodds, Dolly Esterby, Marty Garvais, Connie Hanley, Aleda Jacobson, Doris LeGault, Sue Matachek, Dana McCarville, Dotty O'Brien, Gene Partyka, Don Pedersen, Marion Poteete, Mary Ellen Storlien, Helen Sweezo, Margaret Thorne, Pat Wallin and Jack Weist. Advisory Council members serve for one year. Ballots should be turned in at the Gillespie Center at the Recption Desk. You may vote for up to fifteen (15) candidates. We thank all of those who have agreed to run and know those elected will do a good job in 2003. Our BBQ Pork Chop dinner is history and I think that everyone had an enjoyable evening. These fundraising dinners are a big help in supporting the operating of our Center. Our fall Treasure Sale is also history. This is one of the bigger fundraisers of the year. A lot of people worked very hard to make these fundraisers a success. Thanks to Mary Ellen Storlien and Barb Calhoun who were Co-Chairs for the Pork Chop Dinner. Thanks to Phyllis Orn who coordinated the Treasure Sale. Thanks to all of those volunteers who helped with these two fundraisers. In order for a Center like ours to run smoothly, there are always things that need to get done, but don't always get our attention. I would like to thank Wally Linden for collecting and counting the donations for our noon lunch program. He has been doing this for many years. Thanks, Wally. I would also like to thank Arnie Karstens for all the jobs he does around our Center. He cleans the bathrooms, takes out the garbage, moves tables and chairs and many other job which need to be done. Thanks, Arnie. Our November Advisory Council will be Tuesday, November 5th. Last month we had lunch and entertainment and we will do this in November also. We hope to have more people come, enjoy lunch and entertainment and attend our the meeting. Our Advisory Council meetings usually last about thirty minutes. Jack Weist Chairperson Gillespie Center Advisory Council -5103- Minnesota Lawful Gambling LG$55 - Gover.n. ment Approval or Acknowledgment For Use of Gambhng Funds.. Organization' Information (pleaSe print) Organiza~ Name _ - Ucense Number ~Z Expenditure Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) 4. Amount of proposed awfu purposee enditure [ $ 7, 2. Check the appropriate expenditure category: X Contribution unit of United States, state of Minnesota, or of its subdivisions, a government any agencies, or instrumentalities. NOTE: A contribution may not be made directly to a law enforcement or prosecutorial agency, such as a police department, county sheriff, or county attorney. ... A wildlife management project that benefits the public at large with approval of the state agency that has authority over the project. Describe the proposed expenditure, including vendors. .... Grooming and maintaining 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 · t affirm that the contribution or expenditure, in accordance with Minnesota Rule 7861.0120, subpart 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 all-terrain vehicle trails or for any wildlife management project for which reimbursement is received from a unit of government, the reimburse- ment funds must be deposited in our lawful gambling account and recorded on the LG1010 - Schedule C/D report. / Chief executive officer's signature Phone 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 contribution, which will not be used for a pension or retirement fund. Unit of Government Address Print Name Phone number State~i~ll~. Zip ~ Signature .... Date / Keep this completed form attached to the LG 1010 - 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 'Iq'Y, you can call us by using the Minnesota Relay Service at 1-800-627- 3529 and ask to place a call to 651-639-4000. 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.gcb.state, mn.us -5104- 4071SunsetDrive Box 385 Spring Park, MN 55384~385 Phone- 952-47t -7125 Fax- 952-471-9151 E-mail- Imcc~uswest. net MINNETONKA COHMUNICA T0 4720B20 P.01 Pho,te: Dete~ ~-~ l%9, [0'~ Urgent [] For Review [] Please Comment [] Please Reply (~ Please Recycle If you do not mceive all of the pages, please conf~ct our office as soon as possible at 952-47t-1'125 -5105- 10-18-2002 09:38AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4920620 P.02 -5106- 10-18-2002 09:3~AM FROM LARE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 4~20620 P.03 -5107- TOTAL P,e3 November 7, 2002 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 CITY OF MOUND PH: (952) 472-O600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com TO; FROM; SUBJECT; Gino Businaro/Kandis Hanson Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator 2002 Spring & Fall Clean-up Our expenses for the Spring & Fall clean-up were as follows: excluding labor Spring Fall Appliance Disposal 2560.00 2730.00 Nash Sales (Goodwill) 100.00 100.00 Furniture Disposal 3342.29 2232.79 Tire Disposal 604.00 296.00 Electronic Disposal 4750.00 475.00 Est. Total 7081.29 5833.79 Our receipts for the two days totaled $15,155.81.