Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2005-01-25
PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. .AGENDA *Consent.. 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. o Call meeting to order Pledge of Allegiance Approve agenda, with any amendments Swearing-in of Sgt. Mike Sussman *Consent Agenda_ *A. Approve minutes: January 11, 2005 *B. Approve payment of claims *C. Action on Resolution Restating Council's Position on Hennepin County Smoke-Free Ordinance #24. *D. Re-appointment of John Schwinger to 3-year Planning Commission Term Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to three minutes per speaker.) _Public Hearing and Action on Ordinance, Public Hearing for Review of Proposed ~mendments to Section 350.435 (Accessory Buildings) Regulating Membrane Structures Action on Ordinance Amending Section 350.435 (Accessory Buildings) of the Mound City Code (Zoning Ordinance) To Require Minimum Setback of Three (3) Feet on all Sides for Membrane Structures Located in Commercial and Industrial Districts and Accessory Building Setbacks for Membrane Structures which are Located in Residential Zoning Districts Action on Resolution Accepting Bid for Well #8 Pumphouse Construction 3837-3843 3844-3872 3873-3876 3877-3878 3879-3885 3886-3888 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Planning Commission Recommendation Case #04-44 & 04-48 - Conditional use Permit and Sign Variance Tokyo Express, 5205 Shoreline Blvd. (former Hardee's building) PC Recommendation: Approval with conditions 388%3918 12. 13. 14. 15. 10. 11. Action on Resolution Adopting the Mound Visions AUAR and Mitigation Plan Action on Lost Lake Townhome Proiect A. Resolution Authorizing Submittal of"Modified" Dock Application with Variance to LMCD for Lost Lake Townhome Project B. Resolution Authorizing Submittal Dredge Application to MCWD for Lost Lake Townhome Project C. Resolution Authorizing Submittal of Aquatics Permit Application to DNR for Lost Lake Townhome Project Action on Resolution Calling for a Public Hearing by the City on the Proposed Modification of Development District No. 1; the Proposed Elimination of Parcels from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2; and the Proposed Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-3 therein and the Adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor. Update by Mayor Meisel on meeting with Mayors of Minnetrista and Spring Park 16. Executive Session regarding John M. Anderson, et al, v. City of Mound Miscellaneous/Correspondence A. LMC Friday Fax B. Financial Report - December 2004 C. Ehlers Advisor (Council Only) 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 City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: v_wvw, citvo/mound com. 3919-3990 3991-4001 4002 4003-4005 4006-4007 More current meeting 2 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 11, 2005 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mike Specht, John Beise, and David Osmek. Others Present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Finance Director Gino Businaro, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Alison Highberter, Kristin Beise, Orv Burma, Fred and Janet Specht, Andy Specht, Jenny Specht, Mark Hanus, Janice Beise, Ed Fahlstrom, Richard and Connie Meyer, Stephanie Specht, Marci and David Kaplan, John Evans, Steve Johnson. 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 roil call vote. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which even the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open Meetin,q Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Swearinq-in of Councilmembers City Manager Hanson swore in Mayor Pat Meisel and Councilmembers John Beise and Mike Specht. 3. Presentation of White House flaq, provided bv Congressman Jim Ramstad, to retired Councilmember Mark Hanus Councilmembers Brown and Osmek presented retired Councilmember Mark Hanus with a Unitied States flag that flew at the Capitol in Washington D.C., on December 15, 2004. This flag was provided by Congressman Jim Ranstad in honor of Councilembmer Hanus' dedicated service to the City of Mound. 4. Approve Agenda Hanson requested a change in item 5Q, being the date of the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting workshop for 2005 projects be changed to February 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. Hanson also requested the addition of Item 5AA, setting a Key Financial Strategies workshop for February 1,2005, at 7:30 p.m. Osmek requested the removal of Item 5D from the consent agenda and Brown requested the removal of Item 5L from the consent agenda. MOTION by Beise, seconded by Brown to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 1 -3837- Mound City Council Minutes - January 11, 2005 5. Consent Agenda MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the consent agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of December 6, 2004 Truth In Taxation Hearing, and December 14, 2004 regular meeting. B. Approve payment of claims in the amount or $571,507.62. C. RESOLUTION NO, 05-01: RESOLUTION APPOINTING GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR, AS ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2005. D. (removed) E. RESOLUTION NO. 05-02: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR, THE CITY CLERK F. RESOLUTION NO. 05-03: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR. G. RESOLUTION NO. 05-04: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 2005. H. RESOLUTION NO. 05-05: RESOLUTION APPOINTING DAVID OSMEK AS ACTING MAYOR FOR 2005. I. RESOLUTION NO. 05-06: RESOLUTION TO APPOINT PARKS SUPERINTENDENT JIM FACKLER AS ASSISTANT WEED INSPECTOR FOR 2005. J. RESOLUTION NO. 05-07: RESOLUTON APPOINTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS K. Approve recommendations for citizens appointments: 1. Planning Commission: Geoff Michael and Mike Meuller 2. Docks and Commons Commission: Jim Funk and Greg Eurich 3. Parks and Open Space Commission: Monica Winkler, Ted Turner and Sue Pilling. L. (removed) M. Approve request by Mound Police Department for a Kennel Permit N. RESOLUTION NO, 05-08: RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENTION OF THE LICENSE AGREEMENT (A14569) WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC PROPRIETARY GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA BASE {EPDB) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT O. ORDINANCE NO. 01-2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 610.40 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO WATER METERS P. ORDINANCE NO, 02-2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION 655.100, SUBD. 2 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (RIGHT OF WAY ORDINANCE ) TO ESTABLISH THE FEE FOR "UNAUTHORIZED WORK/NO PERMIT ISSUED" FOR EXCAVATION PROJECTS IN THE MUNICIPAL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. Q. Approve calling joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting workshop for 2005 projects, for February 28, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. 2 -3838- Mound City Council Minutes - January 11, 2005 R. RESOLUTION NO. 05-09: RESOLUTION APPROVING A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW INSTALLAION OF AN AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGN AT SHORELINE PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER. P&Z CASE #04-42, PID #15-117- 24-34-0072. S. RESOLUTION NO. 05-10: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PLACEMENT OF A STREET LIGHT ON MILL POND LANE T. RESOLUTION NO. 05-11: RESOLUTION REQUIRING PAYROLL DIRECT DEPOSITS U. Approve increase in imprest funds for Harbor Wine & Spirits from $1,500 to $2,000., V. Approve release of Letter of Credit from MetroPlains Properties in the amount of $23,830, for Village By The Bay. W. Approve letter written by City Attorney John Dean regarding land registration proceedings for Lots 23, 24, 25, 38, 39, and 40, Block 3, Lakeside Park, A.L. Crocker's 1st Division, Mound, Minnesota. X. RESOLUTION NO, 05-12: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TWO-HOUR PARKING Y. Approve amendment to Administrative Code as it relates to employee contribution of non-union employees, changing to Total Points shall determine percent of contribution to the plan as follows: 1-3=3%; 4-5=4%; 6+=5%. Z. RESOLUTION NO, 05-13: STATE AID STREET FUNDS ADVANCE RESOLUTION AA. Set Key Financial Strategies workshop for February 1,2005, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers. 5D. Adopt resolution naminq official newspaper Osmek asked that this be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. He feels that the City should use the Lakeshore Weekly for a year to see how they fair, seeing as there have been recent problems with The Laker. Meisel stated that she and the City Manager have met with the Laker on their concerns and believe that they can work together to improve. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Beise to adopt the following resolution. The following vote in favor: Brown, Beise and Specht. The following voted against: Osmek. Meisel abstained from voting as she and her husband own the building that houses The Laker. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 05-14: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2005. 5L. Approve Steve Johnson as representative to Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Brown wanted this pulled from the consent agenda for discussion in order to introduce Steve Johnson, who will be replacing Orv Burma as the city's rep to the LMCD. 3 -3839- Mound City Council Minutes - January 11, 2005 MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to approve the appointment of Steve Johnson as the City of Mound's representative to the LMCD. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 6. Comments & Suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the aqenda John Evans shared his disappointment regarding the loss of the BFL2 Hotel Project and stated he hopes there are steps being taken to revive this project. Cheryl Martin, on behalf of the Mound Business Council, stated that there is a memorial fund set up at Crow River Bank for the construction worker that was killed last week on the CSAH 15 project. 7. Exit comments by Orv Burma, outgoing representative to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Orv Burma thanked the council for the opportunity to work with the LMCD and cited the accomplished he witnessed during his role as representative for the City of Mound. He offered suggestions for better communication between the Council and the new rep, and offered his help if the new rep desires it. 8. Update on Harbor Wine & Spirits by Liquor Store Mana.qer John Colotti John Colotti issued a public response regarding the annual Analysis of Municipal Liquor Store Operations for the year ended 2003 that came from the State Auditor's Office. That report identifies our operation as having the second highest loss ($65,425) in the State. That is accurate, but what the report doesn't address are the reasons for a loss of this magnitude, which in summary are: (1) Change of location in February 2003, which resulted in start-up costs and new debt; (2) Increase in advertising due to name change and location change and increase in wine inventory; (3) The fund at the end of 2003 showed a retained earning of $194,279. Sales rose from $1.8 million in 2002 to $2.1 million in 2003. 9. Discussion/action on a smoke-free policy by request of Hennepin County Brown stated that he has a problem telling a private business what they can and can't do in their business establishment. He doesn't feel that government should be involved in telling a business if they can or can't allow smoking in their business establishment. Meisel stated she had a call from one of the clubs in town asking if she was interested in buying their building, because if this ordinance is enforced, it will drive them out of business. Osmek feels this ordinance is wrong and stated the reason Hennepin County passed it is because Bloomington and Eden Prairie argued that their businesses were at a disadvantage if this ordinance isn't enforced county-wide. Beise and Specht agreed with Brown that the local businesses should have control over their own environment. Osmek asked the City Attorney for a legal interpretation of 2.04 (a), asking if the City can tell Hennepin County that it's their ordinance so they are responsible for the enforcement. John Dean answered that there is a separate issue included, being they 4 -3840- Mound City Council Minutes - January 11, 2005 are asking that Mound's Police Department be informed of the new regulations since their assistance may be called upon if a disturbance occurs. If the City doesn't wish to involve the local police then the County needs to be informed of that from the beginning so they don't expect our assistance. He doesn't feel that the ordinance as written obligates our Police Department to enforce it, and maybe dialogue should occur between the County and City regarding this point. It was the decision of the Council to direct the City Manager to write a letter in response to this ordinance and request, expressing the views as discussed. Osmek suggested that this letter include that it is the unanimous opinion of this Council that Hennepin County is responsible for the creation of this ordinance and is responsible not only for the enforcement, but the prosecution and that the City of Mound has no intention to supply any support for the enforcement of this ordinance. Meisel suggested also including a copy of the resolution previously passed by the Council in August. The letter along with a resolution reiterating and supporting such letter will be on the Council agenda of January 25th for consideration and action. 10. Action on request to designate PID#19-117-23-23-0015 and PID#19-117-23-23- 0139 as abutting properties, as submitted by Richard and Connie Meyer, 4731 Carlow Road Jim Fackler presented the history of this request, submitted by Richard and Connie Meyer, to designate PID #19-117-23-23-0015 and PID #19-117-23-23-0139 as "Abutting Properties". Presently the applicants own two parcels: PID 19-117-23-23- 0139, Lots 1-3, Block 15, which includes the existing house; and PID 19-117-23-23- 0139, Lots 15-18, Block 15, which is currently vacant and was purchased in 1996. The Meyer property located at 4731 Carlow Road currently has "abutting property status" as the extension of Lot 18 appears to extend to Lake Minnetonka. In the event the vacant parcel which includes Lots 1-3 is sold off, the "abutting property status" for the existing meyer property would be eliminated as it would transfer with Lots 15-18. Fackler noted that an updated survey was not submitted and further commented on a similar situation in the Three Points Boulevard area where the status changed for the existing house when the adjacent parcel was sold off by the owner. Based on the information submitted by the applicants, "abutting property status" for the 4731 Carlow Road property was authorized by a former Dock Inspector as referenced in a 1992 memorandum. Staff indicated that "abutting property status" may have been granted in error as it was assumed that the Meyers also owned Lots 15 through 18 in 1992. Fackler commented that the adjacent vacant parcel was purchased by the Meyers in 1996 and further commented that the status change for the 4731 Carlow Road property was not formally approved by the Docks Commission or the City Council. 5 -3841 - Mound City Council Minutes - January 11, 2005 The Council discussed the 1992 memorandum and also discussed the possibility of the Meyers and new owners "sharing" the dock site. The applicants indicated they are not interested in sharing a dock site as the 1992 memo granted them "abutting property status" and further commented that they have been maintaining the property for several years. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to grant abutting property status to Lot 1 and Lot 18 and remand the dock placement and/or design issue to the Docks Commission on the following findings of fact: (a) 1992 memo granted abutting property status to Lots 1-3 even though Lot 1 did not have lot line extension; and (2) the current owners have contributed to the docks program by maintaining the property for several years. Meisel stated that she cannot support the motion as the application contains insufficient information, including but not limited to, the lack of submittal of an updated survey. She stated she is not against the concept, rather she wants accurate property data. Brown suggested the applicants prepare an updated survey for review and submittal to the Docks Commission. Fackler stated he supports the comments of the Mayor and strongly encouraged the submittal of an updated survey and all appropriate information. Specht stated that he would like clarification of the importance of the 1992 memo including whether or not it binds the City to grant "abutting status". Osmek withdrew his motion and Beise withdrew his second. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to reaffirm abutting status of Lots 1-3. After discussion Osmek withdrew his motion and Beise withdrew his second. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to require the applicants to prepare an updated survey for Lots 15-18 to verify abutting status. Osmek withdrew his motion and Brown withdrew his second. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Beise to allow Lots 1-3 to retain abutting status and to assign abutting status to Lots 15-18, if updated survey confirms that extension of the lot line for Lot 18 extends to Lake Minnetonka. Discussion followed. John Dean clarified that action will obligate the City to provide another dock which may remove a dock for a user in the area and commented that the validity of the 1992 memo is not known. The Meyers commented that they want two (2) docks and that they have maintained the property for over thirty (30) years. They believe they are abutting for Lots 1-3 and stated that they are not willing to share a dock. 6 -3842- Mound Ci~y Council Minute~ - J~nu~ry i i, 2005 Bown explained that the abutting status is determined by an extension of the lot line to the lake. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to affirm "abutting status" for Lots 1-3 and to require the preparation of an updated survey for Lots 15-18 by the applicants to verify the extension of the lot line for Lot 18 to the shoreline. If the survey demonstrates the extension of the lot line, the abutting status shall be confirmed and abutting status shall be granted. Discussion took place. Osmek offered a friendly amendment to the motion to forward the dock placement/design analysis to the Docks Commission and included the following findings of fact: (1) 1992 memo granted abutting status to Lots 1-3 even though Lot 1 did not have a lot line extension; and (2) the current owners have contributed the docks program by maintaining the property for several years. Beise seconded the friendly amendment. The following voted in favor: Beise, Brown and Osmek. The following voted against: Meisel and Specht. Motion carried. 11. Action Approvin.q Proposed Chanqes to 2005 Dock Map MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to approve the 2005 dock map as presented. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 12. Information/Miscellaneous A. Report: Finance Department- November 2004 Mohawk Jaycees charitable gambling contribution B. Newsletter: Gillespie Center Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Metropolitan Council C. Minutes: Planning Commission - December 20, 2004. i 3. Adjourn MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 7 -3843- JANUARY 25, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 011205SUE $119,020.44 JAN 123104S U E4 $10,640.54DEC 011905SU E $96,569.25JAN 123104S U E2 $176,395.44 DEC 012505SUE $156,370.98 JAN 012405C RCARD$698.14 DEC/JAN TOTAL $559,694.79 -3844- CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 011205SUE Payments City of Mound 01/14/05 8:22 AM Page 1 Payments User Dollar Amt $119,020.44 Computer Dollar Amt $119,020.44 $0.00 In Balance Refer 11205 MARSHALL & ILSLEY TRUST COM Cash Payment E 355.46384-611 Bond Interest DEBT SERVICE Invoice 011205 1/12/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $91,485.00 Refer 11205 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO Cash Payment E 602-49450-434 Conference & Training 01-26-05 REGISTRATION,KIVISTO $270.00 Invoice 0011205 1/12/2005 PO 18628 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $270.00 Refer 11205 MORRIES BUFFALO FORD Cash Payment G 602-15500 Prepaid Items 2005 E350 FORD Invoice 011205 1/23/2005 PO 18631 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $27,265.44 $91,485.00 $27,265.44 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 355 2003-C G.©. TIF 1-2 $91,485.00 602 SEWER FUND $27,535.44 $119,020.44 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $119,O2O.44 $119,020.44 -3845- __'~_ ......... ~ ..... CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 123104SUE4 Payments City of Mound o11191o5 2:38 PM Page 1 Payments User Dollar Amt $10,640.54 Computer Dollar Amt $10,640.54 $0.00 In Balance Refer 13104 ROBERTS, COLLETTE G 101-21716 Flex Plan Dependents 12/31/2004 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 AP Payment Invoice 123104 Transaction Date 2004 DEPENDENT CARE $342.45 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $342.45 Refer 123104 SCHWALBE, SUE AP Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical 2004 MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT $1,000.00 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $1,000.00 Refer 123104 XCEL ENERGY AP Payment E 101-41910-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 222-42260-381 Electdc Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42110-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 609-49750-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-43100-381 Electdc Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-381 Electdc Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42115-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-45200-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #2245-301-939 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #2170-989-449 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 32170-989-449 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0895-951-498 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0864-508-832 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0864-508-832 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0864-508-832 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0590-466-336 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0217-606-329 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0466-607-223 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0047-005-229 11-24-04 THRU 12-29-04 #0018-802-634 Accounts Payable 20200 $736.10 $1,227.34 $818.22 $989.64 $130.54 $130.54 $130.54 $142.37 $3,103.46 $21.99 $197.96 $1,669.39 Total $9,298.09 -3846- Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND City of Mound 01/19/052:38 PM Page 2 Payments 20200 Accounts Payable $3,389.63 $1,227.34 $3,234.00 $1,799.93 $989.64 $10,640.54 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $10,640.54 $10,640.54 -3847- CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 011905SUE Payments City of Mound 01/19/05 3:02 PM Page 1 Payments User Dollar Amt $96,569.25 Computer Dollar Amt $96,569.25 $0.00 In Balance Refer 111905 BOYER TRUCKPARTS E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA 1/19/2005 1/19/2005 Cash Payment Invoice S44359 Transaction Date 2004 TANDEM DUMP TRUCK #2974 $93,661.01 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $93,661.01 Refer 11905 CALIBRE PRESS, INCORPORA TED Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training $199.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 PO 18734 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training $199.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 PO 18734 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training $199.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 PO 18734 Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training $199.99 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 PO 18734 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 $796.99 Refer 11905 CASH, PETTY CASH Cash Payment G 609-10300 Change Fund PETTY CASH INCREASE $500.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $500.00 Refer 11905 FIRE SERWCE CERT OF MINNESO STREET SURVIVAL SEMINAR,BURKE STREET SURVIVAL SEMINAR,MURRAY STREET SURVIVAL SEMINAR, BECK STREET SURVIVAL SEMINAR,SCHOENHERR Wells Fargo 10100 Total Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,ALDEN $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION, BABB $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION, BERENT $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,CASEY $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION, $55.00 CRAWFORD 1/19/2005 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 1/19/2005 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 1/19/2005 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 1/19/2005 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 1/19/2005 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 1/19/2005 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 1/19/2005 E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training 1/19/2005 FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,FORSMAN FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,GRADY FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION HENKELS FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION JAKUBIK FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION KYRCK FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,MAAS FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,MCARVlLLE $55.00 $55.OO $55.OO $55.00 $55,oo $55.00 $55.00 Invoice 011905 Cash Payment Invoice 011905 Cash Payment Invoice 011905 Cash Payment Invoice 011905 Cash Payment Invoice 011905 Cash Payment Invoice 011905 Cash Payment Invoice 011905 Cash Payment Invoice 011905 -3848- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound 01/19/05 3:02 PM Page 2 Payments Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,POIKONEN $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,STALLMAN $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,STEVENS $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,VANECEK $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training FIREFIGHTER II CERTIFICATION,WOYTCKE $55.00 Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $935.00 Refer 111905 MOUND POST OFFICE Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage UTILTIY BILLING POSTAGE Invoice 111905 11/19/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage UTILTIY BILLING POSTAGE Invoice 111905 11/19/2005 Transaction Date 1/19/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 11905 VERIZON WIRELESS (FIRE~FIN) Cash Payment E 101-41500-321 Telephone & Cells 01-03-05 CELL PHONES Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone & Cells 01-03-05 CELL PHONES invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone & Cells 01-03-05 CELL PHONES Invoice 011905 1/19/2005 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $68.58 Refer 11905 WRIGHT COUNTY COURTHOUSE Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow BULL, CHRISTOPHER WR #243-102 $370.00 Invoice 011905 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 1/19/2005 $118.84 $118.83 Total $237.67 $8.30 $8.30 $51.98 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $370.00 10100 Wells Fargo $1,227.27 $943.3O $118.84 $93,779.84 $5OO.OO $96,569.25 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $96,569.25 $96,569.25 -3849- CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 123104SUE2 Payments City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 1 User Dollar Amt $176,395.44 Computer Dollar Amt $176,395.44 Refer 123104 A-1 RENTAL OF LAKE MINNETONK E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts 12/31/2004 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 AP Payment Invoice 18187 Transaction Date $0.00 In Balance GAS PUMP,HOSE PUMP $199.55 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $199.55 Refer 123104 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUP AP Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply - METAL HALIDE BULBS $65.18 Invoice 94137603 12/13/2004 PO 18551 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $65.18 Refer 123104 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHE AP Payment E 101-42110-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 4TH QTR CJDN CHARGE $630.00 Invoice P07 MN0271300 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $630.00 Refer 123104 CARGIL SALT DIVISION AP Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials SALT $2,059.86 Invoice 1195683 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,059.86 Refer 123104 CARQUEST OF NAVARRE AP Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair OIL FILTERS $21.92 Invoice 254-44149 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Due 1/20/2005 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $21.92 Refer 123104 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG AP Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities $310.23 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-45200-383 Gas Utilities $769.89 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-41910-383 Gas Utilities $1,261.27 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-43100-383 Gas Utilities $444.07 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-383 Gas Utilities $444.07 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities $444.06 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 609-49750-383 Gas Utilities $500.59 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $4,174.18 Refer 123104 CHADWICK AND MERTZ AP Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees 12-04 PROSECUTION SERVICES $5,889.90 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $5,889.90 Refer 123104 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN AP Payment G 601-16300 Improvements Other Than BI 12-31-04 WELL PUMPHOUSE $103.14 Invoice 2786709 12/31/2004 Project PW0505 11-18-04 THRU 12-20-04 #543-000-053-000 11-18-04 THRU 12-20-04 #543-001-095-800 11-18-04 THRU 12-20-04 #543-001-853-000 11-18-04 THRU 12-20-04 #543-001-972-603 11 - 18-04 THRU 12-20-04 #543-001-972-603 11-18-04 THRU 12-20-04 #543-001-972-603 11-18-04 THRU 12-20-04 #543-004-818-801 -3850- CITY OF MOUND AP Payment Invoice 2782345 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 2 G 601-16300 Improvements Other Than BI 12-24-04 WELL PUMPHOUSE $103.14 12/31/2004 Project PW0506 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $206.28 Refer 123104 CONWAY, DAVID AP Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic REIMBURSE SEWER BACKUP $757.19 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 PO 18758 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $757.19 Refer 123104 CORPRO COMPANIES, INCORPOR AP Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 14 POINT TANK REVIEW $640.00 Invoice SS071420 12/31/2004 PO 18767 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $640.00 Refer 123104 DEL PLACEMENTAGENCY, INCOR AP Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising 12-24-04 WINE POURING $100.00 Invoice 7064 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising 12-31-04 WINE POURING $100.00 Invoice 7090 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $200.00 Refer 123104 DEPARTMENT NATURAL RESOUR AP Payment E 601-49400-455 Permits 2004 DNR FEE $1,436.00 'invoice 123104 12/31/2004 PO 18763 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $1,436.00 Refer 123104 DUANE'S 66 SERVICE AP Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels THRU 12-31-04 LP GAS Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels THRU 12-31-04 LP GAS Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels THRU 12-31-04 LP GAS Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 123104 EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE AP Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPAIR FIRE CAR AND TRUCK Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Refer 123104 EHLERS AND ASSOClATES, INC, AP Payment Invoice 23416 $26.67 $26.67 $26.66 Total $80.00 $276.42 Total $276.42 $2,437.50 G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 12-04 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,437.50 Refer 123104 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 12/31/2004 E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 12/31/2004 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 2355 CHATEAU WATERTOWER $80.00 Project PW0506 2355 CHATEAU WATERTOWER $264.75 Project PW0506 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $344.75 AP Payment Invoice 00-6875 AP Payment Invoice 00-6875 Transaction Date Refer 123104 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD AP Payment E 101-43100-210 Operating Supplies 12-04 WATER SERVICE $20.18 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 -3851 - .......... --. City of Mound 01/20/05 10:04 AM ¢¢f' _~,~% Page3 // Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: December 2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 12-04 WATER SERVICE $20.18 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies 12-04 WATER SERVICE $20.19 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-41310-210 Operating Supplies 12-04 WATER SERVICE $8.54 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $69.09 Refer 123104 GRAINGERS, INCORPORATED AP Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA CORD REEL $459.38 Invoice 495-188570-8 12/31/2004 PO 18666 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $459.38 Refer 123104 HAWK/NS, INCORPORATED AP Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals CONTAINERS (13) $65.00 Invoice DM112596 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $65.00 Refer 12304 HENNEP/N COUNTY ELECTIONS AP Payment E 101-41410-210 Operating Supplies POSTAL VERIFICATION CARDS $585.60 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $585.60 Refer 123i04 HENNEPIN couNTy INFORMA T/O AP Payment E 222-42260-418 Other Rentals 12-04 RADIO LEASE $1,008.87 Invoice 24128024 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42110-418 Other Rentals 12-04 RADIO LEASE $1,320.64 Invoice 24128025 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $2,329.51 Refer 123104 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHER/FF'S A AP Payment E 101-42110-418 Other Rentals 2004 RADIO LEASE $4,655.79 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $4,655.79 Refer 123104 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER( AP Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs #13-117-24-33-0017 PROPERTY TAX $148.61 Invoice 13-117-24-33-00 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $148.61 Refer 123104 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER AP Payment G 601-16300 Improvements Other Than BI 10-11-04 FILING FEES $35.50 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment G 101-23015 Halstead Pointe #04-35 Prepl 10-11-04 FILING FEES $35.50 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $71.00 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 E 401-46377-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 CTY RD 15 STREETSCAPE 12/31/2004 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 MISC PLANNING 12/31/2004 G 101-23019 1546 Bluebird Ln #04-37 Vari 12-04 1564 BLUEBIRD LANE #04-37 12/31/2004 $1,957.18 $398.25 $85.oo -3852- CFT'Y 0~ MOUND AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 AP Payment Invoice 123104 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 4 Current Period: December 2004 G 101-23022 2855 Cambridge Minor Sub 0 12-04 2855 CAMBRIDGE #04-41 $212.50 12/31/2004 G 101-23019 1546 Bluebird Ln #04-37 Vari 12-04 1546 BLUEBIRD LANE #04-37 $148.75 12/31/2004 G 101-23023 5299 Shoreline Drive #04-42 12-04 5229 SHORELINE DRIVE #04.42 $42.50 12/31/2004 G 101-23026 5205 Shoreline Dr #04-44 C 12-04 TOKYO EXPRESS #04-44 $42.50 G 101-23024 5300 Shoreline Dr #04-45/46 12-04 BALBOA STORAGE #04/45/46/47 12/31/2004 G 101-23025 4716 Beachside Rd #04-43 12/31/2004 G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 12/31/2004 E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 12/31/2004 G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 12/31/2004 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 12-04 BEDELL SUB-DIV #04-43 12-04 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE 12-04 MOUND VISIONS 12-04 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE Accounts Payable 20200 $255.00 $170.00 $33,056.83 $250.00 $2,021.75 Total $38,640.26 Refer 123104 HUMANE SOCIETY WRIGHT COUN AP Payment E 101.42110-445 Dog Kennel Fees OCT,NOV.DEC IMPOUND SERVICES $17.04 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $17.04 Refer 123104 ISLAND PARK SKELLY AP Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #860 R&R INJECTOR Invoice 17553 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #840 WATER PUMP Invoice 17636 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #847 AIR FILTER Invoice 17661 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42110-404 RepairslMaint Machinery #846 OIL CHANGE invoice 17716 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable Refer 123104 JUBILEE FOODS (FIRE DEPT) AP Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies MEETING EXPENSES $32.75 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $32.75 Refer 123104 JUBILEE FOODS AP Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous 12-09-04 COUNCIL COOKIES $10.47 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $10.47 Refer 123104 LAKE MINNETONKA COMM. COM AP Payment E 101-49840-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Refer 123104LHB ENGiNERS AND ARcHiTECTS $587.03 $318.65 $71.35 $25.86 20200 Total $1,002.89 $10,450.71 07-01-04 THRU 09-30-04 PUBLIC ACCESS FEE Accounts Payable 20200 Total $10,450.71 -3853- CITY OF MOUND AP Payment Invoice 123104 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 5 G 101-22908 Mound Harbor Renaissance 12-04 MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANSCE $763.36 12/31/2004 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $763.36 Refer 123104 MCCOMBSFRANKROOSASSOCI AP Payment E 427-43121-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2002 SEAL COAT PROJECT $53.00 Invoice 50012 12/31/2004 Project 06173 AP Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 MISC BLDG ENGINEERING $950.00 Invoice 50013 12/31/2004 Project 08901 AP Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 MISC P/Z ENGINEERING $53.00 Invoice 50014 12/31/2004 Project 08902 AP Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 MISC STREETS ENGINEERING $53.00 Invoice 50015 12/31/2004 Project 08903 AP Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 MISC WATER ENGINEERING $175.00 Invoice 50016-A 12/31/2004 Project 08904 AP Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 MISC SEWER ENGINEERING $175.00 Invoice 50016-B 12/31/2004 Project 08904 AP Payment E 401-46377-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT $652.00 Invoice 50017 12/31/2004 Project 12533 AP Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2355 CHATEAU WATER TOWER $10,331.55 Invoice 50018 12/31/2004 Project PW0506 AP Payment G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 12-04 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT $9,40 Invoice 50019 12/31/2004 Project 12754 AP Payment E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 DOCK LOCATION MAP $434.50 invoice 50020 12/31/2004 Project 13223 AP Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION $346.50 Invoice 50021 12/31/2004 Project 13276 AP Payment G 601-16300 Improvements Other Than BI 12-04 WELLJPUMPHOUSE $18,908.30 Invoice 50022 12/31/2004 Project PW0505 AP Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2957 CAMBRIDGE LANE $62.40 Invoice 50023 12/31/2004 Project 13501 AP Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 LOST LAKE GREENWAY $718.80 Invoice 50024 12/31/2004 Project 13566 AP Payment E 401-43105-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2003 STREET RECONSTRUCTION $374.00 Invoice 50025 12/31/2004 Project 14121 AP Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 NPDES PHASE II MS4 PERMITTING $675.00 Invoice 50026 12/31/2004 Project 14137 AP Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2004 STREET RECONSTRUCTION $1,917.60 invoice 50027 12/31/2004 Project 14615 AP Payment E 402-43120-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2004 MSA ADMINISTRATION $106,00 Invoice 50028 12/31/2004 Project 14673 AP Payment E 401-43100-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2004 RETAINING WALL $1,208.50 Invoice 50029 12/31/2004 Project 14707 AP Payment E 101-41500-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 NO INVOICE $0.00 Invoice 50030 12/31/2004 AP Payment G 101-23018 4873 Shoreline Drive Gradin 12-04 4873 SHORELINE DRIVE $159.00 Invoice 50031 12/31/2004 Project 14983 AP Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 GREENWAY TRAIL BRIDGE $93.00 Invoice 50032 12/31/2004 Project 14999 AP Payment E 401-43103-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 2005 STREET RECONSTRUCTION $10,467~36 Invoice 50033 12/31/2004 Project 15000 -3854- .... ~ Refer 123104 AP Payment Invoice 54454 CiTY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 6 AP Payment G 101-23028 2855 Cambridge Lane #0-4-4 12-04 2855 CAMBRIDGE LANE $53.00 Invoice 50034 12/31/2004 Project 15112 AP Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 HYDRAULIC MODEL WATER SYSTEM $14,087.50 Invoice 50035 12/31/2004 Project 15113 AP Payment E 101-41500-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 WAITING ON CARLTON $1,195.00 Invoice 50036 12/31/2004 AP Payment G 101-23025 4716 Beachside Rd #04-43 12-04 4716 BEACHSIDE #04-43 $212.00 Invoice 50037 12/31/2004 Project 15136 AP Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 12-04 WAITING ON SMITH $594,00 invoice 50038 12/31/2004 AP Payment G 101-23111 Balboa Mini-Storage 12-04 BALBOA MINI-STORAGE $106.00 Invoice 50039 12/31/2004 Project 15143 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $64,170.41 Refer 123104 METRO FIRE AP Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies COMMANDO COAT,ETC $4,209.70 Invoice 19553 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $4,209.70 Refer 123104 METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGEM AP Payment E 101-41310-431 Meeting Expense 2004 MAMA/APMP HOLIDAY LUNCHEON $30.00 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $30.00 Refer 123104 MEYER, WILLIAM AP Payment R 101-00000-38060 Center Point Franchis REFUND GAS METER CHARGES $24.00 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $24.00 Refer 123104 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH AP Payment R 601-00000-37170 State fee - Water THRU 12-31-04 BALANCE DUE $300.00 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $300.00 Refer 123104 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT AP Payment E 222-42260-180 Fire-Drill Pay 12-04 DRILLS $510.00 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 222-42260-185 Fire-Maintenance Pay 12-04 MAINTENANCE $1,059.00 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 222-42260-190 Fire-Monthly Salaries 12-04 SALARIES $6,676.75 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/13/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $8,245.75 Refer 123104 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN AP Payment E 601-49400-229 Street Repairs SHOVEL,SPADE,ETC $88.12 Invoice 0821048732 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts SHOVEL,SPADE,ETC $88.12 Invoice 0821048732 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $176.24 NRG PROCESSING SOLLUTIONS L E 670-49500-460 Janitorial Services 12-04 SERVICES $2,831.25 12/31/2004 -3855- [ ~ CITY OF MOUND AP Payment Invoice 54454 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 7 E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 12-04 SERVICES $180.00 12/31/2004 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $3,011.25 Refer 123104 OFFICE DEPOT AP Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies $6.44 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies $6.44 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies $6.44 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies $6.44 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies $6.44 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies $2.15 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies $4.30 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies $4.30 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-41110-200 Office Supplies $24.98 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 281-45210-200 Office Supplies $51.35 Invoice 266284296-001 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies $70.59 Invoice 269400596-001 12/31/2004 PO 18699 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $189.87 Refer 123104 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES AUDIO CASSETTES INK JET CARTRIDGE PAPER, DISKS AP Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,239.05 Invoice 2133056 10/4/2013 AP Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $331.40 Invoice 2144055 10/4/2013 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $1,570.45 Refer 123104 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO AP Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies AIR AND OXYGEN $22.78 Invoice 412041071 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $22.78 Refer 123104 SCHWALBE, SUE AP Payment E 101-41500-331 Use of personal auto 2004 MILEAGE $13.88 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-41500-218 Clothing and Uniforms 2004 CLOTHING ALLOWANCE $15.97 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $29.85 Refer 123104 TOLL GAS AND WELDING SUPPLY AP Payment E 602.49450-221 Equipment Parts MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $66.68 Invoice 336569 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $66.68 -3856- CiTY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments Current Period: December 2004 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 8 Refer 123104 TRUE VALUE, MOUND AP Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts 12-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $223.51 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-223 Building Repair Supplies 12-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $8.45 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts 12-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $174.75 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply 12-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $256,44 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair 12-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $4.25 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-45200-430 Miscellaneous 12-04 SKATE PARK $159.71 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 101-41910-220 RepaidMaint Supply 12-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $134.47 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage 12-04 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $7.74 Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $969,32 Refer 123014 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED AP Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves UNIFORMS STEELE AND SANDE $598.59 Invoice 252946 12/31/2004 PO 18695 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $598.59 Refer 123104 UNITED RENTALS AP Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 1910 COMMERCE BREAK $144.65 Invoice 85242-001 12/31/2004 PO 18761 Transaction Date 12131/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $144.65 Refer 123104 VACKER, INCORPORATED AP Payment E 401-46540-500 Capital Outlay FA NO FISHING SIGNS ON GREENWAY $191.70 Invoice 365 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $191.70 Refer 123104 WKING OFFICE PRODUCTS AP Payment E 101-42110-203 Printed Forms PRINTED LABELS $42.56 Invoice 268618210-00t 12131/2004 PO 18456 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $42.56 Refer 123104 WEIST, KATHY AP Payment E 222-42260-431 Meeting Expense 12-08-04 REIMBURSE FIRE COMMISSION $46.74 MEETING Invoice 123104 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $46.74 WlDMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC AP Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 12-15-04 RESCUE DOZER $1,347.00 Invoice 800 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 12-15-04 RESCUE DOZER $1,347.00 Invoice 800 12/31/2004 AP Payment E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 12-29-04 WATERMAIN $1,953.00 Invoice 769 12/31/2004 Refer 123104 -3857- _~ ............. ~ ..... ~.. CiTY OF MOUND AP Payment Invoice 770 AP Payment Invoice 768 AP Payment Invoice 762 AP Payment Invoice 763 Transaction Date City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:04 AM Page 9 E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 12-13-04 BEACHWOOD WATERMAIN $909.50 12/31/2004 E 601-49400-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery 12-24-04 CENTERVlEW WATERMAIN $1,902.00 12/31/2004 E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 12-22-04 CURB STOP $651.00 12/31/2004 E 602-49450-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 12-20-04 CLOVERLEAF/SOUTHVIEW $375.00 12/31/2004 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $8,484.50 Refer 123104 XCEL ENERGY AP Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities 12-04 STREET LIGHTS $5,150.21 Invoice 123104-B 12/31/2004 Transaction Date 12/31/2004 Due 12/31/2004 Accounts Payable 20200 Total $5,150.21 Fund Summary . 20200 Accounts Payable 101 GENERAL FUND $80,516.87 222 ARE,A FIRE SERVICES $13,864.93 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $485.85 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $17,642.54 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT $106.00 427 SEAL COAT FUND $53.00 455 TIF 1-2 $398.61 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG $459.38 601 WATER FUND $54,036.56 602 SEWER FUND $3,727.26 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $2,273.19 670 RECYCLING FUND $2,831.25 $176,395.44 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $176,395.44 $176,395.44 -3858- CiTY OF I~IOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 1 Batch Name 012505SUE Payments User Dollar Amt $156,370.98 Computer Dollar Amt $156,370.98 $0.00 In Balance , Refer 12505 3M COMPANY Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials CUTTBLE FILM $390.00 invoice SS26481 1/25/2005 PO 18759 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $390.00 Refer 12505 ABDO EICK AND MEYERS, LLP Cash Payment E 601-49400-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi THRU 12-31-04 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $750.00 Invoice 216548 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi THRU 12-31-04 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $750.00 invoice 216548 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 496-46580-300 Professional Srvs 09-30-04AUDIT $2,500.00 Invoice 216550 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,000.00 Refer 12505 ACTION RADIO AND COMMUN/CA Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves MIC $83.63 invoice 10907 1/25/2005 PO 18715 Cash Payment E 101-42110-220 Repair/Maint Supply CHARGER $164.55 Invoice 10907 1/25/2005 PO 18715 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $248,18 Refer 12505 ALLEN, EVONNE Cash Payment G 601-11520 Accts Receivable-Customer OVERPAYMENT WATER/SEWER $100.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 12505 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $65.70 Invoice 463501204 1/25/2005 T[ansac!ion Date 1/13/2005 Fargo 10100 Total .70Wells Refer i2505 AS~EN EMBR~i~ER~ DEsi~ $65 Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies OFFICERS JACKETS $1,294.40 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18665 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,294.40 Refer 12505 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS Cash Payment E 101-41920-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 2005 SOFTWARE SUPPORT $2,512.26 Invoice 12192 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,512.26 Refer 12505 BELLBOYcoRpoRATiON Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,794.40 Invoice 31990000 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $173.00 Invoice 31947600 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609.49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE $2.75 Invoice 39428600 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $617.40 Invoice 31976000 1/25/2005 -3859- C~TY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 2 Current Period: January 2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 31931600 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 31977200 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 31977300 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 32054800 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R Invoice 39469000 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 32049500 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 LIQUOR $1,541.80 CREDIT-LIQUOR -$13.33 CREDIT-LIQUOR -$15.75 LIQUOR $2,071.85 MERCHANDISE $41.00 LIQUOR $177.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,390.12 Refer 12505 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUP Cash Payment E 101-41910-220 Repair/Maint Supply LIGHT BULBS $122.26 Invoice 94142508 1/25/2005 PO 18552 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $122.26 Refer 12505 CARGIL SALT DIVISION Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials SALT $1,946.25 Invoice 1205229 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,946.25 Refer 12505 CARQUESTOFNAVARRE Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts OIL FILTERS $77.94 Invoice N47065 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $77.94 Refer 12505 CAT AND FIDDLE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 39994 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 39996 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/11/2005 Refer 12505 CHAMPION AUTO Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair Invoice D299114 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,00 Refer 12505 CHIEFS OF POLICE INTERNA TION Cash Payment E 101-42110-433 Dues and Subscriptions invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18727 Cash Payment E 101-42110-433 Dues and Subscriptions Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18727 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 WINE $70.00 WINE $174.00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $244.00 MISC LABOR $10.00 $100.00 $100.00 Total $200.00 2005 MEMBERSHIP,KURTZ 2005 MEMBERSHIP,MCKINLEY Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 12505 CHIEFS OF POLICE MN ETI MANA Cash Payment E 101-42110-434 Conference & Training 04-13-05 TRAINING,MCKINLEY $75.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18724 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $75.00 Refer 12505 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST -3860- ................ ~ ..... _~_ CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 3 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $381 Invoice 81340206 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $381.90 Refer 12505 COPY IMAGES, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic 01-05 COPIER MAINTENANCE $340.80 Invoice 55495 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $340.80 Refer 12505 CORTEZ, OV/D/O Cash Payment G 601-11520 Accts Receivable-Customer OVERPAYMENT OF WATER/SEWER $22.01 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total -- $22.01 Refer 12505 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT Cash Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts SHOP SUPPLIES $31.10 Invoice 3274292 1/25/2005 PO 18764 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Pads WATER METERS $397.81 Invoice 3274321 1/25/2005 PO 18765 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $428.91 Refer 12505 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,040.85 Invoice 296702 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $57.75 Invoice 297503 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $681.83 Invoice 297502 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,780.43 Refer 12505 E-Z RECYCLING Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic 01-05 CURBSIDE RECYCLING $8,326,48 Invoice 7554 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,326.48 Refer 12505 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,240.80 Invoice 226007 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,832.75 Invoice 226091 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,073.55 Refer 12505 EHLERS ANDASsOCIATE~, iNC. . Cash Payment E 401-46590-300 Professional Srvs KEY FINANCIAL STRATEGIES $10,000.00 Invoice 23296 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,000.00 Refer 12505 EMERGENCyMANAGERS ASsoCI Cash Payment E 101-42115-434 Conference & Training 2005 MEMBERSHIP,MCKINLEY $100,00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18725 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 12505 EXTREME BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $64.00 Invoice 268374 1/25/2005 -3861 - City of Mound 01/20/05 10:11 AM ............ ~ Page 4 //~' j~, ~'~ Payments CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $64.00 Refer 12505 FINANCE MN GOVERNMENT OFFI Cash Payment E 101-41500-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP DUES $40.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $40.00 Refer 12505 FIRE CHIEF, MN ASSOCIA TION Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP,PEDERSON $60.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP,ANDERSON $35.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP,WILLIAMS $35,00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP,PALM,G $35.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $165.00 Refer 12505 FIRE CHIEFS, INTNAL ASSOCIA TI Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP,PEDERSON $195.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $195.00 Refer 12505 FIRE INSTRUCTORS ASSOC MINN Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training MANUALS AND ESSAY GUIDES $176.10 Invoice 50038 1/25/2005 PO 18664 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $176.10 Refer 12505 FIRE MARSHALLS ASSOC MINNES Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP DUES $35.00 invoice 012505 112512005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $35.00 Refer 12505 FIRE OFFICERS ASSOC. METRO Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP,PEDERSON $100.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 12505 FRAZIER, DEAN AND LINDA Cash Payment R 281-00000-34705 LMCD Fees REFUND DOCK APPLICATION FEE $7.50 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7.50 Refer 12505 G & K SERVICES Cash Payment E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms 01-04-05 UNIFORMS $88.60 Invoice 6337818 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms 01-04-05 UNIFORMS $56.05 Invoice 6337818 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 01-04-05 UNIFORMS $37.85 Invoice 6337818 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-218 Clothing and Uniforms 01-04-05 UNIFORMS $9.20 Invoice 6337818 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials 01-04-05 MATS $18.63 Invoice 6337818 112512005 -3862- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 5 Current Period: January 2005 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials 01-04-05 MATS $18.63 Invoice 6337818 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials 01-04-05 MATS $18.64 Invoice 6337818 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 01-04-05 MATS $82.29 invoice 6337819 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 01-18-05 MATS $48.65 Invoice 6350735 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 01-18-05 MATS $78.81 Invoice 6350736 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services 01-18-05 MATS $58.49 Invoice 6350729 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-42110-460 Janitorial Services 01-04-05 MATS $38.55 Invoice 6337820 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-42110-460 Janitorial Services 01-18-05 MATS $38.55 Invoice 6350734 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-216 Cleaning Supplies 01-18-05 MATS $109.42 Invoice 6305733 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $702.36 Refer 12505 GRIGGS coOPER AAID C°MPANY Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT-LIQUOR -$15.24 invoice 656901 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $854.05 Invoice 172925 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,295.51 Invoice 172924 1/2512005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $24.03 Invoice 175775 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $577.90 Invoice 176054 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,176.93 Invoice 176055 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,913.18 Refe; 12505 : HECKSEL MAC~iNE ~0P Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair DECK PLATES,TUBES $338.75 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $338.75 Refer 12505 HENNEPiN COUNTY sHERiFF,S A Cash Payment G 101-22805 Police Forfeiture Program DRUG TASK FORCE AGREEMENT $5,000.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/19/2005 . Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5 000.00 Refer 12505 t-i~MEDEPOT/GECF Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply REPAIR MAILBOX $207.57 Invoice 003608/3011993 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $207.57 Refer 12505 IKON OFFICE MA CHINES Cash Payment E 222-42260-202 Duplicating and copying 01-05 CANON NP7130 $4.99 Invoice 63954783 1/25/2005 -3863- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 6 Cash Payment E 222.42260-202 Duplicating and copying 01-09-05 THRU 04-08-05 CANON NP7130 $99.75 Invoice 64203867 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-42110-202 Duplicating and copying 01-05 COPIER MAINTENANCE $151.46 invoice 23541465 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $25(~.20 Refer 12505 IMPACT MEDICAL COMPANY Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair BATTERY CHARGER $32.50 Invoice 69697 1/25/2005 PO 18668 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $32.50 Refer 12505 IN THE NEWS Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA PLAQUE $152.50 Invoice 626797 112512005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $152.50 Refer 12505 ISLAND PARK SKELLY Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #844 LQWER BALL JOINT $898.89 Invoice 17744 1/25/2004 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $898.89 Refer 12505 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $962.75 Invoice 1838849 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,027.19 Invoice 1838850 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,106.58 Invoice 1841398 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $74.40 Invoice 1841397 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE' $519.40 Invoice 1841396 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $4,886.95 Invoice 1841395 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $12,577.27 Refer 12505 JUBILEE FOODS Cash Payment E 101-41110-430 Miscellaneous 01-06-05 COUNCIL COOKIES $46.57 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $46.57 Refer 12505 KEINTZ, PHILLIP Cash Payment R 281-00000-34725 Dock Permits REFUND DOCK APP $113.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $113.00 Refer 12505 KURTZ, JAMES Cash Payment E 101.42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #841 DETAILING $110.00 invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transact on Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $110.00 Refer 12505 LAKER NEWSPAPER Cash Payment G 101-23024 5300 Shoreline Dr #04-45/46 01-08-05 PLAT APPLICATION $47.76 invoice 010805 1/25/2005 -3864- City of Mound /l~l~ ~ ~'"~,~ Payments C~TY OF MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 011505 Cash Payment Invoice 011505 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 7 Current Period: January 2005 E 101-42400-351 Legal Notices Publishing 01-15-05 ACCESSORY BUILDING 1/25/2005 G 101-23025 5205 Shoreline Dr ~04-44 C 01-15-05 CUP 1/25/2005 $47.76 $43.78 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $139.30 Refer 12505 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Cash Payment E 101-41110-431 Meeting Expense CONFERENCE,BEISE $240.00 Invoice 1-000019218 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-41110-431 Meeting Expense CONFERENCE,SPECHT $240.00 Invoice 1-000019218 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $480.00 Refer 12505 LIFETECH CORPORATION Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies FIRSTSAVE AED TEXT $2,000.00 Invoice 7055 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,000.00 Refer 12505 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $96.00 invoice 752497 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,095.62 Invoice 753125 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,292.60 Invoice 755252 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $43.90 Invoice 755253 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,528.12 Refer 12505 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-03-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $13.00 Invoice 15221 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-06-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $97.00 Invoice 15234 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-10-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $25.00 Invoice 15248 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 01-13-05 DELIVERY CHARGE $188.00 Invoice 15267 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $323.00 Refer 12505 METRO FIRE Cash Payment E 222-42260-500 Capital Outlay FA EXPANSION FOAM TUBE,ETC $514.38 Invoice 19709 1/25/2005 PO 18667 Transaction, Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $514.38 Refer 12505 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIR Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste DisposaI-MCIS 02-05 WASTEWATER $42,762.78 Invoice 787562 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $42,762.78 Refer 12505 MICHAEL, GEOFF Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies PRINTER CABLE FOR SHOP $66.81 Invoice 723 1/25/2005 PO 18768 -3865- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 8 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies PRINTER CABLE FOR SHOP $66.82 Invoice 723 1/25/2005 PO 18768 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $133.63 Refer 12505 MINNESOTA LABOR AND INDUST Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 01-05-05 INSPECTION $10.00 Invoice B42 351R054068 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10.00 Refer 12505 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO Cash Payment E 670-49500-434 Conference & Training 02-16-05 REGISTRATION,NELSON $210.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18685 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $210.00 Refer 12505 MINNESOTA RURAL WA TER ASSO Cash Payment E 601-49400-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP DUES $195.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18687 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $195.00 Refer 12505 MiNNETONKA sPORTSMEN, iNco Cash Payment E 101-42110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP DUES $160.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18726 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $160.00 Refer 12505 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIA TIO Cash Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pens Contrib 01-05 FIRE RELIEF $9,883.33 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,883.33 Refer 12505 MOUND MARKETPLACE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals 02-05 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE $850.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/19/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $850.00 Refer 12505 MOUND, CITY OF Cash Payment E 222-42260-418 Other Rentals 2005 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION $307.50 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $307.50 Refer 12505 MUNICIPALS Cash Payment E 101-41310-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP DUES $20.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18800 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.00 Refer 12505 NATIONAL VOLUNTEER FIRE COU Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2005 MEMBERSHIP DUES $50.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 12505 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUlPMEN Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply BOLT,GALVANIZED FENDER $146.92 Invoice 775831 1/25/2005 PO 18769 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $146.92 Refer 12505 OFFICE DEPOT _ -3866- ,////' ~ CITY OF MOUND Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 269927586-001 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 269927586-001 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies Invoice 270805588-001 1/25/2005 PO 18670 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 9 TONER CARTRIDGE INK JET CARTRIDGE INK JET CARTRIDGE Wells Fargo 10100 Total $86.06 $197.26 $114.22 $397.54 Refe; PA ,STi SONs WiN CS, PA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $3,478.90 Invoice 8058229 1125/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE -$20.68 Invoice 8058248 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $0.00 Invoice 8058361 112512005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,264,98 Invoice 8058870 112512005 Transaction Date 111312005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 12505 PEDERSON, GREG Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies REIMBURSE TIRES Invoice 012505 112512005 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies REIMBURSE SALT PELLETS Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 496-46580-500 Capital Outlay FA REIMBURSE SHELF UNITS Invoice 012505 112512005 Transaction Date 1/11/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,295.27 Refer 12505 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $205.45 Invoice 2154223 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $539.85 Invoice 2156005 112512005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $59.20 Invoice 2156004 112512005 Transaction Date 111012005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $804.50 R%r i S05 oUALiT 'wi Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 501066-00 112512005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 500596-00 112512005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 503191-00 112512005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 503192-00 112512005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 503472-00 1125/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 12505 R.C. ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings PARKING LOT TIMERS Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18545 $4,723.20 $623.37 $98.08 $573.82 $828.20 $466.51 $193.51 $49.88 $534.50 Total $2,072.60 $975.00 -3867- CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 1/14/2005 City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 10 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $975.00 Refer 12505 RECYCLING ASSOCIATION MINNE Cash Payment E 670-49500-434 Conference & Training 2005 MEMBERSHIP,NELSON $20.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18686 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.00 Refer 12505 RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL, WACONIA Cash Payment E 222-42260-305 Medical Services 2005 MAINTENANCE FEE $105.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $105.00 Refer 12505 SBC MINNOOMM PAGING Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers-Fire Dept. 01-05 PAGERS $128.66 Invoice 0800009202333 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $128.66 Refer 12505 SCHARBER AND SONS Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair NUT,WHEEL GAGE, SPACER $67.13 Invoice 02 2045493 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $67.13 Refer 12505 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE Cash Payment E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal 6216 RED OAK ROAD $213.00 Invoice 5277 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/19/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $213.00 Refer 12505 SPECIALTY WINES AND BEVERAG Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $948.00 Invoice 1585 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $948.00 Refer 12505 STRATUM ONE FITNESS EQUIPM Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair TREADMILL PARTS $30.00 Invoice 12033 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $30.00 Refer 12505 STREICHER'S Cash Payment E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery #842 GRILL LIGHTS $27.65 invoice 1237983 1/25/2005 PO 18717 Cash Payment G 101-22803 Police Reserves FLASHLIGHT $361.89 Invoice 1239165 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $389.54 Refer 12505 SUN NEWSPAPERS Cash Payment E 101-45200-351 Legal Notices Publishing 01-12-05 CLASSIFIED $432.00 Invoice 751281 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $432.00 Refer 12505 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $277.00 Invoice 35650 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,843.80 Invoice 359702 1/25/2005 -3868- CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 11 Current Period: January 2005 Cash Payment E 60g-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $40.35 Invoice 359701 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,81g.20 Invoice 359702 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $44.00 Invoice 35712 1/25/2005 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $34.00 Invoice 35724 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,058.35 Refer 12505 THYSsEN:KRUpP ELEvA~OR C5R Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic JAN,FEB ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE $364.97 Invoice 52345-B 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $364.97 Refer 12505 TR COMPUTER SALES, LLC Cash Payment E 101-42110-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 2005 SUPPORT FEES $1,007.94 Invoice 10050 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/13/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,007.94 Refer 12505 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies UNIFORMS $264.90 Invoice 250180 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/10/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $264.90 Refer 12505 V & S JEWELERS Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous PLATES AND ENGRAVING $56.87 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 PO 18723 Transaction Date 1/18/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $56.87 Refer 12505 WALDRON, PAUL A, AND ASSOCIA Cash Payment E 101-42400-308 Building Inspection Fees PARTIAL 01-01-05 THRU 01-19-05 $3,000.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/19/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Tota $3 000.00 Refer 12505 WATERTOWN PARTS CENTER Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair HOSE ATTACHMENTS $61.37 Invoice 207095 1/25/2005 PO 18556 Transaction Date 1/20/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $61.37 Refer 12505 WINE MERCHANTS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,188.00 Invoice 114649 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,188.00 Refer 12505 WINKLER, BOB Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 01-04-05 SAND FOR MIX $1,498.60 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/14/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,498.60 Refer 12505 YELLOW PAGES PUBLISHERS Cash Payment E 609-49750-321 Telephone & Cells 2005 ADVERTISING $293.00 Invoice 012505 1/25/2005 Transaction Date 1/19/2005 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $293 00 -3869- CITY OF MOUND Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 496 HRA PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND City of Mound Payments 01/20/05 10:11 AM Page 12 10100 Wells Fargo $22,432.88 $6,540.56 $120.50 SI0,000.00 $3,226.32 $1,606.31 $43,667.19 $50,337.41 $8,556.48 $9,883.33 $156,370.98 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $156,370.98 $156,370.98 -3870- CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 012405CRCARD Payments Refer 12405 ELAN CREDIT CARD Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Cash Payment Invoice 012405 Transaction Date G 101-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 601-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 602-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 601-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 602-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 E 601-49400-434 Conference & Training 1/24/2005 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 609-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 G 609-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 City of Mound Payments 01/14/05 4:04 PM Page 1 User Dollar Amt $698.t4 Computer Dollar Amt $698.14 $0.00 In Balance Ck# 095106 1/24/2005 12-09-04 CARBONES NEWLY ELECTED $13.84 OFFICIALS TRAINING 12-09-04 CARBONES NEWLY ELECTED $13.84 OFFICIALS TRAINING 12-09-04 CARBONES NEWLY ELECTED $13.84 OFFICIALS TRAINING 12-09-04 CARBONES NEWLY ELECTED $13.83 OFFICIALS TRAINING 12-18-04 SYM-SYMANTEC $26.57 12-14-04 U OF M CITY ENGINEERS $170.00 CONFERENCE 12-14-04 U OF M CITY ENGINEERS $42.50 CONFERENCE 12-14-04 U OF M CITY ENGINEERS $42.50 CONFERENCE 01-05-05 MN RURAL WATER ASSOC. $100.00 TACHENY 12-19-04 iNET 7 12-31-04 CARBONES HOLIDAY PIZZA 12-31-04 CARBONES HOLIDAY PIZZA E t01-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery 01-05-05 CARQUEST SQUAD SUPPLIES 1/24/2005 E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous 01-06-05 BAYSlDE FLORAL,CONSTRUCTION WORKER $31.95 $39.93 $26.10 $5.31 $47.93 1/24/2005 G 101-20200 Accounts Payable 1/24/2005 1/14/2005 12-29-04 MN NURSERY GREEN EXPO $110,00 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $698,14 -3871 - CITY OF MOUND Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND City of Mound 01/14/05 4:04 PM Page 2 Payments 10100 Wells Fargo $419.43 $156.34 $56.34 $66.03 $698.14 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $698.14 $o.oo $698.14 -3872- Iii CiTY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE #24 WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-99 on August 24, 2004, expressing opposition to the smoke-free ordinance proposed by Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County, did pass said Hennepin County Ordinance #24 on October 12, 2004, to be effective March 31,2005; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Public Health Protection has requested that City Staff forward all questions and complaints regarding the smoke-free food establishment regulations to their office, and to inform the Police Department about the new regulations since their assistance may be required if a hostile situation arises from enforcement of this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota to re-state their opposition to said Hennepin County Ordinance #24, and to stress that the City Council believes that smoking on a privately owned premise is a fundamental business decision and not to be decided by government; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that enforcement and prosecution violators of Hennepin County Ordinance #24 be the sole responsibility of Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of January, 2005. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -3873- January 13, 2005 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0500 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com Susan Palchick, Ph.D., MPH Manager-Epidemiology and Environmental Health Hennepin County Public Health Protection Hennepin County Human Service Department 1011 South First Street, Suite 215 Hopkins, MN 55343-9413 Dear Ms Palchickl At their January 11, 2005 meeting, the Mound City Council discussed your letter dated December 20, 2004 regarding a local smoke-free ordinance. From that discussion, Members directed this response. A resolution dated August 24, 2004 clearly stated the City of Mound's opposition to a County-wide smoking ban. Members continue to unanimously agree that smoking on a privately owned premise is a fundamental business decision and not to be decided by government. In that Hennepin County chose to usurp local control on the matter of smoking in restaurants and bars within the City of Mound, it is the stance of Mound City Councilors that enforcement and prosecution be the sole responsibility of Hennepin County. It has also been suggested that communication take place between the law enforcement agencies (e.g., Hennepin County Sheriff's Office and Mound Police Department) so there is a clear understanding between the agencies that Mound PD will not be responsible for matters of enforcement and prosecution. Sincerely, City Manager Enclosure Cc: Police Chief Jim Kurtz Hermepin County Pat McGowan CiTY OF MOUND RESOLUTION 04-99 RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED HENNEPIN COUNTY SMOKE-FREE ORDINANCE #24 WHEREAS, Hennepin County has proposed to enact a smoking ban ordinance affecting the 46 cities within the county boundaries; and WHEREAS, written testimony with regard to such proposed ordinance may be submitted before the public hearing scheduled for September 14, 2004, at 1:30 p.m.; and WHEREAS, the City is vested with the authority to, properly license and regulate business activities within the City and knows these businesses better than Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the proposed county smoking ban ordinance would usurp local control and preempt the City's authority and ability to make informed local decisions on the merits of a ban. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City CoUncil of Mound, Minnesota: The City Council opposes the enactment by Hennepin County of the Smoke-Free Ordinance No. 24 that would preempt local control. The City Clerk shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, prior to its consideration of the ordinance. Adopted by the City Council this 24th day of August, 2004. /~ttest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisc~l -3875- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -3876- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 Memorandum From: Date: Re: Planning Commission and Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 1118/2005 Planning Commission Appointment - John Schwingler Summary As the Council is aware, citizen appointments to the Planning Commission were approved at the January 11, 2005 meeting. Since that time, Staff has learned that the term of Planning Commissioner John Schwingler also expired on December 31, 2004 as he completed the remainder of Frank Weiland's term who was reappointed in January 2002. Recommendation Staff and the Planning Commission support the appointment of John Schwingler for a 3-year term on the Planning Commission. -3877- Page 1 of I Jill Norlander I From: To: Sent: Subject: <JONSCHWING@aol.com> <jillnodander@cityofmound.(;om> Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:20 PM Re: Planning Commission term I would be honored to be reappointed as a Planning Commission member for another term for the City of Mound. Jon J Schwingler -3878- 1/19/2005 5~ M~ood Ro~d Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director January 19, 2005 Zoning Amendments to City Code Chapter 350.435 - Membrane Structures Summary. The City Council will hold a public headng to review a proposed zoning amendment(s) to City Code Chapter 350:435 (Accessory Buildings) to apply the setback regulations for accessory buildings as set forth in the Chapter 350:435, Subd. 5 to membrane structures which are located in residential districts. Membrane structures located in commercial and industrial zones shall continue to maintain a 3-foot minimum setback on all sides as required by the current ordinance. Staff Comments. · If the Council recalls, discussion took place at its October 12, 2004 meeting regarding this matter. Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states that no zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted until a public headng is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, the notice of the public headng must also be published at least (10) days prior to the headng date. Members of the Council are advised that the public headng notice was published in the January 15, 2005 edition of the Laker. Therefore, all publication requirements have been satisfied. The public headng notice was also posted at Mound City Hall on January 12, 2005. City Code Section 350:520 requires that any proposed text amendment which is not initiated by the Planning Commission must be referred to the Planning Commission for review and must not be acted upon until it has received the Planning Commission's recommendation. Members of the Council are advised that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments at its December 20, 2004 meeting. Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed zoning amendment(s). Attachments. * December 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting minute excerpts · October 12, 2004 City Council meeting minute excerpts · City of Mound Ordinance No. 02-2004 (copy) · City of Mound Ordinance No. -2005 Amending City Code Section 350:435 (draft) · Notice of Public Headng - Ordinance Amendments to City Code Section 350:435 -3879- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 207 2004 REVIEW OF PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS (CHAPTER 350.435) ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS TO MEMBRANE STRUCTURES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Smith introduced the item as a procedural issue to be cleared up. The City Council wanted the Planning Commission to review the setbacks for membrane structures. They suggested that the commercial and industrial setback standards remain as originally established and the residential setbacks be the same as that for other accessory structures. Planning Commission voted in unanimous agreement with the City Council's approval of the ordinance revisions. -3880- Mound 0i{y 00une{I Minub~ - 0et0ber 12, 2004 11. Review of Membrane Structure Ordinance~ with any necessary action Smith gave a brief history of the membrane structure ordinance, stating that.thc most recently adopted ordinance and the draft proposed by the Planning Commission are included in the packet. Staff requested that Council give direction on what Changes ~ they want incorporated into the existing ordinance. Hanus thinks the ordinance is sufficient for commercial and business zones, he would like to change residential zones so that membrane structures have to meet setbacks of other accessory structures. Osrnek agrees with this restriction,. ~Council directed staff to incorporate their suggestions into the exiSting ordinance and ring it back for consideration at the next meeting. .. ~2. Miscellaneous/Correspondence 7~. Correspondence: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District B. Minutes: September 20, 2004 Planning Commission October 4, 2004 Planning Commission 13. Adjourn MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adjourn. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 5 -388'1"- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 02-2004 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350.310 (DEFINITIONS) AND 350.435 (ACCESSORY BUILDINGS) OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) TO ADOPT REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT OF MEMBRANE STRUCTURES The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 350.310 (Definitions) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended to add a new definition for Membrane Structure as follows: A structure usually consisting of an aluminum, steel or plastic frame which is covered with a plastic, fabric, canvas or similar non-permanent material and is used to provide storage of vehicles, boats, recreational vehicles or other personal property. The term shall also apply to structures commonly known as hoop houses, canopy-covered carports and tent garages and can be fully or partially covered but shall not apply to boat lifts and canopies which are placed in public water Subsection 350.425 (Accessory Buildings) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended to add a new SubdiviSion 8 - Membrane Structures as follows: A. Permit Procedure. No person shall place a membrane structure on private property without first obtaining a permit from the City. Failure to obtain a permit shall be considered to be a violation of the City Code and subject to the penalties defined therein. B. Fee. The permit fee shall be determined by the City Council as set forth in City Code Chapter 380. Co SPecial Provisions. a. Membrane-covered buildings shall be permitted uses in all residential, commercial and industrial districts and shall be neutral colored (i.e. dark green, tan, brown, etc.). b. There shall be no more than one (1) membrane-structure per property and such structure shall not exceed 400 square feet. : c. Privately owned membrane structures shall not be placed on public property or in a location which obstructs traffic visibility. 1 -3882- do (3) e. Membrane structures shall also be included in hardcover calculations. f. Membrane structures shall be adequately anchored and/or secured to the ground. ~. Passed by the City Council this 25th day of May, 2004, Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Published in The Laker the 5th day of June, 2004. Effective the 6th day of June, 2004. 2 -3883- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2005 AMENDING SECTION 350.435 (ACCESSORY BUILDINGS) OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) TO REQUIRE MINIMUM SETBACK OF THREE (3) FEET ON ALL SIDES FOR MEMBRANE STRUCTURES LOCATED IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS AND ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACKS FOR MEMBRANE STRUCTURES WHICH ARE LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 350.35, Subd. 8 (c), Accessory Buildings, Subd. 8. (c) Special Provisions a. Co is hereby amended to read as follows: Membrane-covered buildings shall be permitted uses in all residential, commemial and industrial districts and shall be neutral colored (i.e., dark green, tan, brown, etc.) There shall be no more than one (1) membrane-structure per property and such structure shall not exceed 400 square feet. Privately owned membrane structures shall not be placed on public property or in a location which obstructs traffic visibility. Membane structures located in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed a minimum setback of three (3) feet on all sides. Membrane structure shall also be included in hardcover calculations. Membrane structures shall be adequately anchored and/or secured to the ground. Membrane structures located in residential zoning districts shall meet the appropriate setbacks for accessory buildings as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Passed by the City Council this 25th day of January, 2005. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Published in The Laker the 5th day of February 2005. Effective the 6th day of February, 2005. 1 -3884- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA TO CONSIDER AMENDING SECTION 350:435 (ACCESSORY BUILDINGS) OF THE MOUND CITY CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) TO REQUIRE MINIMUM SETBACK OF THREE (3) FEET ON ALL SIDES FOR MEMBRANE STRUCTURES LOCATED IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS AND ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACKS FOR MEMBRANE STRUCTURES WHICH ARE LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 PM on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 to hold a public hearing to consider amending Section 350:435 (Accessory Buildings) of the Mound City Code (Zoning Ordinance) regarding the membrane structure provisions. The proposed amendments are described below: Subsection 350:435 (Accessory Buildings) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended to revise Subdivision 8 (C) (d) as follows: Membane structures located in commercial and industrial districts shall be placed a minimum setback of three (3) feet on all sides. Subsection 350:435 (Accessory Buildings) of the Mound City Code is hereby amended to add a new Subdivision 8 (C) (g) as follows: Membrane structures located in residential zoning districts shall meet the appropriate setbacks for accessory buildings as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Published in The Laker on January 15, 2005 Jill Norlander, Planning and Inspections Secretary -3885- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR WELL #8 PUMP HOUSE WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement for bids for the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials to complete the Well #8 Pump House, bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Magney Construction Rice Lake Construction $728,500.00 $744,200.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Magney Construction is the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Magney Construction for the furnishing of all labor, equipment and materials to complete the Well #8 Pump House according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the city council and on file with the City Clerk. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of January, 2005. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -3886- January 20, 2005 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341. Maywood Road Motmd, Minnesota 55364-1627 SUBJECT: City of Mound Municipal Well No. 8 MFRA #13313 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Below is a tabulation of the two (2) bids received on January 19, 2005 for the new Well #8 Pump House on Evergreen Road. Bid ~Magney Construction $728,500.00 Rice Lake Construction $744,200.00 The two bids. are within 2.2%. Tkis is an indication that thc scope of work was clear and that the subcontract costs were consistent. The project could be revised and rebid at a potentially significant savings.. Eliminating the emergency generator will save over $150,000. There may be other revisions that could also reduce the cost, This would delay the project by at least 2 months. If elinfinatect, the City will not have emergency back-up for Well #8, As an alternative, the generator could be revised or eliminated with a change order without delaying the. project; however, the City may not realize the full savings by eliminating the generator with a change order.. The generator could be revised to. a diesei generator of comparable size at a savings of approximately $50,000 to 70,000. This would cost more to operate because of required fuel deliveries and greater operator attention, but would allow the best combination of reliability and economy. We recommend the City proceed with the project as designed with the expectation that the emergency generator will be revised or ehminated. -3887- If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, Bryan T. Oaldey, P.E.. -3888- f, .,..t i~¢¢,ot, J :J{~ss'~ ,qoo;q '>INVFtq ,qfll/q033!/'l ~dS, q't c~[3~Z ,r/7,uer' 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: January 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and Sign Variance - Tokyo Express APPLICANT: Dan Nguyen and Phi Tran OWNER: Robert Nelson PLANNING~-~,SEq~JMBER~0~ 104-48 PID: 13-117-24-43-0111 LOCATION: 5205 Shoreline Boulevard (former Hardees Restaurant building) ZONING: B-1 Business COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business and Mixed Use (Auto Destination District) REQUEST SUMMARY The City Council will hold a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit request Dan Nguyen and Phi Tran (d/b/a Tokyo Express) to allow a Class II sit-down restaurant and drive-thru to be located in the former Hardee's building located at 5205 Shoreline Boulevard. The applicants are also requesting sign variance approval to allow reuse of the existing pylon structure by installing new sign panel(s). Currently, the freestanding sign is nonconforming as it exceeds the 48 SF size limit and does not meet the 10-foot front setback requirement. The requested variance is outlined as follows: Allowed I Exisfin.q Proposed Variance Sign size 48 SF / 76 SF 61 SF 13 FT According to City Code Section 350:640, Class II (Fast Food, Convenience and Drive In) restaurants and drive-thru operations are allowed in the B-1 District by conditional use. City Code Chapter 350:310, Subd. 113 defines a Class II restaurant as follows: "Restaurants where a majodty of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises; or able to be taken to a table, counter, or automobile, or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served." -3889- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW CRITERIA In grenting a conditional use permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed land use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the conditional use permit review criteda are contained in City Code Chapter 350:525, Subd. 1. CUP REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 350:525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission. Additionally, City Code Chapter 350:535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council. Procedurally, state statute requires that the planning agency and/or governing body must hold a public headng on all requests for conditional use permits and further requires that a Notice of Public Hearing is published at least (10) days in advance of the public hearing and is also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet. Members of the City Council are advised that the public hearing notice was published in the January 15, 2005 edition of the Laker and was also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet of the subject site on January 12, 2005. Therefore, all notification requirements have been satisfied. SIGN VARIANCE REVIEW PROCECURE The City Council may grant a vadance from the requirements of City Code Chapter 365 as to specific signs where it is shown that by reason of topography or other conditions that stdct compliance with the requirements City Code Chapter 365 would cause a hardship. A variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of Chapter 365. 60-DAY PROCESS Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, local government agencies are required to approve or deny land use requests within 60 days. The land use application(s) were received and deemed to be complete on December 3, 2004. Within the 60-day period, an automatic extension of no more than 60 days can be obtained by providing the applicant written notice containing the reason for the extension and specifying how much additional time is needed. Members of the City Council are advised that the deadline for action on the CUP and variance application(s) is on or about January 31, 2005. -3890- CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment and are summarized below: City Engineer Cameron No issues. Public Works Supt. Skinner No comments. Building Official Waldron Fire Chief Pederson Parks Supt. Jim Fackler Police Chief Kurtz Public Works Director Moore Refer to memorandum dated 12/17/04. No objections. No comments. Address needs to be placed on front of building. No comments. AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable agencies for review and comment. Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County Transportation contacted Staff and indicated he has no concerns regarding the request(s). DISCUSSION The existing commercial building is approximately 41' x 77' and was formerly occupied by Burger Chef and Hardee's but has been vacant since 2001. A drive-thru facility is located on the north side of the building. The proposed 76-seat restaurant will serve Japanese cuisine and will also include drive-thru service. Additional details regarding the restaurant proposal will be presented by the applicant at the public hearing (ie. menu items, etc.) -3891 - The site is zoned B-1 Business. Lot area, height, lot width requirements for the B-1 District are set forth below: Height: 35 feet Lot Size: 7500 scluare feet Side I Rear Setbacks: · Same as B-2 if abutting residential district. Building setback(s) are not affected by the current proposal. and yard o City Code Section 350:760 Subd. 5 (M) requires (1) parking spaces for each (3) seats based on design capacity. Based on the submitted plan(s), them are (76) seats in the restaurant. Therefore, a total of (26) stalls are required for the project. The applicant has provided an updated survey which includes (43) parking stalls which exceeds the City's requirements. The proposed plan also includes (2) handicapped stalls. According to the City Code Section 350:760, Subd. 2, the standard parking stall size is 10' x 20'. The submitted plan shows 9' x 18' parking stalls. Additionally, handicapped parking stalls shall be constructed pursuant to state law with stalls no less than (12) feet wide and twenty (20) feet in length. The applicant has indicated that the parking stalls will be modified to meet the size requirement(s) when the lot is striped next spring. The current CUP application includes interior remodeling activities and minor exterior site improvements including painting of the building, new landscaping plantings and repair of the retaining wall which runs along the north and east sides of the building. The applicant will comment further on these issues at the meeting. Hardcover is allowed up to 75 percent in the B-1 District. Hardcover is not affected by the current proposal. The existing pylon is non-conforming as it exceeds the 48 SF size allowance and 10-foot front setback requirement. Members are advised that the existing sign frame is 61 SF and the "lower" reader board is 15 SF. According to City Code Chapter 365:05, Subd. 6, any sign existing at the time of adoption of the sign ordinance which does not conform to the provisions, shall not be rebuilt, altered, or relocated without being brought into compliance with the requirements of the code provisions. After a nonconforming sign has been removed, it shall not be replaced by another nonconforming sign. Whenever use of a nonconforming sign has been discontinued for a period of three (3) months, 4 -3892- such use shall not thereafter be resumed unless it is conformance with the provisions of Chapter 365. 10. Previous Actions: Resolution 77-410 was adopted on September 13, 1977 which allowed installation of the original Burger Chef pylon sign. Resolution 83-92 was approved on June 7, 1983 which allowed change- out of the former Burger Chef sign(s) to Hardee's. Building Permit No. 8072 was issued on June 2, 1988 for a "new" reader board on the Hardee's pylon sign. 11. Based on discussion with the property owner, the "lower" reader board will be eliminated. However, variance approval is being requested to allow reuse of the existing sign frame. 12. Access to the property from CSAH 15 is provided by a driveway entrance located on the west side of the property which is subject to a private lease agreement with the adjacent property owner (Mark Saliterman) as portions of the driveway are constructed on the Shoreline Plaza property. According to the owner, the lease agreement is "in force" and new terms have been negotiated with the adjacent owner. A copy of the lease agreement was provided by the applicant and was forwarded to the City Attorney for review. 13. Dumpster enclosure(s) shall meet the provisions of City Code Chapter 490 and shall be subject to review and approval by Staff. PLANNING COMMISSION OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION(S) Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend conditions as recommended by Staff. For details regarding the Planning Commission meeting, please refer to January 3, 2005 meeting minute excerpts which have been included as an attachment. A draft resolution based on the Planning Commission's review and recommendation has been prepared. -3893- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 05- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION(S) FROM DAN NGUYEN AND PHI TRAN ON BEHALF OF TOKYO EXPRESS TO ALLOW A CLASS II RESTAURANT AND DRIVE-THRU TO BE LOCATED AT 5205 SHORELINE DRIVE P & Z CASE # 04-44 AND 04-48 PID # 13-117-24-43..011 t WHEREAS, the applicants, Dan Nguyen and Phi Tran, on behalf of Tokyo Express, have submitted a conditional use permit application to allow a Class II restaurant and drive-thru to be located in the former Hardee's building located at 5205 Shoreline Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the applicants are also requesting variance approval to allow reuse of the existing pylon structure by installing new sign panel(s); and WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned B-1; and WHEREAS, as set forth in City Code Section 350:640, Class II restaurants (fast food, convenience and drive-in) are allowed in the B-1 District by conditional use; and WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 350:310, Subd 113 defines a Class II restaurant as follows: "Restaurants where a majo#ty of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises; or able to be taken to a table, counter, or automobile, or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served." ; and WHEREAS, details regarding the conditional use permit and sign vadance request are contained in Planning Report No. 04-44 / 04-48; and -3894- WHI:RI=A~, Ci~ Code Chapter 350.525 Subd. 3 (B) requires that all requests for conditional use permits are reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the conditional use permit and variance request(s) at its January 3, 2005 meeting and voted unanimously to recommend approval subject to conditions as recommended by Staff. WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 350.535 Subd. 3 (C) requires that a public hearing is held by the City Council and further requires that all public hearing notices for conditional use permit requests must be published at least (10) days in advance of the public hearing and must also be mailed to all owners of property located within (350) feet of the subject site; and WHEREAS, the public headng notice was published in the January 15, 2005 edition of the Laker and was also mailed to all property owners within (350) feet of the subject site on January 12, 2005 therefore all notification requirements have been satisfied. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the conditional use permit to subject the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: a. Landscaping plan to be submitted and shall be made subject to review and approval by Public Works Director Moore, b. Private lease agreement between the property owner and owner of Shoreline Plaza must remain in force. c. Building permit(s) shall be required including the submittal of all required information. d. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the application is approved. Parking plan shall be modified to meet the requirements of the City Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director prior to the parking lot restriping project. go Applicant and/or property owner to provide color sample(s) and/or design boards of the proposed building exterior and site-related improvements (ie. light poles, etc.) for review by Staff pdor to the City Council public hearing. h. Hours of operation shall be subject to review by Staff, Planning Commission and City Council. -3895- i. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. j. Additional comments from the Planning Commission, City Council and Staff. k. Exterior lighting shall meet all provisions of the City Code. I. No permits shall be issued until such time as evidence of recording of the official resolution at Hennepin County is provided. 2. The City does hereby approve the sign variance request subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: a. The "lower" reader board shall be removed. b. The use of "reverse cut copy" should be used. c. A building permit shall be required including the submittal of all required information and payment of all involved fees. d. The variance shall expire after one (1) year unless an extension is granted pursuant to City Code Chapter 350.530, Subd. 2 (E). e. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the City's review of the land use request. f. The City of Mound shall reserve the dght to regulate hours of operation for sign illumination. g. Wall signage shall meet the provisions of City Code Chapter 365. 3. In granting the sign vadance request, the City hereby makes the following findings of fact: a. Variances were previously granted for the existing sign structure. b. By removing the "lower" reader board, the nonconformity of the existing sign is reduced by 15 SF. c. The existing pylon structure is approximately (5) feet less than the (25) foot allowance. d. The existing "sign frame" is an integral part of the pylon sign structure. e. Approval of the sign variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of City Code Chapter 365 (Sign Regulations.) 4. This conditional use permit and variance are approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: -3896- See Exhibit A 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 filed with the City. The variance is valid for one (1) year following its approval unless an extension is approved by the City Council pursuant to the City Code 350.530, Subd. 2 (E). Applicant shall be required to submit a written request at least 30 days preceding 1-year deadline of the original approval date by the City Council. 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 January 25, 2005 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Rifler, City Clerk -3897- · MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 2005 CASE #04-44 CUP CASE #04-48 SIGN VARIANCE 5205 SHORELINE DRIVE TOKYO EXPRESS The applicants aro requesting a conditional use permit to allow a Class II sit-down restaurant and drive-through to be located in the former Hardee's building. Also requested is a sign variance to allow rouse of the existing pylon structure by installing new sign panels. Currently, the freestanding sign is nonconforming. At 61 square feet it exceeds the 48 square foot size limit by 13 square feet and does not meet the 10 foot front setback requirement. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Landscaping plan to be submitted and shall be made subject to review and approval by Public Works Director Moore. 2. Private lease agreement between the property owners and owner of Shoreline Plaza shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. 3. Building permits shall be required, including the submittal of all required information. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 5. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the application is approved. 6. Parking plan shall be modified to meet the requirement of the City Code and shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Director prior to the parking lot re-striping project. 7. Applicant and/or property owner to provide color samples and/or design boards of the proposed building exterior and site-related improvements (i.e. Light poles, etc.) for review by Staff prior to the City Council public hearing. 8. Hours of operation shall be subject to review by Staff, Planning Commission and City Council. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. 10.Additional comments from the Planning Commission, City Council and Staff. 11. Exterior lighting shall meet all provisions of the City Code. 12. No permits hsall be issued until such time as evidence of recording of the official resolution at Hennepin County is provided. -3898- Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2005 Staff recommends approval of the variance request subject to the following conditions: 1 .The "lower" reader board shall be removed. 2. The use of "reverse cut copy" should be used. 3.A building permit shall be required including the submittal of all required information and payment of all involved fees. 4.The variance shall expire after one year unless an extension is granted. 5.Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the City's review of the land use request. 6.The City of Mound shall reserve the right to regulate hours of operation for sign illumination. 7.VVall signage shall meet the provision of City Code Chapter 365. Discussion Mueller asked about handicapped accessible bathrooms. Also, if the agreement with Saliterman can be terminated for a specific cause it would make the restaurant inaccessible. Smith indicated that at that point the conditional use permit would also terminate. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Schwingler, to approve the conditional use permit. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Schwingler, to approve the sign variance with the lower reader board removed. MOTION carried unanimously. Findings of fact: The sign is 5 feet lower than the 25 foot allowance and has been there for many years. -3899- PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING AL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FROM DAN CONSIDER A CONDITION TO ALLOW A CLASS II TO OKYO EXPRESS) AND PHi TRAN (dlbla T CATED AT NGUYEN o=~'rAIIRANT AND DRIVE-THRU TO BE LO "~ ........ 5205 SHORELINE DRIVE pLANNING CASE # 04-44 PlO # 13-117-24-43-0111 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota wilt meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 7:30 PM to hold a public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit request from Dan Nguyen and Phi Tran d/bla Tokyo Express to allow a Class II restaurant and drive-thru to be located in the former Hardee's building located at 5205 Shoreline Drive. Copies of the application materials, legal descriptions and project plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. Ali persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Published in The Laker on January 15, 2005 ~'~Norlander, Planning an~ Inspections Secretary -3900- AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING HEARING NOTICE Case No. ~)~' ~, STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN J.[IL~, being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am a United States Citizen, over twenty-one (21) years of age, and the Secretary_ for Planning and Inspections Department of the City of Mound, Minnesota. · On (~~0- [~ ,20 ~)-~ , acting on..behalf of the City I deposited in the United States Post Office at Mound, Minnesota, copies.of the attached notice of a hearing on proposed improvement, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses appearing opposite their respective names. *See attached list. There is delivery service by the United States mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~' day ~LP'('dl20 O~ f Nota~' c~". ~;)~ -3901 - __ CITY_OF_MOUND __ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. PLANNING COMM. DATE CITY COUNCIL DATE: CASE NO. IDistribution: City Planner.. City Engineer. Public Works: Fire Dept. Parks: Other: Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subje~Address 5205 Shoreline Boulevard INFORMATION Name 0f Business Tokyo Express - Lots 2-6 including lots 36 & 37 including adjacent vacant alleYBiock Plat# LEGAL Lot DESCRIPTION and parking area, except the street Subdivision PiD~ 1 3- 1 1 7- 2 4- 4 3- 0 1 I 1 APPLICANT The applicant is: Owner , 'Other. Leasee Name Dan Nquyen and' Phi Tran Leasee Address 8839 North Brook Circler Brooklyn Parkr MN 55428 PhoneHome763-531-2489 Work Ce11612-220-0863 E-MailAddress dnguyen55428@yahoo.comFax Name Robert & Karen Nelson OWNER (if other than Address 393 Old Farm Road, Shoreview, MN 55126 applicant) PhoneHome651 -484-9735 Work 651 -483-9785 Ce, 651 -271 -5704 Name Sathre-Bergquistf Inc. ARCHITECT, SURVEYOR. Address 150 South Broadway, Wayzata, MN 55391 OR ENGINEER Phone Offi~ 952- 476- 6000 Cell F~ 952- 476- 01 04 ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 (~ B-2 B-3 DISTRICT Conditional Use Permit Info (11/15/2004) Page 4 of 5 -3902- Description of Proposed Use: ~,For' a Japane.se ,~Res.t..aur.a, nt- ~servinq both sit dqwn and carryout w±th dr±v~ through window. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. No change:: in us~; o:L: property. Property has been used f6r:--restaurant business since 1977. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable .~uarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ 5 O- 6 0 ~.~ 0 0 0 £or building improvements / $70-80,000 for Equipment. ' .... 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. Opened as a Burger Chef in 1977. Am~lication must be signed by all owners of~,~,~bj.~t mp._mp._mp._mp._mp.~rty, or an explanation given why th' ... . _ Print Applicant's Name Applic~Mt~s Signature Date Print Owner's Name (~?~ SignatUre,' c^ ' Date Date/ City Code Section 350:525 relating to Conditional Use Permits must be reviewed by the applicant. If applying for a two family dwelling, City Code Section 350:630, Subd. 4..must be reviewed by the applicant. Conditional Use Permit Info (11/15/2004) Page 5 of 5 -3903- December 2, 2004 ADDENDUM Improvements to site: · Sealcoating, crack filling and striping by April 1, 2005 (or sooner) · Painting of outside of building by April 1, 2005 (or sooner) · Landscaping replanting of new shrubs and repair of retaining wall by May 1, 2005 · New door on trash dumpster area by March 1, 2005 (or sooner) · Parking lot light poles and transformer painted by April 1, 2005 (or sooner) · Pour new concrete slab between and around drive through pillars by April 1, 2005 (or sooner). -3904- 'ON I 'J.SI nOD~38-3~HIVS UOSlaN uaqo~j AaA~Ins 40 ::I.L¥:DI:dI.L~:IO l' I I§ 1 { m.m.o~ooos I '-~ I '--I I .-J i i i ~e;.' c I I 3ll~_ 'I~ l O00N , -3906- -3907- December 17, 2004 RE: Tokyo Express - 5205 Shoreline Drive, Mound Comments from the Building Inspections Department are as follows: 1. Two (2) sets of plans are required for building/remodeling permits. There may not be a change of use, but the building code requirements have changed since 1977. 2. Separate permits are required for all mechanical systems or updates to existing systems. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy is required. 4. All restaurant equipment must be approved by the Department of Health. Submit kitchen plans to the Department of Health for review of layout, equipment and menu. 5. Provide accessibility upgrades with plans and specifications. Ron Ericson Waldron & Associates City of Mound Building Inspections Department -3908- CITY OF XOUNi) .VARIANCE'" APPLICATION Pho~ ~-47L~4~00 FAX Appllo~tion F~ and ~e~w. ~ required at Um~ ~ mpplloa~ Planning Commi.~n O~ C~ Coun~l D~e PROPER~ OWNER APPUCANT (~ OTHER THAN OWNER) PLO... /3 '-i10 : 2 ~-__¥$ - ~111 p~. #__ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R.2 R-a ~ -" e 2 P~PER~ ~ P h one H°rne~Wm'k~Fax~~~~ Name ~. · H"~'-~'~ a PpiloMion ever been made ~ng proc~lure for ~ie proj:xmly~ Ya ( ) ldo ( )..if yea, t~ date(s) of aPplioet'fon, action taken, re~,Olulion and provide copie~ of ro.gohJfion~, vidifloe II'lfOl'rnldfOA (10/28A004) P~. 4 of e -3909- ~oo~ 6. Am lhe conditlonl 0¢ hqr~hip for which you requ~tt I variance peculigr only to the properly tM6c~becl in Ulis petition? Yes (), No (). If no, tilt ~me o~w Properties w~ich Ire similarly af~-cted? B. Comments:~ ~ : I cer~ that mU of the Ibuv~ itltement~ Ind the ~dt~men~ c=ntiined in ~ ~uk~ ~m or pJRne'~ ~ subm~ he~ ~ ~ a~ i~v~. l Imn~ge ~t I ht~ mad ell ~ ~e v~M i~~ ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~d for ~ ~ ~ i~~, ~r of p~ng, mmin~in~g and mmw~ Su~ ~ ~ may be ~~~. . . (10J2~,~04) IDle I of 6 -3910- II 95z4720e2o ClT~ OF MOT~D '~002 3, Do.the existing etruoture, comity with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulatlom for theigoning dtstriot in whi~ it is locater? Yee ( ) No (). tfno, ~l)edfy each nonconforming uae (dm~dbe reason for vedence request, i.e. I/tbaek, lot ama, etc.): ~-"~: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or ;rom Yam: ( N $ E W ) ft, $idm Yard: Side Yawl: Rear Yard: ( N 8 E W ) ft, Llkaek]le: ( N $ E W ) _ __ ff. -- , * (NSEW) $1reet F'ront~e: ~t. L~ Si~: __~ ft _ ,q ~t Sq ~t Hardco~*c. -- - 4. Does the preea~ uae Of'the property em~form regulations for in9 dlsl~tct in whlr,~ it is ' located? Yee (). No (). If tm, specify each n0n~on~rming use: ' ; Which Unque phjPaica! chamcleri~tir,,s ~f the ~u r uses pirmilted in thatzoning dletrict? t)je~ p operly prevent its ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) f~o shallow ( ) =hml3e reasonable use f~r eny ef the ( ) ex. ting situation ( ) other: .pe,~fy Vl~m=e It',lo--on -3911 - -3912- -3913- MIDWAY SIGN COMPANY, INC. ' SINCE: 1934 ..,~' 444 PRIOR AVENUe' ST. PAUL, MINN. 55'104 612/645-9188 ,-3914- II ii 77-4]0 9-1~-77 RESOLUTION biO. 77 - 410 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANt, lNG COMHISSION RECOHMEHDATION TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIA~'.ICE AS RE- QUESTED. WHEREAS, owners of property described as Lots 2 through 6, 36 & 37, Block l, Shirley Hills Unit F (Burger Chef) have applied for a sign variance, and WHEREAS, size of sign is waived as long as all portions, including overhang of sign are within boundaries of property, and providing the base of the sign be extended no more than ten (lO') feet from the terrain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUHD, MIHNESOTA: That Council concurs with Planning Commission recommenda- tion to approve the sign variance as requested. That erection and building of sign include the notation: "all portions including overhang of sign be Within boundaries of property; base of sign be extended no more than 10 feet from terrain". Size of sign waived if above is observed. Adopted by Council this 13th day of September, 1977. 77-410 9-13-77 -3915- ~ BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 472.1155 LOCATION OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT STREETADDRESS 5205 Shoreline Blvd, ADDITION_ Shirley Hills Unit F , PLAT# 62060 PARCEL# o76o LOT ~-6,36 BLOCK I PID# & P/2 S 37 oWNER_ Hardee's 2300 No. Rice ADDRESS 1~-117-24 43 Olll St., Little Canada, MN 55113 ; ~: Midway S19n Co., Inc. BLDR;-CON~"_ '' 444 No. Prior Ave., St. Paul, HN. ADDRESS_ ESTIMATED VALUE ZONING DISTRICT COMPLETION DATE DATE 6-1 PHONE NO. PHONE NO. TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION - DESCRIPTION OF WORK BEING DONE: N/A [~- 1 645 - 9 ~,,,., ZIP 551 04 O m O PERMI~ FEE $ ] ~- 0(3 PLAN cHECK FEE $ N/A SURCHARGE $ 01-2222 78-2304 78-3774 73-3155 73-3744 S.A.C. $ WATER CONN. FEE $. TAPPING FEE $ PERMIT APPROVAL (~ ~ ~ .... FINAL INSPECTION 78-3158 SEWERCONN. FEES 73-3842 STATIONARY ROD FEE $ TOTALS ARE ADDITIONAL PERMITS NEEDED: ELECTRICAL OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE PLUMBING DATE HEATING When permit Is granted, I hereby agree to do the proposed work In accordance with description above set forth and according to the provisions of all ordinances of the City of Mound and of all statutes of the State of Minnesota in such cases made and provided. All building permits expire one year after date of Issuance. DATE (,-1-~A APPLICANT -3916- ii Il (95) CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEEI' ,DDRESS: ZONING DIS'rRICT, IDT SIZE/WIDTtI: R1 RIA SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO R2 EOTOF RECORD? YES / NO R2 R3 YARD ' J DIRECTION J REQI IIREI) IIOUSE ......... FRONT ,N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W Sir TOP OF BLUFF I0' ()R ]0' 10,000/60 6,000/40 6,000/40 14,OO0/BO SEE ORD. BI '?,500/0 B2 20,000/§0 B3 10,000/60 EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTII: LOT DEPTII: I1 30,000/100 EXISTIN(;/HIOI~)SEI! YAIIIANCE GARAGE, SIlED ..... DETACllED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' SIDE N S E W 4'{)R6' REAR N S E W 4' ,AKE N S E W 50' 'FOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' i' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% CONFOR.,N(,: Y~S ;.o ? JB¥: -3917- -3918- Memorandum Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound City Council FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP Consulting City Planner DATE: January 19, 2005 SUBJECT: Mound Visions Final Alternative Mitigation Plan Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) document and Mound City Staff and the AUAR consultant team are happy to present the Council with the Final AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan. A Resolution is in order for the Council's consideration and adoption. Since public comment on the document has been received and a public hearing is not required, public input is at the discretion of the Council. The Council reviewed the Draft AUAR at its November 23~d meeting and since that time, the document was distributed for agency review and comment. Of the comments received, none were determined to be substantive in terms or requiring major document revisions. Responses to comments received are included in your packet materials. There were minor revisions made to 3 questions which are included in your packet materials. It should also be noted that no review agency commented that the document was inaccurate or contained incomplete information. The revised document and responses to comments were sent out on January 7t~ to all agencies and parties that submitted comments. A public input meeting was held on December 15th, at which 8 people attended. The public in attendance had comments/questions in items such as the extent of known environmental contamination, testing procedures for contaminants, and project feasibility of the Lost Lake site if the contaminants weren't removed. No formal public input comments were submitted in written form at that meeting. Upon adoption of the Final AUAR document and Mitigation Plan, notice will be sent to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) for posting in the EQB Monitor. The City will need to monitor development to insure it occurs in a manner consistent with the AUAR. The AUAR will remain a valid environmental analysis document for 5 years assuming development will not exceed the stated project magnitude data and other parameters. Minnesota Rules require that if development within the project area has not received all approvals within 5 years, the AUAR will need to be updated. Minnesota Rules 4410.3600 Subp. 7 identify the circumstances by which the AUAR remains valid or would need to be updated. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -3919- RESOLUTION # 05- RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE MOUND VISIONS REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, on August 10, 2004, the City of Mound, acting as the official Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) approved Resolution ~O4-91, an Order for Review requesting the initiation of an AUAR for the Mound Visions Redevelopment Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mound prepared the November 22, 2004 Draft AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan; and, WHEREAS, the November 22, 2004 Draft AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan was distributed in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures and published in the EQB Monitor on November 22, 2004 for review and comment; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Draft AUAR environmental analysis document was published in the Laker on November 20, 2004; and, WHEREAS, on December 15, 2004, the City of Mound held a public informational meeting to obtain public comments on the November 22, 2004, Draft AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the 30 day review period, as prescribed by Minnesota Rules, ending December 22, 2004, a revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan was prepared based on comments received; and, WHEREAS, the City of Mound distributed the revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures; and, WHEREAS, no objections to the revised AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan were filed with the City of Mound within the 10 day objection pedod as prescribed by Minnesota Rules. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound hereby adopts the Final AUAR environmental analysis document and Mitigation Plan for the Mound Visions Redevelopment Plan. Adopted by the City Council this 25~ day of January, 2005. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -3920- AUAR Comments and Responses -3921 - CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www.kennedy-graven.com 1/20/05 To: Council and City Manager From: John Dean Subject: Consideration of Mound Visions AUAR and Mitigation Plan At the regular meeting of January 25, 2005 the Mound City Council will consider the Mound Visions Alternative Urban Environmental Analysis and the Mitigation Plan. The Council consideration is the final action of the Alternative Areawide Urban Review process. The process is governed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116D and Minnesota Rules, Section 4400.3610. These laws do not provide for holding of a public hearing at the time the Council considers final action. Council consideration has been preceded by a specific review and comment period during which all interested individuals and agencies have had an opportunity to review the proposal and to comment on the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in the draft analysis and other matters provided for in the Rules. All of the comments received within the comment period have been responded to, and no objections to the responses have been made within the specified response period. Accordingly, it is correct for the Council to conclude that, in terms of review and comment, the record is now closed. Because the record is now closed, it would be my recommendation that the Council neither take testimony, nor receive information or further public comments on this matter prior to taking action. JBD-258332vl MU195-15 -3922- ........ CiTY OF MOUN[~ .... To-' From: Subject: Date: Whom It May Concern Sarah Smith, Community Development Director, City of Mound Draft Mound Visions AUAR Comments January 7, 2005 The City of Mound appreciates your comments on the Draft AUAR document. A response document that addresses comments received during the 30 day review period is attached for your review. The response document includes a summary of the specific questions/comments received from reviewing bodies and a response that either clarifies the information in the document or identifies how the document has been revised to address any particular question or comment. The Mound City Council will review the Final AUAR document at its January 25, 2005 meeting. If you should have any additional comments or questions, please contact me. Sarah Smith, Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 952-472-0604 (phone) 952-472-0620 (fax) Please feel free to contact me via email at sarahsmith~cityofmound.eom if you should have any questions or need additional information. -3923- Mound Visions Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Comment responses This is summary document of agency and individual comments/questions regarding the November 22, 2004 Draft AUAR. No comments. General regulatory information provided. RGU Response: No response needed No comments. Project should have little impact on MnDOT's highway system. RGU Response: No response needed Comment: "Staff concludes the Draft AUAR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies." Following comments are offered: Transit Center - "... City continue to work with Metro Transit regarding the location of bus stops, routings and layover location." · Permits and Approvals Required - submission of sanitary sewer connections plans to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services staff for review, comment and issuance of a construction permit prior to connections with the sanitary sewer system. · Water Quality - Wastewater - consistent with on-going design considerations for upgrades to the regional system. · Sensitive Resources - Designated Parks, Recreation Areas or Trails - City is encouraged to continue to work with the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and Three Rivers Park District to ensure that a regional trail can be accommodated on the Dakota Rail line. RGU Response: Concur with comments. No change to document needed No comments. RGU Response: No response needed Comment: Document correctly notes the need for a NPDES Phase II Construction Permit. RGU Response: Noted No document revision needed Comment: Figure 17.2 was difficult to read. RGU Response: Final A UAR document will provide a more readable Figure 17. 2. Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7- 1 -3924- Comment: "The italicized text in Item 29 notes that cumulative impacts should be addressed between the projects outside the AUAR area. The document lacks a discussion of such potential cumulative impacts. Please clarify whether any additional, nearby projects are likely in the City and if so, whether any cumulative impacts would be expected. RGU Response: The A UAR project area was determined by identifying known and potential redevelopment projects in the downtown area that are anticipated during the next 5 to 10 years. The City consciously identified the project area to better address the impacts of redevelopment projects that might otherwise be evaluated on their own individual merits and project data. Although the potential exists for other redevelopment projects in and around the downtown area, the type, scope and impact of those projects would need to be evaluated to determine how to approach future required or discretionary environmental reviews. Other MPCA comments: · MPCA emphasizes the importance of stormwater management, erosion control, and sedimentation for the project. MPCA was pleased to find mention of alternative methods of stormwater management and encourage City to pursue feasible options. · Transit center is useful to reduce traffic impacts. RGU Response: Concur with comments. No change to document needed. Comment: Item 8. Permits and Approvals Required. New or relocated utility crossings of public waters will require a utility license from the DNR Division of Lands and Minerals. RGU Response: Noted No document revision needed. Comment: Item 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. The proposed dredging for docks in the Mound Harbor Renaissance Scenario may impact aquatic habitat of Lost Lake in only a minor way and, combined with the previous dredging activity, it may not result in a significant habitat impact. RGU Response : The riparian rights of the adjacent Lost Lake District property must be balanced with the need to remove some vegetation for docking purposes. Docking must also be designed to promote safe navigation with minimal disruption to aquatic plant and animal communities. The Mitigation Plan identifies methods to minimize further impacts to vegetation after the dredging is completed Comment: Item 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. The potential for arsenic contamination is DNR's main concern with the Mound Harbor Renaissance scenario. DNR would prefer a docking configuration that avoids dredging of the contaminated site. A configuration that consolidates the docking area could lessen the impact to this wetland. RGU Response: Prior to submission of dredging permits, additional sediment testing will be performed to determine the levels of contamination including arsenic. Alternative dock locations will need to be considered if contaminants are found and exceed MPCA thresholds. Any Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 - 2 -3925- proposed dredge will need to comply with applicable MPCA permitting criteria. The City will continue to evaluate docking alternatives that seek to minimize wetland disruption. Comment: Dredging in Lost Lake will require the approval of DNR Fisheries as well as a permit from DNR Fisheries Aquatic Plant Management for the removal of aquatic vegetation. RGU Response: Noted. All applicable permits will be secured if the dock and dredging project if the Mound Harbor Renaissance scenario is implemented. Comment: Page 31, MNDNR Aquatic Plant Management Control Permit, the AUAR states: "This permit will be required because more than 2,500 square feet of vegetation will be removed for the dredging of the docks." In fact, any emergent vegetation removal requires a permit. The 2,500 square foot threshold applies only to submerged vegetation, but the permit will be for the removal of emergent vegetation (cattails). RGU Response: Document will be changed to state the following. "This permit will be required for vegetation removal associated with dredging activities for the docks." ~innehaha Creek ~atershed District ~ ~cember 22~ 2004 le~er)i Comment: Potential and Known Contaminant Source Areas - The information provided does not quantify existing contaminants or provide specific, conclusive evidence regarding soil and ground water contamination. The details provided are "based on available information" and summarize conclusions without providing a rational base of analysis. Please provide quantified data and analysis of environmental testing and conclusive information based on hard data regarding impacts to water quality resulting from site disturbance and the presence of volatile or toxic chemicals THIS COMMENT SEEMS TO APPLY TO THE LANDFILL. SEDIMENT SAMPLING DID NOT INCLUDE VOLATILE CHEMICALS SINCE THEY ARE NOT TYPICALLY FOUND IN SEDIMENT/SURFACE WATER RGU Response: Sediment sampling was conducted on July 22, 2004 in the proposed dredge area at 0 - 2. 5feet and 2. 5 - 3feet depths. As stated in the A UAR, exceedences for arsenic concentration were found at the SD03. Additional sediment testing will be needed to comply with MPCA reporting methodology for the dredge areaSediment data for the new lake bottom will be compared to MPCA sediment guidelines to be protective of surface water quality. As stated in the responses to DNR comments above, other docking locations may be considered to avoid potentially contaminated areas. The A UAR also documents the "west plume" of contaminated groundwater released by the former Tonka Toys facility. As noted in the Lost Lake Phase H lnvestigation Report, the MPCA and Bart Engineering doubt that the VOCs exist in the groundwater. Data indicates the plume is limited to utility trenches in the CSAH 15 right-of-way. Comment: The AUAR lacks information identifying and quantifying the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. Quantify how the proposed dredging option for Lost Lake is the minimal impact solution to aquatic and terrestrial habitat and minimal impact solution to water quality by comparing qualitative and quantitative impacts to the impacts of the alternative -3926- Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 - 3 I design options. The final AUAR should provide for any easement and/or outlot locations proposed to minimize future impacts. RGU Response: The A UAR proposes a 2. 07 acre surface water area and 7, 000 cubic yards of dredging material removal. The City and Developer have reviewed a number of dredge and docking alternatives to arrive at the project magnitude data. The City and Developer are continuing to review options to further reduce the surface water area and dredge material to provide a feasible dock design that minimizes environmental impacts. The Mitigation Plan also suggests easements and/or outlots to minimize the potential for new docks and additional vegetation mat disturbance. Comment: MCWD encourages the City of Mound to formalize its commitment to incorporating creative alternatives of stormwater management which utilize a high degree of surface water runoff treatment by including the report produced by MCWD entitled "Supplementing Mound Downtown Redevelopment with Innovative Stormwater Management" within the AUAR. RGU Response: The report is included as a resource for Mitigation Initiatives and will also be included as Appendix 5 in the Final A UAR. Comment: What percentage of the area in question [AUAR]: (approximately 23 acres) 1) is owned by the Mayor and/or her husband and 2) is owned by the City of Mound? RG U Response: City provided correspondence to Paula Larson on December 12, 2004 to address the inquiry. Comment I.A.: The developer proposing the hotel mentioned in the AUAR asked for termination of the development agreement with the City. Therefore, the AUAR is incomplete as written and is not "...consistent with any known development plans..." RGU Response: The fact that the hotel was considered a known development plan during the preparation of the A UAR validates the City's compliance with Minnesota Rules 4410. 3610 Subp. 3 by evaluating as project magnitude data. It should be noted that the property identified for the hotel development is owned by the City, not the potential developer. No document change needed Comment I.B.: The townhomes on the Lost Lake site are unmarketable without full remediation of the site. Therefore, the AUAR is incomplete as written and is not "...consistent with any known development plans..." - in violation of Minn. Rule 4410.3610, Subp. 3. RGU Response:: See previous comment response. The A UAR identifies the conditions present on the former City Dump site. Two approaches are described in the AUAR to address the described development - site encapsulation and removal. The Commenter identifies recent correspondence from the Developers legal counsel suggesting that remediation of the site may be needed Since the distribution of the draft A UAR, the City has committed to bond for removal of the dump site if the MHR scenario proceeds. Currently, the developer is scoping how to Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 - 4 -3927- approach removal of all or portions of the site. Any removal of contaminants requiring land filling will need to comply with MPCA permitting requirements. Comment II: The AUAR must provide a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS. The AUAR is non-compliant to Minn. Rule 4410.3610 Subp.4. Following items need more analysis: · Comment: Page 20, 2nd to last paragraph: "No indications of high methane concentrations.., were obtained from field screening performed during the test pit operations." [Comment: In fact, the methane issue is much more serious than what is mentioned in the Draft AUAR. A memo from the Faegre and Benson law firm states that Barr Engineering found that the "potential methane generation would require a passive system, an active system, an possibly alarms in each unit" an that Barr is unaware of any residential development located in Minnesota constructed on a methane generating site." Therefore, this issue must be accurately and thoroughly analyzed and specific mitigation measures included in the mitigation plan.] RGU Response: Agency comments do not indicate the level of information provided in the A UAR is inadequate. The City believes the environmental studies and reports prepared to date for the project area provide an adequate level of information to prepare this A UAR. The potential methane issues cannot be understated as it relates to the use of the site for residential purposes. The Faegre and Benson memo identifies that, minimally, there are at least negative market perceptions regarding that approach in addition to potential health and safety issues that could be present. The remediation of the dump site would remove potentially harmful contaminants and organic materials producing methane. The City and Developer will work with the MPCA on an accepted site remediation process to provide a clean and buildable site. Comment: Page 26, paragraphs 2-3 The Pugnose Shiner (Notropis emiliae), a state "special concem" species, has been recorded in Cooks Bay. [Comment: Lost Lake must be studied to determine the existence and extent of the Pugnose Shiner. Note also, the AUAR states that the Pugnose Shiner is not protected "under current regulations." In fact, the Pugnose Shiner is protected under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act/Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (refined by case law) against state or private actions that may have a material adverse effect on the environment. Finally, the AUAR must thoroughly examine the question: Are the proposed dredge controls adequate to protect the Pugnose Shiner in Cooks Bay, even if it is ultimately found not to exist in Lost Lake? Additional mitigation measures must be instated, based on the outcome of this analysis.] RGU Response: A species is considered a species of special concern if, although the species is not endangered or threatened, it is extremely uncommon in Minnesota, or has unique or highly specific habitat requirements and deserves careful monitoring of its status. Species on the periphery of their range that are not listed as threatened may be -3928- Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 - 5 included in this category along with those species that were once threatened or endangered but now have increasing or protected, stable populations. Species designated as species of special concern are not protected by Minnesota Statutes, section 84. 0895 or rules adopted under that section. Parts 6212.1800 to 6212. 2300 and Minnesota Statutes, section 84. 0895, impose a variety of restrictions, a permit program, and several exemptions pertaining to species designated as endangered or threatened The pugnose shiner is a small minnow that rarely exceeds two inches in length. The MnDNR Natural Heritage Program database states that the Pugnose shiner was last observed in Cooks Bay (approximately 0.57 miles south of the Project Area) when it was sampled at Station #$ on 10/19/1969. The Pugnose shiner prefers areas with extensive submerged vegetation with very clear water less than six feet deep (Conrad Schmidt, MnDNR). Pugnose shiner inhabit areas of dense aquatic vegetation in slow waters of larger streams. They are timid and secretive with schools averaging 15 to 35 individuals that immediately drop to the bottom in the densest vegetation when threatened. The Pugnose shiner prefers clear, weedy shoals of glacial lakes and streams of low gradient over sand, mud, gravel, or marl. The dense submerged aquatic vegetation preferred by the Pugnose shiner consists of pondweeds, water milfoil, elodea, eelgrass, coontail, bulrush, and filamentous algae. The fish is extremely intolerant to turbidity and siltation, which may explain their decline in much of their original range. They graze on plants in midwater, consuming filamentous algae and cladocerans. Due to the Pugnose shiners very strict habitat requirements it is commonly used as an environmental indicator for water quality. The lack of submerged vegetation and water quality in Lost Lake are not consistent with the referenced Pugnose shiner habitat requirements. Question 11 of the A UAR document will be revised to reflect the above response. Comment: Page 29, paragraph 2 - "The area may be retested as part of the dredging process to verify results prior to disposal." [Comment: Testing must be accomplished prior to adoption of the final AUAR, with any necessary mitigation included in the mitigation plan.] RGU Response: Sediment samples will be collected from the proposed dredge area prior to application for a dredging permit. Upon permit approvals, confirmation of dredge sediment will be made to determine how to properly landfill any contaminants. The A UAR is being used as a guidance document to identify the general location, type of use and intensity of development scenario components. The identified designs for dredging and docking in the A UAR meet the intent of providing information about known development scenarios. The A UAR is not intended to provide construction plan detail information for potential development scenarios. This information will be provided with applicable permitting processes. Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7- 6 -3929- Comment: Page 29, paragraph 2 - "The landfill accepting the material may request a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) for arsenic prior to accepting the material." [Comment: The acceptability of the dredge spoils should be determined prior in the final AUAR and necessary measures included in the mitigation plan. I'm also concemed about the public money being spent on the dredge before a plan is in place for proper disposal of the spoils.] RGU Response: The arsenic concentrations observed in the sediment samples would pass a TCLP test, allowing disposal at a landfill. Based on the analytical methodogy for the TCLP, the sediment sample would need a concentration 20 x the TCLP limit of 5 mg/L to have the potential to fail the TCLP test. The highest arsenic concentration observed was 31.8 mg/kg, well below the 100 mg/kg threshold for potentially failing the TCLP test. The statement was included in the A UAR to point out that the landfill accepting the dredge material may have additional testing requirements. The proposed dredge would be paid for by private not public funds. Comment: Page 30, paragraph 2 - "If TKN is present at a lower depth, chemical binding should be considered to limit the nutrients available for vegetative growth." [Comment: Testing must be accomplished prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and any necessary chemical binding must be included in the mitigation plan.] RGU Response: The A UAR outlines approaches to addressing the high TKN levels, observed both in the existing lake bottom and with a new lake bottom. The City and Developer would work through any necessary perm ittingproceduresfor compliance with acceptable approaches. Comment: Page 30, paragraph 3 - "Resample [lead]...at a depth of one foot deeper than was previously sampled. If the lead concentration in the deeper sample exceeds screening criteria, other options will need to be discussed." [Comment: This must be accomplished prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and any necessary chemical binding must be included in the mitigation plan.] RGU Response: The A UAR outlines approaches to addressing MPCA exceedences including alternative dredge locations and approaches to contaminant removal. The City and Developer would work through any necessary permitting procedures for compliance with acceptable approaches. Comment: Page 30, paragraph 5 -"The possibility of resampling to achieve lower reporting limits may be required for several SVOCs and pesticides. Resampling of two locations for arsenic may also be required." [Comment: This must be accomplished prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and any necessary measures must be included in the mitigation plan.] RGU Response: The A UAR outlines approaches to addressing MPCA exceedences including alternative dredge locations and approaches to contaminant removal. The City -3930- Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 - 7 and Developer would work through any necessary permitting procedures for compliance with acceptable approaches. Comment: Page 30, second to last paragraph - "Controls will need to be in place during dredging so that dredged sediments fall back into the same area due to high TKN concentrations? [Comment: The RG U Response: prepared and as controls must be described now and included in the mitigation plan.] Appropriate controls will be determined afier final dredge plans a part of the permitting and dredging process. Comment: Page 30, last paragraph - "Either dredging to a depth or chemical binding of nutrients may be necessary to prevent unwanted growth due to high TKN concentrations." [Comment: This must be carefully examined prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and concerns addressed in the mitigation plan] RGU Response: The City and Developer will work with the MPCA, DNR and MCWD during the permitting processes on ways to establish a new lake bottom that minimizes the opportunity for vegetative growth within the dredged area. Comment: Page 17, last paragraph - "No significant soil or groundwater impacts were identified by the Phase II investigation conducted on the Maxwell property...No remedial actions for cleanup of soil or groundwater appear warranted." [Comment: The adequacy of environmental testing to date does not, inspire great confidence, particularly with vague bold face words. What are the definitions of "significant" and "appear"? Furthermore, Barr Engineering recommended that the Maxwell site be excavated to "remove all waste and contaminated material and replace with processed or clean fill." RGU Response: A number of environmental reports have been prepared to date for the City Dump site, Maxwell property and other properties in the project area. General layman terminology is simply used to characterize the technical terminology found in the reports and should not be considered as a substitute. The MPCA did not indicate that the noted environmental testing cited in the A UAR was incomplete. Comment: Page 19, paragraph 5 - "The likelihood that the west plume has impacted groundwater below the Lost Lake dump appears minimal based on available information." [Comment: The available information is incomplete. If the City of Mound asserts that the available information is complete, then carefully explain in the final AUAR. RGU Response: The information cited in the AUAR is based on results of the Phase II Investigation. Barr Engineering and the MPCA determined that the likelihood of groundwater contamination at the Lost Lake dump site is minimal. It should also be Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 - 8 -3931 - stated that the Hasbro Company has responsibility for groundwater contamination resulting from releases at the former Tonka Toys facility. The MPCA did not indicate that the A UAR was incomplete in regards to ground water. Comment: Page 20, paragraph 4 - "A groundwater plume containing volatile organic compounds...does not appear to have significantly impacted groundwater below the project site, based on information available from the MPCA." RGU Response: Refer to RGU Response in the above comment. Comment: Page 17, lines 7-8 -"Concentrations of two... (PCBs) in groundwater obtained in the southwest quadrant of the property exceeded their respective drinking water standards." [It is my understanding that the MPCA has developed other standards and is in the process of revising these standards. These other standards should be addressed in the AUAR for all pollutants discovered.] RGU Response: The MPCA did not provide comment on this item. Any new standards would be enforced by the MPCA during permitting processes. Comment: Page 29 - Are the testing parameters for the dredge spoils correct? RGU Response: The MPCA did not comment on testing parameters for dredged material in the A UAR. Testing parameters for dredged material will be reviewed by the MPCA for their adherence to applicable standards. Comment III: - The AUAR (pages 48-55) discusses traffic issues. The mitigation plan should include bicycle lanes to reduce traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, and traffic noise. RGU Response: CASH 15 and ! 10 are designated and signed as bike routes. Comment IV: Question 29 addressing cumulative impacts is not answered in the AUAR. RGU Response: The EQB has created the A UAR process to address cumulative impacts. As stated in question 29, "This item does not require a response for an A UAR with respect to cumulative impacts of potential developments within the A UAR boundaries, since the entire A UAR process is intended to deal with cumulative impacts from related developments within the A UAR area..." The MPCA submitted a similar comment which is addressed in their comment responses. Comment: The City cannot rely on permit agencies as a substitute for adequate mitigation measures in the AUAR. RGU Response: The City has identified a number of mitigation initiatives to implement development project with in the A UAR project area. Initiatives include accepted planning and engineering solutions, best management practices, conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, and permitting processes from those identified parties. It is only reasonable for the City to require development to conform to adopted permitting -3932- Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 - 9 requirements. If the agency with permitting authority finds reason to impose conditions that provide a greater level of protection~restriction, then that agency will stipulate that on the permit. Comment: The Draft AUAR must include a Draft Mitigation Plan RGU Response: The Draft A UAR includes mitigation measures throughout the document that was distributed for review comments. In addition the City distributed the Draft Mitigation Plan during the 30-day review period for comment. Minnesota Rules does not require that the Draft A UAR include the Mitigation Plan. In fact, Minnesota Rules anticipate distribution of the Mitigation Plan for review and comment with the revised Draft A UAR document and comment responses (Minnesota Rules 4410.3600 Subp. 5C). By distributing the Mitigation Plan during the 30-day review period, the City consciously tookproactive measures to allow additional time for review and comment. Also, the majority o fA UAR Mitigation Plans distributed with comment responses, not earlier in the process. Comment VII: Conflict of interest. RGU Response: See RGU Response to Paula Larson Comments: Concerns about dredging 2 acres of wetlands for the purposes of creating 40 boat slips. Disrupts a significant tributary to Lake Minnetonka, facilitates calving of cattails and movement of sediments and pollution to Cooks Bay. AUAR understates the impacts of increased boat traffic which is the primary concern of the LMA. LMA recommendations: 1. The AUAR inadequately and incompletely addresses several issues. These issues should be addressed before the AUAR is accepted by the City. 2. The impacts of boat use in the Lost Lake canal and cattail wetland should be addressed in the AUAR. 3. The existing dredged canal in Lost Lake represents a significant impact to water quality and wildlife habitat. The additional dredging proposed with the MHR scenario represents additional cumulative impacts. The dredging and boat docks associated with the MHR scenario should be eliminated. RGU Response: The A UAR process is intended to identify potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from development and develop a plan to mitigate those impacts. The A UAR does not suggest that development will not create additional impacts. Rather, it sets a course to properly address those impacts that may result in adverse environmental conditions. In regards to boat traffic, the A UAR cites accepted studies and boating trends on Lake Minnetonka for the purposes o f forecasting trips and canal usage. The trips are based on the number and type of proposed docks in the MHR development scenario. The DNR has commented that the proposed dredge will have minimal impact on aquatic habitat but identify no specific concerns that would suggest the A UAR is incomplete or inaccurate. Mound Visions A UAR - Comment Responses Appendix 7 ~ 10 -3933- AUAR Replacement Pages (To Be Inserted in AUAR Document Previously Distributed), -3934- Sarah Hoffman, MnDNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Prograra (NHP), stated that since the City purchased the NHP electronic database from the DNR, a DNR coordination letter was not required (personal eommurfieation March 12, 2004). The DNR would use the same NHP electronic database in responding to a coordination letter. Figure 10.1 includes mapped NHP data. Ms. Hoffman will review the AUAR document and provide any additional input during the comment period. There are no Natural Heritage recorded plant or wildlife species that occur within the Project Area. However, the pugnose shiner has been recorded in Cooks Bay, which is approximately ½ mile south of the Project Area. The pugnose shiner (Notropis emiliae) is a state-listed fish species of special concern. A species is listed as special concern if, although the species is not endangered or threatened, it is extremely uncommon in this state, or has unique or highly specific habitat requirements and deserves careful monitoring of its status. Species on the periphery of their range that are not listed as threatened may be included in this category along with those species that were once threatened or endangered, but now have increasing or protected, stable populations. Special concem species are not protected under current regulations. The pugnose shiner is a'small, slender species, eight to ten inches in length (Coffin and Pfannmuller 1988). The MnDNR Natural Heritage Program database states that the Pugnose shiner was last observed in Cooks Bay (approximately 0.57 miles south of the Project Area) when it was sampled at Station #3 on 10/19/1969. The Pugnose shiner prefers areas with extensive submerged vegetation with very clear water less than six feet deep (Conrad Schmidt, MnDNR). The Pugnose shiner prefers clear, weedy shoals of glacial lakes and streams of low gradient over sand, mud, gravel, or marl. The dense submerged aquatic vegetation preferred by the Pugnose shiner consists ofpondweeds, 'water milfoil, elodea, eelgrass, coontail, bulrush, and filamentous algae. Due to the Pugnose shiners very strict habitat requirements it is commonly used as an enviromental indicator for water quality. The lack of submerged vegetation and water quality in Lost Lake are not consistent with the referenced Pugnose shiner habitat requirements. A coordination letter was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Nick Rowse, with the USFWS, indicated that there are no records of any federally listed or proposed federally threatened or endangered species occurring within the Project Area (personal communication November 2, 2004). The USFWS determined that the project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed or proposed federally threatened or endangered species. This precludes the need for further action on this project as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Mound Visions ~4 U/IR 11/22/2004 Draft Page 26 -3935- Results and Conclusions Additional sediment sampling will be conducted to address sediment characterization as part of the permitting process. Restrictions and controls identified based on the available data are: Sediment in the vicinity of sample SD03 should be disposed at a landfill due to an elevated arsenic concentration. Additional testing will be conducted to verify and better determine the extent of elevated arsenic concentration. · Controls will need to be in place during dredging so that dredged sediments fail back into the same area due to high TKN concentrations. · Either dredging to a deeper depth or chemical binding of nutrients may be necessary to prevent unwanted vegetative growth due to the high TKN concentrations. Protection and Mitigation A number of regulatory programs direct the protection of water resources and related mitigation requirements. Coordination with and permits from the MCWD, USACE, and the MnDNR will be needed. Protection and mitigation requirements of these programs are described below. Additional mitigation measures identified as part of this project are discussed in the Mitigation Plan. MCWD Permit The MCWD permit process seeks to protect public health and welfare and the natural resources of the District by providing reasonable regulation of the modification or alteration of lands and waters of the District. The permit process helps to reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water, preserve flood plain and wetland storage capacity, improve the chemical and physical quality of surface water, reduce sedimentation, preserve hydrologic and navigational capacity ofwaterbodies, preserve natural shoreline features, and to minimize public expenditures to avoid or correct such problems in the future. MnDNR Public Waters Work Permit The Water Permits Unit oversees the administration of the Public Waters Work Permit Program. This program, began in 1937, regulates water development activities below the OHWL in public waters and public waters wetlands. These areas are identified on maps available for viewing at numerous locations. Examples of development activities addressed by this program include filling, excavation, shore protection, bridges and culverts, structures, docks, marinas, water level controls, dredging, and dams. MnDNR Aquatic Plant Management Control Permit This permit will be required for vegetation removal associated with dredging activities for the docks. -3936- Mound Visions A UAR 11/22/2004 Draft Page 31 The Lost Lake Greenway will provide a linkage to the project area in both development scenarios. Although traditional park lands will not be dedicated in the project area, there will be a number of public spaces incorporated into development planning. Transit Facilities The City has identified a location in the Tm-Value District for a park and ride transit facility. A joint use parking deck is desirable to accommodate riders and patron parking for adjacent businesses. Fire and Police Police and fire services are provided by the City of Mound. The City recently built a new Public Safety Building adjacent to City Hall which is less than a ¼ mile from the project area. Response times for emergency services to development in the project area are anticipated to be low. 29. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This item does not require a response for an `4 U`4R with respect to cumulative impacts of potential developments within the ,4 U`4R boundaries, since the entire `4 U`4R process is intended to deal with cumulative impacts from related developments within the`4 U`4R area; it is presumed that the responses to all items on the E`4W form encompass the impacts from all anticipated developments within the `4 U/IR area. However, the questions of this item should be answered with respect to the cumulative impacts of development within the `4 U`4R boundaries combined with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the .4 U.4R area, where such cumulative impacts may be potentially significant. (~Is stated on the EA W form, these cumulative impact descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to other appropriate E`4 W items, or in response to this item). The AUAR project area was determined by identifying known and potential redevelopment projects in the downtown area that are anticipated during the next 5 to 10 years. The City consciously identified the project area to better address the impacts of redevelopment projects that might otherwise be evaluated on their own individual merits and project data. Although the potential exists for other redevelopment projects in and around the downtown area, the type, scope and impact of those projects would need to be evaluated to determine how to approach future required or discretionary environmental reviews. 30. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS If applicable, this item should be answered as requested by the EA W form. Boating Emissions Boating emissions are not specifically addressed within the AUAR questions but are appropriate to address under "Other Potential Environmental Impacts." The City of Mound recently completed construction of the transient docks as a part of the Lost Lake Mound Visions ,4 U~4R 11/22/2004 Draft Page 74 -3937- AUAR Mitigation Plan -3938- MITIGATION INITIATIVES Mitigation Plan. The final A UAR document must include an explicit mitigation plan. At the RGU's option, a drqftplan may be include in the dra./t A UAR document; of course, whether or not there is a separate item for a dra./i mit(eation plan, proposed miti~eation must be addressed through the document. It must be understood that the mitigation plan in the final document takes on the nature a commitment by the RGU to preventpotentially significant impacts.fi'om occurringfi, o ~sI~ec[fic projects. It is more than just a list o. f ways to reduce impacts--it must include infbrmation about how the mitigation will be applied and assurance that it will. Otherwise, the A UAR may not be adequate and/or specific projects may lose their exemption.fi-om the individual review. The RGU's.final action on the ,4 UAR must specifically adopt the mitigation plan; therefore, the plan has a "political" as well as a technical dimension. This Mitigation Plan identifies initiatives that address potential impacts resulting from future development within the AUAR project area. This mitigation plan specifies the controls, procedures, and other steps that may be implemented to protect or minimize potential negative impacts. In order to mitigate the potential environmental impacts identified in the Mound Visions AUAR, The City of Mound will commit to implementing the mitigation initiatives for the identified development scenarios. Intent of Mitigation Plan Development generates impacts on the environment and on existing development. These impacts result from construction activities associated with new development (i.e. erosion, dust, noise) as well as post construction associated with the activities and design of the development (i.e. traffic, runoff, pollution, infrastructure demand). This plan identifies existing tools and policies that the City of Mound has in place to address the types of impacts that may result through development of the AUAR project area. The plan also identifies additional initiatives that will need to be implemented to mitigate potential environmental impacts resulting from projected development of the project area. There are multiple ways in which Mitigation Initiatives may be implemented such as: · Enforcing existing zoning and subdivision ordinances and other development regulations at the time of development concept submittals, preliminary and final platting, and during construction monitoring activities; · Referencing and implementing policy directions during the review and approvals of development projects; * Planning and building public infrastructure (sewer, water, and storm sewer systems) in advance of or in conjunction with private development; · Maintaining and updating of existing plans and studies for the community; Mound Visions A UAR ~ Mitigation Plan page 78 -3939- Requiring additional field work/investigations as part of pre-development planning where potential environmental issues may exist but will require additional investigation and/or testing of conditions present. General Mitigation Initiatives This section identifies a series of mitigation initiatives that are general in nature and apply to all public and private development within the AUAR. All permits identified in the AUAR (See question #8) as well as other necessary permits that may be required will be secured by the City, or private parties as appropriate, for all development activities within the project area. The City will follow its own regulations, ordinances, plans, and policies currently in place in the review and approval of all development activities within the project area. These items include the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances including attention to Shoreland Management regulations. In addition, the Surface Water Management Plan, Floodplain Management, Wetland Buffering regulations, the Mound Environmental and Appearance Model will be used as technical resources in reviewing development activities. The City will work with Hennepin County to periodically monitor traffic generated from development within the project area to evaluate its impacts on newly realigned C.S.A.H. 15 in ten,as of roadway function and safety (both vehicular and pedestrian). The City will provide for or require from development, adequate regional and local stormwater ponds and facilities to protect water resources and water quality as guided by the Storm Water Management Plan. [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II with individual site development]. 5. The City will monitor development within the project area and its conformance with the AUAR development scenarios. Focused Mitigation Initiatives Mitigation initiatives that are explicitly intended to mitigate or minimize impacts on a paxticuiar resource or action are outlined by topic in this section. Fish, Wildlife and Ecologically Sensitive Resources Dock Design to Minimize Wetland Impacts- The proposed docks in the MI-IR scenario are in a location that has periodic open water. Evidence of this is represented in historic aerial photographs of the project area as early as circa 1953. Floating docks were selected bemuse they result in reduced wetland impacts. Slopes on the dredge area are 5:1, the same as the slopes for the dredging conducted for the canal and transient docks. No riprap placement or -3940- Mound Visions A UAR ~ Mitigation Plan page 79 shorel{ne grad{ng will be conducted to minimize wetland impacts. An erosion control mat will be placed along the shoreline both above and below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). "No-Wake"Zone to Reduce Boat Traffic Impacts- All of the navigable water along the Lost Lake Channel are designated and signed as a "no-wake" zone to minimize water turbidity, erosion, and impacts to the vegetation mat. Storm Water Treatment and Shoreline Vegetative Buffer - As redevelopment in the area occurs, storm water will be detained and treated in accordance with the storm water plan. Lost Lake currently receives nearly all downtown runoff, none of which is treated. A greenway will act as a vegetative buffer between the built environment of downtown and Lost Lake. The greenway will also allow the planting of overstory trees to shade the shoreline and reduce heat gain from paved surfaces. Plantings will be comply with the City's Wetland and Shoreline Re- vegetation Plans allowing for a vegetated wetland buffer that provides filtration of runoff prior to reaching Lost Lake and will minimize sedimentation. Methods to Minimize W'ddlife Impacts due to Dredging - Dredging methods and timing will be performed in a manner that will minimize wildlife impacts. Dredging will be conducted either in the winter or after fish spawning to minimize the impact to fish and other aquatic species. Dredged Material Placement Sites- Ongoing consultation with the MPCA will be conducted to identify a location or locations for the placement of dredged material that will satisfy permit conditions. Vegetation Mat Protection- Fragmentation of the existing vegetative mat is a potential impact. As discussed, a review of historical aerial photography showed that the area along the Lost Lake shoreline where the docks are planned has periodically been open water. During these periods, the vegetation mat was previously separated from the shoreline by an area of open water. Currently several mitigation measures are being considered for the protection of the vegetative mat from fragmentation due to boating activity or additional dock development in the area: Consider establishment of a City conservation easement or outlot(s) to minimize the potential for new docks and related additional vegetation mat disturbance east of the dock installation proposed as part of this project. Installation of human-made floating islands in selected areas. These islands anchor to the lakebed and can be planted with aquatic vegetation to increase aquatic vegetation coverage and related habitat as well as providing a buffer to reduce the impact of boat wakes on the vegetation mat. Mound Visions A UAR ~ Mitigation Plan page 80 -3941 - 3. Installation of stakes in portions of the vegetation mat to help hold it in place. Water Resources (wetlands, creeks, lakes) and Surface Water Management Each of the proposed AUAR development scenarios will substantially improve the existing surface water conditions in the project area. Currently, there is not storm water facilities in the project area to treat surface water run off. The absence of treatment facilities has contributed to degraded water quality in Lost Lake, Cook's Bay, and Lake Langdon. Increased stormwater runoffwill result from future development in the project area. The Surface Water Management Plan and watershed regulations establish standards for surface water runoff. Key items to protection of water resources and the management of surface water runoff include: · Maintaining discharge rates at or below current levels. · Pre-treatment of runoff prior to discharge to wetlands, in accordance with wetland classification requirements. · Conformance to NURP (National Urban Runoff Pond) standards. · Conformance to NPDES Phase II requirements as outlined in the Clean Water Act (CW^). Projects within the AUAR that impact wetlands will be subject to regulation under the City of Mound Wetland Ordinance, Wetland Conservation Act, Chapter 103G Waters of the State (i.e. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources), and possibly Section 404 of the CWA (i.e. the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers). Should wetland impacts be part of a project within the AUAR these regulatory programs have sequencing requirements which require applicants to demonstrate that wetlands impacts have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable and if impacts cannot be avoided these programs require replacement of wetlands impacted by fill or excavation. The regulatory programs described below will require coordination with and permits from the MCWD, USACE, and DNR, which will identify any required protection and mitigation requirements. MCWD Permit: The MCWD permit process seek to protect public health and welfare and the natural resources of the District by providing reasonable regulation of the modification or alteration of lands and waters of the District: The permit process helps to reduce the severity and frequency of flooding and high water, preserve flood plain and wetland storage capacity, improve the chemical and physical quality of surface water, reduce sedimentation, preserve hydrologic and navigational capacity of waterbodies, preserve natural shoreline features, and to minimize public expenditures to avoid or correct such problems in the future. -3942- Mound Visions A UAR ~ Mitigation Plan page 81 DNR Public Waters Work Permit: The Water Permits Unit oversees the administration of the Public Waters Work Permit Program. This program, began in 1937, regulates water development activities below the OHWL in public waters and public water wetlands. These areas are identified on maps available for viewing at numerous locations. Examples of development activities addressed by this program include filling, excavation, shore protection, bridges and culverts, structures, docks, marinas, water level controls, dredging, and dams. DNR Aquatic Plant Management Control Permit. This permit will be required because more than 2,500 square feet of vegetation will be removed for the dredging for the docks. USACE Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: Establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Activities in waters of the U.S. that are regulated under this program include fills for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure development (such as highways), and conversion of wetlands to uplands. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE regulate the placement of fill into all waters of the U.S. Provisions of Section 404 of the CWA are implemented by the USACE with guidance and review from USEPA. The 404 permit also requires a CWA Section 401 water quality certification from the MPCA. Due to less than 3 acres of impact a General Permit will be required. The City views this project as an oppommity to improve the local stormwater management. The MCWD retained the Emmons and Olivier Resources, Inc. (EOR) to identify stormwater management measures that could supplement the downtown redevelopment project. EOR prepared a draft report in October 2004, entitled "Supplementing Mound Downtown Redevelopment with Innovative Stormwater Management". The MCWD identified the downtown redevelopment project as a unique opporttmity to implement key recommendations of their "Hydrologic, Hydraulic and Pollutant Loading Study" completed in 2003. The City will work with MCWD and EOR to incorporated stormwater management practices in the redevelopment project. The EOR document incorporated stormwater treatment features such as: · · · · · · · Rain gardens Wetland treatment Vegetated swales Permeable pavement Storage Cisterns Evaporative control systems Green roofs · Other features Mound Visions A UAR ~ Mitigation Plan page 82 -3943- The preliminary locations of these features are identified in Figures 4 and 8 of the EOR document and are included in Appendix 5 of this AUAR. These features and their locations will need to be refined as project design progresses and as part of the various permitting processes identified above. However, the City is committed to implementing many of these features as a method to improve local water quality resulting in a significant improvement over current conditions. Development of the Lost Lake site Development on a portion on the Lost Lake site that was formerly the City dump site will require alternative development and construction approaches. Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments for the Lost Lake Dump Site indicate that contaminants are at acceptable MPCA levels. The presence of other organic materials and constmetion debris creates a number of uncertainties for site development. Additional analysis of subsoil conditions is needed to determine how to address development of the site. Current development approaches to address known site conditions include site encapsulation or removal of soils/debris for all or a portion of the site. The ultimate use of the site will play a large role in determining the appropriate approach to site conditions. Erosion and Sedimentation "Best Management Practices" as outlined in various resources and by the MPCA will greatly reduce the potential of negative environmental damage during and after constmction. Wastewater The development scenarios identified in this AUAR are consistent with City infrastructure planning. The City of Mound through its site development plan review process will monitor and verify estimated wastewater flows for general conformance to the Sanitary Sewer Plan. In addition each development will be responsible for the following: · Sewer Access Charges (SAC) related to their proposed development. · Construction of local sewer mains to serve the development. Water Supply The abandonment of water wells will be required. According to the Minnesota Geological Survey's (MGS) 2002 County Well Index, there is one registered well within the project site (Unique Well Number 206993), which is City Municipal Well Number 1 located in the central portion of the project site. City Municipal Well Number 1 will be sealed and abandoned in compliance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations prior to development. -3944- Mound VBionsAUAR-MitigationPlan page83 The proposed development will connect to the City of Mound municipal water supply system. With the abandonment of City Municipal Well Number 1, additional supply will be required to accommodate for the lost capacity and also the increased demand from the new development. The City has already installed a new City Municipal Well Number 8, which will be capable of pumping up to 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm). Plans are currently in the process for construction of a new pump house for City Municipal Well Number 8. It is anticipated that the well house will be completed and the new well put into service by fall 2005. Existing water mains are in place and available for development. Each development will be responsible for the following: Minnesota Department of Health permit(s) for the extension of water supply systems. Water Access Charges (WAC) related to their development. · The proportional share of the costs of Trunk Water Supply lines. Construction of local water supply lines. Traffic/Transportation The north and south approaches of Belmont Avenue at C.S.A.H. 15 are stop controlled and offer one shared left turn/through/right turn lane. Hennepin County design plans for C.S.A.H. 15 provide a 32 feet roadway section of Belmont Avenue which is less than what is desirable for the addition of a right-mm lane. Traffic operations at this intersection should be monitored to determine if a fight mm lane is needed in the future. Land Use Management Initiatives The City has a number of planning and regulatory documents in place to achieve desirable development and minimize negative impacts. The following land use approvals will be required from the City prior to the issuance of building permits: · A minor Comprehensive Plan amendment of the Lost Lake District to Pedestrian District. · Rezoning of all properties in the project area to Pedestrian Planned Unit Development District. Demolition of Structures Redevelopment efforts will prompt demolition of structures within the project area. Many of the structures in the project area were built 40 or more years ago, there is the potential for the presence of hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead based paint. A demolition plan will likely be required for structures proposed to be razed. General procedural steps for demolition of structures are as follows: 1. Demolition Permit from the City of Mound 2. Pre-demolition survey for hazardous materials Mound Visions ~4 U~4R ~ Mitigation Plan page 84 -3945- 3. MPCA notification and applicable permitting 4. Removal of construction debris and hazardous materials (if present) 5. Hauling and Land filling The compactness of the downtown may create the need to perform portions of the demolition work from the right-of-way. These activities will require a Hennepin CoUnty right-of-way work permit along C.S.A.H 15 and 110. Monitoring of Development in the AUAR Project Area and Future Updates to the AUAR The AUAR assumes two development scenarios. Because it is based on assumptions, it is important that actual development be monitored and compared to the development that was assumed in the development scenario. Tracking of this development will be done through the City's geographic information system (GIS) and other means. As required by Minnesota Rule 4410.3610 Subpart 7, to remain valid, the AUAR must be updated if any of the following events should occur: · Five years have passed since the AUAR and mitigation plan were adopted and all development within the project area has not been given final approval. · A comprehensive plan amendment is proposed that would allow an increase in development than what was assumed in the development scenario. · Total development within the area would exceed the maximum levels assumed in the environmental analysis document. · Development would exceed the maximum levels assumed in AUAR development scenarios. · A substantial change is proposed in public facilities intended to service development in the area that may result in increased adverse impacts on the environment. · Development or construction of public facilities will occur differently than assumed in the development scenario such that it will postpone or alter mitigation plans or increase the development magnitude. · New information demonstrates that important assumptions or backgroUnd conditions used in the analysis presented in the AUAR are substantially in error and that environmental impacts have consequently been substantially underestimated. · The RGU determines that other substantial changes have occurred that may affect the potential for, or magnitude of, adverse environmental impacts. Mound Visions A UAR ~ Mitigation Plan page 85 -3946- Public Agency Comments -3947- DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ST. PAUL DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CENTRE 190 FIFTH STREET EAST ST. PAUL MN 5510'1-1638 REPLY TO A'l-r ENTION Operations-Regulatory Branch Sarah Smith Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Smith: We have received the document entitled Mound Visions AUAR dated November 22, 2004. Thank you for the opportunity to review this document. However, due to limited staff and resources, it is unlikely that Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory staff will be able to review or provide comments on this document. In lieu of a specific response, please consider the following general information concerning our regulatory program that may apply to your proposal. If your proposal involves activity in navigable waters of the United States, it may be subject to the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10). Section 10 prohibits the construction, excavation, or deposition of materials in, over, or under navigable waters of the United States, or any work that would affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of those waters, unless the work has been properly authorized by a Department of the Army permit. If your proposal involves activity in waters of the United States, including wetlands, it may be subject to the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Section 404). Section 404 prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, unless the work has been authorized by a Department of the Army permit. Waters of the United States may include rivers, lakes, ponds, streams, wetlands and other aquatic resources. Information about the Corps permitting process can be obtained online at http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory. Printed on ~ Recy~ed Paper -3948- -2- The Corps' evaluation of a Section t0 and/or a Section 404 standard permit application is a three-part analysis that (1) determines whether the proposal complies with the Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines, under 40 CFR Part 230.10, (2) evaluates the proposal's impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), under Appendix B of 33 CFR Part 325, and (3) determines whether the proposal is contrary to the public interest, under 33 CFR Part 320.4(a) . To evaluate your proposal, the Corps will need information regarding efforts to avoid and minimize aquatic resource impacts, and Lo determine if your proposal is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. Resources expended to refine your proposal prior to making application as necessary for a Corps permit cannot be factored into our selection of the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative. If you have not already made an application for a Corps permit, you may request a pre-application consultation meeting with the Corps to obtain information regarding the data, studies or other information that will be necessary for the permit evaluation process. A pre-application consultation meeting is strongly recommended if your proposal has substantial impacts to waters of the United States, or if it is a large or controversial project. If you have any questions, or you would like to request a pre-application consultation meeting, please contact Joe Yanta at 651-290-5362, the Corps' project manager for the County in which this proposal is located. Sincerely, Copy furnished: Joe Yanta Robert J. Whiting Chief, Regulatory Branch -3949- Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan District Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville MN 55113-3174 December 7, 2004 Sarah Smith Community Development Director, City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Mound Visions AUAR Dear Ms. Smith: Thank you for the oppommity to comment on the Mound Vision Draft AUAR. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed the above-referenced plan and has no comments, as the proposed project should have little impact on Mn/DOT's highway system. If you have any/qUestions regarding this letter feel free to contact me at (651) 582-1548. Tod Sherman Planning Supervisor Copy: Mn/DOT LGL File - Mound -3950- Metropolitan Council December 15, 2004 Sarah Smith Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 City of Mound Draft Mound Vision Alternative Urban Areawide Review Metropolitan Council District 3 Metropolitan Council Review No. 19371-1 Dear Ms. Smith: Metropolitan Council staff completed its review of the Draft Mound Visions Area Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) to determine its accuracy and completeness in addressing regional concerns. Staff concludes that the Draft AUAR is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. However, staff offers the following comments: Item 6 - Description. Figure 6.1 identifies the location of the proposed transit center location under the Mound Visions scenario. Figure 6.2, for Mound Harbor Renaissance scenario, should also show the location of the new transit center. Council staff recommends that the City continue to work with Metro Transit regarding the location of bus stops, routings and the layover location. Item 8 - Permits and Approvals Required. Sanitary sewer service connection plans for the proposed project will need to be submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services staff for review, comment, and issuance of a construction permit before connection can be made to either the municipal or metropolitan wastewater disposal system. Item 18 - Water quality - Wastewater. The AUAR identifies that the proposed more intensive "Mound Harbor Renaissance" project will produce approximately 102,480 gallons per day (gpd) of sanitary sewer. In reviewing the development scenarios presented in the AUAR it appears that it is consistent with previous information obtained from the City and on-going design considerations for the relocation and upgrading of the regional system in this area. The project will have no adverse impacts to the Metropolitan Disposal System. Item 25 - Sensitive Resources - Designated Parks, Recreation Areas or Trails The Dakota Rail line, currently owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA), is a proposed regional trail in the category "beyond five years." In the future, Three Rivers Park District may work with the HCRRA to develop a trail on the railroad right of way. The site plan included in the AUAR shows a building and a farmers market next to the railroad right of way, which appears to be as narrow as 20 feet. The City is encouraged to continue to work with HCRRA and Three Rivers to ensure that a regional trail can be accommodated. www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street · St. Paul, Minnesota55101-1626 · (651)602-1000 · Fax602-1550 · TTY291-0904 An Equa- 3951 -y Employer December 15, 2004 Ms. Sarah Smith Page 2 The Council will take no formal action on the Draft AUAR. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Robin Caufman, Principal Reviewer, at 651-602-1457. Phyllis ~anager Planning & Technical Assistance cc: Jack Jackson, MultiFamily Market Analyst Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT -. Metro Division Mary Hill Smith, Metropolitan Council District 3 Keith Buttleman, Environmental Services Robin Caufman, Sector Representative Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator -3952- ,, II ,11 Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith From: To: Cc: Sent: Subject: <Robert. Byers@co.hennepin.mn.us> <sarahsmith@cityofmound.com> <Tom. Johnson@co. hennepin.mn, us> Monday, December 20, 2004 12:22 PM Mound Visions AUAR Sarah: We have reviewed the Alternative Urban Areawide Review document (AUAR) for the proposed Mounds Visions development. The Hennepin County Transportation Department does not plan on submitting any comments on this report. Thank you for the opportunity to review the doCumem. - Bob Byers Senior Transportation Engineer 763-745-7633 -3953- 12/20/2004 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency December 22, 2004 Ms. Sarah Smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Draft Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR) for Mound Visions Dear Ms. Smith: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft AUAR for the proposed redevelopment of the downtown Mound area. The draft AUAR includes discussion on two proposals. Both proposals include residential, mixed-use, commercial/retail, a hotel, and a farmer's market in the plan. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has reviewed the draft AUAR for this project. The MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration and response in preparing the final AUAR on the project. We note that the city of Mound (City) has met with MPCA staff regarding Phase I and Phase II assessments of releases or contamination. Please continue to work with MPCA's Voluntary Investigation and Cleanup Program as the project progresses. The document properly notes the need for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II Construction Permit from the MPCA. We found, however, that Figure 17.2 was difficult to read. It appears the draft Mitigation Plan may offer additional information 'on stormwater controls; however, we have not yet fully reviewed that document. Because of the proximity of the developments to lake and wetland areas, the MPCA would like to emphasize the importance of stormwater management, erosion control, and sedimentation' control for the project. The Mound Harbor Renaissance scenario includes development closer to shoreline and wetland areas, creating a greater need for proactive stormwater management.` We were pleased to find mention of alternative methods of stormwater management, such as rain gardens, in the document and we encourage the City to pursue such options where feasible.." The Mound Visions scenario includes a transit center. This is a feature which we believe could usefully be included Mound Harbor Renaissance scenario, particularly as the higher intensity of the latter would generate somewhat more traffic. 520 Lafayette Rd. N.; Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194; (651) 296-6300 (Voice); (651) 282-5332 (TTY); www. pca.state.mn.us St. Paul · Brainerd · Detroit Lakes · Duluth · Mankato · Marshall · Rochester · Willrnar Equal Opportunity Employer. Printed on recycled paper cc"'~-~,~.':ast 20 percent fibers from !roper recycled by consumers. Page 2 The italicized text in Item 29 notes that cumulative impacts should be addressed between the projects within the AUAR boundary and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside the AUAR area. The document lacks a discussion of such potential cumulative impacts. Please clarify whether any additional, nearby projects are likely in the City and if so, whether any cumulative impacts would be expected. Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft AUAR. This comment letter addresses matters of concern to MPCA staff reviewing the document and is submitted for consideration by the responsible governmental unit in preparing~the final AUAR. It does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. We have attempted to identify and consult with interested program staff to identify the MPCA permits that may be required. Additional comments, or requests for information may be submitted in the future to address specific issues related to the development of such permit(s). Ultimately; it is the responsibility of the project proposer to secure any. required permits andto comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have other questions concerning our review, please contact me at (651) 296-6703. Sincerely, Barbara Jean Conti Project Manager Environmental Review and Operations Section Regional Division BJC:gs CC: Gregg Downing, Environmental Quality Board Emily Stem, MPCA, Technology, Education, and Assistance Division Catherine O'Dell, MPCA, Remediation Division -3955- December 22, 2004 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40__ [BY FACSIMILE] [Original to follow by U.S. Mail] Sarah Smith, Community Development Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Mound Visions Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Dear Ms. Smith: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has reviewed the Mound Visions Draft AUAR. The Draft AUAR includes two development scenarios, Mound Visions Scenario and the Mound Harbor Renaissance Scenario. We offer the following comments for your consideration. Item 8. Permits and Approvals Required Please note that any new or relocated utility crossings of public waters will require a utility license from the DNR Division of Lands and Minerals. Item 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources The DNR reviewed the Lost Lake Canal Project in 1997 and had some concerns at that time about the potential habitat impacts of re-dredging and widening the canal. The proposed dredging for the installation of docks may impact the aquatic habitat of Lost Lake in only a minor way and, combined with the previous dredging activity, it may not result in a significant habitat impact. However, this is an example of a cumulative impact. The Mound Harbor Renaissance scenario proposes an increase in impacts to Lost Lake, 27-180W, that would result in extensive removal of aquatic vegetation through dredging to create a channel along the NE side of this wetland for 40 boat slips. The AUAR states that part of this area contains sediment contaminated with arsenic. The potential for arsenic recontamination is DNR's main concern with the Mound Harbor Renaissance scenario. DNR would prefer a docking configuration that avoids dredging of the contaminated site. A configuration that consolidates the docking area could lessen the impact to this wetland. Also, the issue of cumulative impacts resulting from dredging a long channel adjacent to the shoreline becomes a concern, particularly in how this might influence other property owners along the Lost Lake shoreline to do the same. This issue could be DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 An Equal Opportunity Employer -3956 -I1~ TTY: 651-296-5484 ° 1-800-657-3929 Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Minimum or' 10% Post-Consumer Waste Sarah Smith, Community Development Director December 22, 2004 Page 2 avoided by implementing the Mounds Visions scenario, which avoids the contaminated area. Dredging in Lost Lake will require the approval of DNR Fisheries as well as a permit from DNR Fisheries Aquatic Plant Management for the removal of aquatic vegetation. On Page 31, under the heading MnDNR Plant Management Control Permit, the AUAR states: "This permit will be required because more than 2,500 square feet of vegetation will be removed for the dredging of the docks." In fact, any emergent vegetation removal requires a permit. The 2,500 square foot threshold applies only to submerged vegetation, but the permit will be for the removal of emergent vegetation (cattails). Item 17. Water Quality - Stormwater Runoff This item indicates that the proposed stormwater management system "will be designed to reduce 80% total suspended solids and 50% total phosphorus loading as compared to the current situation of allowing direct runoff." Past projects and current activities have resulted in rather large loadings of suspended solids and phosphorus to Lake Langdon and Lost Lake, which in mm affect Lake Minnetonka. The proposed stormwater management system will reduce loading, thereby diminishing the impact of past projects. Thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft AUAR. We look forward to receiving the Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan at a later date. Please contact me at 651-296-1548 with any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Diane K. Anderson, Environmental Planner Environmental Policy & Review Unit Division of Ecological Services 651-296-1548 c: Kathleen Wallace; Wayne Barstad; Mike Mueller; Dan P. Stinnett, USFWS; Jon Larsen, EQB #20050387 MoundVisions_DraftAUAR_dka -3957- Minnehaha Creek OWatershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Established in 1967 The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is committed to a leadership role in protecting, improving, and managing the surface waters and affiliated groundwater resources within the District, including their relationships to the ecosystems of which they are an integraI part, through regulation, capital projects, education, cooperative endeavors, and other programs based on sound science, innovative thinking, an informed and engaged constituency, and the cost effective use of public funds. December 22, 2004 City of Mound Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Mound Visions AUAR Draft comments Dear. Ms. Smith, The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District staff has reviewed the draft AUAR for the Mound Visions project and requests that the AUAR address the following issues in greater detail through the addition of supplemental material: · Potential and Known Contaminant Source Areas The information provided does not quantify existing contaminants or provide specific, conclusive evidence regarding soil and ground water contamination. The details provided are "based on available information" and summarize conclusions without providing a rational base of analysis. Please provide quantified data and analysis of environmental testing and conclusive information based on hard data regarding impacts to water quality resulting from site disturbance and the presence of volatile or toxic chemicals. · Environmental Impacts of Dredging The AUAR lacks information identifying and quantifying the impacts to wetlands resulting from the proposed project. Quantify how the proposed dredging option for Lost Lake is the minimal impact solution to aquatic and terrestrial habitat and minimal impact solution to water quality by comparing qualitative and quantitative impacts to the impacts of the alternative design options. The final AUAR should provide for any easement and/or outlot locations proposed to minimize future impacts. The AUAR should adequately address the justification of the proposed alternative relative to other options investigated by the City and Developer. In this manner, the dredging must be shown to be the minimum environmental impact solution to achieve reasonable navigation. In evaluating reasonable navigation, the AUAR should document in writing (along with supporting maps, plans, photographs, soil borings, etc.): 1. Size and draft of watercraft historically moored and/or proposed for mooring at the site 2. Size and draft of watercraft moored in the immediate vicinity of the site 3. Natural lake bottom contours surrounding the site and in the vicinity 4. Size and restrictiveness of existing channels and bridge openings which may affect navigation 5. Availability of alternative means of gaining access such as: a. extension of docks; b. reconfiguration of the dock design; c. anchoring watercraft away from shore moorings 6. Lake bottom characteristics; wind, wave and ice conditions; and other features that affect mooring of watercraft 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven Minnesota 55391 · _~5"~371-0590 · Fax 952-471-0682 · www.minnehahacreek.org · Stormwater Management MCWD encourages the City of Mound to formalize its commitment to incorporating creative alternatives of stormwater management which utilize a high degree of surface water runoff treatment by including the report produced by MCWD entitled "Supplementing Mound Downtown Redevelopment with Innovative Stormwater Management" within the AUAR. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District looks forward to cooperative efforts to provide environmentally sensitive solutions to meeting the City's goals for the Mound Visions project. District'Adm!nistrator - -3959- Review Comments -3960- December 22, 2004 Mound City Council c/o Sarah Smith Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: "Mound Visions" AUAR (Draft - November 22, 2004) HAND DELIVER Dear Mound City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the document entitled "Mound Visions AUAR (Draft - November 22, 2004)." PREFACE "The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act recognizes that the restoration and maintenance of environmental quality is critically important to our welfare. The act also recognizes that human activity has a profound and often adverse impact on the environment. "A first step in achieving a more harmonious relationship between human activity and the environment is understanding the impact which a proposed project will have on the environment." (Minn. Rule 4410.0300, Subp. 3.) In this spirit, I have identified the following issues that need to be addressed before adoption of the final AUAR and mitigation plan: I. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULE 4410.3610, SUBPART 3. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board requires, "At least one scenario must be consistent with any known development plans of property owners within the area." (Minn. Rule 4410.3610, Subp. 3.) There are at least two reasons for why there are NO "known development plan ..." A. LOSS OF HOTEL. The "Mound Harbor Renaissance Scenario," the only "known" development plan in the AUAK includes a "... 78 room hotel ..." (AUAR, page 2.) A December 7, 2004 press release by Kandis Hanson, City Manager, states in part, "Mound Hotel Project Agreement Terminated ... The hotel project consisted of a 74-room hotel, restaurant, bar and banquet facility to be constructed on the west end of the Auditor's Road portion of the downtown redevelopment district." [See attached Exhibit 1.] Therefore, the AUAR is incomplete as written and is NOT "... consistent with any known development plans ..." -3961 - Comments to Draft A UAR December 22, 2004 B. CONDO AND TOWNHOME UNITS ARE UlXrMARKETABLE WITHOUT "FULL REMEDIATION" OF THE SITE. The "Mound Harbor Renaissance Scenario," the only "known" development plan in the AUAR, also includes "... 327 condo/apartment units, 5 townhome units ..." (AUAR, page 2.) A memo from the law firm of Faegre and Benson states, "... Townhomes will be unmarketable once buyers are aware of environmental conditions. Builders indicated that they will not build over landfill site unless it is fully remediated." (See attached Exhibit 2.) The draft Mitigation Plan (12/6/04) does not describe what is "fully remediated." It states on page 83, "Current development approaches to address known site conditions include site encapsulation or remove of soils/debris for all or a portion of the site." The remediation choice has not been made. ffurthermore, the environmental impacts of each alternative must be adequately analyzed in the AUAR. See Section II below for level of analysis legally required in AUAR.) The draft Mitigation Plan also states on page 83, "The ultimate use of the site will play a large role in determining the appropriate approach to site conditions." In other words, there is no "known development plan" at this time. Therefore, the AUAR is incomplete as written and is NOT "... consistent with any known development plans ..." - in violation of Minn. Rule 4410.3610, Subp. 3. II. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULE 4410.3610, SUBPART 4. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board requires that the AUAR "... must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] ..." (Minn. Rule 4410.3610, Subp. 4.) To comply with this rule, the following items require more analysis: AUAR, page 20, 2"a to last paragraph: "No indications of high methane concentrations ... were obtained from field screening performed during the test pit operations." [Comment: In fact, the methane issue is much more serious than what is mentioned in the Draf~ AUAR. A memo from the Faegre and Benson law firm states that Barr Engineering found that the "potential methane generation would require a passive system, an active system, and possibly alarms in each unit" and that Barr is unaware of any residential development located in Minnesota constructed on a methane generating site." (See attached Exhibit 2.) Therefore, this issue must be accurately and thoroughly analyzed and specific mitigation measures included in the mitigation plan.] AUAR, page 26, paragraphs 2-3 - The Pugnose Shiner (Notropis emiliae), a state "special concern" species, has been recorded in Cooks Bay. [Comment: Lost Lake must be studied to determine the existence and extent of the Pugnose Shiner. Note also, the AUAR states that the Pugnose Shiner is not protected "under current regulations." In fact, the Pugnose Shiner is protected under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act/Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (refined by case law) against state or private actions that may have a material adverse effect on the 2 -3962- Comments to Draft A UAR December 22, 200¥ environment. Finally, the AUAR must thoroughly examine the question: Are the proposed dredge controls adequate to protect the Pugnose Shiner in Cooks Bay, even if it is ultimately found not to exist in Lost Lake? Additional mitigation measures must be instated, based on the outcome of this analysis.] AUAR, page 29, paragraph 2 - "The area may be retested as part of the dredging process to verify results prior to disposal." [Comment: Testing must be accomplished prior to adoption of the final AUAR, with any necessary mitigation included in the mitigation plan.] AUAR, page 29, paragraph 2 - "The landfill accepting the material may request a toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) for arsenic prior to accepting the material." [Comment: The acceptability of the dredge spoils site should be determined prior in the final AUAR and necessary measures included in the mitigation plan. I'm also concerned about public money being spent on the dredge before a plan is in place for proper disposal of the spoils.] AUAR, page 30, paragraph 2 -"If TKN is present at a lower depth, chemical binding should be considered to limit the nutrients available for vegetative growth." [Comment: Testing must be accomplished prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and any necessary chemical binding must be included in the mitigation plan.] AUAK page 30, paragraph 3 -"Resample [lead] ... at a depth of one foot deeper than was previously sampled. If the lead concentration in the deeper sample exceeds screening criteria, other options will need to be discussed." [Comment: This must be accomplished prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and any necessary measures must be included in the mitigation plan.] AUAR, page 30, paragraph 5 -"The possibility of resampling to achieve lower reporting limits may be required for several SVOCs and pesticides. Resampling of two locations for arsenic may also [be] required." [Comment: This must be accomplished prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and any necessary measures must be included in the mitigation plan.] AUAR, page 30, second to last paragraph - "Controls will need to be in place during dredging so that dredged sediments fall back into the same area due to high TKN concentrations? [Comment: The controls must be described now and included in the mitigation plan.] 3 -3963- Comments to Draft A UAR December 22, 2004 AUAR, page 30, last paragraph - "Either dredging to a deeper depth or chemical binding of nutrients may be necessary to prevent unwanted growth due to high TKN concentrations." [Comment: This must be carefully examined prior to the adoption of the final AUAR and concerns addressed in the mitigation plan.] AUAR, page 17, last paragraph -"No significant soil or groundwater impacts were identified by the Phase II investigation conducted on the Maxwell property ... No remedial actions for cleanup of soil or groundwater appear warranted." [Comment: The adequacy of environmental testing to date does NOT, inspire great confidence, particularly with the vague bold face words. What are the definitions of "significant" and "appear"? Furthermore, Ban' Engineering recommended that the Maxwell site be excavated to "remove all waste and contaminated material and replace with processed or clean fill." See attached Exhibits 2 and 2a.] AUAR, page 19, paragraph 5 - "The likelihood that the west plume has impacted groundwater below the Lost Lake Dump appears minimal based on available information." [Comment: The available information is incomplete. If the City of Mound asserts that the available information is complete, then carefully explain in the final AUAR. AUAR, page 20, paragraph 4 - "A groundwater plume containing volatile organic compounds ... does not appear to have significantly impact groundwater below the project site, based on information available from the MPCA." [Comment: The available information is incomplete. If the City of Mound asserts that the available information is complete, then carefully explain in the final AUAR.] AUAR, page 17, lines 7-8 -"Concentrations of two ... (PCBs) in groundwater obtained in the southwest quadrant of the property exceeded their respective drinking water standards." [It is my understanding that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has developed other standards and is in the process of revising these standards. These other standards should be addressed in the AUAR for all pollutants discovered.] AUAR, page 29 - Are the testing parameters for dredge spoils correct? 4 -3964- Comments to Draft A UAR December 22, 2004 III. TRAFFIC IMPACTS; VEHICLES RELATED EMISSIONS; AND TRAFFIC NOISE. The AUAR (pages 48-55) discusses traffic issues. The mitigation plan should include bicycle lanes to reduce traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, and traffic noise. Any stormwater drains in the bike lane should be placed with the grates perpendicular to the direction of travel. (Note: This is a current problem on Commerce Boulevard, north of the intersection of County Road 15.) IV. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. The document entitled "Recommended Content and Format - Alternative Urban Areawide Review Documents - Revised by EQB Staff 7-08-04)" states that Question 29 shall address "... cumulative impacts of development within the AUAR boundaries combined with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the AUAR area, where such cumulative impacts may be potentially significant." (The Mound Visions AUAR states the same on page 73.) Incredibly, the Draft AUAR is devoid of any answer to this question. Cumulative impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future project outside of the area must be included in the AUAR. (Example: The AUAR must analyze the impacts other future Mound developments and Minnetrista developments will have on the traffic congestion, vehicle emissions, and noise in the AUAR area.) V. THE CITY CANNOT RELY ON PERMIT AGENCIES AS .A SUBSTITUTE FOR ADEQUATE MITIGATION MEASURES IN THE AUAR. Minnesota Rule 4410.3610, Subpart 5.C. state in part, "The [mitigation] plan shall contain a description of how each mitigation measure will be implemented, including a description of the involvement of other agencies, if appropriate." In other words, permit agencies are not a substitute for an adequate description in the AUAR of how each mitigation will be implemented. For example, the draft Mitigation Plan (page 80) states, "Ongoing consultation with the MPCA will be conducted to identify a location or locations for the placement of dredge material that will satisfy permit conditions." The AUAR must address whether the permit conditions are adequate and, if not, what additional mitigation measures are necessary As another example, the draft Mitigation Plan (page 83) states, "... contaminants are at acceptable MPCA levels." It is my understanding that the MPCA is in the process of revising its standards. Therefore, the AUAR must examine the sufficiency of current and proposed MPCA standards to determine what, if any, additional mitigation measures are necessary. The AUAR is a substitute for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. After the AUAR is adopted, government agencies will have no power to require additional environmental review, outside of what is required, if any, in the permit regulations. (Note: Minn. Rule 4410.3610, Subp. 7 contains an 5 -3965- Comments to Draft A UAR December 22, 2004 imperfect procedure for "revising" the AUAR.) In this challenging financial climate, other agencies cannot be completely depended upon to have the appropriate staffing levels to adequately review permit applications. Furthermore, in this challenging political climate, permit regulations may be further compromised, creating less opportunity for adequate environmental redress. Consequently, the AUAR must specify the permit requirements that can be legally imposed to adequately mitigate the impacts. Furthermore, will the City of Mound even know all of the impacts at the time of permit application? VI. THE DRAFT AUAR MUST INCLUDE A DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN. A City of Mound consultant stated at the AUAR public meeting on December 15, 2004 that a draft mitigation plan is not "required" in the draft AUAR. However, Minn. Rule 4410.3610, Subpart 5.B. states, "Comments must address the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in the draft analysis, potential impacts that warrant further analysis, further information that may be required in order to secure permits for specific projects in the future, and mitigation measures or procedures necessary to prevent significant environmental impacts within the area when actual development occurs." (Emphasis added.) It would lead to an absurd result to interpret this rule as requiring comments on "mitigation measures" without a draft mitigation plan from which to respond. The City of Mound may have acknowledged my point by handing out a draft mitigation plan at the December 15, 2004 meeting. The EQB's interpretation of the rule is that "... a draft [mitigation] plan may be include [sic] in the draft AUAR document; of course, whether or not there is a separate item for a draft mitigation plan, proposed mitigation must be addressed through the document." (See Recommended Content and Format - Alternative Urban Areawide Review Documents - Revised by EQB Staff7-08-04.) Therefore, it is required, and indeed better public policy, to include the draft mitigation plan either within the draft AUAR or attached to the draft AUAR. In this way, the public and government agencies will be allowed the full time period allowed by law to formulate their comments. VII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Although the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board rules are silent on this issue, it remains important to note that a conflict of interest exists between the project proposers (i.e. the City of Mound and its developer "partners") and the public's need for a "responsible government unit" to prepare and review environmental documents (i.e. an unbiased environmental review). Moreover, Mayor Meisel owns 14 separate tax parcels in the Langdon District. The City of Mound (or HRA) owns 21 separate tax parcels in the Lost Lake, Langdon, and Auditor's Road District. This adds to the perception of bias in the AUAR process. 6 -3966- Comments to Draft A UAR December 22, 2004 Therefore, the City of Mound must work even harder to gain citizens' trust that the final AUAR and Mitigation Plan is the "best it can be." SUMMARY As I mentioned to Loren Gordon and Sarah Smith last week at the AUAR public meeting, it is very important that adequate expert resources are devoted to thoroughly examine the draft AUAR, ensure it completeness and accuracy, and undertake all necessary additional studies as soon as possible. In this way, the best final AUAR and Mitigation Plan can be instituted. All of this should be accomplished before other taxpayer money is spent on proposed developments within the AUAR area. Thank you for kind attention. Please call me any time if you have any questions or comments. Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-1099 Enclosures: Exhibits 1, 2, and 2a P.S. - Please mail me a copy of all other comments to the Draft AUAR and advise me when this matter is scheduled for consideration by the Mound City Council. Thank you. 7 -3967- EXHIBIT Press Release: December 7, 2004 Contact: Kandis Hanson, City Manager MOUND HOTEL PROJECT AGREEMENT TERMINATED At the conclusion of a November 23 meeting between the City of Mound, the Mound HRA and BFL2, the intended hotel developer, it was mutually agreed that there was no financially sound basis on which to proceed with the hotel project. The hotel project consisted of a 74-roorn hotel, restaurant, bar and banquet facility to be constructed on the west end of the Auditor's Road portion of the downtown redevelopment district. The November 23r~ meeting was requested by BFL2 to explore possible means to resolve the approximately $2,000,000 gap between the cost of constructing the hotel complex and the funding available for construction. A Significant part of the gap was due to the need to construct a parking structure to handle the estimated 233 vehicles that were expected to frequent the hotel facility. The cost of the parking facility was estimated at between $1.2 and $1.5 million dollars. City staff and consultants had been working closely with BFL2 and its consultants for several weeks in an unsuccessful attempt to fred ways to eliminate the gap. According to 'City Manager Kandis Hanson, it was important to have the answer to that question as soon as possible. The hotel project had a ripple effect on a number of other activities such as the relocation of a lift station, the acquisition of property for the new lift station, and the planning for a park and ride facility in the downtown area. At the meeting, Rick Bloomquist, the chief operation manager of BFL2, made it clear that the project had to work for both the city and for. BFL2 or it should not proceed. The east end of the Auditor's Road district will now be incorporated in the area to be developed by Mound Harbor Renaissance. Mound Harbor Renaissance was previously selected to develop the Lost Lake, Lake Langdon and west end of Auditor' s Road. It is expected that Mound Harbor Renaissance will be formally made the developer of the east end of Auditor's Road when the Mound HRA considers a Redevelopment Contract in late January 2005. The design, layout and uses that will be permitted in the east end will be subject to review and approval by both the City and the HRA. Construction of the Lost Lake portion of the district remains scheduled to start next summer, and construction in the Auditor' s Road district is expected to start in 2006 following relocation of the lift station in the Spring of that year. JBD-256368vl MU195-2 -3968- EXHIBIT -3969- EXHIBIT ~)~ ~.- O 0~ ~ 0 Z ITl C) O Fi"I -3970- II ii Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith From: To: Sent: Subject: ith@cityofmound.col Friday, December 0.3~. 20D4 1:2:.32.PM AU~RI~ Sarah - what percentage of the area in question: (approximately 23 acres) 1. Is owned by the Mayor and/or her husband? 2. Is owned by the City of Mound? Thanks, Paula Larson -3971 - 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith Ir From: To: Sent: S~ubj~ct: "Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Tuesday, December 07,~~' AUAR Sarah -'1 have not received a response (December 3rd, 2004, email) from you re: the ^U^R area (approximately 23 acres). the percentage of ownership in 1. Owned by Mayor and/or her husband 2. Owned by the City of Mound. As the RGU, please let me know if a response is NOT required by you or the City of Mound regarding this matter. Thanks, Paula Larson 2316 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN (Sarah - I am assuming my property is in the AUAR area) -3972- 1/3/2005 II Il Page 1 of 1 Smith From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: ¢'Sarah Smi <Sarah Smi.Lh @cityofmou nd.com> 08, 2004 4:29 PM . larsondecember72004fina11.doc; Redevelopment property Parcel List. doc 12/8 letter regarding public data request and exhibit a Good afternoon Paula. For your review and information, the following dOcuments are being forwarded via email and US Mail. 1. Letter dated 12/8/04 regarding request for public data 2. Exhibit A Be advised that Staff has also put together a spreadsheet using information from Hennepin County which includes all of the properties in the AUAR study area which can be opened and searched using MS Excel which is also available and can be forwarded electronically. Best regards. Sarah Smith - 3973- 1/3/2005 CITY 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com December 8, 2004 Ms. Paula Larson 5713 Lynwood Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 CO y Dear Ms. Larson: Pursuant to the regulations of the Minnesota Data Practices Act as set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, Subd. 2 and 13.05, Subd. 5 and 8, the following information is being provided following submittal of your request for public information which w~ received via email on Friday, December 3, 2004: 1. A listing of the parcels included in the Lost Lake District, Auditor's Road District and Lake Langdon District which identifies ownership has been included as Exhibit A. 2. The City-owned parcels included in the Tree Value District are as follows: PID No. 13-117-24-33-0087 (HRA) PID No. 13-117-24-33-0088 PID No. 13-117-24-33-0089 For your review and information, I offer the following additional comments: You are advised that specific property information including parcel size can be obtained firom the Hennepin County website either by address, property identification number (PID) or subdivision/addition. For your review and information, the address of the Hennepin County County website is: www. co.hennepin.mmus.You may access Taxpayer Services by clicking on the "Property, Environment & Transportation" link. 2. We do not keep records that show the percentage of ownership. The Larson Printing building is located in the Auditor's Road District which is within the AUAR study area. Ms. Paula Larson December $, 2004 Pa~¢ 2 In the event you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me at (952) 472-0604. Sincerely, Sarah, Smith' Community Development Director -3975- Exhibit A Redevelopment Property Parcel List Project AreaI PID [ Address I Owner I Current Use .OST LAKE 13-117-24-33-0069 I Unassigned City Vacant 13-117-24-34-0063I 5377 Shoreline Dr Balboa MN Co - Maxwell Vacant 13-117-24-34-0075 None Balboa MN Co - Maxwell Vacant LANGDON 14-117-24-44-0001 2321, 2323, 2325 I PTS Holdings Commerce =roFix LAKE 14-117-24-44-0002 2339 Commerce Meisel Old Bank Bldg 14-117-24-44-0003 2365, 2363 Commerce Meisel 2365 - Styles by Dianne, Westonka Dental, Byers Chiro, Sun Cont., The Laker & Pioneer~ Kromer Co., Minnetonka Paint 14-117-24-44-0004 2345, 2343, 2347? Koenig & Schwert D & L Cleaning, 3's Company Hair, Commerce Wiser ins., Westonka Tan 14.~.2~._~-0006 ,Unassigned ".'~. Vleisel Vacant -_~ ..... ~~. '~¥- ~~~-',~ - - .... 14-117-2~.-44-0041 2301, 05 Commerce Westonka (Johnson) J. Dickenson / Susan McGraw DDS 14-117-24-44-0042 2313, 15 Commerce Netka H & RBIock 14-117-24~4-0043 Unassigned ~/leisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0044 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0045 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0046 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0047 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0048 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0049 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0050 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0051 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0056 Unassigned City Vacant 14-117-24-44-0057 Unassigned City Vacant / shoreline 14-117-24-44-0060 Unassigned Meisel Vacant 14-117-24-44-0061 Unassigned Meisel 'Vacant 14-117-24-44-0062 Unassigned City Vacant / marsh No PID# Unassigned City Juniper Rd and alleys No PID# Unassigned City . Juniper Rd and alleys AUDITORS 13-117-24-33-0004 5567 Shoreline Dr Beckel Westonka Travel & Tan ROAD 13-117-24-33-0005 5555 Shoreline Dr Moy House of Moy, Xtreme Contractors 13-117-24-33-0006 5541, 5545 Shoreline Dr Johnson Positive Promotions (5541), Kirby Vacuum (5545) 13-117-24-33-0009 Unassigned Metro Transit (City) Vacant / ROW 13-117-24-33-0010 Unassigned City Vacant / ROW / greenway 13-117-24-33-0011 Unassigned City Vacant / ROW / greenway 13-117-24-33-0012 Unassigned City Vacant / ROW / greenway 13-117-24-33-0013 Unassigned City Vacant / ROW / greenway 13-117-24-33-0014 5575 Shoreline Dr Perbix Carpet Man/gone?), locksmith 13-117-24-33-0015 5581 Shoreline Dr Lauer Dentist, Fine Impressions Photo Studio 13-117-24-33-0016 2300 Commerce HRA Vacant 13-117-24-33-0017 2306 Commerce HRA Vacant / dilapidated 13-117-24-33-0019 Unassigned City Vacant / ROW / greenway 13-117-24-33-0047 2316 Commerce Larson Larson Printing 13-117-24-33-0048 Unassigned City Vacant / parking lot 13-117-24-33-0049 Unassigned City Vacant / ROW 13-117-24-33-0q50 Unassigned City Vacant / ROW 13-117-24-33-0051 2348 Commerce City Vacant / ROW / greenway 13-117-24-33-0076 5533 Shoreline Dr Custer* Glass Plus 13-117-24-33-0090 Unassigned City Park & Ride / Farmer's Market No PID# Auditor #1 Unassigned County ROW - CR 15 No PID# Auditor #2 Unassigned City ROW - Marian Lane , No PID# Auditor #3 Unassigned City_ _.-, ...... ROW - ...Alley ....... . * Former Glass Plus )roperty was purchased by CitylHRA in March 2004 -3976- Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith From: To: Sent: Subject: · "Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Monday, December 13 Thank you for your prompt response, Sarah. ~g~di~}~our item,g3.!i~:~isn't this s0m~what of "the foxgu,%..r, ding the hen h:~use,?," - Mayor Meise!Is o p~iva~e ownership ora MAJOR poff~i~'r~ ~'this area couPl~ ~ the City .of M'~: d s property ~ ~l~OSt 78 ~ of the ii'ed PIDi~ as.y~u pro~i'~ed to;~e, ua~r Ueisel privately 6~s MORE[ real e~te in th~ A~AR area than all ;~ther priv.~e;?i~dividuat~~ER,i~'if my nUmbers are ~ect~ -~i!.. Do you feel this is a legal concern re: Mayor Meisel's conflict of interest? Thanks, Paula Larson 2316 Commerce Blvd. ..... Original Message From: Sarah Smith Sent: Monday, December 13, Subject: AUAR AM Hi Paula. Regarding your inquiry regarding comments received during the AUAR, I offer the following comments: 1. AUAR open house will be held on Wed. Dec. 15th at City Hall. You are welcomed and encouraged to attend. 2. Agency and/or all formal comments received during period are public information and available upon request and are part of public record. 3. Agency and individual comments will be reviewed by Staff and provided to City Council. -3977- 1/3/2005 Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith From: To: Sent: Attach: Subject: ~arah Smith" <$arahSmith~cityofmound.com> .. Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:46 PM LARSONDEC152004.doc; LARSONDEC15AUARJDEAN.DOC AUAR Inquiry Good afternoon Paula. For.your review the following information is being forwarded electronically: 1. My Letter dated 12/15 regarding AUAR property ownership acreage in AUAR project area. 2. Memorandum dated 12/15 from City Attorney regarding property ownership / conflict of interest. Originals to be forwarded via US Mail. . -3978- 1/3/2005 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cltyofrnound.com December 15, 2004 BY ELECTRONIC AND US MAIL Ms. Paula Larson 5713 Lynwood Boulevard Mgund, Minnesota 55364 RE: Property Ownership in AUAR Project Area Dear Ms. Larson: Thank you for your inquiry which was received by e-mail on December 13, 2004 regarding property ownership within the AUAR project area. Respectfully, I offer the following information: You indicated that 78 percent of the property in the AUAR project area is owned by the City of Mound and the Meisel family. Be advised that has HKGI Consultant Planner Loren Gordon has calculated property ownership in the project area using Geographic Information System (GIS) and base data from 2004 Hennepin County Property Information records. Be advised that the electronic data base is available upon request and can be viewed and searched using database software such as Microsoft Excel .or Access. Please see below: # of Parcels Total Acres AUAR project area 56 parcels 19.62 acres City-owned 16 parcels 9.82 acres (50% of land in project)._ Meisel-owned 14 parcels 3.2 acres (16% of land in project) Together, the City and Meisel properties amount to 66 percent of the land in the AUAR project area. ~i~) prin~ed on recycled paper -3979- Ms. Paula Larson December 15, 2004 Page 2 With regard to your question about Mayor Meisel's property ownership in the AUA.R project area and whether there are legal issues, please refer to the attached memorandum dated December 15, 2004 from the City Attorney regarding this matter. In the event you have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to contact me at (952) 472-0604. Community Development Director -3980- CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street MinneapOlis MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax http://www, kennedy-graven, eom MEMORANDUM 12/15/04 To: Sarah S~th, Community Development Director From: John Dean Subject: Larson 12/13/04 Email In an email to yOu dated December 13, 2004, Paula Larson, referring to Mayor Meisel's land ownership in the AUAR area asked: "Do you feel this is a legal concern re: Mayor Meisel's conflict of interest?" Because the inquiry does involve a legal issUe, you have asked for my comments. Mayor Meisel and Paul Meisel jointly own real estate within the Lake Langdon portion of downtown Mound (which is part of the area included in the AUAR). Because the consideration of the AUAR by the City COuncil on January 11, 2005 may have an impact.on the furore development potential of land in the AUAR area it has been determined that Mayor Meisel will neither participate in discussions on the matter, or vote on any item involving approval of the AUAR or the Mitigation Plan. JBD-256955vl MU220-5 -3981 - Page 1 of 2 Sarah Smith From: To: Subject: "Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Wedn~esday, December 1:5.,~2Q04 4:32..PM Re: AUAR Inquiry Thanks for the info Sarah. I do have some issues: 1. I did NOT say MEISEL-MOUND "owned" 78% of the AUAR area - but I said "almost 78% of the listed PIDs as you provided to me." (27 - City and 14 - Meisel = 41 / 53 PIDS = 78% approximately.) Sarah - your attachment to the 12-8-04 letter shows: (if I can count) - 27 - City of Mound (with 1 county) and 14 - MEISEL 12 - All other privately owned. TOTAL: 53 (you now say 56) 2. Your list (50) and the additional 3 PIDS in your letter of 12-8-04 add up to 53 PID properties --where did the extra 3 PIDs come from to now show 56???? I am confused - am I reading your letter of 12-15-04 in error? 3. On page 15 of the AUAR draft, Table 9-1 shows 23 acres in the project AUAR area, not 19.62 as stated in email/letter of 12-15-04. ?????? Was an area dropped or not included in the GIS calculation? Please keep up your good work, Sarah. Thanks, Paula Larson, 2316 Commerce Blvd. PS. As you know, ! am gravely concemed about Mayor Meisel's conflict of interest/control - sadly, it is the "fox guarding the hen house" approach to the redevelopment attempt in Mound. --- Original Message N. From: Sarah Smith Wednesday, December 15, 2004 2:46 PM Subject: AUAR Inquiry Good afternoon Paula. For your review the following information is being forwarded electronically: 1. My Letter dated 12/15 regarding AUAR property ownership acreage in AUAR project area. 2. Memorandum dated 12/15 from City Attorney regarding property ownership / conflict of interest. Originals to be forwarded via US Mail. 1/3/2005 -3982- Page 1 of 1 Sarah Smith From: To: Sent: Subject: "-Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> Friday, December 17, AUAR Clarification Hi Paula. Thank you for your email dated Dec. 15th. In response to your inquiry, I offer the following comments: GIS calculation of parcels in AUAR study area is 19.32 acres. AUAR states that study area is aPproximately 23 acres. Difference consists of street right of way. 2. There are (56) parcels in study area. Your first email regarding the AUAR requested a listing of City and Meisel owned properties in the study area and I supplied a complete listing of the parcels in the Lost Lake / Auditor's Road/Lake Langdon Districts as we had a list on file but only provided the City/HRA owned parcels in the True Value District. There are (3) other parcels owned by Hennepin County, Dodds, and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. Hope this answers your questions. Am unavailable for the rest of the day due to meeting but will be in Monday AM. Best regards. Sarah S. -3983- 1/3/2005 yage I otl Sarah Smith From: To: Sent: Subject: "Sarah Smith" <SarahSmith@cityofmound.com> ~Friday, December 17, 2004~3;14 PM Re: ,~UAR Clarification Thanks for the.clarification and your pr. empt resl~aSe, ~ab.: ~' appreciate~ y~)ur help: Paula Larson --- Original Message From: Sarah Smith Friday, December 17, 2004 Subject: AUAR Clarification Hi Paula. Thank you for your email dated Dec. 15th. In response to your inquiry, I offer the following comments: GIS calculation of parcels in AUAR study area is 19.32 acres. AUAR states that study area is approximately 23 acres. Difference consists of street dght of way. 2. There are (56) parcels in study area. Your first email regarding the AUAR requested a listing of City and Meisel owned properties in the study area and I supplied a complete listing of the parcels in the Lost Lake / Auditor's Road/Lake Langdon Districts as we had a list on file but only provided the City/HRA owned parcels in the True Value District. There are (3) other parcels owned by Hennepin County, Dodds, and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. Hope this answers your questions. Am unavailable for the rest of the day due to meeting but will be in Monday AM. Best regards. Sarah S. 1/19/2005 -3984- December 22, 2004 To: From: Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director Dick Osgood, Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION Comments - Mound Visions AUAR - Page 1 - The Mound Visions Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) addresses the cumulative environmental impacts that may result from the sequential development of related projects, which will occur under the Mound Visions redevelopment plan. This AUAR is prepared in lieu of other environmental assessments that would occur for individual developments in the project area, which is located along the comdor on the north shores of Lost and Langdon Lakes. The AUAR evaluates two development scenarios: · The Mound Visions Plan (MVP) · The Mound Harbor Renaissance (MHR) Both scenarios are similar in they create a mixed-use downtown core in a project area of about 23 acres. The scenarios differ in one mare aspect - the MHR involves further dredging and the placement of docks in Lost Lake. The respective scenarios include: Mh~ MHR Residential Townhouses 0 units 5 units Condos/Apartments 86 units 327 units Coll]Irlercial Retail 113,625 sf 114,025 sf Office 79,800 sf 25,400 sf Service 0 sf 19,600 sf Farmers Market 14 stalls 14 stalls Hotel 80 rooms 78 rooms Lake Minnetonka Association Interests The Lake Mirmetonka Association (I2vlA) represents the lakeshore owners and businesses and is dedicated to the preservation and reasonable use of Lake Mirmetonka. The LMA is a member of the Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce and supports the redevelopment plans for downtown Mound; however, the LMA has concerns with the Mound Visions AUAR, which are noted below. LMA Comments The major concern of the LiMA is the additional dredging of the Lost Lake channel with the MHR scenario. The proposed dredged area is slightly over 2 acres and will provide 40 dock slips. The LMA is very concerned about the main Lost Lake canal because it disrupts a significant tributary wetland to Lake Minnetonka and facilitates the 'calving' of cattails as well as the movement of sediments and pollution to L~\KEMINNfflONt~\AssOCIA'IION 0 P.O. l~ox,~,.& Excelsioh 5,1N 55551 0 (9521) -3985- December 22, 2004 To: Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director From: Dick Osgood, Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION RE: Comments - Mound Visions AUAR - Page 2 - Cooks Bay. Additional dredging, as proposed in the MHR scenario, will further disrupt the wetland and pollute Lake Mirmetonka. As well, the addition of 40 resident boats is contrary to the LIMA's standing position (attached) of opposing additional watercraft from marginal wetland areas. The AUAR is misleading in that it attempts to understate the impacts of increased boat traffic in one section (page 35, "That the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation EAW estimated that the projected boat traffic for the restored channel would be 26 trips per weekend and nine trips per weekday"), yet it is clear the Lost Lake canal is key to inviting visitors to downtown Mound. Later in the document, on page 69, it is stated that Downtown Mound will need to expand its cultural, recreational and entertainment opportunities to make it a destination attraction. As this occurs, we would expect substantially more than 26 boat trips per weekend to occur. The AUAR provides no analysis of a realistic number of boat trips with respect to wildlife impacts - indeed, the only analysis provided is non-technical and speculative (page 36, "... it is fek that the project would not have an adverse impact on the wildlife populations."). Scientific studies have shown that boat impacts relating to bottom disturbance occur from boats of all sizes and all speeds (inducling slow, no wake speeds) in water depths down to at least six feet. The present and proposed additional Lost Lake canal is less than six feet deep over its entire course. Therefore, increased boat traffic that the Mound Visions project will invite and the MHR scenario will create, has a significant potential to disrupt the canal bottom, which could increase turbidity in the canal as well as into Cook's Bay. Furthermore, the calving of cattails bogs occurs now with the existing canal and low level of boat traffic. These impacts should be evaluated. The impacts of the additional dredged area per se are of less concern than the impacts of the additional boat traffic that will be allowed by the dredging and docking. _As well, the removal of the cattails will result in the loss of filtering capacity, which w/Il offset some of the proposed stormwater mitigation benefits. The stormwater management plan included with the Mound Visions plan is laudable insofar as it provides well conceived and designed management practices for this re-developed area. The LMA appreciates the extra effort and commitment to attending to this concern. However, we are concerned the benefits of the stormwater management plan are overstated. Specifically, some of the management structures or techniques poorly or inadequately address phosphorus pollution in runoff. For example, stormceptors are not designed to remove phosphorus from runoff. In addition, references to the removal of total phosphorus are misleading in that it is the dissolved form of phosphorus that has the greatest impact in lakes. Thus the 50% reduction in total phosphorus loading cited on page 40 is misleading. In light of the fact that stormwater mitigations measures would be required with this re-devdopment, the LMA feels the AUAR is being used more as a sales tool, rather than an objective environmental review document. Finally, because many of the stormwater treatment measures are located very close to Lost I.~,KE MINNttTONI~.AsSOClAllON O P.O. Box 2z~t~3, Excelsior, )~4N 5555'I 0 (952) 470-4449 -3986- December 22, 2004 To: Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director From: Dick Osgood, Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION RE: Comments - Mound Visions AUAR - Page 3 - Lake, the dissolved pollutants, like phosphorus, will readily seep into the lake via shallow groundwater, so the inference that stormwater impacts are negligible is misleading. LMA Recommendations The Lake Mirmetonka Association recommends: The AUAR inadequately and incompletely addresses several issue (noted above). These issues should be addressed before the AUAR is accepted by the City. The impacts of increased boat use in the Lost Lake canal and cattail wetland should be addressed in the AUAR. The existing dredged canal in Lost Lake represents a significant impact to water quality and wildlife habitat. The additional dredging proposed with the MI-IR scenario represents additional cumulative impacts. The dredging and boat docks associated with the MHR scenario should be eliminated. LAKE MINNE'IONKAAssOCIA'IION 0 P,C), Box 2/~, t~xce!!(ot-, ~v'lN bb_ '~I 0 c E-~ -3987- December 22, 2004 To: Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director From: Dick Osgood, Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION RE: Comments - Mound Visions AUAR - Page 4 - POSITION STATEMENTS of the LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION Lake Mirmetonka is a public resource available for ali to use and enjoy. But Lake Mirmetonka is also the most heavily used lake in Minnesota. The LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION is concerned about the growing impacts from lake shore and lake surface use on and around Lake Minnetonka, including noise, congestion, safety, fish and wildlife habitat disruption and aesthetic damage. To guide the LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION and others in providing for a safe, healthy and enjoyable environment on and around the lake, the LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION has adopted the following position statements: Public access to Lake Minnetonka occurs via fadlities ranging from small, unimproved and un-maintained rights-of- mqy to large improved fadlities. The Lake Minnetonka Assodation recogniEes the public right to have access to and use Lake Minnetonka as a public mater body. Concerns mith neighborhood dis~tion, noise, parking~ maste and sanitary management, and lam enforcement tend to intensify as the dee and operation of public accesses get smalkr. To fadlitate safe and order[y public access to Lake Minnetonka, the L~ke Minnetonka Assodation supports consoh'datingpublic access to larger fadlities that: · Provide a sq)aration and buffer from residential areas · Provide for sanitary and maste disposal · Provide and maintain adequateparking and accessfadlities · Provides more effective and effdent lam enforcement * Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Association Board of Directors on September 28, 2001. Lake Minnetonka is the most heavily-used lake in Minnesota. Demand for access to Lake Minnetonka continues to groin, therebyjeopardi~ng safe and enjoyable use of the lake. Pressure is groMng to develop marginal lands and tributary areas on and around Lake Minnetonka, which essentially mould e~pand the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and create new motoriEed matercraft accesspoints to the lake. t:) [Al<t:. MINi,,Ik:'IONKAASSOClATIOM 0 P.O. Box 2¥f~. Excclsio,~, MN 5555't 0 '~ 5n~ zi.70-44,;9 -3988- December 22, 2004 To: Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director From: Dick Osgood, Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION RE: Comments- Mound Visions AUAR - Page 5 - The Lake Minnetonka ~lssodation opposes any proposal or development that would expand the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka andprovide motorized watercraft access to the Lake from a tributary that is outside the current shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. * Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Association Board of Directors on June 25, 2001. Lake Minnetonka has !3 ! miles of lakeshore - much of mhich has been altered from its natural condition. These alterations may serve important functions, such as shoreline protection, but one result has also been the loss of habitat for fish and wildlife. Until recently, the only practical alternative to these shoreland improvements has been to 'leave the shore mild.' Now, there is another alternative referred to as Lakescaping.f Lakescaping is simply landscaping on the lake shore ~vhich provides a more natural alternative to structural or artifidal shore landscaping and erosion control. Lakescaping can benefit Lake Minnetonka b~y improvingfish and raildlife habitat, providing shoreline protection and enhandng the lake's aesthetics. The Lake Minnetonka ~lssodation supports public and private efforts to use lakescaping on the shore of Lake Minnetonka. * Adopted by the Lake Mirmetonka Association Board of Directors on September 28, 2001. lIFhile the overall boating use - at least the numbers of boats - on Lake Minnetonka is not increasin3 concerns with unruly, even illegal behavior by boaters are increasing. The Lake Minnetonka ~lssodation supports additional efforts to increase patrol and enforcement activities to assure Lake Minnetonka remains safe and pleasant for all. Furthermore, the Lake blinnetonka ~Zlssodation supports a requirement that all boaters using Lake Minnetonka be required to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of boater safqy rules and profiden~y in thepractice thereof. Lakeshore properties and lake-related businesses derive substantial aesthetic and economic benefit from being on or near the lake. In turn, these properties and businesses contribute substantially to the local munidpal, county and state tax base. The Lake Minnetonka ~lssodation supports the increased dedication of public revenues to fund adequate lake protection and enforcement in preserving and maintaining these benefits. * Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Association Board of Directors on July 22, 2003. See, Lakescapingfor Wildlife and Water Quality, by Carrol Hendesron, Carolyn Dindorf and Fred Rozumalski, Nongame Wildlife Program - Section of Wildlife. MN Department of Natural Resources. To order, call 1-800-657-3757 or 651-297-3000. LAKE MINNE-IONK. A ASSOCIAI'ION . ~,~&~,~_c,.l~, /','tN b_:,:~ 9 (952) 470-,~-449 -3989- December 22, 2004 To: Sarah Smith, Mound Community Development Director From: Dick Osgood, Executive Director LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION RE: Comments - Mound Visions AUAR - Page 6 - Boat storage and docking along the shore of Lake Minnetonka are subject to the Boat Densi~y polides of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Infilling development and increasing demands for lakeshore access are causing more conflicts and contmver?y. The LMCD Boat Density polides are in need of review. The Lake Minnetonka Association supports an expedited pmcess to review and update the LMCD 's Boat Density polities so thej are clear and consistent. Further, the Lake Minnetonka Assodation supports a comprehensive Boat Density poli~y that holds the line on increased laleeshore densi(y, ~vhile preserving the rights of lakeshore homeowners. * Adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Association Board of Directors on 17 May 2004. LAg. IL MINNE'I'ONKA ASSOCtA1 ION 0 P.O. Box -3990- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director January 20, 2005 LMCD Modified Multiple-Dock Application and Vadance / MCVVD Dredge Permit Application / DNR Aquatics Permit - Lost Lake Distdct Background The sketch plan from Mound Harbor Renaissance Development (MHRD) for the Lost Lake, Auditors Road and Lake Langdon Districts was reviewed by the City Council in August 2004. As part of the project, (37) townhomes are proposed for the Lost Lake Distdct which also includes construction of a new multiple dock to accommodate (40) slips. Dock Proposal Details · The new Lost Lake District docks will be owned by the City of Mound and operated through the City's public dock program. · (37) slips will be made available to the townhome residents and (3) slips are for visitors and guests. · The multiple dock license for the new townhomes in the Lost Lake Distdct will be a separate permit from the City's existing licenses for the transient docks on Lost Lake along the Greenway and the City's dock program. · According to LMCD rules, 2000 linear feet is needed to accommodate the (40) boat storage units (BSU). Members of the Council are advised that there is adequate shoreline in the Lost Lake Distdct to accommodate the new slips. At its November 9, 2004 meeting, the City Council authorized the submittal of the odginal dock application to Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) which is the public agency responsible for issuance of multiple-dock licenses on Lake Minnetonka. LMCD Review The application was reviewed by the LMCD at its December 8, 2004 meeting and tabled pending the final decision on the AUAR by the City of Mound and to allow the City the opportunity to review and respond to the comments received by the MCWD and the DNR on the dock application. In general, comments were expressed by the MCVVD regarding the size of the proposed dredge associated with the dock application and the DNR had concems about wetland and shoreline impacts. -3991 - Public Agency Meeting Representatives from the City of Mound, LMCD, MCVVD, DNR and MHR met on December 30, 2004 to review the issues raised by the MCVVD and DNR regarding the original dock proposal and to discuss the alternate design suggested by the MCWD. Additionally, the concurrent submittal of agency permits to the MCVVD and DNR was also discussed. Modified Dock Application For review and consideration, an alternate dock plan ("Modified Dock Application") for the Lost Lake District has been prepared. Members of the Council are advised that the proposed dredge area associated with the modified plan has been reduced from 2.07 acres to 1.51 acres. Additionally, a larger area of the shoreline is maintained. Members of the Council are advised that the modified dock application will require a LMCD variance for dock length. Recommendation Staff respectfully requests that the City Council approve the resolutions (draft) which have been prepared to authorize submittal of the following applications associated with the new multiple-dock to be constructed in the Lost Lake District for the townhomes to be constructed as part of the MHRD project to accommodate (40) boat storage units: Modified Dock Application and Variance to the LMCD. Dredge Permit Application to the MCWD. Aquatics Permit to the DNR. · Page 2 -3992- I~I I ~1 HI i Z -3993- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF MODIFIFIED MULTIPLE DOCK APPLICATION AND VARIANCE TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT (LMCD) FOR DOCKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LOST LAKE DISTRICT AS PART OF MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MHRD) WHEREAS, the City of Mound is located in the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD); and WHEREAS, the LMCD is the agency responsible for issuance of multiple-dock licenses on Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound is proposing to construct a new multiple dock in the Lost Lake District as part of the downtown redevelopment project proposed by MHRD which includes (37) townhomes; and WHEREAS, (37) slips will be made available to the townhome residents and (3) slips are for visitors and guests of the townhome complex; and WHEREAS, the new Lost Lake District docks will be owned by the City of Mound and maintained through the City's public dock program; and WHEREAS, there is adequate shoreline in the Lost Lake Distdct to accommodate the additional (40) boat storage units (BSU); and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized submittal of the original multiple dock application to the LMCD at its November 9, 2004 meeting; and WHEREAS, the LMCD reviewed the dock application at its December 8, 2004 meeting and tabled action until the AUAR decision is made by the Mound City Council and to allow the City and MHRD adequate time to respond to comments received from the MCWD on December 3, 2004 and the DNR on December 6, 2004 regarding · the odginal dock application; and -3994- WHEREAS, representatives from the City of Mound, LMCD, MCWD, DNR and MHR met on December 30, 2004 to review the issues raised by the MCWD and DNR regarding the original dock proposal; and WHEREAS, an alternate plan ("Modified Dock Application") was discussed for the proposed townhome project in the Lost Lake District so as to address the concerns raised by the MCWD and DNR and to minimize environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Modified Dock Application will require a LMCD variance for dock length; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes submittal of a Modified Dock Application and Variance to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to accommodate (40) boat storage units (BSU) to be constructed in the Lost Lake District as part of the downtown redevelopment project by Mound Harbor Renaissance Development. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of January 2005 Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -3995- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A DREDGE PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD) ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW DOCKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LOST LAKE DISTRICT AS PART OF MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MHRD) WHEREAS, the City of Mound is located in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD); and WHEREAS, the MCWD is the agency responsible for dredge permitting activities on Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound is proposing to construct a new multiple dock in the Lost Lake District as part of the downtown redevelopment project proposed by MHRD which includes (37) townhomes; and WHEREAS, the new Lost Lake District docks will be owned by the City of Mound and maintained through the City's public dock program; and WHEREAS, the new Lost Lake Distdct docks will require dredging activities within Lost Lake; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes submittal of a Dredge Permit Application to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District associated with the public dock project to be constructed in the Lost Lake District as part of the downtown redevelopment project proposed by Mound Harbor Renaissance Development. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of January 2005 Attest: Bonnie Rifler, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -3996- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF AN AQUATICS PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR) ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW DOCKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LOST LAKE DISTRICT AS PART OF MOUND HARBOR RENAISSANCE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (MHRD) WHEREAS, the City of Mound is proposing to construct a new multiple dock in the Lost Lake District as part of the downtown redevelopment proJect proposed by MHRD which includes (37) townhomes; and WHEREAS, the new Lost Lake District docks will be owned by the City of Mound and maintained through the City's public dock program; and WHEREAS, the new Lost Lake District dock project will require issuance of a DNR Aquatics Permit for dredge work to be done within Lost Lake; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes submittal of an Aquatics Permit to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources associated with the public dock project to be constructed in the Lost Lake District as part of the downtown redevelopment project proposed by Mound Harbor Renaissance Development. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of January 2005 Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -3997- t --.\ Z ¢' .< v © .< -3998- FROM : LMCD FAX NO. : 74590135 .... I1 Jan. ~0 2005 10:04AM Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quati~y of Water, Quality of Life l~tablir, hvd in 1967 P3 M~: 18202 Minnetonka BI~, Deephaven, MN 55391 ~one: (~) 47~-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0882 Email: ~lmin~min~t~mek.o~j v~vw, mlnnehahacreek,org Lance F'~her Richard Miller Ethel Smilh Scott Thomas December 3, 2004 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Judd Harper, Administrative Technician 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: Mound dock license application for Lost Lake Dear Mr. Harper and LMCD Board: "Mirmehaha' Creck'Watci'shed District offers thc following comments regarding the permit application to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District l¥om thc City of Mound for a new multiple dock license on Lost Lake Channel, Dredging of Lost Lake Channel will be required m implement the proposed docking plan, Thc Dredging will be subject to the terms of thc Lake Mirmctonka Dredging Joint Policy Stateraent between the Minnesota Department of NaturaI Resources (DNR), Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District (LMCD), and the Mirmehaha Creek Wau,-rshed District (MCWD), the Rules of the DNR and the Rules of the MCWD. As stated in the aforementioned Joint Policy Statement, the DNR's and MCWD's purposes fbr regulating dredging are to preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, protect a. nd preserve the waters recreational, wildlife, and fisheries rcsourees, and preserve water quality. The proposed docking plan would require extensive dredging of the lake's littoral zone which is a biologically productive and sensitive portion of the lake. Dredging this proposed docking ar.ea may Irigger the need for intensive maintenance in the future and threaten the stability o£the existing vegetation which exists: MCWD and the DNR wish to have the opportunity to work cooperatively with the LMCD and the City of Mound to design a docking area which meets the mmaber of boa~ slips required for the townhome uniu to be provided (37 slips) while minlmi.l.g the impacts of dredgdng to Lost Lake and the need for future main~ance dredging. A suggested dock slip design which may address the requirements of.MN Statute and the requirements of the MCWD is demonstrated on the attached plan. MCWD requests that LMCD poslponc approval of a dock design for this area and off~ corllmerits regarding the allached suggested alternative design concept. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Sincerely, Rcnae Clark, MCWD Permitting Technic/an C: ,lulle Ekman, DNR Area Hydrologist -3999- FROH : LNCD FAX NO. : 745c~85 Jan. 20 291~5 10:041:~1 P4 -4000- FROM LMCD FAX NO. : ?~59085 Jan. 28 2885 10:83AM P2 LAKE MINNETOWKA CONSF, RVATION DISTRICT REOUEST FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS MINI~tESOTA DNR GENI~RAL PERMI~ APPLICATION NUMBER: ~=~=.=6~ ~:~ Wa!~m ~N~ D~ BY: ~ber 2, (Note: Comments on this at~plimtion are d~e l0 d~ys fi'om ~ of rids aotke, Retvra to: L.NLC.D.; 18338 Mim~etonim Blvd.; Deephaven, MN 5S391) FROM: Sudd L Harper ' PHONE: (952) 745-0799 Administrative T~ T~ ~ D~ Ar~ Hy~olo~st: ~. Julie ~. ~ D~, 12~ W~ Ro~ St. Pa~, ~ 551~793 X DNR Area Fisherie~ Manager: Mr. Daryl Ellison, MN DNR, 9925 Valley View Rd, Eden Pre.iris, MN 55344 X___ Municipality: N/A (applicant) PROPOSAL INFORMATION N~me of Applicant: City of Mound Bay: Coo~ Bay Address of Project: Lost Lake District; Mo_uj!d, Project Description: The appli~h'lt has submiu~d a aew co_ m___.,p~'_ cial dock lke_n, se application .for thc, installation of 40 overniF?t Boat Storage Units (BSU's) to ~_c~_O!;,_,;,_¢¢,a_!e the City~ Mound's duw-[own redevelorm~m~_ proiect whi_~_ includes 37 tov,~__ho_m_~. Thirty-Seven 07) sl_ip_s n~e t)roposed for the townh-me re~Ld~t~ ,~ three (3) slips are proposed for visitors and guests of the townhome complex~ C__OMMENTS ON PROPOSAY. Comments on Proj eot by Reviewer: The conftgurafion of boat slips shown will requir~ cxtcnr, ive dredging of this wetland, most likely will need frcquem tmintermncc dredging, m{d may caus~ thc rems;,ing vegetation to brcn,k up into floating DNR Waters has issued a 8enersl pmmi! to the Minnehc~ Cr~k Wa~'~hcd Dish'iet (GP #2001-6009) for drcdgi~.g in public watet~; however, under the ¢ondiliom o{'OP #2001-6009 this praise! will require a permit ~rom DN"I~ Fir, herle, s Aquatic Plant Manageme~ (APM) n~ w~lI as approval from DNR Fisheries. It is possible that the amou~ of aqtmfie vegetngon impacted by thi, proposed docl~ configuration will exceed that which can bc permitted under slate miss. Recommendation of Reviewer: recommend that th~ applicatlt work w~lh DN~ APM and F~ s~ffto ~i~ ~ cmff~g~ation t~t ~uld n~ i~ac~. -4001 - CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1; THE PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2; AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1- 3 THEREIN AND THE ADOPTION OF TH.EITAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "COuncil'') for the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on March 22, 2005, at approximately 7:30 pm, to hold a.~public hearing on the proposed adoption of the modification to the Developme~ Program for Development District No. 1, the elimination of parcels from Increment Financing District No. 1-2 and the Financing District No. 1-3, (a redevelopment district), establishment of Tax Increme and the proposed adoption a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore (collectively, the "Program and Plans"), Sections 469.124 to 4~ amended, in an effort designated areas withi Jrsuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as encourage the development and redevelopment of certain City; and Section 2. of Public Hearing, Filing of Program and Plans. City staff is authorized and dito work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Program and Plans and forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin and Independent School District No. 277. The City Clerk is authorized ar directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not than 10, nor more than 30, days prior March 22, 2005, and to place a copy of the ~m and Plans on file in the City Clerk's office at City Hall and to make such copy for inspection by the public. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of January, 2005. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -4OO2- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 05- RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY ON THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1; THE PROPOSED ELIMINATION OF PARCELS FROM TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2; AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MOUND HARBOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of Mound, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on March 22, 2005, at approximately 7:30 pm, to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1, the elimination of parcels from Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-2 and the establishment of the Mound Harbor Tax Increment Financing District, (a redevelopment district), and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan therefore (collectively, the "Program and Plans"), all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 to 469.134, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Proqram and Plans. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Program and Plans and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 277. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior March 22, 2005, and to place a copy of the Program and Plans on file in the City Clerk's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of January, 2005. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel J~n 14 2005 1~:44:40 Via Fax -> 9524720620 fidninistrator Page 881 Of 883 -FridayFax- Senator Pogemiller introduced property tax freeze bill On Thursday, Senate Tax Committee Chair Larry Pogemiller introduced a bill that will freeze property taxes for all cities, counties, school districts and special taxing districts beginning with taxes payable in 2006. Unlike recent levy limitations, the bill, S1r 318, would freeze property taxes for all cities until the calendar year in which the LGA formula is fully funded. A weekly legislative update from the League of3/_rtnnesota Ctttes January 14, 2005 Page 1 The heart of the bill includes a le~ limitation ~at wo~d prevent ~y increase in ~e proposed levy or the final le~ over ~e previo~ ye~'s le~. A few exceptions to ~e le~, ~eeze are included in ~e bill such as a le~ increase needed for debt se~ice on bonds issued before June 1, 2005, m adjus~ent for ~exations md for school di~icts ~at are in smtuto~ operating debt. Titled the Truth and Fairness in Taxation Act (TAFTA), the bill includes a statemem of purpose that finds that "reductions in state spending have resulted in increased burdens on school districts, counties, cities and other local units of government." The statement of purpose goes on to specify that "In order to recognize the implications of addressing the state budget deficit without increasing tax rates, mad to maintain stability in state and local fiscal relations, the purpose of this act is to prevent property tax rate increases and to illtaxfinate the impact of reductions in revenue to school districts, counties, cities mad other local units of government." According to Senator Pogemiller, he is introducing the bill to make the poim that the state balanced its budget, in part, by shifting the impact to local units of government, forcing local officials to increase property taxes. The proposal, however, would create another set of problems for cities, coumies and school districts due to the fact that the major source of tax revenue would, for all practical purposes, be completely frozen. The proposed bill includes a prohibition on the issuance of new debt, including any new lease purchase agreements after May 31, 2005, by any local unit of government that would require an increase in local property taxes beginning with taxes payable in 2006. Given the freeze in property taxes, the bill suspends the truth-in-taxation publication and hearing requirements. The bill also freezes the Metropolitan and the Iron Range fiscal disparities programs by freezing both the contributions to, and the distribmions from, the area-wide tax base pool and the property tax levies used to compute the area-wide tax rate that applies to the commercial and industrial property contributed to the tax base sharing pool. Although the bill generally freezes property, tax levies, the bill also includes a provision that would guarantee that the tax rate of all local traits of government will not increase while the freeze is in place. The tax rate freeze provisions apparently apply after the tax levy freeze and would effectively kick in under two circumstances--i) where a city has a reduction in its tax base due to devaluation of property or 2) where the exceptions to the levy freeze (for debt service or amaexations) would otherwise result in an increase in the city's tax rate. The bill also prohibits new state or local fees or prohibits increases in existing fees, which include all fees for goods, services, regulations or licemure, including charges for admission to, or for the use of public facilities. The bill would begin to restore the cms in LGA that were imposed in 2003 by requiring the state to restore an amount equal to 20 percent of the LGA reduction in 2004 and 2005 over the For mm'e icrformation on city legislative ~s'u~s, cc, matt art7 member of the League o£Minne$ota Citi~, ~te:~'~r~'~e~ iKelatior~ team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -4003- Jan 14 Z005 1G:45:Z3 ~ia ~a× -> 55Z47ZOGZO ~inixtra~or Page -FridayFax- A weekly legislaI~'ve update from the League of Minnesota Cities amount originally scheduled to be received in 2003, but only to the extent that the city did not increase property taxes in 2004 and 2005 to replace the aid cuts. The bill may be heard in the Senate Tax Conmaittee as early as next week. The full text of the bill can be found at: !i~._rts}._'_/_/SE~.,&~[._e3:'i s o r_. l_e_,g. ,¢t,a'te.mn.us/%in/bldbill. p~2 '~ill=S031 §_0&session=Is84 Senate moves quickly on a bonding package Last week, Senate DFLers introduced SF 1, which appropriates $949 million for various capital projects. This legislation, authored by Senator Keith Langseth (DFL-Glyndon), includes the same projects that were part of the Senate's bonding bill last session. The Senate Capital Investment Committee met on January, 5th to consider bonding requests for environmental project, and heard testimony this week on transportation, human services and corrections bonding projects. The committee will meet next Tuesday, January 18th at 6:00 p.m. and Wednesday, January 19th at 3:00 p.m. to consider and recommend a 2005 bonding bill. The Senate Finance Committee will hear the bill on I;riday, January 21st at 8:30 a.m. The Senate is expected to pass its bonding bill by the end of January. House Republicans have also introduced their bonding bill totaling $642 million--S35 million less than the bill passed by the House in the 2004 session. Rep. Dan Dorman (R-Albert Lea), chair of the House Capital Investment Committee, is the chief author of the House proposal, HF 3. The House package spends $28 million less on higher education and almost $21 million less on local bonding projects. The bill spends more on transportation projects, including $10 million for January 14, 2005 Page 2 the Northstar Commuter Rail project. It also appropriates $10 million for permanent supportive housing loans. The House committee met on Tuesday and heard a presentation on debt management. No meetings are currently scheduled for next week House Tax Committee to hear LGA technical fLx bffi Next Thursday, the House Tax Committee will hear HI; 47, a bill that will address a drafting error in the LGA formula reforms enacted in 2003. The bill is authored by five current members of the House Tax Committee, all of whom served on the tax committee in 2003 when the LGA system was reformed and the drafting oversight occurred. Representative Ron Abrams (R-Minnetonka), Representative .4am Lenczewski (DFL-Bloomington), Representative Dean Simpson (R-New York Mills), Representative Morris Lannmg (R-Moorhead) and Representative Peter Nelson (R-Lindstrom). The drafting error involves a paragraph that was inadvertently left in the LGA statutes after the reforms enacted in 2003. The paragraph retained a portion of the 1993 grandfather in the LGA formula, even though a repeal of the grandfather was one of the major changes pursued by the Governor and several key legislators that year. Although the error was discovered immediately after the 2003 special session, the Governor and the Department of Revenue decided at that time to administer the 2004 LGA distribution (which was computed in July 2003) based on the intent of the Legislature and not the ~'letter of the law." During the 2004 legislative session, bOth the House and Senate omnibus tax bills contained the fix. However, the House and Senate never negotiated a tax conference committee compromise and therefore, the technical fix never became law. Fo~ mo~e informatio~ o~ city legislative i~, cantact a.qy membe~ ofhh~ League of Miracle,s Cities l.qte~ovemm~t al Rdation~ team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -4004- 95Z47ZSGZ8 ~dainistratoz' 883 Of 003 -FridayFax- A weekly legislative update from the League ofM~nnesota C~t~es After the 2004 session, the Governor and the Commissioner of Revenue struggled with how to handle the drafting error due to the fact that the 2004 Legislature did not make the correction. Initially, the Governor leaned toward following the "letter-of-the-law" due to the fact that the Legislature did not correct the error during the 2004 session. During the post-session discussions about the issue, the Governor heard from many of the city organizations, all of which supported the administration of the LGA formula according to "legislative intent." In addition, several key legislators, including several of the authors of HF 47, urged the Governor to follow legislative intent. In the end, the Governor decided to follow legislative intent. Feb. 2--Grand Rapids Feb. 3--Detroit Lakes Feb. 9--St. Paul Feb. 10--Rochester Feb. 16--St. Cloud Feb. 17--Redwood Falls Feb. 23--Maple Grove January 14, 2005 Page 3 This session was developed in direct response to city requests to encourage city-specific conversations. A brief presentation will be followed by a Q&A/discussion time--bring questions, ideas and concerns about topics relevant to your city. The hearing is scheduled for 10:15 am on Thursday, January, 20 in Room 200 of the State Office Building. Although last year's House and Senate omnibus tax bills included the correction, passage of this bill may not necessarily be on a fast track. Under the state's constitution, tax legislation must originate in the House and in the past, Tax Chairs have tried to mah-~tain control of any bill that could become a vehicle for other amendments. A companion bill in the Senate has not yet been introduced. Topics to be explored include: · NFPA response time standards · Fire relief associations and fire department checkbooks Alcohol response policies and alcohol sales for fundraising Sexual harassment prevention and physical fitness testing Mutual aid agreements Fire department mm~agement and liability training Register online today at: !~:tl.;> :/,"~a:a~'w.lnmc. org/col~<fire05..cfin The League of Minnesota Cities is holding a training session focused on fire department concerns and liability issues and geared to elected officials, fire chiefs and fire officials, and city achninistrators/clerks. This specially-designed, two-hour training session and discussion will be held in selected cities across the state: For rnc~e information on city le§ialative isst~, cantaet any meraber of the League of Miaae~ota Cities Intergovernmental Rdations team. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -4005- BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Dec. 2004 100.00% Dec. 2004 YTD PERCENT BUDGET .EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 72,850 3,578 74,228 (1,378) 101.89% Promotions 3,750 0 3,750 0 100.O0% City Manager/Clerk 276,900 28,709 275,523 1,377 99.50% Elections 13,460 1,731 11,550 1,910 85.81% Finance 234,070 23,796 224,921 9,149 96.O9% Assessing 79,300 68 78,070 1,230 98.45% Legal 135,580 14,853 124,256 11,324 91.65% City Hall Building & Srvcs 124,270 15,171 125,288 (1,018) 100.82% Computer 29,900 5,041 24,557 5,343 82.13% Police 1,448,590 134,239 1,435,559 13,031 99.10% Emergency Prepardeness 7,130 22 6,829 301 95.78% Planning/Inspections 367,880 29,678 291,551 76,329 79.25% Streets 655,610 65,193 669,929 (14,319) 102.18% Parks 331,930 9,096 313,731 18,199 94.52% Cemetery 9,610 28 6,831 2,779 71.08% Transfers 256,690 64,384 415,768 (159,078) 161.97% Cable TV 50,000 0 21,069 28,931 42.14% Contingencies 607,250 824 476,567 130,683 78.48% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 4,704,770 396,411 4.579.977 124,793 97.35% Area Fire Service Fund 638,140 Dock Fund 143,150 Capital Projects 0 TIF 1-2 0 Water Fund 687,240 Sewer Fund 1,201,940 Liquor Fund 559,800 Recycling Fund 167,680 Storm Water Utility 96,870 42,389 654,242 (16,102) 102.52% 82,402 145,600 (2,450) 101.71% 253,581 2,835,916 (2,835,916) 52,414 569,128 (569,128) 124,225 688,134 (894) 100.13% 100,952 1,120,874 81,066 93.26% 87,412 562,559 (2,759) 100.49% 16,340 155,622 12,058 92.81% 19,878 93,796 3,074 96.83% Exp-02 01120/2005 Gino -4006- -4007-