Loading...
2008-11-25PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. CITY OF MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through teamwork and cooperation, provides at a reasonable cost, quality services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing community. AGENDA I MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOV 25, 2008 - 7:30 PM REGULAR MEETING MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Aizen da: 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. Paae Call meeting to order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda, with any amendments 4. *Consent Agenda *A. Approve minutes: November 10, 2008 regular meeting 2607 -2614 *B. Approve payment of claims 2615 -2640 • *C. Approve HKGi contract for services associated with federal lobbying 2641 -2643 proposal *D. Approve resolution approving Consent and Waiver Agreement for the 2644 -2659 abatement of hazardous conditions at 5139 Waterbury Road *E. Approve resolution regarding 1 -year extension for City approvals for 2660 -2686 Woodlyn Ridge residential development at 6301 Lynwood Boulevard *F. Approve a resolution approving a Public Lands Permit for PID 2687 -2701 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014 - Applicant: Carol Hammer *G. Approve an Ordinance amending Chapter 437 of the City Code as 2702 -2705 it relates to the dock and slip licenses *H. Approve an Ordinance to add Section 438 — Dock Licensing, to 2706 -2715 the Mound City Code *I. Approve an Ordinance to add Section 439 — Slip Licensing, to the 2716 -2723 Mound City Code *J. Approve resolution approving supplement to Memorandum of 2724 -2729 • Understanding on slips at Villas on Lost Lake PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. *K. Approve special meeting: Tuesday, Dec 16, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. *L. Approve cancellation of regular meeting: Tuesday, Dec 23, 2008 X M V (Ar %ck v\u. o-t '1840 BeA6rct . Lmo v' eA -VV0m 613) 05. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to three minute per speaker) 6. Planning Commission Recommendation(s) A. Planning Case No. 08 -15 Variance (front yard) for new house at 2933 Cambridge Lane Owners: Kester and Lisa Batchelor PC Recommendation: Denial m aPAAo Planning Case No. 8 -16 LA y\, � Variances for house addition/remodel project at 4840 Bedford Road Owner: Susan Chambers PC Recommendation: To be presented �.1 tarp 17 el-)rerner-� t PIu4 Fv,(Se, �> 7. 2009 Budget - Topics for Discussion with any Corresponding Action A. Fund Balance Overview B. Outstanding Obligations /Financial Considerations 1. Deck 1 2. Dump Bonds Refinancing 3. Municipal State Aid for Streets 4. Fire Department Cost Savings Initiatives 5. Fire Department Apparatus Replacement Program 6. Minnetrista & Mound satellite station commitment 7. Security Cameras at Zero Gravity Skate Park (requires action) 8. Action on Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission recommendation to allocate $12,000 in 2009 for aquatic invasive species control in Phelps Bay (requires action) 8. Miscellaneous /Correspondence A. Comments /reports from Council Members B. Reports C. Minutes: D. Correspondence 9. Adjourn Finance Dept — Oct 2008 Fire Commission — Nov 19, 2008 City Clerk on Recount for US Senator Parks, Open Space & Docks Comm — Nov 13, 2008 Congrats to 2008 MnAPA Award Winners CenterPoint Energy letter on rates LMCC calendar 2730 -2749 2750 -2764 2765 -2767 2768 -2769 2770 2771 -2772 2773 -2778 2779 2780 -2827 2828 -2831 2832 -2845 2846 2847 -2849 2850 2851 -2853 2854 -2856 This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www.cibyofmound.com. COUNCIL BRIEFING November 25, 2008 *Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Nov 24 — 8:00 — 12:00 — Newly Elected Officials Orientation Nov 25 — 7:00 p.m. — HRA regular meeting Nov 25 — 7:30 p.m. — CC regular meeting Dec 1 — 7:00 — Truth in Taxation Hearing Dec 8 — 7:00 — Truth in Taxation Hearing continuation, if needed Dec 9 — 6:30 p.m. — HRA regular meeting Dec 9 — 7:30 - CC regular meeting Dec 11 — 7:30 — Parks, Open Space and Docks Comm Interviews Dec 16 — 7:30 — CC special meeting Jan 2 — 8:00 — 3:30 — Newly Elected Officials Orientation Jan 9 — 8:00 —12:00 — Newly Elected Officials Orientation Jan 13 — 6:30 — HRA regular meeting Jan 13 — 7:30 — CC Annual Meeting City Hall Closings Nov 27 -28 Thanksgiving Dec 24 pm Christmas Eve Dec 25 Christmas Day •Other In spite of three paid advertisements, no persons applied for the Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission. Please inquire with your friends, neighbors and acquaintances if they would be interested. They may receive an application from Vicki at 492- 472 -0615. U MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES • NOVEMBER 10, 2008 The City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, met in regular session on Monday, November 10, 2008, at 7:30 p.m. in the council chambers of city hall. Members present: Mayor Mark Hanus; Councilmembers David Osmek, Mike Specht, John Beise and Greg Skinner Others present: City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Public Works Director Carlton Moore, City Engineer Dan Faulkner, Parks Superintendent Jim Fackler, Fire Chief Greg Pederson, Betsy Brady, Allie Brady, Ron Marschke, Kathy Marschke, Ben Stock, Greg Orinstien, Bruce Sohns, Aleda Jacobson, Margorie Stutsman, Al Bauernfeind, Marilyn Stillings, Millie O'Donnell, Cheryl Williams, Heidi Gesch, Kevin Johansen, Steve & Cathy Maser, Jane Kempf, Scott Kempf, Tony & Susan Thill, Clark Peters, Don Peterson, Tibor & Kathy Gallo, Beth Johnson, Dick Wagner, Brian Johnson, Ray Salazar, Chris Carlson, Bill Jacob, Cheryl Martin, Art & Bev Hefte, Nat Kale, Amanda Schwarze Consent agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. • 1. Open meeting Mayor Hanus called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve aaenda Osmek requested that Item 10 be moved to Item 5A. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to approve the agenda as amended. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent agenda Hanus requested the removal of 4H for discussion and Skinner requested the removal of 4J. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to approve the consent agenda as amended. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve minutes of the October 28, 2008 regular meeting B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $421,410.12 C. Approve Pay Request No. 5 from S.M. Hentges & Sons in the amount of $300,906.38 for the 2008 Street Improvement Project, PW- 08 -01. D. Approve Pay Request No. 6 and Final from Kusske Construction in the amount of $15,968.51 for the 2007 Storm Drainage Improvement project, PW- 07 -04. • E. Approve Pay Request No. 2 from Geislinger & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $70,375.87 for the 2008 Lift Station Improvement Project, PW -08 -04 -2607- Mound City Council Minutes — November 10, 2008 • F. RESOLUTION NO. 08 -109: RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON 2009 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE /DORCHESTER ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENT, UTILITIES AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT G.Approve temporary sign permit for 2008 Mound Annual Tree Lighting Ceremony H. (removed) I. RESOLUTION NO. 08 -110: RESOLUTION APPROVING AFTER - THE -FACT PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR LANDSAPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AT 1558 DOVE LANE J. (removed) 4H. Hoisington Koealer Group Inc. contract for services associated with federal lobbying proposal Hanus questioned if some of the services in this contract are duplication of the contract with the lobbyist. Specht arrived at this point in the meeting — 7:39 p.m. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to table this item to get a more detailed description of the service proposed to be supplied by HKGi. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4J. Labor agreement between City of Mound and Local Union No. 320 • Skinner requested that this item be pulled from the consent agenda because he intends to abstain from any discussion and the vote. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Beise to approve the Labor Agreement between the City of Mound and Minnesota Teamsters Public and Law Enforcement Employees' Union No. 320 (Public Works Union). The following voted in favor: Osmek, Specht, Hanus and Beise. The following voted against: None. Skinner abstained from voting. Motion carried. 5. Public hearing- 2009 Street Improvement. Utilities and Retaining Wall Improvement Proiect Dan Faulker reviewed the project and gave cost estimates and assessment estimates. Mayor Hanus opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. Jane Kempf, 2207 Centerview Lane, asked if the retaining wall can be replaced with the current rock used to keep the greystone affect. Faulkner stated that they are trying to keep a common look throughout the city, but will take a look at the cost and talk to residents before a final decision is made. Greg Orinstien, 5447 Breezy Road, asked if the cost of the retaining walls is divided up among the property owners and Osmek informed him that the retaining walls are bonded for and not assessed. is .I: • Mound City Council Minutes — November 10, 2008 Cheryl Williams, 2117 Fern Lane, stated she is the pastor at Bethel Church and asked if the angle of the road where the house is will be changed and Carlton Moore stated the angle would remain the same. Faulker will discuss the assessment figures of the church with her after the hearing. Al Bauernfeind, 2149 Centerview, questioned what was considered a lot as far as assessments go, and Osmek explained that each lot gets one unit assessment and if their lot abuts two streets, they get ' /z a unit assessment for each street. Steve Maser, 5240 Pike Road, asked if the garden hose that's been attached to the fire hydrant to run water into the lake to keep water drinkable, would be gone after the utility improvements. Moore explained that the hydrant and pipes will be replaced. Ruth Peterson, 5429 Spruce Road, asked about how she will be assessed and the policy was explained to her. Chris Carlson, 5551 Spruce Road, stated he recently had a nice skirt put in front of the house but the angle to the street is not correct and Moore stated that when the street grade and curb change the skirt will have to be replaced. Betsy Brady, 2180 Centerview, asked if the alleys are also going to be improved and Osmek stated that Pike is included in the project and Skinner stated that Ashland will • probably have overlay because there are no utilities there. Greg Orinstien, 5447 Breezy Rd, asked when they have to disclose the assessment if selling, and Beise stated that upon conclusion of tonight's hearing and adopting the resolution ordering the improvement, it is a pending assessment. Ron Marschke, 2207 Noble Lane, stated that he was told by a previous councilmember that the contractor assessed a fee and that would be spread out to help pay for these roads. He asked where that money is. Beise stated he doesn't recall anything like that. Marschke stated that they were told that the city was holding money to help pay to improve these roads because they were used for construction when the MarketPlace was built. Hanus stated he also was unaware of anything like this. Jane Kempf, 2207 Centerview, stated that 30 years ago easements were taken, and asked if there were plans to widen Centerview. Moore stated that there were design discussions regarding Church Street adjacent to the commercial district, but the remainder of residential streets will remain the width they are. Tibor Gallo, 2123 Noble Lane, stated that he's not aware of watermains breaking that often and asked how many breaks there have been. Moore answered that the number of breaks in the general neighborhood is high and that they don't want to put new streets in and then have to dig up the streets to repair the utilities. Most if not all in this neighborhood need new watermain and streets. Gallo also asked the Council to reconsider the interest rate, that 8% was high by current standards. • Upon no further comments, Mayor Hanus closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. -2609- Mound City Council Minutes — November 10, 2008 401 MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 08 -111: RESOLUTION ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR THE 2009 STREET IMPROVEMENT, UTILITIES AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 5A. Consideration /action on uncompleted buildina project at 4945 Glen Elyn Sarah Smith reviewed that at its September 16 meeting, the Council discussed the status of this remodeling project, which started in 1995. At that meeting the Council advised the owner, Brian Johnson, that the exterior work as presented on the timeline, needed to be completed prior to the deadline of the 180 -day period as stated in the Code, or the uncompleted project would be brought back to the Council at this meeting. Hanus asked staffs position regarding if Johnson is up to date on what was asked for previously and Smith answered, about 95 %. She stated that staff expects completion in Spring. Osmek wants to define another punch list with timelines, but wants also to hear from the neighbors regarding the work done. Johnson stated that he has to side one little alcove and complete the yard clean -up and the pergola at the south end. These things will be done this week. • Hanus asked neighbors if they want to comment. Bev Hefte, 4940 Glen Elyn, stated they live across the streets and the project is being worked on, but is concerned about the next step. The soffits need to be completed and part of the new pergola is rotting. Osmek stated that the owner has stated that he will complete these this week. Hefte also stated that there are piles of debris that need to be cleaned and Osmek stated that he also stated that would be taken care of this week (the second week of November). Barb Sampson, neighbor, asked about what the final date will be that he needs to complete the project. Hanus stated he can't answer that right now. Osmek stated that City Staff will work on a punch list from now to January 31. January 31 to May will be the final punch list to allow for exterior finish. Art Hefte asked if the neighbors will be made aware of the timeline and Osmek stated he will bring them a copy. Osmek stated that the consensus and directive to staff is to put together a revised punch list with timeline now to January 31, 2009, then another from January 31 to May. The remaining items not completed from the first punch list of September need to be completed by December 1, 2008. • -2610- Mound City Council Minutes - November 10, 2008 • 6. Memo of Understanding with - Mound-Harbor'-Rena ssance as it re ate- o Jim Fackler reminded the Council on the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Mound Harbor Renaissance regarding the 37 docks at Villas of Lost Lake expires at the end of the year and includes a clause regarding public use /availability if the docks are not in use. Chuck Alcon of MHRD and Staff have been in discussions regarding the matter and are recommending an amendment that would provide for 24 slips to remain assigned to the Villas of Lost Lake and 13 to be utilized by the City dock system. Alcon requested that this Memorandum be reviewed yearly. MOTION by Specht, seconded by Osmek to accept this concept and direct staff to draft an amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with Mound Harbor Renaissance Development, LLC. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 7. Action on resolution to canvas returns and declare the results of the municipal election of November 4, 2008. MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 08 -112: RESOLUTION TO CANVASS RETURNS AND DECLARE THE RESULTS OF THE MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 4, 2008 • 8. Discussion on proposed ordinance changes pertaining to CIOCKS ang sims Fackler stated that when it was decided to do re- codification of the entire City Code it was thought timely to have two separate ordinances governing the slips and docks. Hanus suggested some changes to both drafts. They included: the section on special rule -newly created abutting lots; the penalty and appeal sections (Council to be noted instead of Manager and Dock Administration). MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Specht to make the suggested changes and bring back to the Council for further consideration. All voted in favor. Motion carried. • 9. C1 Fackler reviewed that on October 28t ", the Council tabled action on the proposed cooperative agreement and maintenance agreement associated with the Centerview Park shoreline alteration project as there were questions regarding the length of term(s) and attachments /exhibits referenced were missing. The length of term on the Cooperative agreement is 5 +5 years and the Maintenance agreement is 20 years. The attachment referred to is still not available. Hanus asked if the commitment for maintenance can be made without adding personnel and Fackler stated that it could. -2611- Mound City Council Minutes - November 10, 2008 'o Nat Kale of MCWD stated that he does not yet have the attachment referred to. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Skinner to adopt the following resolution subject to Staff review and approval of attachment when received. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 08 -113: RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD) FOR THE LAKE MINNETONKA SHORELINE STABILIZATION PROJECT 10. (moved to SA) 11. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. - None were offered. 12. 2009 Budget — Topics for discussion with any corresponding action Skinner excused himself from discussion and vote on items listed under 12A. A. Personnel Initiatives with corresponding action 1. Early Retirement Incentive Plan: MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to approve the plan as presented. The following voted in favor: Osmek, Specht, Hanus and Beise. The following voted against: None. Skinner abstained from voting. Motion carried. 2. Voluntary Leave of Absence Plan: Osmek stated he has a problem with the up to one year timeframe, and that we have FMLA that covers leaves pretty well. Beise also expressed concern stating that if the city can get along without someone for five months do we really need them? MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to approve the Voluntary Leave of Absence Plan as submitted. The following voted in favor: Specht. The following voted against: Osmek, Hanus and Beise. Skinner abstained from voting. Motion defeated. 3. Vacation Purchase Plan: MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to approve the Vacation Purchase Plan as presented. The following voted in favor: Osmek, Specht, Hanus and Beise. The following voted against: None. Skinner abstained from voting. Motion carried. Skinner returned to his position on the Council. B. Revenue Related 1. 2009 budget considerations: Pausche handed out a recap of the general fund impact with a list of proposed changes that were discussed. 2. Street Light Replacement Program: Carlton Moore presented a report on the current condition of our streets lights and their need for repair. He stated that there are currently 84 street lights on Co. Rd. 110 and 15 which were installed over 25 year ago and they are deteriorating due to rust and corrosion. He will report back to the Council with options and costs for replacement. MOTION by • Osmek, seconded by Specht to increase the street light fee from $2.00 to -2612- • Mound City Council Minutes — November 10, 2008 $2.50 /month contingent upon receipt of a follow up report from Moore on a replacement program and costs. All voted in favor. Motion carried. C. Items that need to be added 1. Goal Setting Retreat: Hanson recommended earmarking $2,000 for a Goal Setting Retreat that will fund a trained facilitator and provide for food and beverage during the course of the day. The retreat is to develop a road map for staff to carry out the work of the Council, which becomes the work plan for the coming year. No action taken to approve this request. 2. Lobbyist and costs related to securing funds: No action taken. 3. Move LMCD Weed Control from General Fund to Dock Fund: Fackler stated that the Lake Minnetonka Association will be at the next council meeting for a presentation on the results from last year's treatment of Phelps Bay. Another $12,000 is requested for 2009, and Fackler is suggesting that a part of this come from the dock fund and part from the general fund. Osmek suggested a 75/25 split general /dock but later changed his position. Hanus is opposed to any of it going to the docks fund, and feels that this is an LMCD issue and the city shouldn't be paying anything. Skinner feels that the with the budget conditions right now, we shouldn't pay anything for this treatment. MOTION by Beise, seconded by Specht to fund the $12,000 with 75% coming from general fund and 25% from docks fund. The following voted in favor: Beise and Specht. The following voted against: Osmek, Hanus and • Skinner. Motion failed. The funding will remain totally coming from the general fund. D. Programs /Line -items to reduce /eliminate 1. Volunteer Recognition Event: No action taken to eliminate /reduce 2. Employee appreciation picnic: No action taken to eliminate /reduce 3. Gillespie endowment: No action taken to eliminate /reduce 4. Tennis Court: Consensus to eliminate this improvement from the 09 budget. E. Discussion of cost reduction initiatives 1. Contract mowing: Consensus is to evaluate this in the Summer of 2009 for possible future action. 2. Cost reduction initiatives: Osmek stated that reduction of one staff member will have to be considered. Skinner stated that with these tough times, the money allocated to the Gillespie Center could be used elsewhere. Beise stated that he isn't against reducing staff if not needed, but won't agree to reduce staff just to keep the Gillespie money in the budget. Specht stated that the Gillespie money was approve contingent upon the other cities approving it and they haven't so it stays in the general fund. Osmek stated that with what was discussed tonight, the fund balance would be 20.76 %, carrying a $236,000 deficit. He also stated that we always have 35 -40% fund balance after the audit. • Council penciled in December 16, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. for a special budget meeting. -2613- Mound City Council Minutes — November 10, 2008 • 13. Miscellaneous /Correspondence A. Comments /reports from Councilmembers: Specht commended City staff for work don on the Veterans Memorial Dedication on November 8. B. Reports: Engineering Project Status Report Harbor Wine & Spirits — October 2008: Osmek brought attention to the profits of the liquor store in October. County Auditor's Report — October 2008 C. Minutes: POSDA — October 3, 2008 Planning Commission — October 13, 2008 D. Correspondence: Notice from Xcel Energy on rates Notice from Metropolitan Council on 2008 housing Performance Score Gillespie Center newsletter 14. Adjourn MOTION by Osmek, seconded by Specht to adjourn at 11:33 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Mark Hanus . • -2614- r� • r� NOVEMBER 22, 2008 CITY COUNCIL MEETING TOTAL $798,743.58 -2615- 111208SUE $392,854.24 NOV 111808SUE $6,325.09 NOV 111908SUE $8,595.76 NOV 112508S U E $390,968.49 N OV TOTAL $798,743.58 -2615- CITY OF MOUND Batch Name 111208SUE Payments City of Mound Payments Current Period: November 2008 User Dollar Amt $392,854.24 Computer Dollar Amt $392,854.24 $0.00 In Balance Refer 111208 FRONTIER/CITIZENS COMMUNICA 11/14/08 9:55 AM Page 1 Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $1,234.87 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $554.65 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $303.48 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $551.60 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $551.60 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $551.61 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $19.70 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -321 Telephone & Cells 11 -08 TELEPHONE SERVICE $700.28 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Transaction Date 11/12/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,467.79 Refer 111208 GEISLINGER AND SONS, INCOPO _ Cash Payment G 602 -16325 Fixed Asset- Distribution Sy PAY REQUEST #2 2008 LIFT STATION $70,375.87 IMPROVEMENTS Invoice REQUEST #2 11/12/2008 ProjectPWO804 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $70,375.87 Refer 111208 GUSTAFSON, BRUCE _ Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -434 Conference & Training PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION $110.00 Invoice 111208 11/12/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $110.00 Refer 111208 HENTGES, S.M. AND SONS, INCO _ Cash Payment E 401 -43108 -500 Capital Outlay FA PAY REQUEST #5 2008 STREET $300,906.38 IMPROVEMENTS Invoice REQUEST #5 11/1212008 ProjectPWO801 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $300,906.38 Refer 111208 KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION COMPA Cash Payment G 675 -16325 Fixed Asset- Distribution Sy PAY REQUEST #6 2007 STORM DRAINAGE $15,968.51 Invoice REQUEST #6 11/12/2008 ProjectPW0704 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15,968.51 Refer 111208 XCEL ENERGY _ Cash Payment E 285 -46388 -381 Electric Utilities 10 -08 #51- 8617257 -4 $1,025.69 Invoice 245599328 11/12/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,025.69 -2616- 0 � • • CITY OF MOUND Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 285 MOUND HRA 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND City of Mound Payments Current Period: November 2008 10100 Wells Fargo $2,470.82 $303.48 $1,025.69 $300,906.38 $551.60 $70,927.48 $700.28 $15,968.51 $392,854.24 Pre - Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $392,854.24 Total $392,854.24 0 -2617- 11/14/08 9:55 AM Page 2 City Of Mound 11/18/08 2 :30 PM Page 1 Payments • CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Batch Name 111808SUE User Dollar Amt $6,325.09 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $6,325.09 $0.00 In Balance Refer 111808 MOUND POST OFFICE _ Cash Payment E 60149400 -322 Postage 11 -08 UTILITY BILLINGS $151.39 Invoice 111808 11/18/2008 Cash Payment E 60249450 -322 Postage 11 -08 UTILITY BILLINGS $151.39 Invoice 111808 11/18/2008 Transaction Date 11/1812008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $302.78 Refer 111808 XCEL ENERGY _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -381 Electric Utilities 10 -08 #51- 4802601 -1 $6,022.31 Invoice 246392525 11/18/2008 Transaction Date 11/18/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,022.31 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $6,022.31 $151.39 $151.39 $6,325.09 Pre - Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $6,325.09 Total $6,325.09 -2618- • • • City Of Mound 11/19/08 4:15 PM Page 1 *Check Detail Register© CITY OF MOUND November 2008 Check Amt Invoice Comment 10100 Wells Fargo Paid Chk# 030020 11/19/2008 A.I.G. UNITED GUARANTEE G 101 -22801 Deposits /Escrow $88.51 111908 4731 MANCHESTER WATER REFUND G 101 -15500 Total A.I.G. UNITED GUARANTEE $88.51 111908 2009 MEMBERSHIP DUES Paid Chk# 030021 11/19/2008 BECK, KENNETH Paid Chk# 030026 G 101 -22805 Police Forfeiture Program $408.43 111908 CONCORDIA TUITION REIMBURSEMEN Police Reserves Total BECK, KENNETH $408.43 REIMBURSE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Paid Chk# 030022 11/19/2008 CANNON, DELON Paid Chk# 030027 G 101 -22803 Police Reserves $100.00 111908 REIMBURSE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE $492.87 Total CANNON, DELON $100.00 Total SPRINT WIRELESS $492.87 Paid Chk# 030023 11/19/2008 GIESE, LEROY Paid Chk# 030028 11/19/2008 TACHENY, STEVEN J. E101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms $149.99 111908 2008 BOOT ALLOWANCE 111908 Total GIESE, LEROY $149.99 Total TACHENY, STEVEN J. $99.98 Paid Chk# 030024 11/19/2008 HEITZ, FRANK E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms $150.00 111908 2008 BOOT ALLOWANCE • Total HEITZ, FRANK $150.00 Paid Chk# 030025 11/19/2008 LAKE MINNETONKA CHAMBER COMMER G 609 -15500 Prepaid Items $290.00 111908 2009 MEMBERSHIP DUES G 101 -15500 Prepaid Items $365.00 111908 2009 MEMBERSHIP DUES Total LAKE MINNETONKA CHAMBER COMMER $655.00 Paid Chk# 030026 11/19/2008 MACELROY, RICHARD G 101 -22803 Police Reserves $100.00 111908 REIMBURSE UNIFORM ALLOWANCE Total MACELROY, RICHARD $100.00 Paid Chk# 030027 11/19/2008 SPRINT WIRELESS E101-42110-321 Telephone & Cells $492.87 9245473317 -0 09 -18 -09 THRU 10 -18 -08 CELL PH Total SPRINT WIRELESS $492.87 Paid Chk# 030028 11/19/2008 TACHENY, STEVEN J. E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms $99.98 111908 2008 BOOT ALLOWANCE Total TACHENY, STEVEN J. $99.98 Paid Chk# 030029 11/19/2008 T- MOBILE CELL PHONE G 101 -22816 Personal Cell Phone $22.00 111908 10 -03 -08 THRU 11 -02 -08 CELL PH E 281 -45210 -321 Telephone & Cells $43.53 111908 10 -03 -08 THRU 11 -02 -08 CELL PH Total T- MOBILE CELL PHONE $65.53 Paid Chk# 030030 11/19/2008 TRUE VALUE, MOUND G 101 -22805 Police Forfeiture Program $85.45 111908 BOOKING ROOM REPAIRS Total TRUE VALUE, MOUND $85.45 • Paid Chk# 030031 11/19/2008 WELCH, BRIAN E 609 -49750 -218 Clothing and Uniforms $150.00 111908 2008 BOOT ALLOWANCE -2619- City of Mound *Check Detail Register© CITY OF MOUND November 2008 11119/08 4:15 PM • Page 2 10100 Wells Fargo $8,595.76 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $8,012.25 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $43.53 601 WATER FUND $99.98 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $440.00 $8,595.76 • • -2620- Check Amt Invoice Comment Total WELCH, BRIAN $150.00 Paid Chk# 030032 11/19/2008 XCEL ENERGY E 101 -43100 -381 Electric Utilities $300.00 245860285 #51- 8617257 -4 ENERGY ASSESSMEN Total XCEL ENERGY $300.00 Paid MW 030033 11/19/2008 ZHUK, ROMAN G 101 -23007 Erosion Control Escrow $750.00 111908 4731 WILSHIRE BLVD #2008 -00449 G 101 -23150 New Construction Escrow $5,000.00 111908 4731 WILSHIRE BLVD #2008 -00449 Total ZHUK, ROMAN $5,750.00 10100 Wells Fargo $8,595.76 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $8,012.25 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $43.53 601 WATER FUND $99.98 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $440.00 $8,595.76 • • -2620- City of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 1 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Batch Name 112508SUE User Dollar Amt $390,968.49 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $390,968.49 $0.00 In Balance Refer 112508 ABDO EICK AND MEYERS, LLP _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41500 -434 Conference & Training 11 -17 -08 CLIENT SEMINAR, PAUSCHE $75.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 21309 Cash Payment E 101 - 41500 -434 Conference & Training 11 -17 -08 CLIENT SEMINAR, TUMBERG $75.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 21309 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $150.00 Refer 112508 ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFOR Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -438 Licenses and Taxes RETAILERS /BUYERS CARD $20.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 21308 Project 08006 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.00 Refer 112508 ALPHA RUG AND CARPET CLEANI _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -440 Other Contractual Servic 11 -15 -08 CARPET CLEANING $1,480.35 Invoice 2659 11/25/2008 - Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,480.35 Refer 112508 AMERICAN FLAGPOLE AND FLAG Payment E 401 -46540 -500 Capital Outlay FA VETERANS MONUMENT $5,587.70 •Cash Invoice 81946 11/25/2008 Project 08006 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,587.70 Refer 112508 AMERICAN WATERWORKS ASSO Cash Payment G 101 -15500 Prepaid Items 02 -01 -09 THRU 01 -31 -10 $103.33 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 21121 - Cash Payment G 601 -15500 Prepaid Items 02 -01 -09 THRU 01 -31 -10 $103.33 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 21121 Cash Payment G 602 -15500 Prepaid Items 02 -01 -09 THRU 01 -31 -10 $103.34 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 21121 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $310.00 Refer 112508 AMUNDSON, M. LLP Cash Payment Invoice 49900 Cash Payment Invoice 50291 E 609 -49750 -256 Tobacco Products For R 11/25/2008 E 609 -49750 -256 Tobacco Products For R 11/25/2008 CIGARETTES $938.39 CIGARETTES $608.03 Transaction Date 111712008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,546.42 Refer 112508 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -325 Pagers -Fire Dept. REPROGRAMMED PAGERS (12) $142.50 Invoice 5709 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -325 Pagers -Fire Dept. REPAIRED PAGERS $79.77 Invoice 5703 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/1712008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $222.27 Refer 112508 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE isCash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $32.40 Invoice 384832004 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 11 -15 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $1.00 Invoice 384832004 -B 11/25/2008 -2621- Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $178.92 Invoice 378831300 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 11 -08 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $1.00 Invoice 378831300 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $213.32 Refer 112508 ASSURED SECURITY Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -401 Building Repairs 11 -13-08 REKEY LOCK ON ELECTION RM $107.38 Invoice 54829 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $107.38 Refer 112508 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $45.00 Invoice 46946200 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE $35.52 Invoice 81572400 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies BAGS, SACKS, ETC $315.10 Invoice 81572400 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $34.75 Invoice 81572400 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $5,230.00 Invoice 46932600 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 11 -14-08 DELIVERY CHARGE $158.10 • Invoice 46932600 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,381.10 Invoice 46783800 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,217.90 Invoice 46864000 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 11 -12 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $19.99 Invoice 46864000 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,437.46 Refer 112508 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -210 Operating Supplies COFFEE $93.95 Invoice 755305 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $93.95 Refer 112508 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 GIS MAPPING $157.50 Invoice 0120666 -A 11/25/2008 Project PW0709 Cash Payment E 601 49400 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 GIS MAPPING $157.50 Invoice 0120666 -B 11/25/2008 Project PW0709 Cash Payment E 60249450 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 GIS MAPPING $157.50 Invoice 0120666 -C 11/25/2008 Project PW0709 Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 GIS MAPPING $157.50 Invoice 0120666 -D 11125/2008 Project PW0709 Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -440 Other Contractual Servic 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 4901 THREE $80.00 POINTS SURVEY Invoice 0120667 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 40143106 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20-08 THRU 10 -17 -08 RETAINING WALL $32.50 • REPAIR Invoice 0120667 -B 11/25/2008 Project PW0601 -2622- City of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM I, Page 3 • Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 MISC GENERAL $32.50 ENGINEERING Invoice 0120667 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120667 -D 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120667 -E 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 MISC GENERAL ENGINEERING 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 MISC GENERAL ENGINEERING 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 MISC GENERAL ENGINEERING Invoice 0120667 -F 11/25/2008 Cash Payment G 601 -16300 FixAs Improv Other Than Bid 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 WATER SYSTEM MODELING Invoice 0120668 11/25/2008 Cash Payment G 602 -16325 Fixed Asset- Distribution Sy 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 1 & I ANALYSIS REPORT Invoice 0120669 11/25/2008 Cash Payment G602-16325 Fixed Asset- Distribution Sy 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 SINCLAIR BAYWOOD LIFT STATIONS Invoice 0120670 11/25/2008 Project PW0705 Cash Payment E 101 -42400 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 COMPREHENSIVE • PLAN Invoice 0120671 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120672 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120672 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120672 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 67549425 -300 Professional Srvs Project 06002 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 UPDATE STREET AND UTILITY MAPS 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 UPDATE STREET AND UTILITY MAPS 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 UPDATE STREET AND UTILITY MAPS 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 UPDATE STREET AND UTILITY MAPS Invoice 0120672 -D 11/25/2008 Cash Payment G 675 -16325 Fixed Asset- Distribution Sy 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 WALNUT RAMBLER DRAINAGE STUDY Invoice 0120673 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120674-A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120674 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120674 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -43107 -300 Professional Srvs Project PW0704 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 AUDITORS ROAD UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Project PW0507 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 AUDITORS ROAD UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Project PW0507 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 AUDITORS ROAD UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Project PW0507 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 2007 STREET IMPROVEMENTS •Invoice 0120675 11/25/2008 Project PW0701 Cash Payment G 675 -16325 Fixed Asset- Distribution Sy 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 HIGHLAND AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Invoice 0120676 11/25/2008 Project PW0704 -2623- $32.50 $32.50 $32.50 $67.50 $337.50 $2,538.75 $3,387.00 $115.50 $115.50 $115.50 $115.50 $420.00 $27.00 $27.00 $13.50 $2,116.50 $135.00 City of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 4 ,l Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 427 -43121 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20-08 THRU 10 -17 -08 MSA SYSTEM $135.00 UPDATE Invoice 0120677 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -43108 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120678 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -43102 -300 Professional Srvs 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 2008 STREET IMPROVEMENTS Project PWO801 09 -20-08 THRU 10 -17 -08 AUDITORS ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS Invoice 0120679 11/25/2008 Project PW0806 Cash Payment G 602 -16325 Fixed Asset - Distribution Sy 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 2008 LIFT STATION RECONSTRUCTION Invoice 0120680 11/25/2008 Project PWO804 Cash Payment G 675 -16325 Fixed Asset - Distribution Sy 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 208 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS Invoice 0120681 11/25/2008 Project PWO803 Cash Payment G 602 -16325 Fixed Asset - Distribution Sy 09 -20-08 THRU 10 -17 -08 WILSHIRE WATER/FORCE MAIN Invoice 0120682 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120683 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -43109 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120684 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120685-A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120685 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120685 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120685 -D 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -43109 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0120686 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -46540 -300 Professional Srvs Project PWO807 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 WELLHEAD PROTECTION PLAN 09 -20-08 THRU 10 -17 -08 ISLANDVIEW DRIVE RECONSTRUCTION Project PWO902 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 BENCHMARK BOOK UPDATE 09 -20-08 THRU 10 -17 -08 BENCHMARK BOOK UPDATE 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 BENCHMARK BOOK UPDATE 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 BENCHMARK BOOK UPDATE 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 2009 STREET RECONSTRUCTION Project PW0901 09 -20 -08 THRU 10 -17 -08 PUMPHOUSE RELOCATIAON $34,531.39 $914.50 $7,045.00 $11,566.50 $1,136.50 $3,153.00 $37,270.00 $484.50 $484.50 $484.50 $484.50 $25,441.50 $1,968.00 Invoice 0120687 11/25/2008 Project PW0808 Transaction Date 11/18/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $135,503.64 Refer 112508 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPOR Cash Payment E 330 - 47000 -620 Fiscal Agent's Fees GEN OBLIGATION EQUIP CERT 2004C $450.00 Invoice 3812 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/19/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $450.00 Refer 112508 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUP Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -210 Operating Supplies Invoice 98654244 -A 11/2512008 PO 20995 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -210 Operating Supplies Invoice 98654244 -B 11/25/2008 PO 20995 9� • BULBS $25.40 • BULBS $25.40 -2624- City Of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM • Payments I, Page 5 CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 $2.13 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -220 Repair /Maint Supply BULBS $99.29 Invoice 98660371 11/25/2008 $2.12 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $150.09 Refer 112508 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREN T _ $17.99 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -434 Conference & Training INTOXILYZER 5000 RECERTIFICATION, $50.00 SUSSMAN $10.36 Invoice 112508 11/12/2008 PO 21219 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -434 Conference & Training INTOXILYZER 5000 RECERTIFICATION, $50.00 HOPPER Invoice 112508 11/12/2008 PO 21219 $10.36 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -434 Conference & Training INTOXILYZER 5000 RECERTIFICATION, $50.00 SPENCER $0.00 • is Invoice 112508 11/12/2008 PO 21219 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $150.00 Refer 112508 CARQUEST OF NAVARRE (P/VL9 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs CAT ROLLER, OIL FILTER $2.13 Invoice 6974 - 81546 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601- 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs CAT ROLLER, OIL FILTER $2.12 Invoice 6974 - 81546 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601- 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #402 HALOGEN BEAM $17.99 Invoice 6974 -80896 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs COOLANT $10.36 Invoice 6974 - 81037 -A 11/25/2008 Project PWSHOP Cash Payment E 601- 49400 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs COOLANT $10.36 Invoice 6974 - 81037 -B 11/25/2008 Project PWSHOP Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs COOLANT $10.36 Invoice 6974 - 81037 -C 11/25/2008 Project PWSHOP Cash Payment E 101 -41110 -102 F T Empl Overtime RETURNED MERCHANDISE $0.00 Invoice 107663 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #848 OIL FILTER $9.88 Invoice 6974 -80808 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 10143100 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE - $12.77 Invoice 107663 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE -$12.77 Invoice 107663 -B 11/2512008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE - $12.76 Invoice 107663 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 10143100 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE -$2.78 Invoice 120493 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE -$2.78 Invoice 120393 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE -$2.77 Invoice 120393 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE - $58.21 Invoice 121164 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE - $58.21 Invoice 121164 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials RETURNED MERCHANDISE - $58.21 Invoice 121164 -C 11/2512008 -2625- Cash Payment E 101- 42110-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #844 ACCESSORIES $4.62 Invoice 6974 -76703 11/25/2008 $147.04 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #843 ACCESSORIES $4.47 Invoice 6974 -77947 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #847 OIL FILTER, ETC $19.81 Invoice 6974 -80312 11/25/2008 $70.03 Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #851 OIL FILTER $4.36 Invoice 6974 -80380 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total - $124.80 Refer 112508 CAT AND FIDDLE BEVERAGE Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 80165 11/25/2008 $508.00 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $508.00 Refer 112508 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1-608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #5714383 $147.04 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -41910 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1-608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #5728173 $70.03 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1 -608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #5731601 $23.34 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -09400 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1 -608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #5731601 $23.34 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1 -608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #5731601 $23.35 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1-608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #5762358 $37.67 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1-608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #5765631 $82.34 Invoice 112508 1125/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1 -608 THRU 10 -15-08 #5765631 $82.34 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -383 Gas Utilities 09 -1 -608 THRU 10 -15 -08 #6093897 $39.34 Invoice 112508 1125/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $528.79 Refer 112508 CENTRAL MCGOWAN, INCORPOR _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials OXYGEN, ACETYLENE, ETC $76.80 Invoice 00426250 -A 1125/2008 Project PWSHOP Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials OXYGEN, ACETYLENE, ETC $76.80 Invoice 00426250 -B 1125/2008 Project PWSHOP Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials OXYGEN, ACETYLENE, ETC $76.81 Invoice 00426250 -C 11/25/2008 Project PWSHOP Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $230.41 Refer 112508 CENTRAL PARTS WAREHOUSE • Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs #1105 TURN SIGNAL $51.98 Invoice 109397A 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $51.98 • Refer 112508 CLAREYS SAFETY EQUIPMENT, I _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -210 Operating Supplies NOZZLE GRIPS, HAMMERS, TOOLS $3,829.81 Invoice 111929 11/25/2008 -2626- Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,829.81 Refer 112508 CLARK PRODUCTS, INCORPORAT _ $242.45 Cash Payment E 101 - 41110 -431 Meeting Expense PLASTIC UTENSILS $50.33 Invoice V630884 11/25/2008 PO 20695 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.33 Refer 112508 COCA COLA BOTTLING- MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $269.80 Invoice 0118195021 11/25/2008 Invoice S1085783 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $269.80 Refer 112508 COPY IMAGES, INCORPORATED Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -440 Other Contractual Servic 11 -08 COPIER MAINTENANCE $213.88 Invoice 102450 11/25/2008 Refer 112508 COVERALL CLEANING CONCEPTS _ Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -440 Other Contractual Servic 11 -08 COPIER MAINTENANCE $14.29 Invoice 102002 -A 11/2512008 Cash Payment E 101- 41910 -460 Janitorial Services Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -440 Other Contractual Servic 11 -08 COPIER MAINTENANCE $3.57 Invoice 102002 -B 11/25/2008 Invoice 7070136490 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 - 49400 -440 Other Contractual Servic 11 -08 COPIER MAINTENANCE $3.57 Invoice 102002 -C 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -440 Other Contractual Servic 11 -08 COPIER MAINTENANCE $3.57 •Invoice 102002 -D 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 281 - 45210 -440 Other Contractual Servic 11 -08 COPIER MAINTENANCE $3.57 Invoice 102002 -E 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $242.45 Refer 112508 CORPRO COMPANIES, INCORPOR Cash Payment E 601- 49400 -440 Other Contractual Servic 06 -01 -08 THRU 05 -31-08 15 POINT TANK $395.00 REVIEW Invoice S1085783 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $395.00 Refer 112508 COVERALL CLEANING CONCEPTS _ Cash Payment E 101- 41910 -460 Janitorial Services 11 -08 CLEANING SERVICE $1,466.51 Invoice 7070136490 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,466.51 Refer 112508 DARWIN MONUMENT COMPANY Cash Payment E401-46540-500 Capital Outlay FA VETERANS MONUMENT $27,337.00 Invoice 20843 11/25/2008 Project 08006 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $27,337.00 Refer 112508 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $59.20 Invoice 480284 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,491.15 Invoice 480283 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $552.01 Invoice 481288 -A 11/2512008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDSIE $72.00 Invoice 481288 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,138.10 Invoice 481261 11/25/2008 -2627- City Of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 8 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $44.80 Invoice 481262 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/712008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,357.26 Refer 112508 DOCKMASTERS OF LAKE MINNET _ Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -400 Repairs & Maintenance MOUND BAY PARK $222.00 Invoice 201637 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $222.00 Refer 112508 EDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPARTMEN _ Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -434 Conference & Training 11 -05-08 COMMAND STAFF $237.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $237.00 Refer 112508 ELECTRIC PUMP _ Cash Payment G 602 -16325 Fixed Asset- Distribution Sy BRACKETS, ETC $224.72 Invoice 0037572 11/25/2008 PO 20937 Project PWO804 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $224.72 Refer 112508 ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT AN Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -221 Equipment Parts POLY SPRING $38.13 Invoice 7536 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $38.13 • Refer 112508 FITTEST, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -300 Professional Srvs TEST FIRE FIGHTERS (42) $1,134.00 Invoice 508 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,134.00 Refer 112508 FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYME COMP _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $134.40 Invoice 19470 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $134.40 Refer 112508 FRANK MADDEN AND ASSOCIATE _ Cash Payment E 101 -49999 -300 Professional Srvs 10 -08 LABOR RELATIONS SERVICES $2,996.30 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,996.30 Refer 112508 G & K SERVICES _ Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -11 -08 UNIFORMS $59.71 Invoice 6251424 -A 1112512008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -11 -08 UNIFORMS $30.12 Invoice 6251424 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -11 -08 UNIFORMS $41.23 Invoice 6251424 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials 11 -11 -08 MATS $44.10 Invoice 6251424 -D 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials 11 -11 -08 MATS $44.10 Invoice 6251424 -E 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials 11 -11 -08 MATS $44.10 • Invoice 6251424 -F 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -11 -08 UNIFORMS $15.92 Invoice 6251425 -A 11/25/2008 -2628- • CITY OF MOUND • City of Mound Payments 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 9 Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 101 -41310 -210 Operating Supplies Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies 11 -11 -08 MATS $61.81 Invoice 6251425 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -04 -08 UNIFORMS $58.97 Invoice 6238272 -A 11/25/2008 Refer 112508 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INCORPOR _ Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -04 -08 UNIFORMS $29.40 Invoice 6238272 -B 11/25/2008 WINE $749.00 Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -04 -08 UNIFORMS $41.22 Invoice 6238272 -C 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials 11 -04 -08 MATS $51.83 Invoice 6238272 -D 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials 11 -04-08 MATS $51.83 Invoice 6238272 -E 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials 11 -04 -08 MATS $51.83 Invoice 6238272 -F 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -460 Janitorial Services 11 -04 -08 MATS $172.10 Invoice 6238273 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -460 Janitorial Services 11 -18 -08 MATS $202.19 Invoice 6264538 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -460 Janitorial Services 11 -04 -08 MATS $46.87 Invoice 6238271 11/25/2008 - Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 11 -04 -08 UNIFORMS $19.71 Invoice 6238276 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies 11 -04-08 MATS $63.79 Invoice 6238276 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 07 -29 -08 UNIFORMS $20.57 Invoice 6858466 -A 11125/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies 07 -29 -08 MATS $75.61 Invoice 6858466 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 08 -12 -08 UNIFORMS $20.57 Invoice 6881242 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -210 Operating Supplies 08 -12 -08 MATS $66.64 Invoice 6881242 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,314.22 Refer 112508 GANZ U.S.A., LLC _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE $103.00 Invoice 3707467 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 09 -19 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $7.80 Invoice 3707467 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $110.80 Refer 112508 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD -2629- Cash Payment E 101 -41310 -210 Operating Supplies 5- GALLON SPRING $57.82 Invoice 66595561 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 1117/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $57.82 Refer 112508 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INCORPOR _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $749.00 •Invoice 104914 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 10 -29 -08 DELIVERY CAHRGE $13.50 Invoice 104914 -B 11/25/2008 -2629- City Of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 10 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $762.50 Refer 112508 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,785.00 Invoice 103564 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT — LIQUOR - $14.17 Invoice 764768 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,718.55 Invoice 142768 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,185.89 Invoice 142767 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -254 Soft Drinks /Mix For Resa MIX $82.60 Invoice 139299 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,242.77 Invoice 139298 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,909.65 Invoice 139049 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,919.00 Invoice 136870 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT —WINE - $303.95 Invoice 764337 11125/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT —WINE - $111.90 Invoice 764336 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT— LIQUOR - $16.00 Invoice 764122 11/2512008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,395.44 Refer 112508 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -227 Chemicals CHLORINE CYLINDER $45.00 Invoice 1247406 -RI 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $45.00 Refer 112508 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATIO _ Cash Payment E 101 - 42110 -418 Other Rentals 10 -08 RADIO LEASE $1,755.41 Invoice 28108443 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/19/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,755.41 Refer 112508 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR (R _ Cash Payment E 101 - 41600 -450 Board of Prisoners 09 -08 ROOM AND BOARD $288.00 Invoice 2008 -9 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $288.00 Refer 112508 HIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES _ Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -440 Other Contractual Servic STREET SIGNS $552.10 Invoice 398401 -005 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $552.10 Refer 112508 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, I Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 006 -020 -5 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 42400 -300 Professional Srvs Invoice 007 - 001 -10 -A 11/25/2008 10 -08 SERVICE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING -2630- • $609.25 $186.75 • � 0 10 Cash Payment G 101 -23200 2933 Cambridge Vari, Batch 10-082933 CAMBRIDGE LANE $41.50 Invoice 007 - 001 -10 -B 11/25/2008 Invoice PR80866 11125/2008 Cash Payment G 101 -23201 AT &T Tower, 5600 Lynwood 10 -08 VBTB 5600 LYNWOOD TOWER $145.25 Invoice 007- 001 -10 -C 11/25/2008 WATER MARKING SIGNS $85.31 Cash Payment G 101 -23199 1558 Dove Lane #08 -14 Vari 10 -08 1558 DOVE LANE $340.50 Invoice 007 - 005 -10 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -46540 -300 Professional Srvs 10 -08 PUMPHOUSE RELOCATION $1,300.25 Invoice 007 - 024 -10 -A 11/25/2008 Project PW0808 Cash Payment Cash Payment E 40146540 -300 Professional Srvs 10 -08 MOUND VISIONS $199.25 Invoice 007 - 024 -10 -B 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/18/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,822.75 Refer 112508 INFRATECH Cash Payment E 401 -43108 -500 Capital Outlay FA JOINT GROUTING MANHOLES $12,959.28 Invoice PR80866 11125/2008 Project PW0801 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -220 Repair /Maint Supply WATER MARKING SIGNS $85.31 Invoice 0800693 11/2512008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,044.59 Refer 112508 JOHNS VARIETY AND PETS _ 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -41410 -200 Office Supplies PENS $20.52 Invoice 683240 11/25/2008 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $20.52 Refer 112508 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT —WINE - $48.00 Invoice 400231 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT —WINE - $30.30 Invoice 400232 11/2512008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT — LIQUOR - $60.59 Invoice 399732 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT — LIQUOR - $15.13 Invoice 399293 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609- 49750 -251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT — LIQUOR -$6.17 Invoice 399292 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -251 Liquor For Resale CREDIT — LIQUOR - $167.99 Invoice 399733 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $888.54 Invoice 1535453 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $751.79 Invoice 1535454 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale CREDIT —WINE - $48.00 Invoice 400058 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,365.67 Invoice 1531766 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $234.50 Invoice 1531767 11/25/2008 •Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,864.32 Refer 112508 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATI _ Cash Payment E 101 - 45200 -430 Miscellaneous PERMIT LOST LAKE GREENWAY DOCK $432.50 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 20900 -2631- City of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 12 Payments • CITY OF MOUND II Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 281 - 45210 -439 LMCD PERMIT MOUND HARBOR VILLAS $743.75 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 20900 Cash Payment E 281 - 45210 -439 LMCD PERMIT DEPOSIT DOCK PROGRAM $1,165.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 PO 20900 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,341.25 Refer 112508 LAKER NEWSPAPER _ Cash Payment E 401 -43109 -300 Professional Srvs 11 -01 -08 STREET IMPROVEMENT HEARING $103.73 Invoice 879696 11/25/2008 Project PWO901 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -351 Legal Notices Publishing 10 -04 -08 HYDRANT FLUSHING $114.99 Invoice 872989 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 - 41410 -351 Legal Notices Publishing 10 -18 -08 ACCURACY TEST $19.11 Invoice 876641 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101- 41110 -351 Legal Notices Publishing 10 -18 -08 ORDINANCE #11 -2008 $58.80 Invoice 876642 11125/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -45200 -351 Legal Notices Publishing 10 -25-08 COMMISSIONERS $70.40 Invoice 877900 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -351 Legal Notices Publishing 10 -25 -08 COMMISSIONERS $70.39 Invoice 877900 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -41410 -351 Legal Notices Publishing 10 -25 -08 ELECTION NOTICE $75.90 Invoice 878164 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -41410 -351 Legal Notices Publishing 10 -25-08 SAMPLE BALLOT $29.40 Invoice 878168 11/25/2008 • Transaction Date 11/712008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $542.72 Refer 112508 LAKER/PIONEER NEWSPAPER _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -340 Advertising 10 -04 -08 FALL WINE SALE $856.90 Invoice 872019 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -340 Advertising 10 -18 -08 WESTONKA GUIDE $190.00 Invoice 868129 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/19/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,046.90 Refer 112508 LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, P.L _ Cash Payment E 475 -46386 -300 Professional Srvs 10 -08 LOBBYING EXPENSES $3,000.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Project 08008 Transaction Date 11/19/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,000.00 Refer 112508 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPO Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -202 Duplicating and copying 11 -08 COPIER MAINTENANCE $198.09 Invoice 110005451 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/19/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $198.09 Refer 112508 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,823.57 Invoice 400346 11/2512008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $270.00 Invoice 400347 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,093.57 Refer 112508 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 10 -16-08 DELIVERY CHARGE Invoice 21808 11/25/2008 -2632- $316.80 • r� 10 • City Of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 13 Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 10 -23 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $164.40 Invoice 21838 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 10 -27 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $8.40 Invoice 21848 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 10 -30 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $319.20 Invoice 21972 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $808.80 Refer 112508 MERTZ, BLEDSAWAND BENSON _ Cash Payment E 101 -41600 -304 Legal Fees 10 -08 PROSECUTION SERVICES $7,453.95 Invoice 112508 11125/2008 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,453.95 Refer 112508 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTE - Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -388 Waste Disposal -MCIS 12 -08 WASTEWATER $47,055.32 Invoice 885338 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/1412008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $47,055.32 Refer 112508 MILLER DUNWIDDIE ARCHITECTU _ Cash Payment E 401 -46540 -300 Professional Srvs THRU 10 -31 -08 RELOCATION OF $13,789.03 PUMPHOUSE Invoice 14950 11/25/2008 Project PW0808 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,789.03 Refer 112508 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH _ l Cash Payment R 601 -49400 -37170 State fee - Water 10 -01 -08 THRU 12 -31 -08 CONNECTION FEE $5,883.00 Invoice 112508 11/2512008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,883.00 Refer 112508 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTRO _ Cash Payment E 475 -46386 -500 Capital Outlay FA 2306 COMMERCE PETROLEUM ISSUES $450.00 Invoice r3234300005538 11/2512008 Transaction Date 11/1412008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $450.00 Refer 112508 MINNESOTA PUBLISHING _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -340 Advertising 11 -08 LAKE AREA BUSINESS $99.00 Invoice 10098 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $99.00 Refer 112808 MNSPECT _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -308 Building Inspection Fees 10 -08 FIRE INSPECTIONS $195.00 Invoice 112808 11/28/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -42400 -308 Building Inspection Fees 10 -08 INSPECTIONS $5,793.44 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment R 101 - 42000 -32220 Electrical Permit Fee 10 -08 ELECTRICAL PERMITS - $263.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment G 101 -20800 Due to Other Governments 10 -08 ELECTRICAL SURCHARGE -$9.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -42400 -308 Building Inspection Fees 10 -08 RENTAL INSPECTIONS $151.28 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,867.72 Refer 112508 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIO _ -2633- City of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM A Page 14 Payments • CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -124 Fire Pens Contrib 11 -08 FIRE RELIEF $10,800.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -41110 -200 Office Supplies FRAMES Transaction Date 11/2012008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,800.00 Refer 112508 MOUND, CITY OF _ $64.01 Invoice 450579931 -001 11/25/2008 PO 21307 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -382 Water Utilities 10 -08 WATER/SEWER SERVICES $28.11 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/19/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $28.11 Refer 112508 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -224 Street Maint Materials 10 -16 -08 BLACKTOP $66.05 Invoice 147340 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -224 Street Maint Materials 10 -17-08 BLACKTOP $875.63 Invoice 147371 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -224 Street Maint Materials 10 -22 -08 BLACKTOP $573.70 Invoice 147488 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -224 Street Maint Materials 10 -24 -08 BLACKTOP $65.78 Invoice 147601 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -224 Street Maint Materials 10 -24-08 BLACKTOP $65.77 Invoice 147601 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -224 Street Maint Materials 10 -30 -08 BLACKTOP $2,046.06 Invoice 147775 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,692.99 Refer 112508 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 101 -41110 -300 Professional Srvs CODIFICATION CITY CODE $2,650.00 Invoice 103959 Project 06003 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,650.00 Refer 112508 NEOPOST Cash Payment E 101 - 41910 -400 Repairs & Maintenance INK CARTRIDGE POSTAGE MACHINE $117.16 Invoice 12697349 11/25/2008 PO 21282 Transaction Date 11/18/2008 �_ Wells Fargo 10100 Total $117.16 Refer 112508 OFFICE DEPOT s Cash Payment E 101 -41110 -200 Office Supplies FRAMES $47.41 Invoice 450500118 -001 11/25/2008 PO 21281 Cash Payment E 101 -41310 -200 Office Supplies INKJET CARTRIDGE, HANSON $64.01 Invoice 450579931 -001 11/25/2008 PO 21307 Cash Payment E 101 -41410 -200 Office Supplies PENS, CLIPBOARDS, ETC $38.65 Invoice 449770768 -001 11/25/2008 PO 20696 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -200 Office Supplies LASERJET CARTRIDGE $251.89 Invoice 450177398 -001 11/25/2008 PO 21120 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $401.96 Refer 112508 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMP Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale Invoice 8202980 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Invoice 8202980 -B 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale Invoice 8203559 -A 11/2512008 WINE $1,380.00 *I 11 -04 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $27.50 WINE $1,214.73 • -2634- -2635- City Of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 15 I, Payments 0 CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 11 -10 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $15.00 Invoice 8203559 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,637.23 Refer 112508 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $969.60 Invoice 2681140 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale -WINE $3,083.50 Invoice 2681141 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 - 49750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $734.40 Invoice 2678463 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $332.50 Invoice 2678464 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $34.00 Invoice 2678465 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,154.00 Refer 112508 PLUNKETTS, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 10141910440 Other Contractual Servic OCT NOV DEC PEST CONTROL $106.50 Invoice 1206132 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $106.50 112508 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS _ •Refer Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $760.00 Invoice 084971 -00 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $5,787.22 Invoice 084972 -00 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,466.50 Invoice 082419 -00 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60949750 -251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $4,367.05 Invoice 082429 -00 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $12,380.77 Refer 112508 RESOURCE RECOVERY TECHNOL _ Cash Payment E401-46540-500 Capital Outlay FA COMPOST FOR VETERANS MEMORIAL $1,509.56 Invoice 64962 11/25/2008 Project 08006 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,509.56 Refer 112508 RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL, WACONIA _ Cash Payment E 22242260 -305 Medical Services MORRIS, VACCINES $2,114.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,114.00 Refer 112508 SCHARBER AND SONS Cash Payment E 10145200409 Other Equipment Repair SHOP SUPPLIES $52.95 Invoice 02- 2007019 11125/2008 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $52.95 Refer 112508 SENTRY SYSTEMS, INCORPORAT Cash Payment E 609 - 49750440 Other Contractual Servic 12 -08 BURGLARY AND FIRE MONITORING $75.94 isInvoice 589312 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/18/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $75.94 Refer 112508 SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS, IN -2635- Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R 10 -31-08 PUBLICATION Invoice 494117 11/2512008 $15.00 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15.00 Refer 112508 SIGN AGE, THE _ Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -210 Operating Supplies REFLECTIVE NAME TAGS $21.30 Invoice 18505 11/2512008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $21.30 Refer 112508 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER COMP Cash Payment G 101 -15500 Prepaid Items Invoice 72534441 11/25/2008 12 -01 -08 THRU 11 -30-09 MAINTENANCE $996.50 CONTRACT Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $996.50 Refer 112508 SLETTEN, S.G., LLC Cash Payment E 401 -46540 -500 Capital Outlay FA VETERANS MEMORIAL MONUMENT $212.00 Invoice 112508 11/25/2008 Project 08006 Transaction Date 11/13/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $212.00 Refer 112508 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATION _ Cash Payment E 101 -41920 -205 Computer Software MICROSOFT SOFTWARE $653.91 Invoice BE3E1 11/25/2008 PO 21280 Transaction Date 11/20/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $653.91 Refer 112508 STANTON GROUP _ Cash Payment E 101 -41500 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $564.45 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 222 -42260 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $282.22 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 281 -45210 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $103.36 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 401 -43107 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $125.06 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $224.02 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $240.51 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $398.56 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 670 -49500 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $63.41 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 675 -49425 -301 Auditing and Acct'g Servi GASB NO. 45 PLAN $63.41 Invoice 367301 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/19/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,065.00 Refer 112508 STRETCHER'S Cash Payment E 602 - 49450 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs FLASHLIGHT $272.56 Invoice 1566120 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -42400 -210 Operating Supplies FLASHLIGHT $52.11 Invoice 1566902 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -210 Operating Supplies FLASHLIGHT $52.11 Invoice 1566902 -B 11/25/2008 -2636- • • i CITY OF MOUND City of Mound Payments Current Period: November 2008 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 17 Cash Payment E601-49400-210 Operating Supplies FLASHLIGHT $52.10 Invoice 1566902 -C 11/25/2008 Invoice 959185 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -210 Operating Supplies FLASHLIGHT $52.10 Invoice 1566902 -D 11/25/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2.97 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -210 Operating Supplies BARRICADE TAPE $109.90 Invoice 1547600 11/25/2008 PO 21073 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $590.88 Refer 112508 TAYLOR, J.J. DISTRIBUTING MINN _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $68.70 Invoice 1220808 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,226.90 Invoice 1220807 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,579.30 Invoice 1220843 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,874.90 Refer 112508 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $411.00 Invoice 69758 11/25/2008 Invoice 959185 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $80.00 69686 11/25/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2.97 •Invoice Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,884.10 Invoice 517549 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $0.00 Invoice 517550 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -252 Beer For Resale BEER $210.00 Invoice 517548 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -255 Misc Merchandise For R MERCHANDISE $150.00 Invoice 517548 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,735.10 Refer 112508 THRIFTY WHITE DRUGSTORE Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -430 Miscellaneous GREETING CARD $2.97 Invoice 959185 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2.97 Refer 112508 TOTAL REGISTER SYSTEMS, INC. _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies PRINTER RIBBONS $132.91 Invoice 23394 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/1712008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $132.91 Refer 112508 TRUE VALUE, MOUND Cash Payment Invoice 103108 Cash Payment Invoice 103108 Cash Payment •Invoice 103108 Cash Payment Invoice 103108 Cash Payment Invoice 103108 E 101 -41910 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 11/25/2008 E 101 -45200 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 11/25/2008 E 101 - 41910 -210 Operating Supplies 11/25/2008 E 609 -49750 -210 Operating Supplies 11/25/2008 E 285 -46388 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 11/25/2008 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $7.10 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $49.54 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $45.55 10-08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $27.13 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $23.47 -2637- Refer 112408 TRUE VALUE, NAVARRE Cash Payment City of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM Payments I, Page 18 • CITY OF MOUND Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Current Period: November 2008 Total $28.25 Cash Payment E 60249450 -221 Equipment Parts 10-08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $18.40 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 AIR AND OXYGEN $33.14 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -221 Equipment Parts 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $6.69 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $33.14 Cash Payment E 60149400 -221 Equipment Parts 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $12.33 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60249450 -221 Equipment Parts 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $8.07 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 10143100 -220 Repair/Maint Supply 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $14.13 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 101 -43100 -230 Shop Materials 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $8.26 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -230 Shop Materials 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $17.09 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 602 -49450 -230 Shop Materials 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $12.51 Invoice 103108 11/2512008 Cash Payment E 101 - 43100 -404 Machinery/Equip Repairs 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $18.72 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 10145200409 Other Equipment Repair 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $58.40 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60249450 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $114.48 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 • Cash Payment E 10143100460 Janitorial Services 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $9.32 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60149400460 Janitorial Services 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $9.32 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60249450 -460 Janitorial Services 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $9.32 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 10143100 -226 Sign Repair Materials 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $5.10 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 60149400 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $8.82 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 40146540 -500 Capital Outlay FA 10 -08 VETERANS MEMORIAL DEDICATION $58.54 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Project 08006 Cash Payment E 60249450 -218 Clothing and Uniforms 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $13.98 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 10143100-200 Office Supplies 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $9.56 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 10143100 -322 Postage 10 -08 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $15.77 Invoice 103108 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/10/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $581.60 Refer 112408 TRUE VALUE, NAVARRE Cash Payment G 101 -22810 X -Mas Donation /Expense HOLIDAY BULBS $28.25 Invoice 208507 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $28.25 Refer 112508 VALLEY NATIONAL GASES LOC 90 _ • Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -418 Other Rentals AIR AND OXYGEN $33.14 Invoice 881926 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $33.14 -2638- • •Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $444.00 Invoice 252204 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,157.00 Invoice 251364 11/25/2008 r� Transaction Date 11/7/2008 City Of Mound 11/20/08 9:45 AM I, Payments Page 19 CITY OF MOUND 10 -08 #51- 7890142 -3 $504.97 Current Period: November 2008 Refer 112508 VIDEO RONIX, INCORPORATED - Wells Fargo 10100 Cash Payment E 101 -42110 -220 Repair /Maint Supply 09 -23 -08 BROOKING RM SERVICE CALL $325.00 Invoice SVM2815849 11/25/2008 PO 21216 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $325.00 Refer 112508 WHELAN DAVIS COMPANY, INCO _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight Cash Payment E 222 - 42260 -402 Building Maintenance 07 -01 -08 THRU 12 -31-08 HVAC EQUIPMENT $998.50 Invoice 1996 -B 11/25/2008 MAINTENANCE Invoice 8695 11/25/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $291.50 Cash Payment E 101- 42110 -440 Other Contractual Servic 07 -01 -08 THRU 12 -31 -08 HVAC EQUIPMENT $998.50 MAINTENANCE Invoice 8695 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/17/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,997.00 Refer 112508 WINE COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $360.00 Invoice 205102 -00 -A 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 11 -06 -08 DELIVERY CHARAGE $9.90 Invoice 205102 -00 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $369.90 Refer 112508 WINE MERCHANTS _ •Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $444.00 Invoice 252204 11/25/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,157.00 Invoice 251364 11/25/2008 r� Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,601.00 Refer 112508 XCEL ENERGY _ Cash Payment E 601 -49400 -381 Electric Utilities 10 -08 #51- 7890142 -3 $504.97 Invoice 245589259 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/7/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $504.97 Refer 112508 Z WINES USA LLC Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -253 Wine For Resale WINE $284.00 Invoice 1996 -A 11125/2008 Cash Payment E 609 -49750 -265 Freight 11 -07 -08 DELIVERY CHARGE $7.50 Invoice 1996 -B 11/25/2008 Transaction Date 11/14/2008 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $291.50 -2639- City of Mound Payments CITY OF MOUND Current Period: November 2008 i��xs ,� ..._ awl- �,n*�,�,3c.'�„as.^^�- n.�r?�'t, �_.er,� >.4 a%"-c ae :i�9 vd:- �r -YF¢' d•�ei;e.. Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 285 MOUND HRA 330 G.O.2004 - C Equip Cart 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 427 SEAL COAT FUND 475 TIF 1 -3 Mound Harbor Renaissan 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $40,297.63 $20,071.90 $2,086.07 $23.47 $450.00 $165,455.79 $135.00 $3,450.00 $12,326.53 $60,284.56 $72,726.47 $63.41 $13,597.66 $390,968.49 Pre - Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $390,968.49 Total $390,968.49 -2640- 11/20/08 9:45 AM Page 20 • • • • 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -3190 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director Date: 11/20/2008 Re: HKGI contract proposal — concept plan /package for federal funding request Summary. At its November 10, 2008 meeting, the City Council discussed a proposal prepared by HKGi to provide services to the City of Mound related to the preparation of concept plan(s) and the application materials necessary for the upcoming federal funding package to be prepared by LGN. The Council tabled action on the proposal to allow time for Staff to have additional discussions with LGN regarding the materials necessary for the project. Comments. • On November 18, Staff held a telecom with Dennis McGrann, Bob Long and Emily Gehrman of LGN and Bruce Chamberlain of HKGI to discuss the project and seek clarification. • Per LGN, the first step of the project requires the preparation of an executive summary document that will provide a "snapshot" of the project and will be used by LGN to "sell the project" with representatives at the federal level and, similarly, by staff with representatives at the local level. • The technical materials, including definition of the project scope, cost estimates, graphics and presentation materials, also need to be prepared as part of the project for later use, and those materials are to be prepared by technical professionals, not LGN. • Following the telecom with LGN, a scaled -back proposal was prepared by HKGI which includes a fee of $7200.00 for preparation of the related materials, as discussed. To keep costs down, certain tasks will be done in- house. • With regard to funding for the associated materials for the federal proposal, Finance Director Catherine Pausche recommends it be funded through TIF 1 -3. • Recommendation. Approval. -2641- Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design ms UU • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Mn November 8, 2008 Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Revised Proposal: Preparation of Federal Transportation Funding Request Packet. Dear Kandis: Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal to assist the City of Mound with the federal transportation funding request packet. As you know, HKGi has written several successful grant requests for downtown Mound over the years. We look forward to helping formulate this funding request at such a critical time in the Mound Visions effort. My understanding is that Mound intends to submit a federal appropriation request during the upcoming congressional session. There are several aspects of communicating to elected officials and their staffs the intended use of requested dollars. 1. Scoping: Determine what components of community redevelopment will be included with the request; • 2. Budgeting: Determine the project costs associated with each component; 3. Telling the Story: Prepare written and graphic communication materials that tell Mound's story and describe the request; 4. Packaging: Assemble communication materials into compelling paper and digital presentations. Specific HKGi work tasks associated with each aspect of the efforts include: 1. Scoping • Prepare a simple evaluation of each possible project element as identified by the City of Mound for that project element's "fit" with the funding request. • Meet with City representatives to review, refine and ultimately determine the list of projects to include. 2. Budgeting • Conduct research and analysis to determine project budgets for each element of the funding request. • Prepare a budget spreadsheet. 3. Telling the Story • Prepare written descriptions of Mound, the Mound Visions effort, what Mound has accomplished, why Mound is a compelling recipient of federal funds and what the funds would be used for. • Prepare support graphics that reinforce the funding request. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401 -1659 • Ph (612) 338 -0800 Fx (612) 338 -6838 -2642- Kandis Hanson, Proposal — federal funding packet November 18, 2008 Page 2 of 2 • 4. Packaging • Prepare a written and graphic packet (3 -4 pages) that describes Mound's funding request. • Prepare digital presentation as an accompaniment to the paper packet. Based on our recent discussion with the team in Washington, it appears that the first two tasks, scoping and budgeting, will be enough information to conduct preliminary meetings with elected officials. Only after a positive preliminary response from officials would it be necessary to conduct the final two tasks (telling the story and packaging). HKGi proposes to conduct tasks 1 & 2 described above on an hourly basis including reimbursable expenses for a fee not to exceed $2,600 and tasks 3 & 4 for a fee not to exceed $7,200. This fee includes delivery of sample copies of the final packet and a CD of the presentation. The fee does not include printing of more than five packets or the creation of large - format presentation boards. This will be an exciting effort. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional clarification. Sincerely, Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. r Bruce Chamberlain, ASLA • Vice President If you are in agreement with this proposal, please sign below and send one copy of the proposal to me for our files. Tasks accepted: City of Mound Authorized Signature • -2643- Date 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -3190 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director/ Ray Hanson, Planning and Engineering Technician Date: November 19, 2008 Re: Hazardous Building Abatement Order — 5139 Waterbury Road Summary. At its July 22, 2008 meeting, the City Council authorized a hazardous abatement order for the properly at 5139 Waterbury Road under Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.15, Subd. 3 which is a court- ordered method. A voluntary abatement action under 463.151 can be also be utilized by the City but requires the consent of all owners, tenants and mortgage and lien holders and approval by the City Council. Comments. • • A letter was formally sent to the owners on or around August 20, 2008, which included a timeline to pursue the voluntary abatement process as • an alternative so as to avoid the anticipated length of time and costs associated with court process which normally takes approximately three to four month(s). Since mid - September, the owners and occupants have been working with the other interested parties (mortgagees and lien holders) to obtain their consent for the project and have been providing regular updates to the City. Therefore, Staff held off commencing the court process. Members are advised that Staff was notified on or around November 19, 2008 that the Consent and Waiver Agreement was executed by all interested parties and is therefore requesting that the City approve and execute the Agreement so that the abatement may commence. • A copy of the Consent and Waiver Agreement and signature page(s) from all of the interested parties has been included for review. The owners, Richard and Deborah Sluis and occupants, Chris and Lisa Lund, were notified that the matter was being included on the November 25"' City Council agenda. • As required by the Minnesota Statutes Section 471.345, the Planning and Engineering Technician obtained two quotes for the project. is -2644- 5341 Maywood Road of • • Mound, MN 55364 Planning and Building ' • . (952) 472 -3190 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director/ Ray Hanson, Planning and Engineering Technician Date: November 25, 2008 Re: Hazardous Building Abatement Order for 5139-Waterbury Road - Additional Information and Recommendation to Include a New Condition in Draft Resolution Additional Information - Voluntary Abatement Order Council Members are advised that Staff visited with a neighbor on 11/24 regarding the Consent and Waiver Agreement for the property at 5139 Waterbury Road and proposed abatement action which has been included on 11/25 Consent Agenda. Due to short notice, however, the neighbor may not be able to attend meeting but had some questions as follows: • retaining wall project details /construction schedule; shed location • right of entry and easement agreement(s) • off street parking /seasonal issues . Staff suggested that a meeting with involved parties be scheduled as soon as convenient and prior to any proposed construction start and intends to coordinate the meeting the week of December 1St, if possible, which will likely include a site visit. Resolution — Additional Condition A draft resolution for the project has been included on Pages 2646 -2647 in the Council agenda packet and has been recommended for approval. Due to the need for right of entry for access and easements from adjacent owner(s) to undertake the abatement project, Staff recommends an additional condition be added to the resolution if approval action is undertaken: 4. Approval of the consent and waiver agreement is contingent upon the City obtaining any and /or all required temporary and permanent right of entry and easements required for the project as determined by the City Attorney. Consent Agenda Item No. 4D • Members are advised that administrative charges incurred by the City following the July 22, 2008 City Council meeting are permitted to be • included in the assessment charges. • If authorized, it is anticipated that the abatement will be undertaken by the City yet this year (weather contingent) • Staff has determined that the Wells Fargo lien as referenced in the Consent and Waiver Agreement has been satisfied therefore they are not party to the agreement. • Recommendation. Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions: 1. The City Council adopt the attached resolution to authorize a voluntary abatement order for a hazardous property located at 5139 Waterbury Road in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 463.151. 2. The City Council approve the attached Consent and Waiver Agreement and authorize execution by the Mayor and City Manager. • Page 2 -2645- CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 08- RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSENT AND WAIVER AGREEMENT FOR THE ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS. 5139 Waterbury Road WHEREAS, the real estate at 5139 Waterbury Road contains a single family home ( "Subject Property ") which was constructed following issuance of Building Permit No. 2006 -00807 on or around December 15, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is hazardous because of uncompleted site work including, but not limited to, final grading, retaining wall construction, landscaping and restoration activities required to provide structural stability and erosion control necessary for the new home constructed thereon; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -78 ordering the abatement of hazardous conditions on the Subject Property as allowed under Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.16 et seq. WHEREAS, a provision on the Resolution stated that enforcement of the abatement order would be suspended in the event i) the property owner, occupancy tenants, and all lien holders of record sign a Consent Agreement for • Voluntary Abatement and; ii) such agreement is approved by the City Council as allowed by Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.151 with such suspension to remain in effect for as long as the involved parties remain in compliance with the terms of the agreement; and WHEREAS, a signed Consent and Waiver Agreement authorizing the voluntary abatement of the hazardous conditions by the City was received by all involved parties. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: 1. The Subject Property is a Hazardous Property as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 463.15. 2. The Consent and Waiver Agreement for voluntary abatement which is included as Exhibit A is hereby approved. 3. Enforcement of the abatement order as contained in Resolution No. 08- 78 is suspended. is -2646- • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound this 25th day of November, 2008 Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • 2 -2647- Mayor Mark Hanus CONSENT AND WAIVER AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 2008, by and between Richard. and Deborah Sluis, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the Sluises "'), Chris and Lisa Lund, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the Lunds"), Stock Building Supply, LLC a limited liability company, (hereinafter "Stock "), Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (for Key Community Bank of Inver Grove Heights); a corporation, (hereinafter "MFRS "), Wells Fargo Horne Mortgage, Inc., a corporation, (hereinafter "Wells Fargo "), collectively hereinafter referred to as "the Interested Parties" and the City of Mound, a • Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter "the City "). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Sluises are the record owners of land within the city of Mound having a. street address of 5139 Waterbury Road, Mound, Minnesota, and legally described as: Lot 10 and the West 11.7 .5 feet of Lot 9; Also that part of Lots 11 and 12 lying northeasterly of a line drawn from the southeast corner of said Lot 11 to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 12 distant 68.57 feet easterly of the northwesterly corner of said Lot 12; All in Block 20, "Whipple" Hennepin County, State of Minnesota. (the "Property'), and WHEREAS, the Lunds are the occupants of the Property; WHEREAS, Stock has a lien on the Property; • 338262v SJS MU200 -145 -2649- WHEREAS, MERS has a mortgage on the Property; WHEREAS; Wells Fargo has a mortgage a on the • WHEREAS, a single family home was recently constructed on the Property and the Property has been inspected by representatives of the City to determine the condition of uncompleted site work, including, final grading, retaining wall construction, landscaping and other restoration activities required to provide structural stability and erosion control necessary for the home (the "Improvements"); and WHEREAS, based on the conditions disclosed by the inspection, the City has determined that the Property is a "hazardous building or hazardous property within the meaning given that term in Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.621 (the "Act"); and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2008, the Mound City Council adopted Resolution No. 08 -78 declaring the conditions on the Property to be hazardous within the meaning of the Act, and directing the abatement thereof through the completion of the Improvements; and WHEREAS, the City has provided a copy of Resolution No. 08 -78 to the Interested Parties and the Interested Parties agree with the conclusions contained therein, and with the City's conclusion as the applicability of the Act; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 463.151 of the Act, the City is willing to complete the Improvements (hereinafter the "Project ") and to specially assess the Property for the cost of such work subject to the provisions of this Agreement; and • WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Interested Parties that the City undertake the Project, and the Interested Parties are willing to agree to accept the levy by the City of 100 percent of the cost of such Project, and related costs and expenses incurred by City as fully described herein (collectively, the "Costs ") against the Property; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to carry out the Project in accordance with the request by the Interested Parties provided the assurances and covenants hereinafter stated are made by the Interested Parties to ensure that the City will have valid and collectable special assessments as they relate to the Property to finance the Costs; and WHEREAS, were it not for the assurances and covenants hereinafter contained, the City would not undertake the Project, but would continue to pursue enforcement of Resolution No. 08 -78 through other means provided for in the Act; and NOW, THEREFORE, on the basis of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter provided, it is hereby agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. The Interested Parties hereby petition for the undertaking of the Project consisting generally of the elements contained in the attached Exhibit .A ( "Project Plan ") together with additional work items determined necessary by the City (subject to the dollar limitation contained in paragraph 3 below). 338262v1 SJS MU200 -145 � • -2650- • 2. The Interested Parties represent and warrant that they have a valid interest in the Property and. that that they have the full legal power and authority to carry out their obligations hereunder. 3. The Interested Parties have been informed that the estimated cost of the Project; including, without limitation, all engineering, legal, administrative and fiscal costs is $45,000, but further understand and agree to the payment of actual costs up to 120 percent of the estimated cost. The Interested Parties request that 100 percent of the actual cost of the Project, subject to the limitation contained in the preceding sentence, be assessed against the Property. 4. The Interested Parties for themselves, and for their successors and assigns in title to the Property waive notice of hearing and hearing pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.031 on the Project; and the notice of hearing and hearing on the special assessment levied to finance the Project pursuant to Minnesota. Statutes Section 429.061 and specifically request that as to it, the Project be undertaken and the special assessment be levied against the Property without hearings. 5. Subject only to the limitation contained in paragraph 3 above; the Interested Parties for themselves and their successors and assigns waive the right to appeal the levy of special assessment in accordance with this Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081, or reapportionment thereof upon land division pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.071, subdivision 3, or otherwise; and further specifically agree with respect to such special assessment against the Property that: • a) any requirements of Minnesota Statutes with w Chapter 429 p th 1 hi ch the City does not comply are hereby waived by the Interested Parties; b) the increase in fair market value of the Property as .a. whole resulting from the Improvements. will be in an amount at least equal to the total cost of the Project assessed to the Property, and that such increase in fair market value is a special benefit resulting from. the Project; C) assessment of 100 percent of the actual cost of the Project against the Property as outlined above is reasonable, fair and equitable and there are no other properties against which such costs should be assessed; d) it is the intention of the City to provide for the payment of such special assessment in five annual installments commencing in 2009, with interest at the annual rate of eight percent accruing from and after the first payment by the City to contractors retained by it to work on the Project; and e) In. the event the Sluises sell the Property, or pledge the Property as security for any loan, the remaining principal amount of the special assessment and all accrued interest will immediately become due and payable. • 338262vl SJS MU200 -145 -2651- 6. Rijzht of Entry. • a) Effective upon the date hereof, the Interested Parties hereby grant to the City, its agents, employees, contractors and invitees the right to enter upon the Property, for the purpose of conducting all activities on the Property necessary to accomplish the Project and for the further purpose of storing materials, equipment and. other items thereon which are needed in connection with the Project. b) The right of entry shall expire on completion of the Project. c) In consideration for such right of entry, the City agrees: (i) to use the Property only for the purposes described herein; (ii) to do no unnecessary damage to the land. (iii) to hold the Interested Parties harmless from and indemnify them from any and all claims, damages, judgments or obligations, including the cost of defense of suit, arising out of liens placed on the Property (except for the lien of the special assessment provided under this Agreement), damage to Property or injury to anyone incurred or alleged to have been incurred in connection with or as a result of any work done pursuant to this Right of Entry; or as a result of the City's intentional torts or. negligence. This covenant will not apply to any conduct by the Interested; Parties, their agents, • contractors or employees which affect any of the work performed by the City under this Agreement. 7. The covenants, waivers and agreements contained in this Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns of the Interested Parties and shall run with the land and bind all successors in interest thereof. It is the intent of the parties hereto that this Agreement be in a form which is recordable among the land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota and they agree to make any changes to this Agreement which may be necessary to effect the recording and filing of this Agreement against the title of the Property. 8. This Agreement shall terminate upon the final payment of the special assessment levied against the Property regarding the Project and the City shall execute and deliver such documents, in recordable form, as are necessary to extinguish the rights hereunder. 9. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to obligate the Interested Parties to payment of an assessment in excess of 120 percent of the estimated_ cost contained above, or the actual cost of the Project, whichever is less, plus interest on the assessment. 10. In the event that the City determines that the actual cost of the Project will exceed 120 percent: of the estimated cost, it will notify the Interested Parties of such determination in writing. The Interested Parties will then have five days to determine whether to consent to an increase in the amount of the assessment to include the increased costs. If the Interested Parties _ 338262v1 SJS MU200 -145 4 -2652- notify the City in writing within such period that they will accept the increase, then the City will • proceed with the Project. • If such notice is not given, the City may terminate the Project, and may, in its discretion proceed with activities to enforce Resolution No. 08 -78. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands the day and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND By: Its City Manager By: Its Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2008, by Mark Hanus and Kandis Hanson, respectively, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public • 338262v1 SJS MU200 -145 5 -2653- Richard Sluis • DL--e-" -r L�l.G1 Deborah Sluis STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF L W! ) SS. Thq foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of 2008, by Richard Sluis and Deborah Sluis, husband and wife, as their free act and deed. SARAH ANN DAHL Notary Public- Minnesota Notary Public My Csrmm. EVIres Jan. 91, 2010 • U 338262vl SJS MU200 -145 6 - 2654 - • • • i Lisa Lund STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF ` ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3 day of A) orcte",,,D , 2008, by Chris Lund and Lisa Lund, husband and wife, as their free act and deed. Notary li 338262v1 SJS MU200 -145 7 -2655- W Alm, Lin STATE OF } ) SS. COUNTY OF �Ja.&& } The foxegoing instrument was acknowledged, before. me this day of 2008, by rc the. of Stock Buildin g PP Y Su l , LLC, a. limited liability company, on .behalf of the limited liability company. . Noiary Public KAREN KAY 1IUlT0U1$T; rTAt1y BIIC�IgAlEBQTA 338262VI SJS MU200 -145 • • • MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. (FOR KEY COMMUNITY BANK OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS) KEY CO 1 t1UNITY BANK B: Its: S or Vice Pr ident STATE OF 111 /� _ ) )SS' COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /57 day of , 2008, by David A. Bjerknes, the Senior Vice President of Key Community Bank of Inver Grove Heights, MN a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public J s HERESA M HAYS w ^: ssiun Expires Jan. 31, 2090 res&a • 338252v1'SJS M.U200 -145 9 -2657- STATE OF ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was 2008, by Home Mortgage, Inc., a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC. an Its: acknowledged before me this day of , the of Wells Fargo _corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public This instrument was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN', CHARTERED (SJS) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 612 -337 -9300. 338262vl SJS MU200 -145 10 -2658- • • • EXHIBIT A n U Project Plan The project consists of site work to include grading, retaining wall construction and all involved restoration activities including but not limited to permanent ground cover establishment and temporary erosion control measures for the purpose of completing and stabilizing the site which was disturbed as part of a new house construction project. 338262vi SJS MU200 -145 A -1 -2659- 5341 Maywood Road City of Mound Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472 -3190 Planning • • Building Depaitnent • Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Comm. Dev. Director Date: November 18, 2008 Re: Woodlyn Ridge Request for Extension of City Approvals Summary. At its November 17, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of a 1 -year extension request from Brian Benson, who owns the property at 6301 Lynwood Boulevard, regarding the City approvals for the preliminary plat -major subdivision (11- lots), land use (PDA -CUP) and water resource permit application(s) for Woodlyn Ridge which were approved on January 22, 2008. Chuck Alcon was present on behalf of the owner who commented that the housing market and tighter bank/credit issues have contributed to the project's delay. Comments. • The p reliminary plat and copies of the official resolutions have been included. • Copies of the Planning Report and Executive Summary have not been included but will be provided upon request. • A summary of the timelines regarding zoning approval expiration(s) has also been prepared and included. Specifically, City Code Chapter 330.30, Subd. 9 includes provisions which govern the extension of the 1 -year provision for preliminary plats which includes submittal of an application a minimum of 45 days in advance of the expiration of the preliminary plat and formal review by the Planning Commission prior to consideration /action by the City Council. Members are advised that there are provisions in this Section which allow the City to recalculate park dedication or other related financial guarantees. There are no expirations for PDA, CUP or water resource permit(s). • Staff contacted the MCWD regarding the water resource permit which was issued for stormwater and erosion control. They renew and /or offer extensions on a case -by -case basis following receipt of an applicant request. • No wetland permit was issued. However, a wetland delineation report was administratively approved on behalf of the City of Mound which is valid for a 3- year period. • If approved, the 1 -year extension would run until January 22, 2010. • -2660- • Park dedication fees for the project shall be based on Pay 2008 taxable market value (land) from Hennepin County ($250,000.00) which was in effect • at time of January 22, 2008 preliminary plat approval. Payment of utility fees shall be at the current approved rates at the time of final plat. • �J • A draft resolution, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, has been prepared for review and consideration by the City Council. Staff has included language in the resolution to state that any future extension request(s) shall follow the procedures as defined in City Code Chapter 330.30, Subd. 9. Members are advised that the resolution is currently under review by City Attorney John Dean and therefore may be subject to change. • Page 2 -2661- • Park dedication fees for the project shall be based on Pay 2008 taxable market value (land) from Hennepin County ($250,000.00) which was in effect at time of January 22, 2008 preliminary plat approval. Payment of utility fees • shall be at the current approved rates at the time of final plat. • A draft resolution, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, has been prepared for review and consideration by the City Council. Staff has included language in the resolution to state that any future extension request(s) shall follow the procedures as defined in City Code Chapter 330.30, Subd. 9. Members are advised that the resolution is currently under review by City Attorney John Dean and therefore may be subject to change. • Page 2 -2662- • • CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #08- A RESOLUTION APPROVING 1 -YEAR EXTENSION FOR CITY APPROVALS FOR WOODLYN RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 6301 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City of Mound adopted the following resolutions on January 22, 2008 for the Woodlyn Ridge residential development for the property at 6301 Lynwood Boulevard: ; and Resolution No. 08 -15 Major subdivision /preliminary plat Resolution No. 08 -16 Conditional use permit — planned development area (CUP -PDA) Resolution No. 08 -17 Water resource permit • WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 330.30, Subd. 9 includes provisions that govern the extension of the 1 -year provision for preliminary plats which includes submittal of an application a minimum of 45 days in advance of the expiration of the preliminary plat and formal review by the Planning Commission priorto consideration /action bythe City Council. • WHEREAS, there are provisions in City Code Chapter 330, Subd. 9 which allows the City to recalculate park dedication or other related financial guarantees; and WHEREAS, there are no expirations for City approvals of CUP, PDA and water resource permit(s) in the Mound City Code; and WHEREAS, the property owner, Brian Benson, on or around October 6, 2008, submitted a request for a 1 -year extension of the City approvals for the Woodlyn Ridge development project; and WHEREAS, if approved, the 1 -year extension would run until January 22, 2010; and WHEREAS, as required by City Code Chapter 330, Subd. 9, the request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its November 17, 2008 meeting who unanimously voted to recommend City Council approval of the 1 -year extension request. 1 -2663- • NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: 1. The approvals granted by the City of Mound for the Woodlyn Ridge residential subdivision of the property at 6301 Lynwood Boulevard contained in Resolution No. 08 -15, Resolution No. 08 -16 and 08 -17 including all conditions are officially extended until January 22, 2010. 2. Park dedication fees for the project shall be based. on Pay 2008 Taxable Market Value from Hennepin County for land ($250,000.00) which was in effect at time of January 22, 2008 preliminary plat approval. Payment of utility fees shall be at the current approved rates at the time of final plat. 3. Any future extension request shall follow the procedures as set forth in City Code Chapter 330.30, Subd. 9. 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 by the City Council this 25th day of November 2008 Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Mark Hanus 2 -2664- • is • MINUTE EXCERPTS 1ISORY PLANNING C BOARD OF APPEALS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL EXTENSION - WOODLYN RIDGE SUBDIVISION Approval for this subdivision was granted by the City Council in January 2008. Because of market and credit conditions, it has been difficult to proceed with the planned development. Chuck Alcon (representative for the applicant, B. Benson Group) explained the development process and financing frustrations. MOTION by Glister, seconded by Claywell, tcecommend Council extend the approvals as requested. MOTION carried unanimous° -2665- October 6, 2008 City of Mound • 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Attn: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Subj: Request for an Extension of the Woodlyn Ridge Mound City Council Approvals of the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat Approval, the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development Area (PDA), and the Water Resource Application for Storm Water and Erosion Control Ref: a) Resolution- 08 -15(P Plat) b) Resolution- 08 -16 (CUP) c) Resolution- 08-17 (Water Resource) 1. By references a) through c), the Mound City Council approved the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat, the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development Area (PDA), and the water resource application for storm water and erosion control for the 11 lot single family subdivision known as Woodlyn Ridge on January 22, 2008; these approvals expire on January 22, 2009. The purpose of this letter is to request a one year extension to these approvals to January 22, 2010. is 2. The rationale for this extension request follows: a. Residential market conditions- At the time of the original approval earlier this year the residential market was in fact weak but there was some level of activity that warranted proceeding with the project. Marketing efforts began immediately upon preliminary plat approval including contact with a host of builders and real estate agents in my office and other offices. These efforts have proven to be unsuccessful due to the rapid deterioration in the residential market after the January approval and the concurrent inability of current homeowners to sell their homes to allow for a new lot/new build purchase. b. Available credit- Compounding the extremely slow residential sales market is the recent financial and credit market collapse essentially closing the available credit avenues to builders as the bank regulators attempt to fully understand bank loan risk positions on both land developments and new construction /existing home mortgages. 3. It is hoped that these market and financial conditions will ease by next summer so that development construction and model construction can commence, in the interim marketing and lot sales efforts will continue. Extension of the three subject approvals to January 22, 2010 is requested. Your cooperation is sincerely appreciated. Brian Benson, Woodlyn Ridge Developer • -2666- B Benson Group • 201 E Lake St. Wayzata, MN 55391 • • Cc: Cara Otto, Otto Associates, Project Engineer Chuck Aicon, Aicon Associates, LLC, Project Manager -2667- i i' Q�Q �i "aynn° yaq,oMb�y n� KKK +'K ui �•KK KK F I N h w b b n b q O w ,o`0000000000� I - ` I lJ� v wn •� I � � � 1 I I I I�� I I? I I�I I I I i I I I Yo 6 G RCR i r 1` �f bs m a � I W�I 1 m I 1 � 1 • • i L� ` Vila 11 Ifflit Ali 7 9$ lid �j Ij rJ� 2 4 N g z J W W C7 cY � Z � J � 0 Z O m Om J 1 1 • 0 • CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being duly qualified and the City Clerk'of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: 1. As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing extract was transcribed. 2. 1 have carefully compared said extract with said original record. 3. 1 find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION NO. 08-15 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED WOODLYN RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 6301 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on the 22nd day of January, 2008. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 25th day of January, 2008. onnie Ritter, City Clerk • -2669- • CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 08-16 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MAJOR SUBDIVISION - PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE PROPOSED WOODLYN RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 6301 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Plat Application for the proposed Woodlyn Ridge residential development on November 29, 2007; and WHEREAS, the applicant previously submitted a sketch plan for this proposed residential development, as permitted by the City's Subdivision Ordinance, which was informally reviewed by Staff, the Planning Commission at its October 8, 2007 meeting, and the City Council at its October is 23, 2007 meeting; and WHEREAS, the subject site is located on the south side of Lynwood Boulevard in the area between Westedge Boulevard and Robin Lane, near the western edge of Mound; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 4.17 -acre property into 11 residential lots for single - family detached homes; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to create one new public street, Woodlyn Ridge Court, as part of the subdivision, which would have a 50 -foot right -of -way and access Lynwood Boulevard (CSAH 15) on the north side of the subject property; and WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan guides this land for Low Density Residential, which allows single - family detached and attached housing types within the density of one (1) to six (6) units per acre, and the proposed subdivision would be 2.6 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use and density guidance; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zoning district, which has a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet or maximum density of 4.4 units per acre, and the proposed subdivision would be 2.6 units per acre, which does not exceed the maximum density permitted in the R -1 zoning district; and • 1 -2670- Resolution No. 08 -15 • WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed Woodlyn Ridge Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat, land use and related applications at its January 14th meeting and recommends that the City Council approve the Major Subdivision /Preliminary Plat Application for Woodlyn Ridge subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on January 22, 2008, held a public hearing for review and consideration of the Woodlyn Ridge major subdivision — preliminary plat in accordance with City Code Chapter 330 (Platting and Subdivision Regulations.) NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. The Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Application for the proposed Woodlyn Ridge 11- unit residential development is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a. Preliminary Plat of Woodlyn Ridge shall be consistent with Preliminary Plat exhibit dated 11/28/07 that was prepared by Otto Associates with the exception of modifications required by other conditions of this resolution. b. Submission of a certified copy of the resolution that vacated the half of that portion of Butternut Road adjacent to this property in 2001 and subsequent transfer of the vacated parcel to this plat prior to filing a Final Plat application for Woodlyn Ridge. • c. Preliminary Plat shall be modified to incorporate the swale area within the backyards of Lots 7, 8 and 9 into the drainage & utility easements for these three lots. d. Preliminary Plat shall be modified to add a trail easement within the proposed drainage & utility easements along CSAH 15 to accommodate a future county trail. C, e. Preliminary Plat shall be modified to show a 15 foot drainage and utility easement on the east side of Lot 6. f. Drainage and utility easements, as- required by the City Engineer, shall be provided and submitted in a form so as to allow for recording at Hennepin County and shall be subject to review and approval by the City. g. Preliminary Plat shall be modified to reflect revisions to the wetland buffer that result from the applicant's anticipated changes to the proposed retaining wall. h. The applicant shall be responsible for preparation, execution and recording of a Wetland Buffer Declaration the form and content of which shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City of Mound. 2 -2671- Resolution No. 08 -15 • L Utility Plan shall be modified to provide a gravity sanitary sewer system rather than.a forcemain system to meet City Engineer's recommendations outlined in Proposed Woodlyn Ridge Preliminary Review memo dated December 13, 2007, including adequate drainage & utility easement adjustments to accommodate the shifting of the sanitary sewer line. j. Payment of all required utility fees at the current approved rates prior to release of the final plat: Water Trunk Area Charge (WTAC) - $2,000 /unit, Sewer Trunk Area Charge (STAC) - $2,000 /unit. Payment of water service connection fee - $240 /unit, and sewer service connection $240 /unit fee as part of building permit. Payment of SAC fees as part of the building permit. k. Payment of any City fees associated with review of the Preliminary Plat Application or related land use permitting. I. Park dedication requirement shall be fulfilled by cash payment in lieu of land in accordance with City Code. m. Any and /or all conditions included in the official resolution approving the PDA -CUP for the project. n. Approval of the Water Resource Permit for the project including satisfaction of any and /or all conditions. • o. The lots shall have non -lot of record status. p. Applicant shall be responsible for providing all existing /proposed legal description information in electronic form to City of Mound. q. Structures, with the exception of retaining walls, shall not be built into the required front, side and rear yards. r. The homes shall have at least 840 square feet of area, not including any garage. s. Structures, roadways, driveways and parking areas must be located outside of the wetland buffer. t. A hazardous material inventory and demolition permit will be needed prior to the demolition of the existing house per MPCA requirements and City policy (if applicable.) u. of new water and sewer service must be completed prior to release of the Resolution or some type of financial guarantee provided, such as a cash deposit, letter of credit or performance bond, to cover the cost of utility service connections prior to the release of the Resolution for recording. • 3 -2672- ee. The applicant shall be responsible for submittal of the Final Plat in accordance with the established timeframes in the City Code. ff. An agreement between the City and Developer to allow for early construction start(s) for up to two (2) homes is prepared and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council. 2. The Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Application is hereby approved for the subject property as depicted on the attached Exhibit A. Adopted by the City Council this 22nd day of January 2008 • /s/ Bonnie Ritter Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk /s/ Mark Hanus Mayor Mark Hanus 4 -2673- Resolution No. 08 -15 • v. Any curb, gutter and streets which are disturbed because of construction including but not limited to installation of the water service, sewer service and small utilities, shall be replaced. w. An approved Hennepin County permit will be required for any construction taking place within CSAH 15 right -of -way. x. Locations of water and sewer services need to be approved by Mound Public Works Department. y. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution(s) with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met and all fees have been.paid. z. No building permits will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution(s) and easement(s) has been provided to the City by the applicant. aa. No future approval of any development plans and /or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the major subdivision - preliminary plat is approved. bb. The applicant submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit applications, when appropriate. • cc. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and /or all public agency permits including the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. dd. No work is authorized or approved on public property. Applicant is advised that additional permitting may be needed in the event construction or other related activities are undertaken on public -owned land and is contingent upon the specific improvements proposed to be constructed. ee. The applicant shall be responsible for submittal of the Final Plat in accordance with the established timeframes in the City Code. ff. An agreement between the City and Developer to allow for early construction start(s) for up to two (2) homes is prepared and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council. 2. The Major Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Application is hereby approved for the subject property as depicted on the attached Exhibit A. Adopted by the City Council this 22nd day of January 2008 • /s/ Bonnie Ritter Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk /s/ Mark Hanus Mayor Mark Hanus 4 -2673- Resolution No. 08 -15 • Exhibit A Legal Description: Lots 2, 4, and the East Half of Lot 4, Block 11, MOUND TERRACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof. • • 5 -2674- CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being duly qualified and the City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: 1. As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. 3. 1 find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION NO. 08-16 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) FOR THE PROPOSED WOODLYN RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 6301 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on the 22nd day of January, 2008. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 25th day of January, 2008. Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • -2675- • CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 08 -16 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) FOR THE PROPOSED WOODLYN RIDGE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 6301 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the applicant, the B. Benson Group, is requesting approval of a Planned Development Area (PDA) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in accordance with City Code Chapter 350.460 for the proposed Woodlyn Ridge residential development at 6301 Lynwood Boulevard; and • WHEREAS, the purpose of the PDA -CUP process is to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires more unique and controlled platting techniques to protect and promote the quality of life in the City; and WHEREAS, the applicant previously submitted a sketch plan for this proposed residential development, as allowed by the City's Subdivision Ordinance, which was informally reviewed by Staff, the Planning Commission at its October 8, 2007 meeting, and the City Council at its October 23, 2007 meeting; and WHEREAS, the subject site is located on the south side of Lynwood Boulevard in the area between Westedge Boulevard and Robin Lane, near the western edge of Mound; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the 4.17 -acre property into 11 residential lots for single - family detached homes; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to create one new public street, Woodlyn Ridge Court, as part of the subdivision, which would have a 50 -foot right -of -way and access Lynwood Boulevard (CSAH 15) on the north side of the subject property; and • 1 -2676- Resolution No. 08 -16 • WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan guides this land for Low Density Residential, which allows single - family detached and attached housing types within the density, of one (1) to six (6) units per-acre, and the proposed subdivision would be 2.6 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use and density guidance; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zoning district, which has a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet or maximum density of 4.4 units per acre, and the proposed subdivision would be 2.6 units per acre, which does not exceed the maximum density permitted in the R -1 zoning district; and WHEREAS, the R -1 (Single - Family Residential) zoning district has the following minimum requirements: • Minimum Lot Area 10,000 sq ft • Minimum Lot Width 60 ft • Minimum Lot Depth 80 ft • Minimum Front Yard Setback 30 ft • Minimum Side Yard Setback loft • Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 ft • Minimum lot frontage on an improved public street shall be 60 ft, except that lots fronting on a cul- de -sac shall be 60 ft at the front building setback line; and WHEREAS, all of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area, lot width, lot depth, lot frontage and rear yard setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the applicant has indicated that the purpose of the PDA -CUP request is to enable site design flexibility and variety for an unusual site due to its irregular shape, the resulting lot geometries, the site's topography, the location of the traveled versus platted centerline of the adjacent CSAH 15 roadway, and the fact that this project is an infill residential development bounded on three (3) sides by existing residential development and on the fourth side by a County Road. Additionally, during construction of CSAH 15, the platted centerline was not adhered to resulting in a traveled centerline that is located south of the platted centerline and therefore crowds the northern property line of the proposed development site; and WHEREAS, as part of the PDA -CUP, the applicant is proposing smaller front yard setbacks of 25 ft versus the R -1 minimum requirement of 30 ft and alternating side yard setbacks of six (6) ft on one side and ten (10) ft on the other side versus the R -1 minimum requirement of 10 ft; and WHEREAS, as part of the PDA -CUP, the applicant is also proposing smaller corner side yard setbacks of 20 ft for Lots 1 & 11 versus the minimum corner side yard setback requirement of 30 ft as measured from CSAH 15 right -of -way; and WHEREAS, maximum hardcover surfaces allowed in residential zoning districts is 30% of the lot • area; and N -2677- Resolution No. 0 8-16 lI u WHEREAS, as part of the PDA -CUP, the applicant is proposing a variety of hardcover percentages by lot that range from 22% on the largest lot to 35% on the smallest lots, however, the cumulative hardcover for all lots would meet the 30% maximum requirement; and WHEREAS, as part of the PDA -CUP, flexibility from the fence regulations in the City Code which restricts the height of fences for retaining walls to no more than 42 inches and permit a fence up to 48 inches to be placed on the top of the retaining wall(s) as recommended by the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the proposed Woodlyn Ridge major subdivision /preliminary plat, land use and related permit applications at its January 14t' meeting and recommends to the Council to approve the PDA -CUP Application for Wood lyn Ridge subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing for review of the PDA -CUP application in accordance with the City Code at its January 22, 2008 meeting. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development Area Application for the proposed Woodlyn Ridge 11 -unit residential development is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a. The 30% maximum hardcover percentage shall be maintained by the eleven (11) • lots in total. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to verify and maintain documentation regarding the status of the hardcover calculations. The applicant shall submit a development site plan that visually communicates the maximum hardcover percentages allowed for each individual lot as part of the Final Plat application submittal. b. The proposed retaining wall(s), which shall be located on private property and shall not be the responsibility of the City, will need to be designed and stamped by a licensed structural engineer in the State of Minnesota as is required for wall structures exceeding four (4) feet in height. c. Modifications to the proposed retaining wall including a two- tiered wall and placement of the wall(s) are subject to review and approval by the City of Mound. Applicant is advised that in the event the retaining wall or portion thereof is located within the wetland or buffer area(s), additional permitting may be required. d. Any retaining wall over four (4) feet in height shall require a fence or railing to be constructed along the top of the wall and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. e. A fence up to 48 inches in height on top of the retaining wall(s) is hereby approved as part of the PDA -CUP. f. Payment of any City fees associated with review of the PDA -CUP. • 3 -2678- El � 0 Resolution No. 08 -16 g. Approval of the Water Resource Permit including any and /or all conditions referenced in the official resolution. h. Approval of the Preliminary Plat including any and /or all conditions referenced in the official resolution. i. The proposed private retaining wall(s), portions of which are proposed to be higher than four (4) feet in height, are approved to be constructed within the side, front and rear yards of Lot 6 and Lot 7 as part of the PDA -CUP. 2. The PDA -CUP Application is hereby approved for the subject property as depicted on the attached Exhibit A. Adopted by the City Council this 22nd day of January 2008 /s/ Bonnie Ritter Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk /s/ Mark Hanus Mayor Mark Hanus 4 -2679- Resolution No. 08-16 Exhibit A Proposed Legal Description: Lots 2, 4, and the East Half of Lot 4, Block 11, MOUND TERRACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof. 5 .:1 • • 0 CERTIFICATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being duly qualified and the City Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: 1. As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and forgoing extract was transcribed. 2. 1 have carefully compared said extract with said original record. 3. 1 find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION NO. 08 -17 • A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WATER RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL FOR THE WOODLYN RIDGE SUBDIVISION AT 6301 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD • Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on the 22nd day of January, 2008. WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 25th day of January, 2008. -2681- Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk 01 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION #08 -17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WATER RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR STORMWATER AND EROSION CONTROL FOR THE WOODLYN RIDGE SUBDIVISION AT 6301 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD. WHEREAS, permitting responsibilities for stormwater (MCWD Rule N) and erosion control (Rule B) were transferred from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to the City of Mound on August 22, 2002 following approval of the Mound Surface Water Management Plan by the MCWD Board of Managers; and 1 • WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a stormwater and erosion control permit associated with a proposed new residential subdivision at 6301 Lynwood Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the subject site is located on the south side of Lynwood Boulevard in the area between Westedge Boulevard and Robin Lane, near the western edge of Mound; and WHEREAS, the grading and utility plans were reviewed by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works in accordance with the Mound Surface Water Management Plan, City Code Chapter 375, and MCWD Rule N and MCWD Rule D and deemed satisfactory; and WHEREAS, Staff has recommended approval of the water resource permit application for stormwater and erosion control subject to conditions. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The water resource application for stormwater and erosion control is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: a. Grading Plan shall be modified improve the functioning and placement of the swale in the backyards of Lots 7, 8 and 9 as recommended by City Engineer in Proposed Woodlyn Ridge Preliminary Review memo dated December 13, 2007. • -2682- I* Resolution No. 0 8-17 b. Applicant shall work with the City Engineer to resolve issues with the proposed public access to the stormwater pond located in rear yards of Lots 5 and 6 prior to submitting a Final Plat application for Woodlyn Ridge as recommended by City Engineer in Proposed Woodlyn Ridge Preliminary Review memo dated December 13, 2007. c. Proposed silt fence shall generally follow constant contours. When this is not possible, the silt fence should be broken and hooked upslope to slow the flow while still allowing overflow. d. Additional silt fence shall be provided around the south side of Lots 5 & 6 to slow flow and contain sediment at the top of the hill. Bioroll or silt fence should be provided on Lot 6 south of the building pad (midway down the hill) to form a grade break and slow storm water runoff. e. Temporary ditch checks shall be provided in the swales at the lot lines. f. Temporary erosion control blanket is required on all slopes steeper than 4:1. g. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of MCWD Rule N, MCWD Rule D, City Code Chapters 375, and the Mound Surface Water Management Plan. 2. The water resource permit application is hereby approved for the subject property as • depicted on the attached Exhibit A. Adopted by the City Council this 22nd day of January 2008 /s/ Bonnie Ritter Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • /s/ Mark Hanus Mayor Mark Hanus Resolution No. 08 -17 Exhibit A Proposed Legal Description: Lots 2, 4, and the East Half of Lot 4, Block 11, MOUND TERRACE, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the record plat thereof. 01 C� 40 ZONING APPROVAL EXPIRATIONS 0 Preliminary Plat (330.30) Subd. 9. The sub - divider may request a one -year time extension at least 45 days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat as approved by the City Council. This request shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council addressing such items as potential conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan or specific area plans, potential conflicts with policy changes, changing transportation conditions, sidewalk policies or applicable changes to any City ordinances. The City staff may re- compute park dedication fees and other financial guarantees as listed in Subsection 340.75 to reflect current cost estimates unless street, utility, grading, or other substantial construction has begun. These revised costs shall be included in the time extension resolution. CUP No Expiration 'If turned down cannot be resubmitted for 1 year (350.525 Subd 3 g) PDA No Expiration Variance (350.530 Subd 2) • E. Whenever within one year after granting a variance or appeal, the use as permitted by the variance or appeal shall not have been completed or utilized, then such variance or appeal shall become null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete or to utilize the use has been granted by the City Council. Such extension shall be requested in writing and filed with the Building Official at least thirty (30) days before the expiration of the original variance or appeal. There shall be no charge for the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance or appeal. Such petition shall be presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council for a decision. All variances are limited to one extension. Further requests for extension shall be considered a new application subject to the provisions of Subsection 350.530, Subd. 2. Wetland Permits (350.1120) Subd. 5. Time of Permit. A permittee shall begin the work authorized by the Permit within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the Permit unless a different date for the commencement of work is set forth in the Permit. The permittee shall complete the work authorized by the Permit within the time limits specked in the Permit, which in no event shall exceed more than twelve (12) months from the date of issuance. The permittee shall notify the Building official at least twenty -four (24) hours prior to commencement of work. • Should the work not be commenced as specified herein, the Permit shall become void. -2685- A. Permit Extensions. If, prior to the date established for*commencement of work, the permittee makes written request to the City Manager or his designated agent for an extension of time to commence the work, setting forth the reasons for the • required extension, the administrator may grant such extension. B. Permit Renewals. A permit, which has become void, may be renewed at the discretion of the City Council upon payment of a' renewal fee. If the City Council does not grant such renewal, a Permit for such work may be granted only upon compliance with the procedures herein established for an original application. Grading /Erosion /Sedimentation Control (375:10) No Expiration MCWD Stormwater /Erosion Control Permits are valid for one -year from the date of issuance. Permits are renewable if there hasn't been a lapse in coverage and usually without any issues. • • r � U MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Parks S DATE: November 18, 2008 RE: Public Lands Permit Carol Hammer — PID 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014 At the November 13, 2008 Parks, Open Space and Docks Advisory Commission Meeting, the Commission recommends approving the Public Lands Permit submitted by Carol Hammer to plant a garden on PID 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014, property near Hillcrest Rd and Diamond Lane. Below is the excerpt from the November 13, 2008 meeting minutes: • 1. Discuss: Public Lands Permit — Carol Hammer PID 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014 Hillcrest Rd & Diamond Ln Fackler reviewed the Public Lands Permit and staff comments. Carol Hammer, 5972 Hillcrest Road addressed the Commission. Hammer stated the area she proposes to plant is not in the wetland area, but the road right -of -way adjacent to it, and she feels there would be no change in the water flow. Discussion followed. Meisel asked if she would keep the green space near the hydrant as is. Hammer stated she would. MOTION by Funk to approve the request with the limiting how much planting can be done around the hydrant area. Friendly amendment by Meisel to include a hold harmless agreement is required. SECOND by Meisel. Voting yes: Mason, Funk, Pilling, Meisel, Beise. Voting no; Wilkus. Motion Carried Attached are the Public Lands Application, staff recommendations and a draft resolution for approval. -2687- AL October 15, 2008 Carol Hammer 5972 Hillcrest Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Public Lands Permit 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD • MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472 -0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com Enclosed is a Public Lands Report with staff comments. Your Public Lands Application will be brought before the Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission on Thursday, November 13, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. You will receive an agenda prior to the meeting. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, 4A�C'VIMZA) Vicki Weber Administrative Assistant to Public Works & Parks 952 -472 -0615 enc. punted on recycled paper -2688- *I • • • �J TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: REQUEST: .;CITE `O� �flU� �,�� ����'�►''��� �a341 Maywood �Za$d 1kI0ud,M.l� 553E PUBLIC LANDS REPORT Parks, Open Space and Docks Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent October 20, 2008 Planting on Public Lands — Revised Plan Carol Hammer = 5972 Hillcrest Rd PID # 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014 — Hillcrest Rd and Diamond Lane Plant a Garden on Pubic Lands 320.01 Special Permits for Certain :Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued as provided in this section. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a .special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a simple majority of the Council members. (ORD. 108-2000, 7/16/00) CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent: • No Comments Sarah Smith, Community Development Director: Hold Harmless Agreement required No flood plain alteration or wetland alteration unless proper permits are required (if applicable). Ray Hanson — Engineering/Planning Technician: This area is designed for storm water runoff — change in the water flow may have an adverse affect on the surrounding drainage. The area shown on the request is an unimproved City of Mound Right of Way for roadway purposes. The City of Mound should not be allowing agricultural produce to be grown on City Property. The liability put of the City of Mound should someone get side is too great. Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent: Recommend denial of request. SITE INSPECTION City Officials and Board Members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. PHOTOGRAPHS • Included in application RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this permit due to potential of adverse affect on the surrounding drainage. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Is required. ATTACHMENTS: Public Lands Permit Application dated September 29, 2008 •_ Site survey 1K**11Z • rmc„�. �> ■ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 • Phone 952- 472 -0600 Fax 952 - 472 -0620 PUBLIC LANDS APPLICATION Date Received C SEP 2 9 2008 CITY OF MOUND Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission Date City Council Date DISTRIBUTION Building Official Parks Director DNR MCWD Public Works Other Check One [1 CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC LAND PERMIT — new construction. NOTE: NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOAT HOUSES OR OTHER BUILDINGS ON PUBLIC LAND (City Code Section 320, Subd. 1). PUBLIC LAND MAINTENANCE PERMIT — to allow repairs to an existing structure (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). CONTINUATION OF STRUCTURE — to allow an existing encroachment to remain in an "as is" condition (City Code Section 320, Subd. 3). LAND ALTERATION — change in shoreline, drainage, slope, tree egetation, lll, etc. (City Code Section 320, Subdue). ucture or work you are requesting is an activity on publicly owned lands. Structures like boat houses, patios, Wetc. are all NONCONFORMING USES. It is the intent of the City to bring all these uses into conformance, which that those structures will at some time in the future have to be removed from the public lands. All permits are anted for a limited time and are non - transferable. Stairway construction must meet the State Building Code when the ;unit is for new construction, or a new permit is applied for due to a change in dock site holder. Dlnmaa tuna nr nrint Ift-nihly APPLICANT Name CA q cQ Address '!�q Phone 4 72 -b Qo % (W) S� 114 6-D (M) (H) 5m 9016resf- rjQd — elmeas �y ABUTTING Address PROPERTY Lot Block LEGAL DESC. Subdivision PID # Plat # ZONING DISTRICT R -1 R -1A R -2 R -3 B -1 B -2 B -3 ublic Lands Permit Application Page 1 of 2 Revised 119108 -2691- g PUBLIC PROPERTY Name Dock Site # Shoreline Type CONTRACTOR Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) A FEE OF $200.00 APPLIES IF VALUATION OF PROJECT EXCEEDS $1,000.00 AND NO PUBLIC BENEFIT IS DERIVED. PROPOSED COST OF PROJECT (INCLUDING LABOR & MATERIALS) $ DESCRIBE REQUEST & PURPOSE Applicant's Signature 2 .8 - a I Da Public Lands Permit Application Page 2 of 2 Revised 119108 -2692- 0 � ADDENDUM TO PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT APPLICATION. Application by: Carol Hammer 5972 Hillcrest Road Mound, Minnesota (952) 472 -6007 9 -29 -08 3. Scaled drawing and specifications of proposed improvement. Description See attached scaled drawing of a rectangle measuring 30 feet by 100 feet located in the unused road easement along the northeastern edge of the area marked "85" on the attached map, which is the City ponding area bounded by Hillcrest Road on the north, Diamond Lane on the west, and Gumwood Road on the south. In other words, the proposed area would run 30 feet west along Hillcrest Road and 100 feet going south from Hillcrest Road parallel with the west property line of 5971 • Hillcrest Road. Proposed Improvement To clean up and clear the brush and debris in the 30 -by -100 foot roadway easement for use as an organic garden, with ornamental plantings to enhance the space for neighbors and residents to enjoy the view. (The ornamental plantings will take several years to reach a reasonable growth in order to bloom and have some shape and size.) There is presently brush, miscellaneous trash, gravel, rocks, and lumps of tar that I would clean up. 4. Proposed Cost of Project No cost to the City. My cost will be seasonal, mostly seeds, bushes, and probably a dwarf fruit tree or two, along with the perennial flowers and landscape plantings, dependent on what varieties I use. Since I will propagate perennials from what I already have, it will take several years to establish. • 5. Photographs of the affected area See attached photos of what it looks like now. -2693- 6. Statement of purpose for proposed change To utilize the unused road easement to the northeast of the City ponding area labled "85" as described above as an organic garden, with annual and perennial plantings of vegetables and fruits and one or two dwarf fruit trees. This will be 100 percent organic, with no pesticide or chemical fertilizer, residue, or runoff. I will improve the soil structure slowly, over several years, and clean up the area from debris. In addition to the vegetable and herb garden, I will plan to beautify the area with some bulbs and perennial plantings, realizing that it may take several years before these will bloom or reach a reasonable size, but I am sensitive to the fact that neighbors and residents may want some color and blooms. I may erect a non - permanent fence along the wooded area, if necessary, to keep the deer and critters out. Hopefully, it will not be a problem. Once the garden is established — again, this will take several years — I would be willing to make this space and myself available for learning experiences with, for instance, local elementary school, middle school, or high school groups, or other community groups, who are interested in seeing and hearing about how to develop and manage yards and gardens organically, with a hands -on look at practices and results. I would also be willing to work with a student internship program if there is an interest. I will be working with Dr. Elaine Ingham of SFI, Soil Foodweb, Inc., an international consultant in soil science and organic practices, in order to establish appropriate methodologies and to problem -solve any issues that may arise. 7. Erosion control plan • The parcel is essentially flat, so there is no erosion issue. Since this is a 100 percent organic use, there will be no pesticide, herbicide, or fertilizer runoff. Improvement of soil structure and soil biology has been shown to decrease storm runoff, since a healthy soil food web is capable of absorbing and retaining increased amounts of water, where it is available for plant use. The present use is 100 percent organic perennial and annual weeds, which we will simply trade out for named cultivars that are more attractive and productive, so there is no impact on water flow or erosion issues — other than improvement of the soil structure, which will decrease runoff at a net benefit to the City. Abutting Property Owner is Charles Rye, 5971 Hillcrest Road. I have already discussed this with Chuck Rye, 5971 Hillcrest Road, and he has no objection to the garden plan. His is the only property abutting or adjoining this proposed portion of the City lot. Ms. Anderson -Ortiz, the homeowner at 5978 Gumwood, also has no objection. • -2694- �l Lt f „G 1 Ygo . i• B WA. it It � M �. pt eti , ARE 1 ` V1 fit r5 ` — o� r - z 5972 Hillerest Road, Mound, MN - Google Maps Gpt Address 5972 Hillcn3st Rd aps Mound, MN 55884 http: / /maps.google.com /maps ?f==q&hl= en&geocode =&q =5972 +Hill... IGet Google Maps on your phone 4 Te dthe word "GMAPS" to 466453 k: IPetap s" JC?EA <- -bRfl iN A 6 E FwvJ • • • i of 1 -2696- 9/27/2008 1:32 PM • C)'ry POILID,NC -44EA _ -;P,',t4 6R 19 PrRQXiM A- -ri0J o F JSim66 Vc t,)s J 56) U g a E :: /0 FE-15 f� I aka fi I i z � CfoR rEI l i Lp tit/ G �C'a A Nfl ,,C, G �M w0 DD --� -2697- ,5-g 71 A*&l e t � s "9 q9 Gunk wool) 1 w S • _ V S • • PUBLIC LANDS REPORT TO: Parks, Open Space and Docks Advisory Commission FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent DATE: March 24, 2008 SUBJECT: Planting Public Lands APPLICANT: Carol Hammer — 5972 Hillcrest Rd LOCATION: PID # 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014 — Hillcrest Rd and Diamond Lane REQUEST: Plant a Garden on Pubic Lands • 320.01 Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd.1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued as provided in this section. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. All special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a simple majority of the Council members. (ORD. 108-2000,7/16/00) CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all applicable City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: -2699- Jim Fackler, Park Superintendent: No Comments Sarah Smith, Community Development Director: No comments Ray Hanson — Engineering/Planning Technician: This area is used for storm water runoff — change the water flow may have an adverse affect on the surrounding drainage. Recommend denial of permit application Greg Skinner, Public Works Superintendent: See comments from Ray Hanson Carlton, Public Works Director: No comments SITE INSPECTION City Officials and Board Members are encouraged to visit the site prior to the meeting. PHOTOGRAPHS Included in application RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of this permit due to potential of adverse affect on the surrounding drainage. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW Is required. ATTACHMENTS: • Public Lands Permit Application dated February 29, 2008 • Site survey • -2700- CITY OF MOUND • RESOLUTION NO. 08- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR PID 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014 WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking a Public Lands Permit for Land alteration / construction activities in the public right of way; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 320, requires City Council approval by a majority vote for construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park or commons; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered this request at their meeting of Tuesday, November 25, 2008, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to approve the Public Lands Permit as submitted by Carol Hammer for PID 14- 117 -24 -31 -0014 with the following conditions: 1. A hold harmless agreement shall be required. 2. No flood plain alteration or wetland alteration unless proper permits are required (if applicable). I 3. Activities shall not obstruct or adversely affect drainage. is 4. The green space near the fire hydrant should not be altered. 5. City shall not be responsible for replacement of planting and /or involved materials in the event ROW is disrupted (ie road or utility work, etc). Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of November, 2008. Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk is -2701- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. _ -2008 • AN ORDINANCE AMDENDING CHAPTER 437 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE DOCK AND SLIP LICENSES The City of Mound does ordain: That Section 437 — Dock and Slip Licenses, is hereby amended and renumbered as follows: I. Subsections 437.01 and Subsections 437.03 through 437.25 are hereby repealed. II. Subsection 437.02 is hereby renumbered 437.01. III. This Ordinance shall be effective on the effective date of Ordinances No. -2008, and No. -2008, or the later. Passed by the City Council this day of , 2008 Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • Published in The Laker the day of , 2008. Effective the day of , 2008. is -2702- • 437.-02 437.01 Charter Boat Use of Municipal Docks Subd. 1. Definitions. The following words and terms when used in this section shall have the following meanings: A. Charter Boat means any boat or watercraft which is used for the transportation of passengers for a fee. B. Pilot means the person operating any charter boat. C. Greenway municipal dock means the municipal transient mooring located nearest to the Shoreline Drive and Auditor's Road intersection and excludes the dockage included in the Commons Program for the Villas on Lost Lake Subdivision. Subd. 2. Permit and Application Required. No Charter Boat shall be parked, moored, stored, placed, kept or tied up to the Greenway dock without first having secured a Charter Boat License from the City of Mound. Any person desiring to secure such a permit shall make application on a form supplied by the City. Each application shall state, among other things, his or her name, address, type, size and horsepower of the boat(s) for which the application is made, boat license • number(s), maximum number of passengers including crew, and other information as requested in the application form. Each such application shall be accompanied by the annual fee and evidence of insurance. On an initial application for a Charter Boat License, the applicant shall pay with his or her application, a non - refundable investigation fee, and the city shall conduct a preliminary background and financial investigation of the applicant. The application in such case shall be made on a form prescribed by the State Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and contain such additional information as the City may require. If the City deems it in the public interest to have an investigation made on a particular application for renewal of a Charter Boat License, it shall so determine. If the City determines that a comprehensive background and investigation of the applicant is necessary, it may conduct the investigation itself or contract with the Bureau of Criminal Investigation for the investigation. No license shall be issued, transferred, or renewed if the results show to the satisfaction of the City that issuance would not be in the public interest. Subd. 3 Insurance. Each application shall be accompanied by an annual fee and by evidence of liability insurance coverage with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 per occurrence. The policy shall provide that no payment of any claim by the insurance company will in any manner decrease the coverage provided for any other claims) brought against the insured or the insuring company. The policy shall provide that no cancellation for any cause shall be made by either the insured or the insuring company • without 30 days prior written notice to the City. The policies shall be issued in the name of all partners if the licensee is a partnership and in the name of the corporation of other organization if the licensee is a corporation or other organization. The policy shall name -2703- the City as an additional insured, shall be filed with the City Manager, shall be subject to is approval of the City Manager as to form and content and shall be issued by companies duly licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota. Subd. 4. Fee. The fee for the Charter Boat License shall be as established by the City Council as referenced in City Code Chapter 500. The permit fee(s) shall be paid by the applicant to the City at the time the application is submitted. Subd. 5. Non - Transferability. Permits issued under this ordinance shall be non- transferable. Subd. 6. Responsibility of Charter Boat Owner. Every Charter Boat owner is responsible for the conduct of its pilots while docking, departing, or doing business at any municipal dock. Any violation of this Ordinance by a Pilot shall also be considered as an act of the Charter Boat owner for the purpose of imposing a penalty under this Ordinance. Subd. 7. Garbage /Refuse Disposal. Collection and disposal of garbage /refuse is the responsibility of the Charter Boat owner. Garbage /refuse shall not be placed in the public garbage receptacles near the dock, but shall be removed from the premises by Charter Boat owner or designee. Subd. 8. Alcohol Prohibited. No owner, employee or agent of a licensed Charter Boat which has been issued an "on -sale liquor" or "on -sale wine" license by the Lake • Minnetonka Conservation District shall sell, serve, or allow to be consumed any alcoholic beverage while that boat is at the Mound Greenway municipal dock. Subd. 9. License Required. No Charter Boat can utilize the Greenway municipal docks until all appropriate permits have been procured and copies of all licensed have been provided to the City of Mound. This list includes, but is not limited to, the LMCD charter boat license, LMCD liquor license, and Department of Health food permits. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance to begin Charter Boat operations without first having procured any and /or all involved agency permits. Subd.10. Issuance of Permit. Charter Boat docking permits shall be issued by the City Manager upon submission of a complete and accurate application, submittal of the required insurance information, and copies of any and /or all involved agency permits, including but not limited to, the LMCD Charter Boat permit, the LMCD liquor license, etc. and payment of the permit Charter Boat license fee by the applicant. The granting of a permit under this Section does not assure the holder of a location on the Greenway Municipal Dock, nor give the holder any priority in usage of the slips on the dock. Subd. 11. Prohibited Acts. It shall be a violation of this Ordinance for the owner and /or person operating any boat to do any of the following: A. Dock a charter boat at the Greenway municipal dock without a permit. B. Dock any boat at the Greenway municipal dock which exceeds any • limitations as set forth in a conspicuously posted notice. -2704- Subd. 12. Use and Display of Permit. Holder of valid Charter Boat permits shall be • authorized to dock at a specified Greenway municipal dock for a period of not more than 30 minutes at any one time. Permits shall be displayed on Charter Boats in a prominent location. Subd. 13. Restriction of Hours.. All boating, pedestrian or vehicular traffic at the Greenway municipal dock and adjacent public land and docks is prohibited between the hours of 10:30 PM and 5 AM of the following day. No overnight mooring is allowed. Subd. 14. Permit Expiration Date. Permits issued under this Ordinance shall expire on December 31 of each year. Subd. 15. Revocation. Permits may be revoked by the City Council. Grounds for such revocation shall include, but shall not be limited to, any alcohol - related offenses committed by the permit holder or any of his /her agents or employees while operating a charter boat or any other watercraft. • -2705- CITY OF MOUND • ORDINANCE NO. -2008 AN ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 438 - DOCK LICENSING, TO THE MOUND CITY CODE The City of Mound does ordain: That Section 438 - Dock Licensing, be added to the City Code as follows: SECTION 438 — DOCK LICENSING 438.06 Definitions. Subd. 1. Abutting Residence: A residence whose extended lot lines to the shoreline, fall within the City designated dock or slip location as indicated on the approved Dock Location Map and Addendum. Subd. 2. Applicant: Any resident of Mound who completes any of the Dock Program applications, whether they were a site holder from the prior year or submitting an application for the first time. Subd. 3. Dock: Any wharf, pier, boat ramp, mooring buoy or other structure constructed or maintained in, upon, or into the water of a lake from publicly controlled shore land. Subd. 4. Dock Administration: Means Docks Administrator, Parks Superintendent is and Summer Dock Inspector Subd. 6. Dock Use Area (DUA): Area for use of installation of dock, lifts, mooring of watercraft and navigation of their watercraft to /from such dock, lift or mooring. Shoreline DUA and extension into lake of the DUA may not be the same lineal footage. Subd. 6. LMCD: Means the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Subd. 7. License: Yearly permission from the City of Mound that allows an applicant to either have a dock or moor a watercraft to a City -owned slip all on City controlled shoreline. Subd. 8. License Year: March 1 st thru the last day of February of the following year. Subd. 9. Lottery: Method of establishing Third Priority and Fourth Priority applicants beginning position on the Wait List. Subd. 10. Moored: Parking of a watercraft to a dock or slip. Subd. 11. Multiple Slip Dock: City of Mound owned marina -type docking complex. • 1 -2706- • Subd. 12. Non- Abuftina Resident: Resident of Mound residing in an inland property from Lake Minnetonka or a Lake Minnetonka shoreline property on non - dockable shore. Subd. 13. POSDC: Means the Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission. Subd. 14. Primary Site holder: Individual resident to whom the City issues the Dock or Slip license. Subd. 15. Primary Watercraft: First watercraft declared on Dock License Application. Subd. 16. Secondary Site holder: Individual resident who shares a dock site with a Primary Site Holder. Subd. 17. Secondary Watercraft: All additional watercraft declared in excess of Primary Watercraft. Subd. 18. Slip: Mooring location of a watercraft on a City owned multiple slip dock complex. Subd. 19. Site #(Dock): The shoreline lineal footage marking that represents the center of a Dock Use Area along the shoreline. Subd. 20. Site # (Sli ): Shoreline lineal footage that could indicate either the slip complex access point or the center of the slip complex. • Subd. 21. Slip Use Area: Area for use and mooring of declared watercraft. Area means horizontal measurement from the foremost to the aftermost and port to starboard of the watercraft including the bowsprits, decks, anchors, platforms, motors and other equipment and attachments in their normal operating position. Subd. 22. Wait list: List of current Third Priority and Fourth Priority applicants waiting for a dock or slip. Subd. 23. Watercraft Registration: Watercraft Registration issued by the DNR or US Coast Guard documentation. 438.10 Application Procedure. Subd. 1. Application Form. Applications for Dock Licenses shall be filed yearly with the Dock Administration at the City offices. Such applications must include: A. Full name of the applicant. B. Address — Applicant must provide evidence establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the dock Administration that the applicant is a resident of the City of Mound and resides at the address shown on the application. A current Minnesota Driver's License or Minnesota Identification Card showing residency at the address may be, but is not necessarily, evidence of residency. Other evidence sufficient to • establish residency includes proof that the applicant resides at the address shown 2 -2707- on the application in the summer months, that the property is owned by the applicant, and that the property is not occupied during other times of the year by anyone other • than applicant or applicant's family, or both. C. Phone number(s) of the applicant. D. Signature of the-applicant. Signature shall guarantee that the applicant will remove the dock and all appurtenances at the expiration, suspension, or revocation of the license if the license is not renewed at expiration. The applicant shall agree that if they do not remove everything, the City is authorized to have them removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removal and disposal. The applicant also shall agree that if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. E. Declaration of Watercraft. At the time of submitting the annual Dock License Application, the applicant will also declare all watercraft that the applicant intends to moor at the dock. Required information for all declared watercraft shall be pursuant to Subsection 438.20 Subd. 1. F. Fees Paid. The annual application fee and license fee shall be that as established the City Code. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District fees, as established by that organization, must also be paid. Subd. 2. Application Deadlines. All applications shall be made between the first business day in January and must be received at City offices by the last day of February or • must have the postmark of the United States Post Office by the last day of February. Subd. 3. Late Applications. A. Abutting Applicants: Late fees will be in effect as established by the City. B. New abutting applicants. A late fee, as established by the City, will only be assessed if the application and fees are not submitted within 30 days after which an abutting resident moves into the City. C. Non - Abutting Applicants: Primary Site Holder will not be allowed to retain their Second Priority status and must relinquish their dock site. They may, however apply to be a waitlist applicant if the waiting list application and fees are submitted to City Hall by noon on the day preceding the March POSDC meeting. D. Waitlist Applicants: They will not retain their position on the waitlist. Subd. 4. Refund of Submitted Fees /Surrender of License. An applicant/licensee who is withdrawing from the program and surrendering the dock license may request a refund of fees paid less an administrative fee as established by the City, if a request to terminate is made in writing to the Dock Administration. Requests must be received at City offices by /on May 15th or must have the postmark of the United States Post Office by May 15th of the boating season. • 3 -2708- • Subd. 5. One Application per Individual Resident. The owner of an apartment building, rental home or multiple dwelling shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to make application for a dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. Subd. 6. Wait List Applicants: First time wait list applicants beginning position on the wait list shall be by lottery in accordance with such process as the City Council shall from time to time determine by resolution. 438.15 Licenses. Subd. 1. License Required. No person shall moor a watercraft shall erect, keep, or maintain a dock on or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons without first receiving a license from the City in accordance with the provisions of this Section 438. Subd. 2. Licenses Non - Transferable. Dock licenses issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the Primary or Secondary Site Holder approved by the City, or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. Subd. 3. Dock Administration to Issue Licenses. The Dock Administration shall • review all applications. No license shall be issued by the Dock Administration until he or she has first determined that the proposed dock configuration and boat sizes are suitable forthe specific dock location as identified on the approved Dock Location Map Addendum. Subd. 4. License Priorities. The Dock Administration shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses: A. First Priority: An abutting resident has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka. B. Second Priority: Non - abutting primary site holder applicant or qualified secondary site holder. C. Third Priority: Wait list applicants. As determined by the lottery and resulting waitlist. D. Fourth Priority: Residents living in a home that has dockable, private lake frontage on Lake Minnetonka shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands and last priority to become a Secondary Site Holder. • d -2709- 438.20 Regulations. Subd. 1. Declaration of Watercraft— Requirements. Watercraft that are moored at • a City dock site must be declared on the Dock License Application. The applicant must provide the City with a copy of the current DNR Watercraft Registration or US Coast Guard documentation or recently applied for DNR Watercraft Registration or US Coast Guard documentation for each watercraft, at the time of application. This DNR Registration or US Coast Guard documentation must verify that the watercraft is in the name of the site holder at a City of Mound address. The holder of a dock license shall not keep more than one declared Primary Watercraft at the licensed dock. Secondary Watercraft to be moored at the licensed dock must first be declared with the City of Mound Dock Program. If a declared watercraft is removed from the City dock program, the site holder may substitute a replacement watercraft upon providing the City with required documentation as stated above. Newly declared replacement watercraft may be subject an additional LMCD fee. Subd. 2. Allowable Mooring of Non -Owned Watercraft. Mooring of watercraft not owned by the dock licensee (Primary Site Holder or Secondary Site Holder) is permitted for a period of up to 48 hours, two times in a calendar year. Mooring of watercraft not owned by the dock licensee (Primary Site Holder or Secondary Site Holder) is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours unless a Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit has been first obtained by the licensee from the City and the fees established by the City have been paid. All Temporary Visiting Dockage Permits shall contain the DNR registration number or US Coast Guard documentation (and copies of same) of the boat and shall be limited to 21 days. No more than one Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit may be issued in any calendar • year to an individual dock licensee. Unless permitted under the preceding two subsections, no watercraft shall be moored at a City dock site. Subd. 3. Dock Structure and Dimensions Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. Docks shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed. All dock structure configurations must stay within the licensee's dock use area as stated on the approved dock location map addendum and shall not infringe on an adjacent city controlled dock site. Further, all dock use areas must conform to current LMCD setbacks from private property. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a water depth of 48 ", using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more than 72" in width. The length shall be limited to current LMCD regulations and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. All docks extensions into the lake shall be placed perpendicular to the shoreline unless conditions warrant otherwise. This shall be at the discretion of the Dock Administration. All docks should be built of sound, aesthetically pleasing materials and be constructed of a standard that is safe for the public's health, safety and welfare as determined by the City. Docks and other appurtenances shall not be unsightly or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware. • s -2710- The Dock Administration may grant exceptions to the provisions of this section in instances • where it is found that the exception is necessitated due to unusual circumstances, and if granted would not have a detrimental impact on the public safety or welfare. Subd. 4. Dock Use Area Maintenance The licensee is responsible for the maintenance of their shoreline dock use area. Maintenance shall include, but not limited to, grass cutting and weed removal. If aquatic vegetation is removed from the shoreline and placed in an upland area the site holder is required to dispose of it in a timely manner. Failure to adhere to this could cause for revocation of the license or recommendation for non - renewal of their application. Subd. 5. Dock Use Area Combining Two adjoining, Primary Site Holders may combine their dock use areas into one combined larger dock use area for the installation of one dock. They must, however, continue to apply for and pay for their separate dock site locations. Upon notice to the City of their termination of participation in the combined dock facility, they shall each be entitled to return to such separate dock site locations. Subd. 6. Secondary Site Holder Primary Site Holders may elect to add a Secondary Site Holder. A Secondary Site Holder is a user on a dock that is licensed to a Primary Site Holder. The Secondary Site Holder is not a licensee, and may continue to use the licensed dock only at the discretion of the Primary Site Holder, and subject to the provisions of this section and the following conditions: A. The dock site is considered by the Dock Administration as being a shareable location. This is subject to their discretion and can change as boat sizes change or other unforeseen issues arise. B. Before being eligible to be a Secondary Site Holder, that individual must have been on the waiting list the previous season and must have renewed their waiting list application for the current season. C. No Secondary Site Holder shall have past due property taxes, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon. D. The application be amended adding the Secondary Site Holder and includes all information as is stated in Section 438.10. All applicable fees must be paid at time of adding Secondary Site Holder. E. On non- abutting dock sites, a Secondary Site Holder can claim priority rights to become that sites' Primary Site Holder when all of the following have occurred: 1. The Primary Site Holder does not renew his or her application within the timeframe listed within this Section. 2. The Secondary Site Holder has participated in the program a minimum of two consecutive full boating seasons on the site not being renewed. The full boating season requirement is met when the secondary site holder is added between January 1St and May 31St of the license year. If both of these criteria have not occurred, the City is not obligated to provide a dock • or slip to the Secondary Site Holder. a -2711- Subd. 7. Public Lands and Public Water Storaae and Removal and • Reinstallation. A. Docks and lifts or portions thereof may not be left in the water or on public land if they conflict with the following uses: • Slide area • Snowmobile crossings • Skating rinks • Trails • Road access • Other conditions or circumstances that are determined by the Council to have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. Docks in the areas listed above shall be removed not later than November 1. Docks in other areas shall be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka no later than January 1. B. Unless subject to the removal requirements of paragraph (A), docks and lifts may be left in the waters during the winter months in channels, protected bays and other areas not generally susceptible to ice flows or ice heaving. Docks may be partially removed, provided that those sections left in public waters are complete. No poles, posts, stanchions or supports standing alone shall remain in public waters. Docks and lifts must be brought up to the construction standards outlined in Subsection 438.20 within 4 weeks after the ice goes out in the spring of the year (approximately May 15). If the dock does not meet construction standards, the procedures as specified in Subsection 438.25 will apply. • Storage shall be restricted to dock materials, dismantled docks and dismantled boat lifts on City land designated for dock locations as shown on the approved Dock Location Map and Addendum. Storage shall be done in an orderly, compact, and unobtrusive manner. Storage shall not include watercraft or trailers. In all areas other than Class C Commons (as indicated on the approved Dock Location Map and Addendum), all docks and associated hardware and lifts must be installed in public waters or removed from public lands between June 1St and September 1 st of each year. Subd. 8. Removal of Docks Following End of License. Upon non - renewal or revocation of a dock license, the Primary Site Holder must completely remove the dock, accessory items and lifts from public waters and public land. Items not removed will be deemed abandoned to the City and will be removed by the City or a designated contractor and all costs of removal and disposal will be the responsibility of the last licensee for that dock site. Subd. 9. Compliance with all laws. All licensees shall be responsible for themselves, any Secondary Site Holders, guests and invitees in observing all applicable laws including, with out limitation, those intended to preserve peace, quiet and good order. Conviction for a violation of any law in the course of the use of any dock or slip, will subject the licensee to the enforcement and penalty provisions of this chapter. • 7 -2712- Subd. 10. Dock Location Map and Addendum. Docks shall be located in accordance • with the approved Dock Location Map and Addendum. These shall be maintained by the Dock Administration and kept on file in the City Offices. Such Dock Location Map and Addendum shall contain the following information: A. City controlled shoreline on Lake Minnetonka. B. Lineal footage markings for purposes of establishing dock locations. C. Shoreline Classifications and definitions of such. D. Addendum shall include: Site #, shoreline classifications, abutting or non - abutting site, shoreline location name, designation of being a dock site or slip site, Slip Use Area, abutting site addresses. Current restrictions on dock site locations such as one -sided dock and site removal at non- renewal, and any information regarding any variance granted by the LMCD or other permitting agency, shall also be listed. E. Access points, and other relevant information as is necessary to review dock locations and to allow the City Council and the Dock Administration to protect the public lands and public water. Subd. 11. Review of Map. At least once a year, the Dock Administration will present to the Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission its recommendations for changes to the Dock Location Map and Addendum. This review shall occur between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season. The POSDC's recommended changes must • be considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Final approval of the Dock Location Map and Addendum shall be made by the City Council. At any point in time the City Council may make changes to the Dock Location Map and Addendum. These changes may include, but not limited to, removal or addition of sites or slips. 438.25 Enforcement Subd. 1. Failure to Declare Watercraft. Mooring of an undeclared watercraft will result in the imposition of a civil penalty against the dock license holder as established by the City. The civil penalty will be forgiven if the dock license holder declares the watercraft within 5 business days. If, after such 5 day period, the watercraft is not declared and the watercraft is still moored at the licensed dock the Dock Administration will recommend to the City Manager that the Dock License and any watercraft declarations issued for all watercraft moored at that dock be revoked for the balance of the Dock License year, and that the holder not be eligible to apply for a Dock License for the next following license year. Additionally, no new dock license will be issued following such revocation until all unpaid civil penalties and any delinquent dock program related fees or penalties have been paid in full. Further, watercraft may be impounded and all associated costs will be the responsibility of the watercraft owner. Subd. 2. Denial, Suspension or Revocation of License A. No license shall be issued to any applicant with past due property taxes, civil penalties related to Dock Program, and any other delinquent fees or penalties • related to the Dock Program, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water a -2713- and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon. If said past due obligations are not paid by April 15th of the license year, all dock rights will be revoked immediately. • B. If the licensee has not maintained a previously licensed dock, the Dock Administration may recommend to the City Manager that their existing license be revoked, and the licensee's priorities under this section be forfeited for the current year and for the next boating season. C. The license will be revoked or suspended by the Dock Administration for non- compliance with any of the requirements of this chapter. D. If the licensee has not completed a pending correction order concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock, the Dock Administration may recommend to the City Manager that their existing license be revoked, and the licensee's priorities under this Section 438 be forfeited for the current year and for the next boating season. E. The City may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons. If it appears that any dock has not been constructed or properly maintained, the area surrounding the dock site has not being maintained in accordance with this section, or dock is not consistent with plans or location approved by the Council, the City shall notify the licensee in writing of such violation(s). The licensee shall have ten days after receiving such notice of violation to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of this section. In the event that licensee shall fail, neglect or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of this section within that ten days, the license shall be • revoked by the City and notice of such revocation shall be directed to licensee. Subd. 3. Notices. All notices of revocation, suspension, non - renewal, or denial herein required shall be in writing by first class, certified mail or by personal service, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd.4. Appeal. (1). To City Manager. The licensee may appeal the notice to the City Manager at any time within 10 days of the date of receipt by serving a written notice of appeal on the City Clerk. Upon such notice of appeal, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee will conduct a hearing on the matter at a date and time reasonably convenient to the holder, but in no event later than 20 days following the date the notice of appeal is served on the City Clerk. If following the hearing, the City Manager, or designee, finds that the licensee was in violation of the provisions of this section the City Manager or designee may revoke the Dock License of the dock license holder for the current license year, and may disqualify the holder from applying for or receiving a Dock License for the next following license year, and until any civil penalties have been paid in full. The City Manager will notify the licensee by mail of the decision. (11). To City Council. The licensee may appeal the decision of the City Manager to the City Council at any time within 10 days of the date of receipt by serving a written notice of appeal on the City Clerk. Upon such notice of appeal, the City Council will conduct a hearing on the matter at a date and time reasonably convenient to the holder, but in no event later • Q -2714- than 20 days following the date the notice of appeal is served on the City Clerk. If following • the hearing, the City Council finds that the licensee was in violation of the provisions of this section the City Council may revoke the Dock License of the dock license holder for the current license year, and may disqualify the holder from applying for or receiving a Dock License for the next following license year, and until any civil penalties have been paid in full. 10 • 438.30 Penalty. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license as required by this Section, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 438. Passed by the City Council this _ day of , 2008. Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Published in The Laker the _ day of 12008. Effective the _ day of _12008. in -2715- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2008 AN ORDINANCE TO ADD SECTION 439 - SLIP LICENSING, TO THE MOUND CITY CODE The City of Mound does ordain: That Section 439 — Slip Licensing, be added to the City Code as follows: SECTION 439 - SLIP LICENSING 439.05 Definitions Subd. 1. Abutting Residence: A residence whose extended lot lines to the shoreline, fall within the City designated dock or slip location as indicated on the approved Dock Location Map and Addendum. Subd. 2. Applicant: Any resident of Mound who completes any of the Dock Program applications, whether they were a site holder from the prior year or submitting an application for the first time. Subd. 3. Dock: Any wharf, pier, boat ramp, mooring buoy or other structure constructed or maintained in, upon, or into the water of a lake from publicly controlled shore land. Subd. 4. Dock Administration: Means Docks Administrator, Parks Superintendent and Summer Dock Inspector Subd. S. Dock Use Area (DUA): Area for use of installation of dock, lifts, mooring of watercraft and navigation of their watercraft to /from such dock, lift or mooring. Shoreline DUA and extension into lake of the DUA may not be the same lineal footage. Subd. 6. LMCD: Means the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District_ Subd. 7. License: Yearly permission from the City of Mound that allows an applicant to either have a dock or moor a watercraft to a City -owned slip all on City controlled shoreline. Subd. 8. License Year: March 1St thru the last day of February of the following year. Subd. 9. Lottery: Method of establishing Third Priority and Fourth Priority applicants beginning position on the Wait List. Subd. 10. Moored: Parking of a watercraft to a dock or slip. Subd. 11. Multiple Slip Dock: City of Mound owned marina -type docking complex. Subd. 12. Non - Abutting Resident: Resident of Mound residing in an inland property from Lake Minnetonka or a Lake Minnetonka shoreline property on non - dockable shore. is lei Subd. 13. POSDC: Means the Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission. • -2716- • Subd. 14. Primary Site holder: Individual resident to whom the City issues the Dock or Slip license. Subd. 16. Primary Watercraft: First watercraft declared on Dock License Application. Subd. 16. Secondary Site holder: Individual resident who shares a dock site with a Primary Site Holder. Subd. 17. Secondary Watercraft: All additional watercraft declared in excess of Primary Watercraft. Subd. 18. Slip: Mooring location of a watercraft on a City owned multiple slip dock complex. Subd. 19. Site #(Dock): The shoreline lineal footage marking that represents the center of a Dock Use Area along the shoreline. Subd. 20. Site #(Slip): Shoreline lineal footage that could indicate either the slip complex access point or the center of the slip complex. Subd. 21. Slip Use Area: Area for use and mooring of declared watercraft. Area means horizontal measurement from the foremost to the aftermost and port to starboard of the watercraft including the bowsprits, decks, anchors, platforms, motors and other equipment and attachments in their normal operating position. • Subd. 22. Wait list: List of current Third Priority and Fourth Priority applicants waiting for a dock or slip. Subd. 23. Watercraft Registration: Watercraft Registration issued by the DNR or US Coast Guard documentation. 439.10 Application Procedure Subd. 1. Application Form. Applications for slip licenses shall be filed yearly with the Dock Administration at the City offices. Such applications must include: A. Full name of the applicant. B. Address — Applicant must provide evidence establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the dock Administration that the applicant is a resident of the City of Mound and resides at the address shown on the application. A current Minnesota Driver's License or Minnesota Identification Card showing residency at the address may be, but is not necessarily, evidence of residency. Other evidence sufficient to establish residency includes proof that the applicant resides at the address shown on the application in the summer months, that the property is owned by the applicant, and that the property is not occupied during other times of the year by anyone other than applicant or applicant's family, or both. • C. Phone number (s) of the applicant. 2 -2717- D. Signature of the applicant. E. Watercraft liability insurance company and policy # showing that the insured is in the name of the applicant. F. Declaration of Watercraft. At the time of submitting the annual multiple slip license application, the applicant will declare the watercraft that the applicant intends to moor at the slip. Required information for declared watercraft shall be pursuant to 439.20 Subd. 1. G. Fees Paid. The annual application fee and license fee shall be established in accordance with the provisions of Section 500 of the City Code. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District fees, as established by that organization, must also be paid. Subd. 2. Application Deadlines. All applications shall be made between the first business day in January and must be received at City offices by the last day of February or must have the postmark of the United States Post Office by the last day of February. Subd. 3. Late Applications. A. Abutting Applicants: Late fees will be in effect as established by the City. B. New abutting applicants: A late fee, as established by the City, will only be assessed if the application and fees are not submitted within 30 days after which an abutting resident moves into the City. • C. Non - Abutting Applicants: Site holder will not be allowed to retain their 2 "d priority status and must relinquish their slip site. They may, however apply to be a waitlist applicant if the waiting list application and fees are submitted to City Hall by noon on the day preceding the March POSDC Meeting. D. Waitlist Applicants: They will not retain their position on the waitlist. Subd. 4. Refund of Submitted Fees /Surrender of License. An applicant/licensee who is withdrawing from the program and surrendering the slip license may request a refund of fees paid less an administrative fee, as established by the City, if a request to terminate is made in writing to the Dock Administration. Requests must be received at City offices by /on May 31St or must have the postmark of the United States Post Office by May 31St of the boating season. Subd. S. One Application per Individual Resident. The owner of an apartment building, rental home or multiple dwelling shall not apply for slip licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to make application for slip license for him or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. Subd. 6. Wait List Applicants: First time wait list applicants beginning position on the wait list shall be by lottery in accordance with such process as the City Council shall from time to time determine by resolution. • -2718- 439.15 Licenses. • Subd. 1. License Required. No person shall moor a watercraft at a City -owned multiple slip complex without first receiving a license from the City in accordance with the provisions of this Section 439. Subd. 2. Licenses Non - Transferable. Slip licenses issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the site holders or members of their households. No slip licensed by the City may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of his or her slip, his or her license shall be revoked. Subd. 3. Dock Administration to Issue Licenses. The Dock Administration shall review all applications. No license shall be issued by Dock Administration until it has first determined that the boat size as listed on the application is in compliance with the Slip Use Area limitations on the approved Dock Location Map Addendum. Subd. 4. License Priorities. The Dock Administration shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions. The following priorities govern the issuance of slip licenses: A. First Priority: An abutting resident has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline on Lake Minnetonka. Nothing in this provision shall restrict a resident from requesting and receiving a location on an available multiple slip located within the extended lot lines of his or her property. • B. Second Priority: Non - abutting site holder applicant. • C. Third Priority: Wait list applicants. As determined by the lottery and resulting waitlist. D. Fourth Priority: Residents living in a home that has dock able, private lake frontage on Lake Minnetonka shall have the last priority each year for a dock or slip on public lands and last priority to become a secondary site holder. 439.20 Regulations Subd. 1. Declaration of Watercraft— Requirements. Watercraft that are moored at a city multiple slip site must be declared on the Multiple Slip License Application and meet the Slip Use Area criteria. The applicant must provide the City with a copy of the current DNR Watercraft Registration or US Coast Guard documentation or recently applied for DNR Watercraft Registration or US Coast Guard documentation for the watercraft, at the time of application. This DNR Registration or US Coast Guard documentation must verify that the watercraft is in the name of the site holder at a City of Mound address. If a declared watercraft is removed from the city dock program, the site holder may substitute a replacement watercraft which must meet the Slip Use Area criteria, upon providing the City with required documentation (as stated above). -2719- Subd. 2. Watercraft Declaration and Use Required by /on May 31St. A licensee must declare the watercraft they intend to moor at the slip on or before May 31St. Further, the • declared watercraft for the licensed slip must be moored at the slip no later than May 31St of the boating season for which the license was issued. If inspections disclose that the site holder has not complied with this usage requirement, the City may revoke the license by written notice to the licensee. The site holder will forfeit any fees paid to the City for the slip. The site holder has the right to appeal the revocation. Any such appeal must be filed in writing with the City Manager within 10 days after mailing of the City's notice of revocation. The appeal must specify reasons objecting to the City's decision and any mitigating circumstances or other facts relating to the site holder's failure to declare a watercraft or moor the declared watercraft at the slip. The appeal will first be referred to the Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission ( POSDC) for review and recommendation. Following receipt of the POSDC review and recommendation, the City Council will hear the appeal at a regular meeting and will consider any written or oral information presented by the site holder, the public and City staff. After consideration of such information, the City Council will affirm or reverse the decision to revoke the license. If the decision is affirmed, the City will re -issue the slip to a qualified person upon payment of the full fee for the license. Subd. 3 Exception to Watercraft Declaration or Use Requirement. At any time prior to the deadlines stated in Subd. 2, the slip license holder may request an exception from the May 31" declaration and use provisions by written request to the Dock Administration stating the facts, circumstances and hardships which would support the requested exception. If the Dock Administration determines that there are circumstances that would create undue hardships for the slip license holder if the May 31St provisions are strictly enforced, the Dock Administration may grant an appropriate exception to the slip • license holder. The exception may be limited to a specific watercraft and may be subject to time limitations or other conditions as may be imposed. Subd. 4. Voluntary Suspension of Slip License. A licensed slip holder may voluntarily suspend the right to a license for one boating season by written notice to the Dock Administration on or before May 31St of the boating season for which the license is issued. A refund of their paid fees less administrative fees as established by the City, will be issued in a timely manner. The City will sublet the slip to a person from the waiting list. The person who sublets the slip for the season remains on the wait list with the same priority. The original licensee will be entitled to apply for that slip the following year. No person shall be allowed to voluntarily suspend their slip license for two consecutive boating seasons. A slip licensee who does not comply with the provisions of, or obtain an exception under the regulations of this section, or does not provide written request of voluntary suspension by or on May 31St, will lose all slip rights. Subd. 5. Multiple Slip Complex Regulations. The City multiple slip complexes are intended for giving licensed slip holders access to their moored watercraft. Slips shall not be used by people for any other purposes such as swimming or fishing. Watercraft shall be stored entirely within the area of the slip for which it is licensed. A. Spring Installation: The City's multiple slip complexes will be installed as weather permits and on the contracted installers schedule. Generally, installation is complete by the Friday of Memorial weekend. Once a complex is completely installed with bumpers, the licensed slip holders may begin mooring of their declared watercraft to is -2720- the slip site. • B. Fall Removal: Slip holders will be notified in writing by the City of the date their watercraft and all items must be removed from the multiple slip complexes. Watercraft moored at the slip complex after the deadline will be subject to a penalty as established by the City. Further, watercraft may be impounded and all associated costs will be the responsibility of the watercraft owner and /or licensee. Other items not removed by the site holder will be removed by the City and disposed of. C. Personal items on Slip Complexes. There shall be no storage or attachment of personal items on the slip complex. This includes but is not limited to: boat lifts, canopies, storage boxes, benches, canoe or kayak racks. D. Alteration of Slips or Slip complexes: There shall be no physical alteration, maintenance or repair of the slip complex or individual slips. Subd. 6. Compliance with all laws. All licensees shall be responsible for themselves, any Secondary Site Holders, guests and invitees in observing all applicable laws including, with out limitation, those intended to preserve peace, quiet and good order. Conviction for a violation of any law in the course of the use of any dock or slip, will subject the licensee to the enforcement and penalty provisions of this chapter. Subd. 7. Dock Location Map and Addendum. Docks and slips shall be located in accordance with the approved Dock Location Map and Addendum. These shall be maintained by the Dock Administration and kept on file in the City Offices. Such Dock • Location Map and Addendum shall contain the following information: A. City controlled shoreline on Lake Minnetonka. B. Lineal footage markings for purposes of establishing dock locations. C. Shoreline Classifications and definitions of such. D. Addendum shall include: Site #, shoreline classifications, abutting or non - abutting site, shoreline location name, designation of being a dock site or slip site, Slip Use Area, abutting site addresses. Current restrictions on dock site locations such as one -sided dock and site removal at non - renewal, and any information regarding any variance granted by the LMCD or other permitting agency, shall also be listed. E. Access points, and other relevant information as is necessary to review dock locations and to allow the City Council and the Dock Administration to protect the public lands and public water. Subd. 8. Review of Map. At least once a year, the Dock Administration will present to the Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission its recommendations for changes to the Dock Location Map and Addendum. This review shall occur between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season. The POSDC's recommended changes must be considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Final approval of the Dock Location Map and Addendum shall be made by the City Council. At any point in time the • 6 -2721- 439.25 City Council may make changes to the Dock Location Map and Addendum. These changes may include, but not limited to, removal or addition of sites or slips. • Enforcement Subd. 1. Failure to Declare Watercraft. Mooring of an undeclared watercraft will result in the imposition of a civil penalty against the holder of the slip license as established by the City. The civil penalty will be forgiven if the slip license holder declares the watercraft within 5 business days. If, after such 5 day period, the watercraft is not declared and the watercraft is still moored at the slip the Dock Administration will recommend to the City Manager that the slip license and any watercraft declarations issued forwatercraft moored at that slip site be revoked for the balance of the license year, and that the holder not be eligible to apply for a license for the next following license year. Additionally, no new license will be issued following such revocation until all unpaid civil penalties and any delinquent dock program related fees or penalties have been paid in full. Further, watercraft may be impounded and all associated costs will be the responsibility of the watercraft owner. Mooring of a declared watercraft that does not meet the Slip Use Area criteria must be removed immediately or the Dock Administration will recommend to the City Manager that the slip license and any watercraft declarations issued for watercraft moored at that slip site be revoked. Further, watercraft may be impounded and all associated costs will be the responsibility of the watercraft owner. Subd. 2. Denial, Suspension or Revocation of License A. No license shall be issued to any applicant with past due property taxes, civil penalties related to Dock Program, and any other delinquent fees or penalties • related to the Dock Program, municipal utility fees, including but not limited to water and sewer bills, and penalties and interest thereon. If said past due obligations are not paid by April 15th of the license year, all slip rights will be revoked immediately. B. The license will be revoked or suspended by the Dock Administration for non- compliance with any of the requirements of this chapter. Subd. 3. Notices. All notices of revocation, suspension, non - renewal, or denial herein required shall be in writing by first class, certified mail, or by personal service, directed to the licensee at the address given on the application. Subd. 4. Appeal. (1). To City Manager. The licensee may appeal the notice to the City Manager at any time within 10 days of the date of receipt by serving a written notice of appeal on the City Clerk. Upon such notice of appeal, the City Manager or the City Manager's designee will conduct a hearing on the matter at a date and time reasonably convenient to the holder, but in no event later than 20 days following the date the notice of appeal is served on the City Clerk. If following the hearing, the City Manager, or designee, finds that the licensee was in violation of the provisions of this section the City Manager or designee may revoke the license of the slip license holder for the current license year, and may disqualify the holder from applying for or receiving a Slip License for the next following license year, and until any civil penalties have been paid in full. The City Manager will notify the licensee by mail of the decision. • -2722- • (II). To City Council. The licensee may appeal the decision of the City Manager to the City Council at any time within 10 days of the date of receipt by serving a written notice of appeal on the City Clerk. Upon such notice of appeal, the City Council will conduct a hearing on the matter at a date and time reasonably convenient to the holder, but in no event later than 20 days following the date the notice of appeal is served on the City Clerk. If following the hearing, the City Council finds that the licensee was in violation of the provisions of this section the City Council may revoke the license of the slip license holder for the current license year, and may disqualify the holder from applying for or receiving a Slip License for the next following license year, and until any civil penalties have been paid in full. • 439.30 Penalty. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of. a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any watercraft moored without a license as required by this Section, where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section. Removal of unlicensed watercraft which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. This may include, but not limited to, impounding and storage. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to slips will be issued a license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 439. Passed by the City Council this day of 12008. Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Published in The Laker the _ day of , 2008. Effective the _ day of , 2008. -2723- RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the form of document entitled: Supplement to Memorandum of Understanding, (attached hereto as Exhibit A), has received the recommendations of staff regarding same and is fully informed as to its content. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows 1. The Supplement is, in all respects hereby approved. 2. The Mayor and City Manager are directed to execute the same and to take all steps necessary to carry out the obligations of the City thereunder. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota this 25ffi day of November, 2008 ATTEST: Bonnie Ritter, Clerk 343438v1 JBD MU195 -15 Mark Hanus Mayor -2724- • • Supplement to Memorandum of Understanding THIS AGREEMENT, is made as of the day of November, 2008 by and between the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City ") and Mound Harbor Renaissance Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability corporation ( "MHR" ), and the Villas on Lost Lake Homeowners Association (the "Association") BACKGROUND On or about November 23, 2005 the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ( the "MOU ") relating to dredging, construction and use of a 37 -slip dock facility all as fully set out in the MOU. The 37 -Slip Dock Facility is shown on the attached Exhibit A. 2. Pursuant to the MOU the parties also entered into an Escrow and Disbursing Agreement dated _ September, 2007 ( the "EDA ") pertaining to the reserve of funds to cover certain future expenditures relating to the Lost Lake channel, the 37 slips and the area serving the 37 slips all as fully set out in the EDA. 3. Both the MOU and the EDA are currently in full force and effect. 4. Paragraph 5 of the Understandings contained in the MOU allows the City, beginning in • 2009 to annually license slips in the 37 -unit slip facility to other participants in the City's dock program if they are not licensed to owners of units at the Villas on Lost Lake. • At the time the MOU was executed, it was the firm belief of the parties that the 37 -slip dock facility would be completed and fully occupied by residents of the Villas on Lost Lake by the end of 2008. 6. Although the 37 -slip dock facility was completed and turned over to the City as contemplated in the MOU; due to a downturn in the housing market of unprecedented proportions, only _ of the contemplated housing at the Villas have been completed and sold. 7. MHR has requested that the City revise the MOU in an effort to allow both the City to make available slips for use within the dock program beginning with the 2009 boating season, while at the same time not unreasonable interfering with efforts of MHR to complete construction and sale of the homes in the Villas. 8. As a result of discussions between the City and MHR, the parties have agreed to the terms of a modification to the MOU. Those terms are set out in this Supplement. 343262v4 JBD MU195 -15 -2725- UNDERSTANDINGS The provisions of the MOU and the EDA are incorporated at this point as if fully set out is herein. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term Non - Abutter shall mean a participant in the Mound Dock Program who is not the occupant or owner of a home in the Villas. 2. Notwithstanding any provision contained in the MOU or the EDA to the contrary, the parties agree as follows: (1) In the event that for any year beginning with the 2009 boating season, the City receives fewer than 37 slip license applications ( "Applications ") from occupants of the residential units, it may, after consultation with MHR, in November of the preceding year, make a number of slips equal to the lesser of: (i) the difference between such Applications and 37; or (ii) 13, available for use during the boating season by individuals who are participating in the City's dock program. (2) The slips described in paragraph (1) will be located in the portion of the 37 -slip dock facility shown on the attached Exhibit A as the "13 Temporary Sites ". (3) Prior to issuing any licenses to non - abutters, the City will (i) construct at its expense, and according to plans reviewed by MHR, a separator as shown on Exhibit A as "Installation Site for New Gate "; and (ii) re -key, at City expense, the gate shown on Exhibit A as "Gate to be Re- Keyed ". (4) Licenses issued to non - abutters are for an annual basis only, and will not be renewed is as to any year for which the City has received an application for that slip from an owner of a home in the Villas, but only after all of the slips located outside the "13 Temporary Sites" area have been assigned. Licenses shall contain a statement to that effect. (5) Licenses issued to owners and to non - abutters shall provide that a license will be subject to revocation or suspension if the licensee is involved in conduct which unreasonably annoys members of the public or owners or occupants of nearby residential dwellings. (6) Licenses issued to non - abutters shall contain a statement to the effect that parking of vehicles in connection with use of the slip will be limited to designated permitted areas and prohibited anywhere within the Lost Lake community as well as in other designated prohibited areas; and that a violation of those provisions may result in revocation or suspension of the license. (7) Slips licensed by the City to non - abutters will be subject to the offset provisions contained in paragraph 2(c) of the EDA. Those licensees will be expected to pay the full license fee and the allocated portion of the Deposits as described in the EDA. • 343262v4 JBD MU195 -15 2 - 2726 - 3. If this Agreement is determined to be in violation of any license, permit or approval issued • by any other governmental authority in connection with the slips or the dredge, this Agreement shall automatically be null and void without action from either parry, except that any current annual licenses shall remain in effect for their term. 4. Any notice shall be given in writing, signed by the parry giving notice, personally delivered or mailed by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the parties' respective addresses as set forth below: To MHR: Mound Harbor Renaissance Development, LLC 1521 9e Lane NE Minneapolis, MN 55449 Attn: David Newman, Chief Manager With copies to: Thomas A. Stokes 4052 Oakland Street St. Bonifacius, MN 55375 Plum Investment Company 700 East Lake Street, Suite 201 Wayzata, MN 55391 Attn: Peter Pflaum, President and Chief Financial Officer • Key Investment, Inc. 225 6th Street, Suite 5200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Attn: Jerry Paquin, Chief Operating Officer To Association: The Villas on Lost Lake Homeowners Association Attn: Tom Stokes 4052 Oakland Street St. Bonifacius, MN 55375 To the CITY: Kandis M. Hanson, City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364. With copy to: Mr. John Dean City Attorney Kennedy & Graven 200 South Sixth Street Suite 470 Minneapolis, MN 55402 • Notice shall be deemed delivered (a) in the case of personal delivery, on the date when 343262v4 JBD MU195 -15 3 -2727- personally delivered; or (b) in the case of certified or registered mail, on the date which is one day after deposited in the United States mail with sufficient postage to effect such delivery. • Each party may change recepient and the address to which notice must be given by delivery of written notice to the other parties in accordance with this Paragraph 4. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. By: Its: Mound Harbor Renaissance Development, LLC City of Mound By: Its: By: is Its: The Villas on Lost Lake By: Its: By: Its: Drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (JBD) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza. 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337 -9300 343262v4 JBD MU195 -15 4 -2728- • r� • I* EXHIBIT A 343262v4 JBD MU195 -15 A -1 -2729- Executive Summary Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting City Planner DATE: November 19, 2008 SUBJECT: PC Case #08 -15 — 2933 Cambridge Lane Variance Request BACKGROUND HiisLi The applicant, Vladimir Sivriver, has submitted an application on behalf of the property owner, Kester Batchelor, for a variance in order to construct a home, garage and deck on the property at 2933 Cambridge Lane. There is currently no home on the property as the previous home, constructed in 1936, has been demolished. The 8,004 square foot lot, which has a Property ID number of 24- 117 -24 -42 -0007, is part of the Wychwood subdivision. The property has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of Low Density Residential and a Zoning Classification of R- CA Single Family Residential. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At its November 17, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the variance application and voted 5 to 1 to recommend Council denial of the variance as recommended by Staff. The denial was recommended because there were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that applied to this property that do not generally apply to other properties in the area. As noted in the discussion section below, the property is 2,000 square feet greater in size than generally required for R -1 A zoned properties. In addition, the 10 -foot setback required for the adjacent bluff has only minimal impact on the buildable area of the property. As it was not a unanimous recommendation a draft resolution has not been included. The minute excerpts from the November 17, 2008 Planning Commission meeting (draft) have been included. One city code issue that was raised during the Planning Commission Meeting was the difference in setback standards for detached and attached garages in lakeshore lot of records in the R -1A zoning district. The table below summarizes these differences: 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2730- Accessory Buildings Principal Structure R -1A Setback (side loaded detached garage) (attached garage) City Code 350.435 City Code 350.625 Side Yard 4 feet 6 feet (lot of record) Front Yard 8 feet 20 feet 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2730- • Of primary concern is that if the applicant would detach the garage the structure would be conforming. However, because it is connected to the house it now requires a variance. Staff recognizes that the difference between the setback requirement for front and side load garages is due to a need to ensure there is guest parking on the property. However, Staff is unable to explain the difference between attached and detached structures. The City may want to reexamine this policy. U • PROPOSED DIMENSIONS CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. Comments received are summarized below: Ray Ranson, Engineering Tech. Proposed home layout does not show what hardship is. Bluff shown is on City of Mound Commons Property and therefore should not be considered as a reason for hardship. Greg Skinner, PW Supt. Shorten garage or find new design house to fit lot. Show or list existing sewer and water locations. Dan Menth, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Supt. Jim Kurtz, Police Chief Greg Pederson, Fire Chief DISCUSSION No objections /comments. No objections /comments. No objections /comments. No objections /comments. • In accordance to City Code Section 350.310, Subd 9, the portion of the commons located directly west of this property has been determined to be a bluff. The top of the bluff and a 10 -foot setback line has been shown on the survey. This 10 -foot setback line impacts the buildable area of the lot in the extreme southwest corner. • There is an existing fire lane on the north side of the property. A side setback of 6 feet is required. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2731- Required Proposed/Existing Variance Lot Area 6,000 sq ft. 8,004 sq. ft. - Lot Width 40 feet 80 feet - Lot Depth 80 feet 100 feet - Front Yard Setback (house) 20 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear Yard Setback (house) 15 feet 26 feet - Side Yard Setback (house) 6 feet 7/8 feet - OHWL Setback 50 feet 80+ feet - Hardcover (maximum 40 %) 3,202 sq. ft. 3,077 sq. ft. - CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. Comments received are summarized below: Ray Ranson, Engineering Tech. Proposed home layout does not show what hardship is. Bluff shown is on City of Mound Commons Property and therefore should not be considered as a reason for hardship. Greg Skinner, PW Supt. Shorten garage or find new design house to fit lot. Show or list existing sewer and water locations. Dan Menth, Building Official Jim Fackler, Parks Supt. Jim Kurtz, Police Chief Greg Pederson, Fire Chief DISCUSSION No objections /comments. No objections /comments. No objections /comments. No objections /comments. • In accordance to City Code Section 350.310, Subd 9, the portion of the commons located directly west of this property has been determined to be a bluff. The top of the bluff and a 10 -foot setback line has been shown on the survey. This 10 -foot setback line impacts the buildable area of the lot in the extreme southwest corner. • There is an existing fire lane on the north side of the property. A side setback of 6 feet is required. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2731- The applicant is proposing a house, deck and attached garage. The house is located 45 • feet from the front setback line. However, the garage portion of the house is only located 10 feet from the front property line. The applicant is requesting a variance for the location of the garage. • Staff notes that the property is 2,000 square feet greater than the minimum required for R1 -A properties. As noted previously, there is a bluff, but it is not located on the property and the required 10 -foot setback line impacts only a small portion of the building pad. Staff does not find any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that prevent the construction of a conforming house. The applicant cites that it is not favorable to place the home within the current setback without constructing a number of large retaining walls in order to match the existing terrain of the adjacent properties. The applicant also states that an alternative home design cannot be considered because the property owner indicated that this house footprint suits his needs as a homeowner. The applicant also believes that this design provides a more welcoming aesthetic and much - needed curb appeal to the neighborhood as compared to other garage - fronted homes. • The applicant notes that surrounding properties have also placed structures close to their front and side property lines. However, it should be noted that the homes on these properties were constructed prior to 1950. The property to the north did have a variance granted in 1983 but it was for the side yard. • The applicant also notes that if the house were placed within the current setback the deck • would not meet the rear setback requirement. Staff notes, however, that Section 350.440 of the City Code states that decks, balconies, and the like are allowed a 10 -foot rear setback. • Application was submitted and deemed to complete on or around November 10, 2008. Pursuant to MS 15.99, the City has 60 days to approve or deny a land use application unless an extension is executed. RELEVANT CITY CODE SECTION 350.530 The following is the section of the code the Planning Commission reviewed in considering their recommendation: Subd. 1. Criteria for Granting Variances. A variance to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be issued to provide relief to the landowner in those zones where the ordinance imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his land. No use variances may be issued. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of this ordinance have no control. • 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2732- • B. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Council denial of the variance to construct the home and garage as proposed with the following findings of fact: 1. There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. The property is 2,000 square feet greater in size than required for R -1 A zoned properties. In addition, the required 10 -foot setback for the adjacent bluff has only minimal impact on the buildable area of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated that the variance requested is the minimum required, as the applicant has not located the home closer to the rear setback line. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax(612)338 -6838 -2733- MINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 17.2008 BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #08 -15 FRONT YARD VARIANCE 2933 CAMBRIDGE LANE OWNER: KESTER BATCHELOR ................... . The applicant is requesting a 10 -foot front yard variance for construction of a new home. Staff is recommending denial of the variance due to 1) no exceptional circumstances that prevent building a conforming house and 2) applicant has not demonstrated that the variance requested is the minimum required as the home could be located closer to the rear setback line. Kester Batchelor (owner of 2933 Cambridg r arm) stated that the "corridor effect ", with the garage obscuring a view of the house disturbing. They hoped to avoid that appearance in their home through the us side load garage. A question was raised on why detached, side load garages (lowed to be located only 8 feet from the street whereas an attached, side lo. rage had to be 20 feet. Staff commented that • this may be an item for the city to i as side loaded attached garages are becoming more common. The applicant also s ated that they were told by staff on more than 1 occasion that the front setback was 10 feet. Smith stated that, to her knowledge, there is no 10 foot front setback in the residential zones. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Glister, to recommend Council deny the variance request. MOTION carried. Voting for: Claywell, Ward, Michael, Glister, and Paulsen Voting against: Peters • -2734- -2735- 4 4 Property adjoining 2933 Cambridge Lane Discussions with local realtors regarding the proposed construction at this site have indicated that a property of this type and size should have three interior parking stalls. See attached document. This will allow the owners to place their cars under cover and not visually 'litter' the aspect of the lot. Furthermore, local realtors have indicated that a property of this type would benefit from the suggested 'open' curb appeal and may improve the general street appearance as well as retaining more of the existing trees located on the site. While it is not the intention of the owners to build the property as a business opportunity, they are aware of the investment they are making and would like to maximize this. A suggestion has been made to detach the garage from the main house structure to allow the placement of the garage in the proposed position, but the owners feel that an attached garage is beneficial during Minnesota winter and their investment, especially at this elevation of the exposed bluff. Furthermore, a suggestion has been made to move the property ten feet (10') further towards the lake and bring the property into the required property line. This would reduce the rear aspect of the property significantly, something that is already limited by the attempt to break the garage facing, corridor style streets in the area. This would also add hardship to the prospective builders as this does not lend itself to the contours of the lot, requiring significant back filling in front of the property and possible retaining walls along the bluff. • -2736- 6450 Wayzata Boulevard, Milmeepolis, MN 55426 -1.710 { ' Phone: Fax: EN G,11NEERING DESIGN & SUR.VEYII\TG • November 10, 2008 Sarah Smith Community Development Director 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Property at: 2933 Cambridge Lane, Mound MN, 55364 Dear Ms. Smith: We are requesting 10 foot front setback variances for above said properties. The following hardship shall justify our request: 1. The property is qualified to be considered part of a bluff. A. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; Yes B. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; Yes The bluff located between elevation 929.40 and 954.40 C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater Yes (954.40- 929.40)/48 =52 % D. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. Yes • 2. The adjacent house to the south far exceeds front and side setbacks 3. The requested 10 foot setback applies only to the attached garage while the house itself is 45 feet inside the front property line. 4. Due to the current terrain it is not favorable to place the house within the current setback without constructing a number of large retaining walls in order to match the existing terrain of the adjacent properties. 5. If the house were placed within the current required setback the deck would not meet the rear setback requirements. 6. An alternate house design cannot be considered because Mr. Batchelor indicated that this house footprint suits his needs as a homeowner, as well as provides a more welcoming aesthetic to the neighborhood and much - needed curb appeal when compared to many of the garage - fronted houses currently in this neighborhood. Also, please note that the adjacent house to the north has a very similar configuration and is placed very close to the front property line, presumably, due to similar topographic constraints. If you have any further questions please feel free to give me a call a Sincerely, • Vladimir Sivriver, RLS, PE, Principal of EDS, Inc. ENGINEERING WITH HIGH INTEGRITY, OUTSTANDING QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY -2737- r-AAL-",\ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952 - 472 -0600 FAX 952 -472 -0620 VARIANCE APPLICATION 06i RECEIVED �D OCT . _ 82008 MOUND PLANNING • Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. Planning Commission Date City Council Date Please tvae or print leaibly Case No. 09-15 SUBJECT Address 2933 CAMg�.�'°6.E LaN�y N1°�trt ®� -3 &,1 PROPERTY 7 ANO $ LEGAL Lot Block 1 DESC. Subdivision W Y GH W o® P PID # 211 - 117 - 2-`1 - 42 - 000'7 Plat # ZONING DISTRICT R -1 R -1A R -2 R -3 B -1 B -2 B- 3t °�''�' -'�`` PROPERTY Name V-6 5 iEfL BA Tc-W EL oit OWNER Z ©T-TA WA AvvE S. Sr Lo:s;s P-49-r / A44 5S&f t& Address � Phone HoVor . N Fax APPLICANT Name V LA D iM r 9- S' V 2t yER (IF OTHER Address 6q80 W AyZ4T71 f�LVD. , +�hP P ®r�.15! MA 5�5-Li 2-4 THAN OWNER) Phone Ho *i Wor Fax 7 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conaitional use permit, or otner zoning procedure for this property? Yes ( ) NoX. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 2-- S -niz-Y Nvuse- GE7 T D &rcK-. ALso PRoPasry CQNc fLwrw bP„V15w,4y is Variance Information (6/9/2008) Page 4 of 4 -2738- • Case No. og'l!� 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): IST7di SETBACKS: REQUIRED Front Yard: (N S E W) ft: Side Yard: (N S E W) ft. Side Yard: (N S E W) ft. Rear Yard: (N S E W) ft. Lakeside: (N S E W) ft. (NSEW) ft. Street Frontage: ft. • Lot Size: sq ft Hardcover: sq ft C7 REQUESTED (or existing) 10 ft: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft S L. 0-:r• ALL'IT_PIOLA fl ft. ft. ft. ft: ft. ft. ft. sq ft sq ft 4. Does the present use of the property conform to.all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (y), No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use: 5. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow topography () soil ( ) too small drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow () shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: �fIt�t, ®N %{-j�" ffAGK-51D15- or a _rS �f CR�'D i e L y S�rP C�cAT�s N�r�vsM r � To �yr L.v WI.041d 51MOACA4; HiI_L M, OH- 0,v ,4L1ry As "PLJr-F-A Variance Information (6/9/2008) Page 5 of 5 -2739- . Case No. 03-K • 6. Was the hardship described above created by the action of a!ny� ne having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes, NO X. if yes, explain: 7. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No (" ). If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes( ), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I Ork I CIY E' ?NtE A v irAc 07dl' "r 1V 7 C- 5'v i/ M HAP 4 5i mi C.A 12 fs;: r r Mp - MrpzrFagg WA5 QUILT 7-P Fxa& -F> 5 firr -c v- LI/YKIT-1 9. Com LE77-gFi . t:_XPf_A1#V1d& • I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the variance information provided. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature K Date Applicant's Signature �'° Date �D L 04Y • Variance Information (6/9/2008) Page 6 of 6 -2740- CERTIFICATE OF S \f or,- KESTER BATCHELOR ♦ ! ♦�Tr 1 / ,rte` ♦ -< 1 1 11 K t iii � I YEXSISTING HOUSE y' `•�: ; ; 'I \ L'14X L '59 )COVER 'RVIOUS OF LOT 3077.35 SQ. FT. aL OF LOT 8004.43 SQ. FT. LOT 38.45% 1lis MN 55426 -1710 HOUSE M 1 --1 111111 O r63 .72 947.62 AFTON RD. O 3'R. Q 10— 00T ETBACK FRO P OF BLUFF ' N 15.00 0 � r � 2I O I m`� l O 1 W GA RAGE f� WO y10.0 N a I -966.3 966.3 W fig@ O II I ° O I fj � 1 OU O 3 I OL po po O O o 26.13 I __ 'I \ L'14X L '59 )COVER 'RVIOUS OF LOT 3077.35 SQ. FT. aL OF LOT 8004.43 SQ. FT. LOT 38.45% 1lis MN 55426 -1710 HOUSE M 1 --1 111111 O r63 .72 947.62 AFTON RD. O 1" � o 18 ( 100.0 P) of q(�� i o 1.56 � EXSISTING HOUSE rn � fV y r� I 1 /N 1 ION 1 / O( t i F< I K / NO I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, A: ixn_foo edsmri.com AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. z: httu:lledsmr-,.com R '•^ V EYING t�112c� " `` Y� v DATED:: 111 0 /OB VLADIMIR SIVRIVER LS, NO. 25105 —274 — D RIM = 955.22 BTM =946.52 1 te JOB NAME: KESTER BATCHELOR 2933 CAMBRIDGE LANE MOUND, MN 55364 3'R. � O O 0. 0.0 P, W GA RAGE y10.0 N -966.3 966.3 fV O fj I N O li 10.0 10. 0 O O o 1" � o 18 ( 100.0 P) of q(�� i o 1.56 � EXSISTING HOUSE rn � fV y r� I 1 /N 1 ION 1 / O( t i F< I K / NO I I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION, A: ixn_foo edsmri.com AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. z: httu:lledsmr-,.com R '•^ V EYING t�112c� " `` Y� v DATED:: 111 0 /OB VLADIMIR SIVRIVER LS, NO. 25105 —274 — D RIM = 955.22 BTM =946.52 1 te JOB NAME: KESTER BATCHELOR 2933 CAMBRIDGE LANE MOUND, MN 55364 O, � N 00 co o i yI u W 5 m 1 LO o z N m W U ? J U d z uj d' N 9 F 1 r m z 1 1 O R' r p H a � YGi G Q a ui y O f0 00 n ; F o � „9 =jJ =��WW >.NWQ l7F S _ L_ �""l N t/1 f/1 N Vt yN� N VI f/� VI 4N1 VI N Vl VI N Vl fn N N 41 N N N [/1 C) F � W 0 —O 00 T O o J....� � U h- - os a 30 ' r b V ! ry LL w L d IZ' TT V c I - LL Y — — jI f IW m � O zl �mm O l z oz , W m g W W V)o O W W J LL a A 9 O H ~ s 6 -q MC ZOm c u� aoQYS mn ~8O c zu 630. o c O1ww n Y 6 y °,- W Wz_m O 3l1 OE 0£ — 00-OR (W) 0 08 3,ZO,OI (9 OB (WJ 6L M. a i S U yI u W 5 m ooh = wo�gao o z N m W U ? J U d z 9 Wm WKp ZZW N 8- J W K K O O W W W O K Z W VQ~l a K F~ a F 1 Z2 �Oz >a �J"H N aLu C g w y NNao:�-3 zz ww oQ m S� a? 3N �[i7Lyy+1 O R' r p H a � ar 0O�0QwxOws °w °w wo o¢? z O O z m O Z w O W o a z 0 0 h �WW 0 w Q� N N 0 0 �p7 . FN�4WOZawO,cwiJWa�Z ° N g €�+m >tuiopao j Z N U H 1- N N O N W Z a U O O X a W o 0 W X Q Q> Q J Q U Q W O W _I X x C m „9 =jJ =��WW >.NWQ l7F W U w4. om JN W U 5 oc�w,n ina O 30. ww o. a V �""l N t/1 f/1 N Vt yN� N VI f/� VI 4N1 VI N Vl VI N Vl fn N N 41 N N N [/1 C) F � W 0 —O 00 w 000 O 0 0.0000 O O O O O O O O O zzzO O zzaa zz z zzz O zz zO zO aO 0o frj r­;- .6o<a FzW WWZ5E, W zo W W 0 W W W W W W O W W W W W O C O 0 W W o W o no O O o 0 0 0 O O I, W aGyt; O QFon N Oi a io i. 0 a • IP ZOO Im to 1� 1 I 1 l it it a i S �m d ooh = wo�gao 9 Wm WKp ZZW N 8- Z Z Z2 �Oz >a �J"H N aLu C g w i[ w 3s O R' r p H a � wo � Q WHIR owl IZU � � . FN�4WOZawO,cwiJWa�Z ° N g €�+m >tuiopao W o =jJ =��WW >.NWQ l7F 3 V CJ1 N�KVZQ F m frj r­;- .6o<a FzW WWZ5E, N I, W V mH Oz 'Z »Ome0 aGyt; O QFon N Oi a io i. 0 I a i S -2742- �m d - 00'6 O6Z &I ' o Km 0£ W ^ S -2742- - 00'6 O6Z I ' o I, to V) N p3 + Mmr� ggg 3E hl OJ —_ �. �_ -- tO� ✓ O O p 5: g W 1 J S � � O o Q Q = i p9p q; M SC� W U M� M z Q> LU a < i W M -2742- r� L • • -2743- UJI;E INS NMI PH ti■ � LOW,loom \ ,I ,I ■ JIB -2743- M ------------------------------------- H----------------- - ---------------------------------------------------- q I µ M -2744- • • • I I I 15a �g�b•! � I o E t it I 66� 1 I I I 1 rrrr ii � I I it I i �� i i • i �p� I I I I I'I I by i i i I l I , I y 1 1 I I g I � I b6` I , I I i -2744- • • • • -2745- �4 b�A4 H a ¢ M ° i s. 6 ❑ I I I ' x6 i 11 I �I - } I 2 I EI 4 � ! h ep k i to i 1 -2745- ° i s. 6 ❑ I ' 11 I } I 2 I ! h ep k -2745- a se as iu P L______ ______ ____ ______ _.____ —_ Cl -2746- • • J 5i 2 4 � e e '« O a -2746- • • 0 0 . -2747- . \ , X , � ; . ........ . ... . j... . ! . . � . � , | / i !2 I | hill, � ( � .§ .' 2 ■! . -2747- �a h h a -2748- • • HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE.) PROPERTY -ADDESS: 2,413 '7 11 e , r�' Cr OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA SQ, FT. X 30% (for all lots) ....................................... E:== LOT AREA 9 0 0 SQ. FT. X 40% (for Lots of Record) ........... m .................. 77 Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6.B.1 (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. SQ FT LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE X e12-1 X -4.3 V TOTALHOUSE .................. I ............................. DETACHED BUILDINGS X (GARAGE/SHED) X • TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ......._ ....................... DRIVEWAY, PARKING 2g= X 6ozz i AREAS, SIDEWALKS, X le'45; - 4' ETC. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ........................................ DECKS open decks (1/4" min. X Opening between boards) with a X pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover.. X TOTALDECK ....................................................... X X TOTALOTHER ..................................... SURFACE............,........ ............................. .............. F 73:a:7 =T� TOTAL HARDCOVER IMPERVIOUS (indicate difference) ............................... .................................. ? 7- =Aj 'y��pER./OVER • DATE PREPARED BY Revised 05/05/05 -2749- PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. null • TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Rita Trapp DATE: November 20, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 24, 2008 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 25, 2008 APPLICANT: Susan Chambers REQUEST: Variance CASE NUMBERS: 08 -16 LOCATION: 4840 Bedford Road PROPERTY ID: 24- 117 -24 -41 -0063 ZONING: R -lA Single Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential BACKGROUND The applicant, Susan Chambers, has submitted an application for a variance in order to construct • a house and garage addition at 4840 Bedford Road. The 9,201 square foot lot is part of the Wychwood Shores subdivision. A 1971 waiver combined and subdivided Lots 1, 15 & 16 to create this lot and the lot to the north with the unusual configuration. The existing home on this lot was constructed in 1971. PROPOSED DIMENSIONS r� 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax(612)338 -6838 -2750- Required Proposed/Existing Variance Lot Area 6,000 sq. ft. 9,201 sq. ft. - Lot Width 40 feet 90 feet - Lot Depth 80 feet 102 feet - Front Yard Setback (east) — Bradford 20 feet 31.5 feet - Rear Yard Setback (west) 15 feet 6.3 feet 8.7 feet Front Yard Setback (south) - Bedford 30 feet 24.8 feet 5.2 feet Side Yard Setback (north) 6 feet 30+ feet - Hardcover (maximum 40 %) 3,680 sq. ft. 2,607 sq. ft. - r� 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax(612)338 -6838 -2750- ,7 • Ie� ---� Regular Agenda item A& WA Applicant Supplement 11 /17/08 PC meeting Mound Advisory Planning Commission Mound City Hall Monday November 17'" 2008 Item 5b Review of Planning Case No. 08 -15 Variance (front yard) for new house at 2933 Cambridge Lane Supplemental Information The concept for the property was developed by Hedley Batchelor RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architecture), an award winning European Architect. The Architects aim was to improve the visual appeal while attempting to `open up' the local area providing a larger more welcoming area of soft cover, and mirror the neighboring property. The current planning requirements, tend to drive the designer to maximize the land at the rear of a property and minimize that at the front. This leads to a house design where the road facing elevation of the building is all garage, this garage may be built into the main structure of the building or as in two cases in Cambridge Lane, lead to a road facing garage with minimal space between the garage and the building (so as to render the building detached from the garage and allow it to be built closer to the road). Typical elevation of an attached garage iaKe siae prupei ty i ypicai elevation of -aetacnea' garage IaKe'side property on Cambridge Lane The proposed layout would also reduce the 'corridor' affect that this type of format creates. This can also be noted along many of the lakeside properties roads in the area which is a result of the attempt to maximize the rear elevation of the: property, • • The proposed structure at 2933 Cambridge Lane, intended not only to introduce an increased amount of soft cover to the area but also attempted to emulate (with less hard cover) the layout of the adjoining property. This would mirror the adjoining property and • provide a large area of visual relief to road users travelling down Afton Road or along Cambridge Lane. • Property adjoining 2933 Cambridge Lane Discussions with local realtors regarding the proposed construction at this site have indicated that a property of this type and size should have three interior parking stalls. See attached document. This will allow the owners to place their cars under cover and not visually' litter' the aspect of the lot. • Furthermore, local realtors have indicated that a property of this type would benefit from the suggested `open' curb appeal and may improve the general street appearance as well as retaining more of the existing trees located on the site. While it is not the intention of the owners to build the property as a business opportunity, they are aware of the investment they are making and would like to maximize this. A suggestion has been made to detach the garage from the main house structure to allow the placement of the garage in the proposed position, but the owners feel that an attached garage is beneficial during Minnesota winter and their investment, especially at this elevation of the exposed bluff. Furthermore, a suggestion has been made to move the property ten feet (10') further towards the lake and bring the property into the required property line. This would reduce the rear aspect of the property significantly, something that is already limited by the attempt to break the garage facing, corridor style streets in the area. This would also add hardship to the prospective builders as this does not lend itself to the contours of the lot, requiring significant back filling in front of the property and possible retaining walls along the bluff. To: Mound Advisory Planning Commission From: Brian Carion Agent Referral Network The Minnesota Real Estate Team 651- 324 -1316 Date: 11 -17 -2008 After close review of the home that Kester and Lisa Batchelor plan to build, this property will add significant value to both Cambridge Lane as well as Mound in general. With the projected market value of the property to be near $1 million, and after researching real estate extensively in the Mound area over the past 25 months, an attached 3 -car garage would add both functionality and add favorably to the market value of this property. Of course, high market value is a win -win for both parties involved. The Batchelors are looking to maximize the investment in their new home, meanwhile the City of Mound will benefit from a higher property tax value.. Additionally, the Batchelors have taken great measures to improve the aesthesis of the lot by creating an `open' curb appeal where views of their home will not be interrupted or completely blocked by the presence of a garage lining the front property line. • As further support, I have included a CMA of 12 properties that could be used as • comparables when assessing future market value. These comparables all have 3 -car garages. Should you have any questions over the content of this letter or CMA, please feel free to contact me directly. Best Regards, Brian Carion Minneapolis Association of Realtors • x�r T, mpdr 1V W�Ii A. Market Analysis Explanation November 20, zoos This is an explanation and overview of this market analysis. This Comparative Market Analysis will help to determine the correct selling price of your home. Ultimately, the correct selling price is the highest possible price the market will bear. This market analysis is divided into three categories: 1. Comparable homes that are currently for sale 2. Comparable homes that were recently sold 3. Comparable homes that failed to sell Looking at similar homes that are currently offered for sale, we can assess the alternatives that a serious buyer has from which to choose.. We can also • be sure that we are not under pricing your home. Looking at similar homes that were sold in the past few months, we can see a clear picture of how the market has valued homes that are comparable to yours. Banks and other lending institutions also analyze these sales to determine how much they can lend to qualified buyers. • Looking at similar homes that failed to sell, we can avoid pricing at a level that would not attract buyers. This Comparative Market Analysis has been carefully prepared for you, analyzing homes similar to yours. The aim of this market analysis is to achieve the maximum selling price for your home, while being able to sell your home within a relatively short period of time. A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion 651 - 324 -1316 arat t Minimums and Maximums This page summarizes key fields of the listings in this analysis. The listings in this analysis can be summarized as follows: Priced between $859,900 and $1,198,000 3 to 6 Bedrooms 2.00 to 4.00 Bathrooms 2,746 to 4,299 Square Feet $209 to $398 per Square Foot Built between 1951 and 2006 2 to 57 years old A Comparative Market Analysis November 20 2008 Brian Carion 651 -324 -1316 • • • f r . iv e- mparat, November 20, 2008 Summary of Comparable Listings This page summarizes the comparable listings contained in this market analysis. Active Listings Address Price Bds Bth TFSF $ /Sq FSize Built Style List Date DOM S= 5991 Ridgewood Road $895,000 3 3 3895 $230 621 1951 ONEHF 08/25/2008 87 1842 Commerce Boulevard $899,900 6 4 4299 $209 1,576 1988 TWOST 04/05/2008 229 1847 Shorewood Lane $949,900 3 3 2746 $346 2,556 2000 SPEBI 02/19/2008 275 2910 Highland Court $979,000 3 4 3669 $267 1,269 1989 TWOST 04/21/2008 213 2950 Highland Court $1,049,000 3 4 3260 $322 1,812 1987 TWOST 07/23/2008 120 4625 Lakeside Lane $1,149,000 4 4 3200 $359 2,240 2006 TWOST 09/02/2008 79 4925 Island View Drive $1,195,000 4 4 3631 $329 1,482 2002 TWOST 10/29/2008 22 4841 Bartlett Boulevard $1,198,000 4 4 3460 $346 2,219 2004 TWOST 02/08/2008 286 Averages: $1,039,350 3.8 3.8 3520 $301 1,722 1991 164 Sold Listings Address Price Bds Sth TFSF $ /Sq FSize Built Style Sold Date DOM S= 1901 Shorewood Lane $925,000 3 3 2848 $325 1,296 1978 SPEBI 11/02/2006 123 4140 Enchanted Lane $975,000 4 3 3552 $274 1,842 1984 FOURM 05/16/2008 57 2950 Highland Court $900,000 3 4 3260 $276 1,812 1987 TWOST 06/28/2007 109 6627 Bartlett Boulevard $1,000,000 4 2 2764 $362 1,508 1958 ONEST 02/25/2008 221 9 Averages: $950,000 3.5 3.0 3106 $309 1,615 1977 128 Median of Comparable Listings: $977,000 A,,orana of Cmmmarahle Listinas: $1,009,567 On Average, the 'Sold' status comparable listings sold in 127.50 days for $950,000 • A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion 651 - 324 -1316 ice: � dr 1v � F, t , s S x. g .mob/ � ��4..� `.'. .., �yr 4FC m i x CMA Comparables Report This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties. TotSgft: AbvSgft: BlwSgft:. GrgStls: PrkChar Yr Built: Lk/Wt: Lot Sz: Acres: Fdtn Sz: Ext': Roof: #Fplcs Bsmt: Amenit: November 20, 2008 Comparable Property Details Comparable Property Details 3589286 3522875 Activei Activd„ 5991 Ridgewood Rd 1842 Commerce Blvd We'' tonka Weston ka ' 116E2 116e1 $895;t30D $899;9100 87 3. 3 (SF) One 1/2 Stories 229 (SF) Two Stories 3895 _ 4299 3,436 2,737 459, . ; 1,562 ......,'; ....... 4 5 Attached Garage, Detached AttaGheC! garage, I3:otacheil Garage, Driveway - Asphalt, Garage, Driveway -A sphalt, 1951 1988 Dock, Lake Front, Lake View Dock, Lake Front NW80x240x110x241 162x155x69x233x47 0:65 0.62 621 1,576 Brick/Stone, Wood - Wood Age 8 Years or Less, Asphalt Shingles, P Age 8 Years or Less, Asphalt Shingles, P 2 1 Finished (Livable), Partial, Daylight/ Lookout Windows, Walkout Finished (Livable), Full, Walkout Deck, Hardwood Floors, Deck., Hot Tub, 1<ltcheo Yxlindow, In- Ground Sprinkler, Kitchen Local ,'Area l�letwcii?lt, ?Miultiple A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion Agent Phone: 6S1- 324 -1316 • • • 111 1` 1 Aiii p CMA Comparables Report This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties. Subject Property MLS #: Status: Address: SchDlst: Map: LstPrc: SldPrc: OffMrrkt: DtClsd: DOM Bedrms: Otyle: thrms: November 20, 2008 Comparable Property Details 3500913 Active. 1847 SHOREWOOD Ln Westonka 117A1 $949,900 Comparable Property Details 3530587 Active 2910 Highland Ct Westonka 116E2 $979,000 275 213 3 3 3 4 (SF) Split Entry (Bi- Level) (SF) Two Stories TotSgftc 274 6 3669 AbvSgft: 2,746 2,741 BIWSgft. 0 928 GrgStls: 3 Driveway - Concrete, Garage 3 attached Garage, Driveway - PrkChar• Door Opener, Heated Garage, Other Surface Garage Door Yr Built: 2000 1989 Dock, Lake Front, Lake View Lk/Wt: Lake Front Lot Sz• Irregular Lake Lot IRREGULAR Acres: 0.00 0.40 Fdtn Sz: 2,556 1,269 Brick/Stone, Wood Ext. Other Age 8 Years or Less, Asphalt Shingles, P Age 8 Years or Less, Shakes Roof: 2 #Epics: 2 Walkout Walkout Bsmt: Balcony, Hardwood Floors, Hot Deck, Kitchen Window, Natural Amenit• Tuts, Kitchen Window, Local Area Woodwork, Security System, • A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carlon Agent Phone: 651- 324 -1316 ly mparat ia CMA Comparables Report This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties. Subject Property MLS #: Status: Address: SchDiist: Map: LstPrc: SldPrc: OffMrkt: DtCisd: DOM Bedrms: Bthrms• Style: TotSgft: AbvSgft: Blwsgft: GrgStis: PrkChar: Yr Built: Lk/Wt: Lot Sz: Acres: Fdtn Sz: Ext. Roof: #Fplcs: Bsmt: Amenit` November 20, 2008 Comparable Property Details 3575737 Active 2950 Highland Ct Westonka 116e2 $1,049j000 120 3 4 (SF) Two Stories 3260 2,650 610 3 Attached Garage, Driveway - Other Surface, Garage Door, 1987 Lake Front IRREGULAR 0.30 1,812 Wood 3 Drain Tiled, Finished (Livable), Full, Walkout Deck, Kitchen Window, Natural Woodwork, Patio, Vaulted.. Comparable Property Details 3592281 Active 4625 Lakeside Ln Westonka 116A1 $1,149,000. 79 4 4 (SF) Two Stories 3200 3,200 0 3 Attached Garage, Driveway - Asphalt, Garage Door Opener, 2006 Lake Front NW50X320 0.26 2,240 Wood Age 8 Years or Less, Asphalt Shingles 2 Drain Tiled, Full, Walkout Deck; Hardwood Floors, Kitchen Window, Natural Woodwork, Tiled A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion Agent Phone: 651 - 324 -1316 • • 0 J w -. V. µ p 4 ,° IOCM'A Comparables Report This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties. Subject Property MLS #: Status: Address: SchDist: Map: LstPrc: SldPrc: offMrkti DtClsd: DOME Bedrms: Otyle thrm s: : TotSgft: AbvSgft: BlwSgft: GrgStls: PrkChar: Yr Built: Lk /Wt: Lot Sz: Acres: Fdtn Sz: Ext: Roof: #Fplcs: Bsmt: Amenit: • November 20, 2008 Comparable Property Details 3614796 Active 4925 Island View Dr Westonka 117A2 $1,195,000: 22 4 4 (SF) Two Stories 3631 2,631 1;000 3 Attached Garage, Garage Door Opener, Heated Garage, 2002 Lake Front, Lake View 60x100 0.00 1,482 Brick /Stone, Wood 2 Daylight /Lookout Windows, Drain Tiled, Finished (Livable), Full, Deck, Hardwood Floors, In�Ground Sprinkler, Kitchen Comparable Property Details 3496429 Active 4841 Bartlett Blvd Westonka 117A1 $1,198,000 286 4 4 (SF) Two Stories 3460 3,460 0 3 Attached Garage, Driveway - Asphalt, Garage Door Opener, 2004 Dock, Lake Front 65x192x127(LK)x135+ 0.47 2,219 Brick /Stone, Cement Board Asphalt Shingles 1 Drain Tiled, Full, Walkout Deck, Hardwood Floors, In= Ground Sprinkler, Kitchen A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion Agent Phone: 651- 324 -1316 F I11 �'�1." � ia��Si� CMA Comparables Report This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties. Subject Property MLS #: Status: Address: SchDlst: Map: LstPrc• SldPrc: OffMrkt: DtClsd: DOM• Bedrms: Sthrms: Style: TotSgft: AbvSgft: BlWsgft: GrgStls: PrkChar: Yr Built: Lk/ Wt: Lot Sz: Acres: Fdtn Sz: Exty Roof: #Fpics: Bsmt: Amenity November 20, 2008 Comparable Property Details 3227981 Sold 1901 Shorewood Ln Westonka 117A1 $859,900 $925,000 10/30/2006 11/02/2006 123 3 3 (SF) Split Entry (Bi- Level) 2848 1,584 1,264 3 Attached Garage, Driveway Asphalt, Garage Door Opener 1978 Lake Front 80x23Ox8Ox245 0.00 1,296 Brick /Stone, Wood Age 8 Years or Less, Asphalt Shingles 3 Finished (Livable), Full, Walkout Deck, Kitchen Window, Natural Woodwork, porch, vaulted Comparable Property Details 3503733 Sold 4140 Enchanted Ln Westonka 117A3 $999,900 $975,000 04/21/2008 05/16/2008 57 4 3 (SF) Four or More Level Split 3552 2,040 1,512 3 Attached Garage, Driveway - Asphalt 1984 Lake Front Irregular -110' on LK 0.72 1,842 Wood Age 8 Years or Less, Rubber, Shakes 2 Drain Tiled, Finished (Livable), Full, Walkout Balcony, Deck, Hardwood Floors, In- Ground Sprinkler; Natural A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carlon Agent Phone: 651 - 324 -1316 • • • 1 rr� .rte .: -� ��..�. WCMA Comparables Report This page outlines the subject property versus comparables properties. November 20, 2008 • A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion Agent Phone: 651- 324 -1316 Comparable Property Details Comparable Property Details Subject Property 3373925 MLS #: 3330803 Status: Sold 2950 Highland Ct Sold 6627 Bartlett Blvd Address: Westonka Westonka SchDlst: 116E2 116D2 Map: $1,000,000 $1;099,001 Lst Prc• LstPrc: $900,000 $1,000,000 Sld 06/08/2007 12/14/2007 OffMrkt: 06/28/2007 02/25 /2008 DtClsd: 109 221 DOM: 4 Bedrms: 3 2 Bthrms: 4 (SF) Two Stories (SF) One Story Otyle: TotSgft: 3260 2764 AbvSgft: 2,650 1,496 BlwSgft: 610 1,268 GrgStls: 3 Attached Garage, Driveway - 3 Detached Garage, Driveway - PrkChar• Other Surface, Garage Door Gravel Yr Built: 1987 1958 Lake Front, Lake. View Lk /Wt: Lake Front Lot Sz: Irreg ... 50 Lake x Lengthy Acres: 0.30 1.28' Fdtn Sz-. 1,812 1,508 Wood Wood Ext: Asphalt Shingles Roof: 0 #Fplcs: 3 Drain Tiled, Finished (Livable), Daylight/Lookout Windows, • Bsmt• Full, Walkout Egress Windows, Finished Deck, Kitchen Window, Natural Deck, Hardwood Floors, Kitchen • Amenit• Woodwork, Patio, Vaulted Window, Natural Woodwork, Tiled • A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion Agent Phone: 651- 324 -1316 X 1 1 a 1 , a A. Table Summary of Comparable Solds November 20, 2008 This page summarizes the comparable sold listings in this market analysis. Sold Listings $ Change % Change List Price to List Price to Address List Brice Sale Price sold Price Sold Price Sold Date DOM 1901 Shorewood Lane $8591900 $925,000 $65,100 7.57 11/02/2006 123 4140 Enchanted Lane $999,900 $975,000 $ 24,900 -2.49 05/16/2008 57 2950 Highland Court $1,000;000 $900,000 $- 100,000 -10.00 06/28/2007 109 6627 Bartlett Boulevard $i,099,000 $1,000,000 $- 99,000 -9.01 02/25/2008 221 Average $989,700 $950,000 $- 39,700 -3.48 128 Median $999,950 $950,000 $61,950 -5.75 116 Minimum $859,900 $900,000 $- 100,000 -10.00 57 Maximum $1,099,000 $1,000,000 $65,100 7.57 221 A Comparative Market Analysis Brian Carion 651 - 324 -1316 • • paIi� ✓ 1pq r �sRM/si LL a > s Nx List Price and Sale Price Thursday, November 20, 2008 This graph illustrates the list price, along with sale price in Sold listings. 1200K 1000K 800K 600K a 400K 200K OK � 0 <0 1 3 A h ^ b Cb c9b �4� OOA �� h� ,�� �O I�b 9`L I4P '�� 0 ��1 h�� h�T � O CIO �(� �Ip hIh �Ib hC� �N� �cbb 3 � 3� 4' 3 3 Price Graph A Comparative Market Analysis MLS# IV List Price Sum of SingleF am ily. SalesC losePrice 651 - 324 -1316 p. 2 #08 -16 4840 Bedford Road Variance . November 20, 2008 CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. Comments received are summarized below: Ray Hanson, Engineering Tech. Drainage must be accommodated on site and should not be directed to adjacent properties. Utility locations need to be confirmed with Public Works prior to construction starting. Preconstruction site inspection will be required. Foundation Dan Menth, Building Official Greg Skinner, PW Supt. Jim Fackler, Parks Supt. Jim Kurtz, Police Chief Greg Pederson, Fire Chief DISCUSSION survey will be required. Building permit required. No utility issues. No comments. No comments as of November 21, 2008. No comments as of November 21, 2008. • In accordance to City Code Section 350.310, Subd 81 the front of the lot has been • determined to be Bradford Lane as it is the shortest dimension of the lot on a public street. This means that the west property line is the rear of the lot as it is the boundary of the lot which is opposite the front lot line. Please note, however, that the existing home's front door and driveway are actually on Bedford Lane which abuts the property on the south side. • • Corner lots which are existing lots of record are required to provide a greater side yard setback. City Code Section 350.440 (Subd. 5) identifies a minimum side yard setback of 30 feet for lots which are 81 feet or more in width. Staff is unsure of why this provision requires a greater side yard setback than the front yard setback for this district. Staff suggests that this provision may have arisen because lots greater than 81 feet were expected to be zoned R -1, where a 30 foot front yard setback is required. Using minimum requirements, a 6,000 square foot R -lA lot with a lot depth of 80 feet would have a width of 75 feet and only be required to have a 20 foot setback. Staff suggests that the City may want to reexamine this provision in the future. • The survey submitted includes a proposed addition, deck and porch. The proposed home addition includes a two -car garage, which the home currently does not have. The survey also notes a future addition which is being included in this variance review so the applicant does not have to apply for that future addition. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2751- p. 3 #08 -16 4840 Bedford Road Variance November 20, 2008 • A variance is needed for the proposed addition for both the rear (west) and front (south) yards. The existing home location and layout limit the potential locations and configurations of the additions. Also, the determination of the front of the lot to be Bradford Road causes what would generally be recognized as the side yard on Bedford Lane to become the rear and require a greater setback. As noted previously, Staff suggests that the requirement of a 20 foot front yard setback but then a 30 foot corner lot side yard setback seems inconsistent and a hardship on the applicant. • As previously mentioned, the existing driveway is on Bedford and will be used for the proposed addition. • There is a permanent easement for the retaining wall which was executed in favor of the City in 2004 which is located along the south line abutting Bedford and located east of the existing driveway. • City Code requires that all driveways are to be hard surfaced. This provision is triggered for new construction which would include a garage addition. • Variance application was submitted and deemed to complete on or around November 20, 2008. Pursuant to MS 15.99, the City has 60 days to approve or deny a land use application unless an extension is executed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance to construct the proposed house, deck and porch addition as proposed subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance request. 2. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the variance application is approved. 3. Applicant shall submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all permits. is • 5. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all public agency permits including the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution(s) with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. • 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mimmeapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2752- p. 4 #08 -16 4840 Bedford Road Variance • November 20, 2008 7. No building permits will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution(s) and easement(s) has been provided to the City by the applicant. 8. No building permits will be issued until any and/or all fees associated with the land use application have been paid unless an escrow deposit of sufficient amount is on file with the City. 9. All runoff must not be directed towards the neighbor's property and accommodated on site. 10. Preconstruction site inspection must be completed. 11. All utility locations must be confirmed with Public Works prior to construction. 12. Structures shall not be built into the required front, side and rear yards. A foundation survey is required if a proposed building is within 5 feet of the required minimum front/side /rear setbacks. 13. Driveway shall be hard surfaced in accordance with the City Code. • In recommending approval of the requested variance, Staff offers the following findings of fact: 1. The front of the lot being determined to be Bradford Road while the home is constructed with access on Bedford Lane has contributed to the need for a variance. The location and configuration of the existing home on the lot limit where and how an addition can be constructed. �0 2. The applicant is proposing a reasonable two -car garage addition which has been minimized to the extent possible. 3. Requiring a 20 foot front yard setback but then a 30 foot corner lot side yard setback for an R -lA property with more than 81 feet in width seems to be unreasonable and a hardship for the applicant. 4. The conditions of City Code Chapter 350.530 are being met. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. The variance application, including the recommendation from the November 24, 2008, special Planning Commission meeting, will be presented at the November 25, 2008 City Council meeting. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 -2753- Nov 20 08 03:00p RE /MAX R -1 Excellence 952- 471 -5440 p -2 FROM Ci (WPD)N0V 18 2008 7B:49IST. t6: 4T lMO. OOOOOOOZ84 �+. o VARIANCE 40 APPLICATION 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952- 472 -0600 FAX 952 - 472 -0620 Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. Planning Commission Date City Council Date Dle g-.e hiwe nr mint lonihiv Case No. SUBJECT Address Lot /� � � -�'" 6� /�� � � Block PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. ) / Subdivision �.%�� � �J � C� PID # Plat # ZONING DISTRICT R -1 R -1 A R -2 R -3 B -1 B-2 B -3 PROPERTY Name OWNER /^ Address Phone Home - u Work Fax APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER f jj <�zG' Address �. �) THAN OWNER) Phone Hom A -' Sul' Worl Fax 1. Has an application ever been age for zoning, variance, conaaional use permit, or oiner zoning proceaure for this property? Yes ( ) No n(}- If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): • -2754- Nov 20 08 03:00p RE /MR}{ R -1 Excellence 952- 471 -5440 p.4 FROM Cloy of Mond 052- 472 -0670 CWED>MDV 98 2006 1S:49IST.76:47/No.0000000204 P s • • • Case No. 6. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: 7. Was the har hip created by any other man -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No.' (ep. if yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of ardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes1, No ( ). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the variance information provided. 1 consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signatu Applicant's Signature, 6OZAM72 Date Nov 20 08 03 :00p RE /MAX A -1 Excellence 952- 471 -5440 p.3 MON CITY of Mowed 952-472 -0679 (MEDINOV 19 2006 71S: 40 /ST. 76:47/No: OOCMOOo2" P 6 Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all a , height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No . If no, specify each non - conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: 5 Front Yard: a Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: Street Fronta Lot Size: Hardcover: REQUIRED _. REQUESTED (or e)isting) (NSI, -11U} (NOW) ft. Cs ft. QSEW) ft 'SS J (N S) (NSEW) (NSEW) ge: sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft VARIANCE ft. ft. ' ft. sq ft sq ft 4. Does the pres t use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? YesK), No ( ). If no, specify each non - conforming use: 5. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? _ ( ) too narrow ( } too small Xto shallow Please describe: 6,61,6? ( ) topography ( ) drainage O shape () soil ( ) existing situation () other: specify • C] a 1 ' �JG�G�'�"'� -� �'•' ✓�`�,/C ���' /mss.- /1G�t= w�,•�„� /1,� �- �'�t''G.(:� �,!��'?� FC-17 — ­772 CERTIFICTE OF SURVEY FOR SUSAN CHAMBERS OF LOT 15 AND PART OF LOT 16, BLOCK 24, WYCHWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXISTING 1 i HOUSE I E 49.77 :: S 02 °27,5 E I i N 81. 51'10" t ---(w1 OW) * N 85 °3100" E 50.51 SHED N 124 oe I �1) � I 124 ( , I M9A) PAfl0 I I I BL PROPOSED I � tau I taNSS) O '� N ra0 .4. ""�...., 41 Q C:) 6 ° ° 4.... I ,p C.n I ono a EXISITING y IN M w HOU�E �$ n to IQ O I O PROPO N Y O 10 PO0H ` IQ ONIt b,:m i� SIDEYVAtJC •°, P I 30 I U I N9AM I ltd I ° S 85 °31'00" W 102.00 —I I -= -A BEDFORD LANE g' YCTSP�ITRY— —���� I I I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES I I Lot 15, and the South 90 feet of Lot 16, Block 24, WYCHWOOD o : denotes iron marker found (944.9) : denotes existing spot elevations, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based on assumed datum. This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, gravel driveway, shed, spot elevations and proposed addition thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. EvMW: Pm;o.4.dM --4.d I(M-08 I t�maby'ardry dmtlhN auveywas N"V� M ms a antler my dM.cl nger- GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. vWm. and Ivt I am a duty regWered CPA En9W-W mid L&W S"Wunder 1n.lsws atria 91aro of MMneema CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS. SCALE 1"= 20' DATE —0 . SITE PLANNERS - 7-6-06 446 N. wd.LOw DRIVE JOB NO. L M4141 SS158 �i ;1512 -- -2758- 1 1z755 1 08-192 � 0 � 0 I \\ $ b \ � { $ § { \ � � o : / \ -2759- E| 22/2A � §2�� : ( f ! .§ ( , .. ■| ■ � I-H! �0, `k ■ • ■ )§� 2; §■ till � °§§ §§■� �� � § §§ ■� §§ §§ ■ ®§ ! || ,| l (¥� ' . ® \ /ƒF k) y . � -2759- E| 22/2A � §2�� : ( f ! .§ ( , .. ■| ■ � I-H! �0, `k ■ • ■ )§� 2; §■ till � °§§ §§■� �� � § §§ ■� §§ §§ ■ ®§ ! || ,| l k) mms § m m � §� \ $ ! {� ■ �$JJ ()§ . ! y . ■ 44| Sq R j5q • 1 �-7 SH m -V 8 E" f tog I VF F!m I p -2760- 2 �k 1 �-7 SH m -V 8 E" f tog I VF F!m I p -2760- • � 0 r] i c_ Tr 7 I� 'k '_I f '°y_ p 0 x o \YI � •I., = u m AA z I R r •• — Ff D X A O� a c is m Willi C .HN �v vim•.. i1 -gp 4pm n > r. -777t -2761- H v v $ i kkk333333 oa YY f z a w D Ys Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page l of 2 Tax Parcel Description Addition Name: WYCHWOOD Lot: Block: 024 Metes & Bounds: LOT 15 AND S 90 FT OF LOT 16 • Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2008 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2007 Estimated Market Value: Hennepin County, MN Limited Market Value: www Property Information Search Result • Total Improvement Amount: The Hennepin County Property Tax web database Is updated Total Net Tax: $1,573.54 daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CST) $148.94 ,Search By., Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2008 Machinery Market Click here for information on your PROPOSED 2009 PROPERTY TAX - Truth In Taxation statement Click Here for the 2008 State Copy to be used when riling for the 2007 M -1PR State Refund Land Limited Print 4f j Building Limited Property ID: 24- 117 -24 -41 -0063 Address: 4840 BEDFORD RD .i Municipality: MOUND Classifications: School Dist: 277 Construction year: 1971 Property Type RESIDENTIAL Watershed: 3 Approx. Parcel Size: IRREGULAR Homestead Status HOUSE or BUILDING Sewer Dist: Relative Homestead - -- 4840 Owner Name: SUSAN K CHAMBERS Agricultural Taxpayer Name SUSAN K CHAMBERS STREET NAME: & Address: 4840 BEDFORD RD (at least first 3 MOUND MN 55364 characters) Bedford Road UNIT # (if applicable Most Current Sales Information - - -- - - Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent Search" Clear arms - length transactions. ,.; Sale Date: May, 1995 Sale Price: $80,000 20 records per page Transaction Type: Warranty Deed Tax Parcel Description Addition Name: WYCHWOOD Lot: Block: 024 Metes & Bounds: LOT 15 AND S 90 FT OF LOT 16 • Abstract or Torrens: TORRENS Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2008 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2007 Estimated Market Value: $174,000 Limited Market Value: $174,000 Taxable Market Value: $174,000 Total Improvement Amount: Values: Total Net Tax: $1,573.54 Total Special Assessments: $148.94 Solid Waste Fee: $27.56 Total Tax: $1,750.04 Exempt Status hftp://wwwl6.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresL- 2762 - 11/19/2008 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2008 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2007 Values: Land Market $61,000 Building Market $113,000 Machinery Market Total Market: $174,000 Land Limited $61,000 Building Limited $113,000 Total Limited: $174,000 Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type RESIDENTIAL Homestead Status HOMESTEAD Relative Homestead Agricultural • Exempt Status hftp://wwwl6.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresL- 2762 - 11/19/2008 0 L Hennepin County Property Map Print Page 1 of I .......... --- ... ................ .. .......... .......... .......... - .............. Hennepin County Property Map - Tax Year: 2008 The data contained an this page Is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor. The perimeter and area (square footage and acres) are approximates and may contain discrepancies. The Information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. - ....................... ...... ....... . ...... ....... ............. I ......................... -- I ............. .. . ................... .......... I I..., ... ......... . ......... ... ... .. ...... ... .... .... ..... .. .. ....... . --- - I ...... . ........... ... ......... 11- 1 .... .............. - " - I .... . ..................... I . ...... ..... .. . .................... Selected Parcel Data Parcel ID: 24-117-24-41-0063 Owner Name: SUSAN K CHAMBERS Parcel Address: 4840 BEDFORD RD, MOUND, MN 55364 Property Type: RESIDENTIAL Homestead: HOMESTEAD Area (sqft): 9651 Area (acres): 0.22 A-T-B: TORRENS Market Total: $174,000.00 Tax Total: $1,750.04 . . . . . . . . . . Date Printed: 11/19/2008 3:55:55 PM Current Parcel Date: 11/3/2008 Sale Price: $80,000.00 Sale Date: 05/1995 Sale Code: WARRANTY DEED http://gis.co.hemepin.nm.us/I-ICPropertyMapf-- 2-763.-Aspx?P1D=2411724410063 11/19/2008 Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Page 1 of 1 http:// gis. co. hennepin.nm.us/HCPropertyMap/1- 2764- aspx ?PID= 2411724410063 11/19/2008 • • • r Agenda stern No, 68 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 24, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Suzanne Claywell, Becky Glister, Michael Paulsen, Jackie Peters, Greg Skinner (7:03), Eva Stevens, and Stephen Ward. Absent and. excused:Ory Burma. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Planning Consultant Rita Trapp. The following individuals were present: Susan Chambers (4840 Bedford Road), Harry Nasset (Design Services, Spring �,,v. ark). BOARD OF APPEALS ff VfF, , %. CASE #08 -16 FRONT AND REgt `l V ,I IANCE 4840 BEDFORD 9614l OWNER: SUSAN CHAM ERIP ; a a _lr � � A request was submitted for a variance for both'11I a rear fight) and front (south) yards to construct a house and garage addition (2 stalls). Th! existing home location and layout limit the potential locations and configurations ofthe additions. Determination of the front of the lot to be Bradford Lane causes what would generally be recognized as the (west) side yard on Bedford Road to become the rear and require a greater setback. Staff also suggests that the requirement of a 20 foot front yard setback but then a 30 foot corner lot yard setback seems inconsistent and a hardship on the applicant. Staff recommends approval with conditions outlined in the Planning Report. Susan Chambers (4840 Bedford Road) suggests that the reason the house faces Bedford is because of the incline of the hill on the lot. Ms. Chambers also added that she is not planning the proposed future addition in the near future and is comfortable removing it from consideration as the current project meets her needs. Smith indicated that, given the alternative locations, the owner seems to have made the best choice of what they can do. Staff discussed the need to look at addressing the inconsistency in the code. Planning Commission members expressed a preference in seeing the code reviewed • and revised if deemed necessary regarding corner lot setbacks rather than issuing a variance if it is possible. Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 2008 MOTION by Paulsen, seconded by Glister, to recommend Council approve the rear yard (west) and corner yard (south) variance requests, not including the proposed future addition on the southeast corner. MOTION carried unanimously. The Planning Commission members expressed a preference in seeing the code reviewed and revised if deemed necessary regarding corner lot setbacks rather than issuing a variance if it is possible and recommended the City Council direct Staff to research this issue. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Michael to adjourn seconded and carried by affirmation at 7:25 p.m. Chair Geoff Michael Attest, Planning Secretary. j , ! �nmfi ffir aw �v • • Executive Summary • Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. ®© ©® TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting City Planner DATE: November 25, 200$ SUBJECT: PC Case #08 -16 — 4840 Bedford Road Variance Request SUMMARY. At its November 24, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the application from Susan Chambers for a variance in order to construct a house and garage addition on her property at 4840 Bedford Road. The existing home, built in 1971, is located on a 9,201 square foot lot which is part of the Wychwood subdivision. The survey submitted includes a proposed addition, deck and porch. The proposed home addition includes a two -car garage, which the home currently does not have. The survey also notes a future addition which was included in the variance review so the applicant would not have to apply for that future addition. As part of the discussion, the applicant indicated the future • addition would not be constructed as part of the current project. r1 LJ It is important to note that in accordance with City Code Section 350.310, Subd 81 the front of the lot has been determined to be Bradford Lane as it is the shortest dimension of the lot on a public street. This means that the west property line is the rear of the lot as it is the boundary of the lot which is opposite th10 front lot line. Please note, however, that the existing home's front door and driveway are actually on Bedford Road. RECOMMENDATION. 'The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend Council approval of the rear and comer yard setback variance to allow construction of the proposed house and garage addition. A draft resolution has been included for review and consideration by the City Council. Additionally, the minute excerpts from the November 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting (draft) have also been included. With the agreement of the applicant that the future addition is not being constructed at this time, the .Planning Commission did not include it in its recommendation. A written statement from the applicant's representative withdrawing the future addition from the current variance has been requested and is forthcoming. The Planning Commission, instead, recommended that the City Council direct staff to review the corner lot setback requirements which will be addressed as a separate topic for discussion. The Planning Commission felt further study is needed to determine whether a greater side yard setback than front yard setback should be required for corner lots. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338 -0800 Fax (612) 338 -6838 RESOLUTION # 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4840 BEDFORD ROAD P & Z CASE # 08 -16 PI D # 24- 117 -24-41 -0063 WHEREAS, the applicant, Susan Chambers, has submitted a request for a 8.7 foot rear yard setback variance and a 4.4 foot corner yard setback variance in order to construct a house and garage addition; and WHEREAS, the property is located at the intersection of Bradford Lane and Bedford Road. This existing lot of record was originally platted as part of the Wychwood Subdivision. The zoning is R -1A, Single Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the property, according to Hennepin County data, currently has a house which was built in 1971; and • WHEREAS, the applicant proposes the following development standards for this existing lot of record: ;and WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed the application and recommended approval of the variance with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application at its November 24, 2008 meeting and recommended approval, subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of • Mound, Minnesota as follows: Required Proposed /Existing Variance Lot Area 6,000 sq. ft. 9,201 sq. ft. - Lot Width 40 feet 90 feet - Lot Depth 80 feet 102 feet - Front Yard Setback 20 feet 31.5 feet - Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 6.3 feet 8.7 feet Corner Yard Setback (south) 30 feet 25.6 feet 4.4 feet Side Yard Setback (north) 6 feet 30+ feet - Hardcover (maximum 40 %) 3,680 sq. ft. 2,451 sq. ft. - ;and WHEREAS, Staff has reviewed the application and recommended approval of the variance with conditions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application at its November 24, 2008 meeting and recommended approval, subject to conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of • Mound, Minnesota as follows: 1. The CityCouncil of the City of Mound does hereby approve a 8.7 foot rear yard setback variance and a 4.4 foot corner yard setback variance) to allow the construction of the house and garage addition, as requested by the applicant, based on the following findings of fact: a. The front of the lot being determined to be Bradford Lane while the home is constructed with access on Bedford Road had contributed to the need for a variance. The location and configuration of the existing home on the lot limit where and how an addition can be constructed. b. The applicant is proposing a reasonable two -car garage addition which has been minimized to the extent possible. C. Requiring a 20 foot front yard setback but then a 30 foot corner lot yard setback for an R -1 A property with more than 81 feet in width seems to be unreasonable and a hardship for the applicant. d. The conditions of City Code Chapter 350.530 are being met. 2. The variance is hereby approved subject to the following conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission: a. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the variance request. b. No future approval of any development plans and /or building permits is included as part of this action in the event the variance application is approved. C. Applicant shall be required to submit all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. d. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and /or all permits. e. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and /or all public agency permits including the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. f. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution(s) with Hennepin County. The applicant is • advised that the resolution(s) will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. g. No building permits will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution(s) has been provided to the City unless an escrow deposit of sufficient amount is on file with the City. . h. No building permits will be issued until any and /or all fees owed to the City have been paid. i. All runoff must not be directed towards the neighbor's property and accommodated. on site. j. Preconstruction site inspection must be completed. k. All utility locations must be confirmed with Public Works prior to construction. Structures shall not be built into the required front, side and rear yards. Foundation survey is required if a proposed building is within 5 feet of the required minimum f ront/side /rear setbacks. j. The "future addition" in the southeast corner of the house, as depicted on the survey, is not part of the approved variance as the applicant indicated it would be removed from the project at the November 24, 2.008 Planning Commission meeting. and is therefore being withdrawn. 3. This variance is approved for the following legally described property: LOT 15 AND S 90 FT OF LOT 16, BLOCK 24, WYCHWOOD 4. 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). The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted November 25, 2008 Mark Hanus, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • Avm" AM -on . G, 1� CITY OF MOU MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Kandis Hanson, City Manager DATE: November 24, 2008 A--e � 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472 -0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com SUBJECT: Addition to November 25, 2008 City Council Agenda - 2008 Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase II) Addendum • Employees who qualify and are considering the 2008 Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase II) have asked that we provide an individualized, formalized contract that is approved by the council (per the attached resolution) and that specifically quantifies and itemizes the payments that are to be made by the City directly to, or on the behalf of, the retiree. The sample format in Attachment A of the resolution has been reviewed and approved by our labor attorney, Susan Hansen. This sample is being provided in the resolution to preserve the confidentiality of each retiree who may elect to participate in this plan. For those who choose to participate, a customized contract will be created by the City and signed by the employee /retiree, Business Agent (if employee is in a labor union), City Manager and Mayor. I believe this is a worthwhile enhancement to the 2008 Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase 11) which will make it easier to administer and addresses any ambiguities that currently exist. I recommend your approval of the attached resolution. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 08- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN ADDENDUM TO THE VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PLAN (PHASE II) FOR CITY OF MOUND EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, budget shortfalls necessitate that the City of Mound implement cost saving measures to meet financial constraints; and WHEREAS, salary and benefits comprise over 60% of the General Fund budget; and WHEREAS, reorganization opportunities exist to help reduce budget shortfalls; and WHEREAS, the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase II) was approved by the City Council of the City of Mound on November 10, 2008, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the City Manager to add this Addendum to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase II) for the City of Mound Police and Public Works Employees as shown in Exhibit A, and made a part herein. Adopted by the City Council this 25th day of November, 2008. Mayor Mark Hanus Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk • • * ** Attachment A - Addendum to the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase II) Note: this is a SAMPLE FORMAT and will be customized for each participant. * ** To: Date: December , 2008 From: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Employee # Birth date: / /19_ _ Hire Date: / /19— _ Retirement Date: 1/ /2009 Subject: Benefits Summary Upon Voluntary Early Retirement Annual Salary (1 /i /09) Years of Service: As a condition of the termination of your employment due to voluntary early retirement, the following terms will apply: Retirement Date: January _ _, 2009 • Severance Agreement: We will honor all the terms of the City of Mound Administrative Code, Labor Agreement between the City of Mound and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local No. _ _, and the City of Mound 2008 Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase II). • Early Retirement Incentive Severance Payments: A severance payment equal to 3% of your current annual pay for each full year of service with the City of Mound, based upon the current rate of pay at the time of retirement. This amount will be paid in five (5) equal installments over the period of five (5) years to your Minnesota State Retirement System Health Care Savings Plan (MSRS HCSP). The first installment will be made within 30 days after the date of retirement and then on or before January 15th of 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013: $—_j___ . _ _ ([3% x__ years] x $__ ,_ _ _ ._—annual pay) / 5 installments = $_ _ , _ _ _ _ _ per installment Installment # 1 within 30 days of retirement Installment # 2 on or before January 15, 2010 Installment # 3 on or before January 15, 2011 Installment # 4 on or before January 15, 2012 Installment # 5 on or before January 15, 2013 Total Severance Payment to MSRS HCSP • In addition, a payment by the City of Mound on your behalf to the MSRS HCSP equal to an amount of any remaining accrued sick leave that is above and beyond the standard severance amount, resulting in 100% of accumulated sick leave being paid. With _ _ years of service, your standard severance amount is _ — %. The additional severance amount will be equal to the remaining _ _% of accrued sick leave calculated at the current rate of pay at the time of retirement and paid to your MSRS HCSP within 30 days after the date of retirement. is Release and Waiver of Claims: As a condition to receiving these payments, you must sign the Participation Agreement and General Release Form that was included in the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan (Phase II). Standard Retirement Benefits: You will receive a payout of any standard accrued retirement benefits that are applicable to you, including: • Payment by the City of Mound on your behalf to the MSRS HCSP equal to the standard severance for accrued sick leave (_ _ %), 100% of accrued vacation pay, and 100% of accrued comp time. Per Minnesota Statute 471.61, subdivision 2b Continuation, you are eligible to remain in the City's Employee Health Plan indefinitely by paying the full premium yourself. Assuming you retire on January , 2009, your first full premium will be due on or before January 25, 2009 for the February, 2009 premium payment. You may elect to have this premium withheld from your severance payout. Per the City's Employee Health Plan you are required to move to a Medicare supplemental plan from the active employee's health plan upon reaching age 65. [Retiree Name], the above details the essential terms of the agreement between • you and the City of Mound concerning your voluntary termination of employment. There will be no other payments to you other than those specified above. [Retiree Name], please sign below to indicate your agreement with the terms and conditions set forth in this document. I, as City Manager with binding authority for the City of Mound, and the Mayor, sign to indicate our legal obligation to abide by the terms and conditions set forth in this document. The business agent of Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local No. _ _ is also required to sign to indicate his acceptance of the terms and conditions set forth in this document. City of Mound [Retiree Name] By: Kandis Hanson City Manager Date: Date: [Business Agent Name] By: Mark Hanus Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Mayor Date: Date: • AL CITY OF MOU MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Catherine Pausche, Finance Director 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472 -0600 FAX: (952) 472 -0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com DATE: November 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Fund Balance Overview Fund balance levels, the levy increase, and the tax rate are major considerations in the approval of any budget. I thought it would be beneficial for us to review the recommendations of the State Auditor and where our fund balance was as of December 31, 2007. At the December 9�' Council Meeting, I will present our estimate for 2008 which will reflect the second tax settlement and all retro pay adjustments and will give us a good idea where our Fund Balance will be for 2008. As shown in the excerpt from the Office of the State Auditor's Statement of Position on Fund Balances for Local Governments, they recommend an unreserved fund balance level of 35 to 50 percent of operating revenues or no less than five months of operating expenditures. The City of Mound also has an informal policy of maintaining an undesignated fund balance level of 20 percent of expenditures. The following page demonstrates the difference between unreserved and undesignated fund balances. Also included is a summary of the 2007 actuals per our City Annual Financial Report (CAFR). In 2007, we met the requirements of the State Auditor with an unreserved fund balance of 37.9% of revenues, and just under 5 months of expense. In addition, we exceeded our own undesignated fund balance target with a 29% undesignated fund balance (including Mound's share of the fire services, but excluding Park Dedication Fees). It should be highlighted that we were essentially on budget for revenues and expenses in 2007. The tax capture rate was lower than previous years, and therefore we did not significantly exceed budget in that area. Our practice is to provide the HRA and debt service funds 100% of the levied amount, and charge any shortfall to the General Fund. Therefore, all delinquent collections are credited to the General Fund, making bookkeeping easier, but also making the General Fund tax receipts difficult to predict, since the General Fund absorbs any timing issues with collections. Therefore, prudence is called for when making the tax capture rate assumptions. • I hope you will find this information useful as we continue the 2009 budget discussions. 2765 — .ycfed paper Excerpt from State of Minnesota Office of the State Auditor Statement of Position - Fund Balances for Local Governments Appropriate Fund Balance Levels The Office of the State Auditor re commends that at year-end local governments maintain an unreserved fund balance in their general fund and special revenue .fimds of approximately 35 to 50 percent of fund 0252fm revenues or no less than five months of operating expenditures, which should provide the local government with adequate fords until the next property tax revenue collection cycle. The adequacy of unreserved fiord balance should be assessed based on an individual local government's own circumstances. If the local government's unreserved fund balance is less than or greater than the 35 to 50 percent recommended above the local government should be able to explain the reason for the difference. Local governments should. also consider Wdng .a position on the level of unreserved fund balance in other fimds that have unrestricted revenues. In setting an appropriate level, the local government should consider any long -term forecasung/planning issues, to avoid the risk of placing too much emphasis on the level of unreserved fluid. balance at any one Lime. Es5 \j Le 0 +4t, k6--C. W-4 cn Dr.1 15� P, `D66-r 5 E-J214 I C-8 Reviewed: August 2007 Revised: NA LA r E-sEkVC, C> C j" c A-P I 'D6ss ►6 r I A-T6 I;b4, P4121— c c.qIP-- "POS8 C] �S j fa �`►J4'i� �D1Z DFS P L�t�P1?�0 �- � (�E�1GN � �� Pr4y P+�..K- � ►� -no..a 4 2007 -1022 • —2766— VA s I* 10 City of Mound General Fund Summary of Activities -2767- 2007 (Source: Page 15 of CAFR) Budget Actual Variance % Taxes 3,936,886 3,976,297 39,411 1.0% Other Revenue 1.153,960 1,125.566 - 28.394 -2.5% Total Revenue 5,090,846 5,101,863 11,017 0.2% Expenditures 4,811,849 4,811,481 -368 0.0% Transfers out (Fire Fund) 467.783 467.782 -1 0.0% Total Expenditures 5,279,632 5,279,263 -369 0.0% Other Financing Sources(Uses) 168.500 208.200 39.700 23.6% Net Change in Fund Balance - 20,286 30,800 51,086 - 251.8% Fund Balance, January 1 2.307.505 2,307.505 0 0.0% Fund Balance, December 31 2,287,219 2,338,305 51,086 2.2% (Source: Page 66 of CAFR) % of No. of % of Revenue* Months of Expense* FUND BALANCES Expense* Reserved for Debt Service 405,413 Unreserved Designated for severance pay 393,006 Designated for park dedication fee 45,538 Undesignated 1.494.348 28.9% Total Unreserved Fund Balance 1,932,892 37.9% 4.5 TOTAL FUND BALANCES 2,338,305 * Note: Severance and Park Dedication Revenue and Expense were excluded from the calculations: Severance Expense - 13,159 Park Dedication Revenue 0 Park Dedication Expense 126,285 -2767- 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD is IF OF MOUND MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com Memorandum To: Mayor Hanus and Council Members From: Sarah Smith Date: November 20, 2008 Subject: Transit District ( Deck 1) Funding Attached is the projected Sources and Uses for the Transit District Parking Deck (Deck 1). The projected shortfall includes $150,000 in unanticipated soils remediation as described below. Soils Remediation. The City encountered unexpected clean -up costs in the • Transit District during the construction of Deck 1 which was completed in Oct/November 2007. Members are advised that this issue was not . identified during the preliminary investigation stage and was found during excavation/construction. Staff contacted several agencies and "after the fact" grant funding was not possible as the Met. Council program did not have a "look back " provision and the project did not score well under the funding criteria for the DEED program. Staff did, however, pursue discussion and reimbursement under the Petrofund program for a significant portion of the contaminated soils were located in around utilities and therefore were funding eligible. Throughout much of 2008, the City and its consultant, STS, have been working with MPCA and Petrofund staff regarding preparation of reimbursement request of approximately $91,000 to offset the unanticipated soils costs which were approximately $150,000. The application was submitted a month or so ago and the City was recently notified on October 27th that the regulations had changed, which we were not advised of, and therefore funding was denied. STS and Mound Staff are continuing discussions with the MPCA and Petrofund including a re- review of the City's application as well as the possible submittal of a formal appeal as allowed by the rules. r] printed on recycled paper -2768- I* �0 1 -111 FA City of Mound Transit District - Deck 1 - Fund 450 Summary of Sources and Uses as of 11/06/2008 Sources: Fund 450 Total as of 11 -20 -08 Outstanding Projected Proceeds from Sale of Bonds (Construction) $2,847,139 0 $2,847,139 HRA Fund 756,239 0 756,239 Met Council 200,000 0 200,000 Henn Co. TOD Grant 845,425 29,575 875,000 MCWD Grant 303,854 0 303,854 Utility Fund Transfers 432,936 0 432,936 Interest Earnings 38.315 0 38.315 Total Sources Uses $5,423,909 $29,575 $5,453,484 Graham Penn -Co. $4,738,686 $100,162.46 $4,838,849 Walker Parking Consultants 434,750 0 434,750 Kennedy and Gravin 26,045 0 26,045 Hoisington Koegler Group 10,609 0 10,609 Waldron & Associates 19,450 0 19,450 Ehlers and Associates 306 0 306 STS Consultants 34,819 0 34,819 McComb Frank Roos 9,676 0 9,676 Landform 12,301 0 12,301 Hennepin County 99,800 0 99,800 Construction Engineering 31,271 0 31,271 Bolton and Menk 9,678 0 9,678 R.C. Electric /Sterne Electric 5,242 0 5,242 Miscellaneous /Other 11.664 0 11.664 Total Uses $5,444,298 $100,162 $5,544,460 Remaining Balance ($20.389 ($70.5871 1$90.9771 S: \FINANCE DEPT\BONDS & CAPITAL PROJECTS\Deck 1 Sources and Uses.xls -2769- V 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD • ■ OF MOUND MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472 -0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Catherine Pausche, Finance Director DATE: November 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Dump Bonds Refinancing The Temporary Tax Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds Series 2008A mature on August 1, 2010. They were issued on a temporary basis in order to allow time to see what the economy and housing market were going to do, and both have obviously declined since the issuance in 2007. We can only issue bonds tied to tax increment for the life of the TIF district. TIF 1 -3 is required to • decertify on December 31, 2031, or 20 years from the August 1, 2010 refunding date. If we issue $4,010,000 in bonds for 20 years, the annual debt service will be approximately $325,000 (assuming 4.5% interest). Tax increment receipts for TIF 1 -3 have been significantly lower than projected due to the delayed development, so a portion of the debt service may have to be levied until development takes place. Fortunately, TIF District 1 -1 is set to decertify as of December 31, 2010, which will increase our taxable market value, if the housing market fails to rebound in that time. Staff will be working together to develop a revised estimate of the commitments the City has or will make to the downtown redevelopment. At this time, no funds are projected to be available to pay down the bonds prior to refunding. • printed on recycled paper 2 -770' -. • 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD CITY i OF MOUND MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Catherine Pausche, Finance Director DATE: November 20, 2008 SUBJECT: Municipal State Aid for Streets The City of Mound receives funding from the State of Minnesota for both the maintenance and construction of certain eligible streets in Mound. Attached is a summary of how this revenue has been allocated and the fund balances for the Construction Fund (402) and the Sealcoat Fund (427). • The portion for maintenance state aid has been allocated to the General Fund to help fund labor costs for street maintenance, and the Sealcoat Fund where the materials and engineering costs are charged. The Sealcoat fund is also the fund that receives funding from the liquor store profits. The construction state aid has been used to pay for Mound's share of the County Road 15 realignment. • Through discussions with the Director of Public Works and the City Engineer, it appears that the majority of the remaining balance in the construction fund (a deficit of $366,022) is administrative and not eligible for the construction state aid funds. This suggests we overallocated the maintenance state aid to the General Fund without covering all of our costs. Finance and Public Works will be working to resolve this issue prior year end, and determine the exact exposure for the General Fund. printed on recycled paper -2771- -2772- 01 0� • O O) N V- p O N t0 N r ti N N .a N O O O N O N N O ti f- 2 N (O N O 3 ftf L N _ O Q C O O O lL) O O CA O w L N � � O U 3 COp 2 't3 N fC Q O U M O CO to O N a) 3 N O W vi C o~0 c N LS ..+ 'C O O C Li. U O O U O O co cO0_ I CL f0 N o N y Q O O C_ C C r r O O co N LL le O O 1-- E a N C N NO O CO w p E E � LO N �Q Cl M 0 Q = � � O A II M O O I- r- CD N r O N {` d co �(j to N CO M �L 'd co M M i .a C LL d V :C = t6 Q �{ _ O � O OCc O O v L w V O .v L V U c N N V F V N F -2772- 01 0� • TO: Kandis Hanson, City Manager FROM: Greg Pederson, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Future MFD Budget and Financial Considerations 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Main: 952.472.3555 Fax: 952.472.3775 www.moundfire.com November 20, 2008 This week the Mound Fire Commission met for our regularly scheduled meeting and discussed finances, cost management, and budget controls. Several major budget items for the Mound Fire Department were identified and discussed. It would be appropriate to revisit and discuss these same items at our upcoming budget meetings. The acknowledgment of our future (major) Budget and Financial items and commitments should • be considered as we forge ahead. The key items discussed were: • The Mound Fire Department Budget and Cost Control Plan including firefighter staffing levels, apparatus utilization plan, and other cost saving concepts. • The MFD Apparatus Replacement Program and the fact that this account is likely underfunded, primarily because of the need to replace our 1981 Sutphen 100' Aerial Ladder Truck. Note: this aerial ladder truck is a key component of our current Insurance Services Office Public Protection Classification rating in all cities we serve. • Our fire service contract and signed agreement with the City of Minnetrista to (in the future) operate the fire stations and assist financially by fire formula to support these fire stations. The above listed topics are very important and should be considered and discussed as part of our budgeting process for the future. pectfully 3J4'&f n� Greg VQderson Mound Fire Chief attachments is -2773- col N cu 75 i C:L, N 00 :U` ao C ° s. . O r c c O 4 � a3 .W, ' 3 OD 1; bA v rR p 3 01 �c~d �; M �pp b4O p N W C14 C14 �us H � "C 8, O o � a� .d •� c o en o o N o o n O O C4 cn 0 o en Go �I H O (� O 'O Gig Ri .0 -2774- W to • O U gU d0•� • U' bCA C O Q HOC CI 1 y p4 U U° �'p U U U O U Ti y �•S U �� y .L�� C14 0 0 in t4.4 00 0 U ,�i�jya, � � � U � �; .ta• � iUy .->' ,� '.�+ �j � 'O�y UsQ„" � � C/�� v 8a c ;3 0 � Uaairoo> N a4 s~ U v U rim O p cd m 040. p, O O 0 rA v� U y ce I V cg U e L7 U "Rs. 0 U cg 6s b � -2775- as PC A o � U O O O O O O O O C +r o VN N N IT 000 O O W O ti 64 69 59 69 64 69 69 rg O � 00 Z co 4) C A o tl, ti N W c H W 4. o coi `° �• 0 0 ° � • � � 0 75 2 IV IV 6, 0 on 2 0 �. 04 42 0 IM4 :3 N A, U 43 0 op 4-4 0 aE a a0 ? 2 aw G0 o o o o o o w o o O o o w o O w C) CD O. C7 CD O O o c�� 0 o CA o N N M M 14' -2776- *I •I el a � o E m m m m N 0 ,� N S YJ o Y c a ca CL 0 LL W m o O o s m h 0 7 (h O 3 E E U N N O O 7 •& C o m z z Q C � CL � c r_'� m °o `� m s o 0 U 0 0 O. E fF, m 2 Y O O z p L s Z v m M > O N o of 3 CL io Q. 6 m Of z 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 o O O C7 o O o O to o N O m ti N N � O� O IT 8 0 Ln IT LO m m m O N OD 69 N 69 r 69 N 69 N 69 r 69 69 V3 69 69 vs) 691 611, to OJ Q) OS OS D w OS m N N y N N V7 N O) R V7 O3 m T Cq �l N r OQ 0 b r O m r Lq r O N O + 0 C4 C7 co N r o S g o .. m m O 0 O 0 W a U. S a U a Z z LL. >> m •m ��q' LU C Cl `2'L' N C F- C LU c LL N O W N 3 Z ►i O V n co Y LL C , m O O N V) 0 0 O O m y C a O a w m O m S W N V �W m N J M N v .N- n E _T C O to CL a - �T 0 CL a D E o CL E 0 m E ° 2 a m m c 3 � i v m N O o °m o a c'n ~ a 0 LO CN _ (D Oo n o u m o a Q -O O ~i 0 � U � U > 7 00 t U O � � C LL L U LL '� ., � co y w c� 0 CD co 0 co C0 co OOD 0 — Li m N N N N E c C co N N N N N co N N M N ••�' Q z -2777- U LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING FIRE SERVICES MOUND AND MINNETRISTA Pursuant to recent meetings held between the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound regarding fire services, the following is a letter of understanding highlighting the areas of clarification and agreement. 1. It is understood that the City -of Mound wishes to charge a portion of the their new fire station to their customers. Minnetrista will agree to pay for their portion of the new Mound Fire Station. 2. Minnetrista intends on building satellite fire stations. Minnetrista would like to explore the possibility of having Mound staff these satellite fire stations and also pay a portion of the fire station costs. 3. Both parties will agree to fund the infrastructure in either community via a funding formula similar to the current contract. 01 4. It is the intent of Mound and Minnetrista to forma fire district. Mound and Minnetrista will research the feasibility of such a district within the next two years. 0 Approved by the Mound City Council on the ! t' day of 'Y c, d • , 2002. Pat Meisel, Mound Ma r Approved by the Minnetrista City Council on.the g '4- day of 22002. Cheryl F" cher, Minnetrista Mayor • -2778- • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City FROM: Jim Fackler, Parks Sup DATE: November 18, 2008 RE: Security Cameras at Zero Gravity Skate Park At the November 13, 2008 Parks, Open Space and Docks Commission Meeting, the Commission recommends the City Council approve up to $5,000.00 from park dedication funds for security cameras at the Zero Gravity Skate Park. Staff is meeting with the company that provided quotes for cameras at the Parking Deck on Wednesday, November 19, 2008. A copy of the quote will follow. • Below is an excerpt from the November 13, 2008 POSDC Meeting Minutes: • Discuss: Zero Gravity Skate Park — Security Cameras Fackler stated staff looked at costs for having cameras at the Skate Park from quotes previously received by Ray Hanson for cameras at the Parking Ramp. Based on this quote, the cost would be around $8,500. Pilling asked if park dedication funds could be used for this expense. Fackler stated he would Check with the attorney. Pilling voiced concerns about safety and parent's not allowing children to go to skate park because of rumored drug dealing and unacceptable behaviors of individuals at the skate park. Mason stated he has heard similar stories. Meisel stated the skate park is well known through the western suburbs, and we want a positive reputation of the Skate Park. Discussion followed. Pilling requested staff asks the Police Department if they feel cameras would be effective at the Skate Park. MOTION by Beise to request City Council allow up to $5,000 from Park Dedication funds, assuming its allowable, and have staff pursue an accurate estimate of costs for a camera system for the skate park. SECOND by Pilling. Motion carried unanimously -2779- • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Park DATE: August 19, 2008 RE: Request for Continued Funding for q atic Invasive Species Control on Phelps Bay At the August 14, 2008 POSDC meeting the Commission discussed a request for the City to continue funding for the aquatic herbicide program on Phelps Bay. Below is an excerpt from the meeting minutes: Discuss: Phelps Bay Milfoil Treatment — Dick Osgood, LMA Dick Osgood from the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) updated the commission on the milfoil treatment on Phelps Bay, Grays Bay and Carmens Bay. LMA is asking • for financial support from area cities, counties, regional and state agencies along with lake users to help fund the milfoil aquatic herbicide treatment program. He stated the City of Mound is asked to consider contributing the same dollars as last year, which was $12,000. Discussion followed. MOTION by Meisel recommending the City of Mound to allocate monies in the budget to include the same amount of money donated in 2008 again in 2009 for milfoil treatment in Phelps Bay. SECOND by Pilling. Motion carries unanimously. is -2780- • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hanus and City Council FROM: Jim Fackler, Park DATE: November 18, 2008 RE: Aquatic Herbicide Funding as requested by City Council Per your request, attached is additional information from Lake Minnetonka Association regarding the Lake Vegetation Management Plan for Phelps Bay. • Below is an excerpt from the minutes of the October 14 2008 City Council Meeting �P � tY g • Dick Osgood of Lake Minnetonka Association on aquatic herbicide treatment update Dick Osgood presented the projected cost estimates for continuing milfoil treatments in Phelps Bay. He is requesting $12,000 for 2009, the same that was allocated for 2008. Osmek stated that receiving a results report is very important and that a decision on the 2009 allocation will be made with the 2009 budget adoption at a future meeting. Osgood stated that there is a meeting on October 30th when he will receive the results report. He will then report to the Council. No action taken at this time. -2781- LAKE • MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 3 Bay Project Assessment — November 2008 The LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION administered the first years' treatments according to the Three Bay Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP). We have now received the final technical reports and are looking forward to follow up treatments in 2009. Here we provide our assessment of the project results and represent our members' interests in moving forward. The following are taken from the Lake Vegetation Management Plan, which framed the 3 Bay project: Problems to be Addressed: • Eurasian watermilfoil is the most problematic plant in the three bays because it interferes with most recreational activities, creates a shoreland cleanup and maintenance chore and probably diminishes ecological health. Other invasive species, particularly curlyleaf pondweed, should be controlled as well. • Native submersed plants also interfere with recreational use and riparian access in some areas; but it is recognized that some kind of rooted submersed plants will always be present, so • control of native plants should be balanced with their protection. • Water lilies are sometimes problematic, although there is an appreciation that water lilies provide valuable habitat. Goals: Goal A. Eurasian watermilfoil and other invasive plants, such as curlyleaf pondweed, will be controlled throughout the respective bays in a manner that is safe and effective to reduce interference with recreational activities, reduce lakeshore cleanup and improve ecological health. Goal B. Native submersed plants should be protected, except in localized areas where they pose a nuisance (see Goal C) although control will be allowed in localized areas where native plants inhibit access to open water or prohibit recreation (see Goal C). Goal C. Provide limited individual nuisance or access control when bay -wide selective control applications are performed. Goal D. This plan will be considered as a framework for possible expansion in the future to other bays in Lake Minnetonka. Specific, measureable objectives are also included in the LVMP, but are not listed here. .7 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 0 P. O. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331 0 (952) 470 -4449 -2782- LAKE • MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 3 Bay Project Assessment — November 2008 Actions to Achieve the Goals: The LUMP Technical Committee reviewed all feasible management techniques and concluded the use of selective herbicides was the only feasible means of achieving the stated goals and objectives. Action A -1. Selective herbicides will be used in the three bays to control EWM and CLP. Other actions, not listed here. Results The treatments occurred in May following a long winter (and a cool spring). We have now learned the there was significant dilution of the herbicide and therefore there was not adequate exposure /contact time for the products to be full effective. We had expected, based on similar experience elsewhere, that • Eurasian watertnilfoil would have been controlled to a level of less than 20% of the previous years' levels and that curlyleaf pondweed would also be preemptively controlled Because of the dilution issue, the level and extent of control was not fully what had been expected; although some control was achieved. Comments for lakeshore owners on the respective bays indicated a range of success. CJ With respect to the problems to be addressed, here are our observations and conclusions: Milfoil Control Milfoil was controlled to some extent. For the most part, milfoil did not form mats in the bays, except for Carmans. The level of control compared to untreated areas of the lake appeared to be significant; although objective measures for comparison are not available. There are two aspects relating to level of control — the frequency of occurrence and the density or nuisance levels of milfoil growth. The frequency of occurrence measures how frequent (based on a sampling grid) milfoil is found in each bay, independent of milfoil density. The Army Corps of Engineers provided objective measures of milfoil frequency (percentages based on June / September sampling): Carmans Gras_ Phelss 2007 58/60 86/86 65/67 2008 62/72 50/54 60/60 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 4 P. O. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331 0 (952) 470 -4449 -2783- 3 Bay Project Assessment — November 2008 The LUMP objective called for a reduction in milfoil frequency to less than 20% following the first year of treatment. Grays Bay achieved a significant reduction, but the other two bays did not. None of the bays achieved the 20% objective. The density and nuisance levels of milfoil were clearly reduced. The LVMP did not provide for an objective measure of milfoil density; however, there were some clear indicators that milfoil density and nuisance levels were educed. Matting milfoil did not occur in 2008, except for some areas of matted milfoil noted on Cartnans Bay. This is a significant observation as these bays were chosen because they were the most problematic bays with respect to milfoil matting and nuisances on Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore residents have reported the ability to use the bays for active surface uses, such as tubing, in ways that had not been possible in the past. Grays and Phelps Bays have had substantial matted areas in past years, but in 2008 no matting was observed. Indeed, even though not technically eliminated, many bay residents reported their bays to be `milfoil- free.' Shoreland Cleanup • The LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION has historically received the most contacts and complaints about shoreland clean up nuisances relating to milfoil. The LVMP provided for a stakeholder survey as the method to measure this objective. Except for the northwest shore of Carmans Bay, we received no complaints or observations of milfoil accumulation requiring cleanup in 2008. In fact, we have received several comments noting the pleasant lack of milfoil accumulation and the attendant clean up requirement. We attribute this result to a combination of reduced milfoil density in the bays and the lack of harvesting which generates milfoil fragments. Curlyleaf Pondweed Curlyleaf pondweed is another exotic plant that can become problematic. The LUMP was designed to preemptively control culxyleaf pondweed, as it has sometimes become problematic in other lakes following milfoil control. Curlyleaf pondweed was not too abundant before this year's treatment and became less abundant following the treatment (note mainly the June frequencies because this plant dies back on its own in late summer). It is not clear at this time whether the reduction in Curlyleaf pondweed is due to the treatment or to some other factor Carmans Grays Phel s 2007 28/4 20/3 36/5 2008 4/0 5/0 1 /7 LAKE: MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION J C'. (). Box 248, F.xcdsior, MN ;i5331 -2784- (952) 4-10 -4449 • 10 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 3 Bay Project Assessment — November 2008 Native Plants In addition to controlling milfoil, the LUMP was designed to protect native plants because they are good for a healthy lake. The objective in the LVMP called for the average number of native plants (per sampling point) to be maintained (and perhaps increase) at pre - treatment levels. The results are posted below (average # per sampling point, June / September) Carmans Grays Phelps 2007 1.8/1.7 2.9/2.9 2.5/2.7 2008 1.3/2.3 2.4/2.7 2.2/2.7 Because the number of native plants in a lake or a bay normally fluctuates, these results indicate no significant changes to native plant abundance. The LUMP is designed as a five -year plan, so conclusions regarding whether this objective has been met are premature at this time. • Water Lilies Because water lilies are a particularly important element of the lake ecosystem,, the LVMP specifically protected these plants. There was no evidence that water lilies had been harmed in the three bays. Water Clarity The LVMP identified a concern that we should be aware of other ecosystem changes following the treatments and identified water clarity as an appropriate surrogate to evaluate this. Water clarity was measured throughout the summer of 2008 and compared to companion bays where not treatments had occurred. On the basis of the results, there was no impact to water clarity noted. Overall Comment LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION members are to be commended for their support of this project — without their support, this project would not have been possible. The results from 2008, while disappointing on some levels, were encouraging on other levels. Based on the feedback we have heard as well as the technical results, there is clearly support for, indeed demand for, moving forward with the five -year plan. We view the results on two critical levels — technical and public perception — both of which must be satisfied for the overall success of the project. LAKE MINNETONKA AssociATION 0 P. 0. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331 0 (952) 470 -4449 -2785- LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 3 Bay Project Assessment — November 2008 The technical objectives, specified in the LVMP and overseen by the project's Technical Committee, were met in part. The main objective of controlling milfoil was not accomplished in 2008. However, the objective of controlling milfoil to a level of 20% frequency ought to be viewed in context. The frequency of milfoil in the Three Bays ranged from 50 to 72% (see above); however this does not take into account that the abundance and nuisance aspects of the milfoil growths were clearly reduced. In other words, while milfoil persisted in the Three Bays at unacceptable levels, the treatments did accomplish significant control. The public perception objectives were more consistently accomplished. As mentioned above, an overall reduction of milfoil did occur and this was noticeable by lake users. The Three Bays were substantially clear of matting milfoil and lakeshore cleanup chores were practically non - existent. The results varied by bay — Grays Bay was the best overall and Carmanc Bay was the poorest overall. The results in Phelps Bay were greatly improved with the follow up treatment of several areas in July. What Next ? LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION intends to continue with the treatments in 2009. The Technical Committee and other project partners are framed modifications for the 2009 treatments based on what we learned in 2008. The likely considerations for 2009 include: • Focusing on milfoil control in 2009, then curlyleaf pondweed control later, if needed. • Later spring treatments. • The use of granular products. • A guarantee for a minimum level of control. • Seeking proposals from applicators / manufacturers. • Variable treatments for different conditions (coves, shallow /deep water, lily pads, etc.). • Treat near /around docks. Additional details will be communicated to the Three Bay representatives and to our members as they develop in the upcoming months. We thank you for your support. Please contact the LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION for more information. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 0 P. 0. Box 248, Excelsior, MN 55331 0 (952) 470 -4449 -2786- *I • • • Draft Report on Herbicide Residues Following April 2008 Treatments of Three Bays on Lake Minnetonka Michael D. Netherland US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Gainesville, FL 32653 Background: In April 2008, large areas of Carman Bay, Phelps Bay, and Grays Bay on Lake Minnetonka were treated with a combination of the registered aquatic herbicides endothall and triclopyr. Treatment plans called for endothall and triclopyr to be applied at target concentrations of 1 mg a.i./L and 0.25 mg a.e./L respectively. For perspective, the maximum label rate of endothall is 5.0 mg a.i. /L and triclopyr is 2.5 mg a.e. /acre. In conjunction with these treatments, US Army ERDC personnel collected water samples and conducted analyses to determine residuals for the two active ingredients. Sampling protocols were designed to determine initial dilution and dispersion patterns in order to link efficacy to herbicide residues. Treatments: Carmans Bay — Approximately 95 acres (avg. 6.4 feet deep) were treated on April 13, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. The shorelines closer to the main body of the lake were treated with endothall at 1 mg/L and triclopyr at 0.5 mg/L (Fig 1). The entire treatment represented 48% of the littoral area or • 23% of the 403 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that prevailing winds averaged between 10 and 15 mph on the day of treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Phelps Bay - Approximately 150 acres (average 5.9 feet deep) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 55% of the littoral area or 40% of the 373 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were < 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days post - treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay - Approximately 160 acres (average 5.7 feet) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 91% of the 175 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were between 4 to 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days following the application. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay is located near the outlet of Lake Minnetonka, and water flow rates were measured at approximately 150 CFS (or 300 acre feet per day). This issue was discussed in a pretreatment conference call and it was decided that while the rate of outflow was not optimal from a treatment efficacy standpoint, the closed nature of the bay would insure that exposures would be dictated by outflow versus dispersion from the treatment zone. Water Sampling: Water samples were collected by US Army ERDC personnel prior to the treatment and at • 1 (15 -18 hour), 2, 3, and 4 days post - treatment on all three bays. Carmans was further -2787- sampled at 5, 8, and 15 days, and Phelps and Grays were sampled at 7 and 14 days post- • treatment. Sample sites for each bay were selected both within and outside of the application zones. This allowed for determination of herbicide residence within the plots as well as dispersion of residues from the treated areas. Maps showing the treated areas and water sample sites are included in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Figure 1. Carmans Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations Figure 2. Phelps Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. • • • Figure 3. Grays Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. I* • Based on prior experience with liquid herbicide applications, the majority of water samples were collected at mid - depth. Within each bay sites were also designated for vertical sampling at 3 depths (25, 50, and 75% of the average depth). Vertical water column sampling is conducted to insure that herbicides spread from top to bottom in the water column. Following collection, water samples were acidified and shipped to the University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Endothall analyses were conducted via immunoassay. For triclopyr analyses, water samples were shipped to the SePRO Corporation for analysis via immunoassay and HPLC. Results are analyzed and reported as the endothall acid and triclopyr acid. This is an important distinction, as the recommended treatment rates of 1.0 mg/L endothall represent the active ingredient concentrations of the endothall salt. The maximum recoverable endothall acid would be 0.71 mg/L (710 ppb) based on the 1.0 mg/L treatment. The maximum recoverable residue of the triclopyr would be 0.25 mg/L. The y -axis of the residue graphs in Figures 4, 5, and 6 reflect the maximum detectable residues for both endothall and triclopyr based on the target application rates to the treatment plots. -2789- Results: • Pretreatment sampling indicated residues of both endothall and triclopyr were not detectable. Following herbicide application, data indicate there was a rapid dilution within and dispersion of residues from Carman Bay (Figure 4). While the target endothall concentration was 710 ppb in the treatment plots following application, residues collected at -15 hr post- treatment were typically reduced by 80 to 90 %. Moreover, residues were essentially equivalent both within and outside the treated areas, suggesting rapid dispersion from the treated area. A similar pattern of dilution and dispersion was also noticed for triclopyr residues (Figure 4). Based on the cold water temperatures (12 C) at the time of application, it is highly unlikely that microbial degradation played a role in the loss of endothall from any of the treatment sites during the initial 15 -hour period. The residues detected in Phelps Bay showed better retention through —15 hr post- treatment when compared to Carmans Bay; however these initial concentrations were still less than 50% of the target rate (Figure 5). The pattern of residue dissipation from the individual sites was not consistent. Despite the above - mentioned concerns with outflow from Grays Bay, this treatment provided the most consistent pattern of initial residue detection and degradation over time (Figure 6). Treatment of a large fraction of this Bay still only resulted in detection of initial residues less than half of the predicted concentration. Nonetheless, in contrast to Carman and Phelps, residue dissipation was much slower resulting in several days of is exposure to herbicide concentrations that could provide herbicidal impacts. Vertical water column sampling in all three bays ( Carmans sites 2 and 4, Phelps sites 1 and 2, and Grays site 3) indicated that herbicides were distributed evenly through the water column. This is indicative of isothermal conditions at the time of treatment and it may explain the rapid mixing of residues from the treatment sites to the deeper water areas within the bays. Discussion: The detection of much lower than expected residues at 15 hr post application in the treatment plots of all 3 bays indicates an initial rapid dilution of herbicides within the bays. It is very likely the water from the treated areas rapidly mixed with untreated water in the deeper zones resulting in much lower than predicted initial concentrations. The detection of relatively high residues in plots established outside of the treatment zones is evidence of rapid dilution within the bays. Furthermore, within both Carman and Phelps bay, the inability to maintain these initial, albeit lower residues over time, suggests rapid dispersion of the treated water into the main lake. Our research group has focused numerous trials on the relationship between herbicide concentration and exposure time (CET) and target plant control. Higher concentrations of herbicide can provide control given shorter exposure periods, while lower • -2790- • concentrations can often provide excellent control under longer -term exposure scenarios. While there is ample evidence that combinations of endothall and triclopyr can provide control of Eurasian watermilfoil, the effectiveness of this combination (or any treatment combination) is dictated by the actual concentrations and exposures that result following application to the treatment site. As noted above, the treatment concentrations used for the applications to the bays in Lake Minnetonka were on the lower end of the maximum label use rates. 11 To provide some perspective on the residue profiles achieved in the three bays, a theoretical 24 -hour half life decay curve was plotted and compared to the average endothall residue values obtained within the treated sites of the bays (Figure 7). The reports of less than desired Eurasian watermilfoil control on Caymans Bay are not totally unexpected given the residue profiles. The loss of more than 80 to 90% of the herbicide from the treated plots within 15 hr indicates a very short initial exposure to the targeted residues. Moreover, the inability to maintain a prolonged exposure period to these lower residuals was not conducive to achieving target plant control. While the residue profile on Phelps bay presents a more complicated profile than that observed on Carmans bay, the same factors likely impacted plant control. The initial treatment did not provide for maintenance of the higher residues within the treated plots and the resultant lower rate residuals that spread throughout the bay were rapidly dispersed into the main body of the lake. In contrast to Carmans, the residue data from Phelps suggest it is likely that some areas received an initial adequate exposure to cause some level of herbicide injury, while other areas within the bay did not. This type of residue patchiness would make efficacy evaluations difficult to evaluate on a bay wide scale. Grays bay showed a much different long -term residue pattern than either Carman or Phelps bay. While the initial residues were much lower than predicted, these concentrations did persist for several days. It is likely that exposure to extended low concentrations in Grays Bay resulted in the level of Eurasian watermilfoil control that was initially achieved. Despite the ability to maintain longer -term residues in Grays bay, there are reports of some Eurasian watermilfoil recovery in this plot. It is likely that outflow did have an impact on the results achieved in this bay. Discussion Points: 1. Would greater levels of plant biomass in the treatment plots mitigate rapid dispersion? Earlier demonstration trials were conducted in May and June. 2. Given the rapid dispersion of the herbicide, was there enough biomass to take up the herbicide and translocate it to rootcrowns ? 3. Should higher treatment concentrations be considered in bays subject to rapid dispersion? -2791- 700 600 500 m 3 400 ca r 0 300 V C W 200 100 0 250 200 J = 150 L CL 0 z 100 c. F- 4'11] Carman "s Bay Endothall Residues May 14 -1 DAT MM May 15 May 16 May 17 May 18 May 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Carman's Bay Triclopyr Residues 0 ! I ■FI ■Fl■ nw ■E9■ ■w■ ■w 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 4. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Carmans Bay, Lake Minnetonka.. -2792- 61 0 1 0 � 16 6 • 700 Phelp's Bay Endothall Residues .11 500 3 -400 z o 300 V C W 200 M1 0 250 Phelps Bay Triclopyr Residues MR J 1 150 a 0 100 �L 50 91 � May 15 -1 DAT EM May 16 May 17 May 18 May 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 5. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Phelps Bay, Lake Minnetonka. -2793- 700 .11 -1 500 m = 400 cc r o 300 -a w 200 iIIIll 0 250 -r 200 J 150 L Q. O z 100 H 50 H Gray's Bay Endothall Residues Grays Bay Triclopyr Residues 1 2 3 4 Sample Site -2794- � May 15 -1 DAT May 16 � May 17 May 18 � May 21 � May 15 -1 DAT EM May 16 � May 28 5 6 7 *I • • 10 750 na M CL 450 0- 4) (D 300 M 150 M I 1 0 Hypothetical 24 hr half-life ....... o......• Carmens Bay residues through 4 d Phelps Bay residues through 4 d Grays Bay residues through 4 d 0.................. -T 2 3 Days Post-treaftment 4 Figure 7. A hypothetical residue profile comparing a 24-hour half-life versus the actual average values obtained following sampling of treatment sites on 3 bays of Lake Minnetonka. -2795- Draft Report Following April 2008 Aquatic Herbicide Treatments of Three Bays on • Lake Minnetonka John G. Skogerboe and Michael D. Netherland US Army Engineer Research and Development Center BACKGROUND In Minnesota generally and on Lake Minnetonka in particular, there is interest in the potential for active aquatic plant management techniques to provide selective control of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum, dicot) and curly -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus, monocot). Selective control of dicotyledonous plants, which include Eurasian watermilfoil, may be achieved with 2,4 -D (Green and Westerdahl 1990) and triclopyr (Netherland and Getsinger 1992), which are commonly used systemic herbicides ( Getsinger et al. 1997, Poovey et al. 2004). Endothall is a broad - spectrum herbicide (Netherland et al. 1991); which can be used to control a wide range of aquatic plants. Research has shown that endothall can be used to selectively control curly -leaf pondweed with careful selection of application rates (Skogerboe and Getsinger 2002) and seasonal timing ( Poovey et al. 2002). Additional research has shown that low rates of endothall combined with 2,4 -D or triclopyr can provide selective control of two invasive exotic species, Eurasian watermilfoil and curly -leaf pondweed, if applied in early spring when most native species are dormant (Skogerboe and Getsinger 2006). In 2007 a project was initiated on Lake Minnetonka to demonstrate the potential of • aquatic plant management strategies to provide selective control of Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) and curly -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus). Three basins were selected for pre treatment aquatic plant surveys: Carmen's, Grays, and Phelps bays. Potential aquatic plant management strategies have not been selected to date. Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed were present in all basins, and native plants were abundant in depths < 15 ft. In April 2008, large areas of Carmen's Bay, Phelps Bay, and Grays Bay on Lake Minnetonka were treated with a combination of the registered aquatic herbicides endothall and triclopyr. Treatment plans called for endothall and triclopyr to be applied at target concentrations of 1 mg a.i./L and 0.25 mg a.e./L respectively. For perspective, the maximum label rate of endothall is 5.0 mg ad./L and triclopyr is 2.5 mg a.e. /acre. In conjunction with these treatments, US Army ERDC personnel collected water samples and conducted analyses to determine residuals for the two active ingredients. Sampling protocols were designed to determine initial dilution and dispersion patterns in order to link efficacy to herbicide residues. METHODS Treatments: Three basins were selected in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR), and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) • including Carmen's Bay, Grays Bay, and Phelps Bay. -2796- • Carmen's Bay — Approximately 95 acres (avg. 6.4 feet deep) were treated on April 13, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. The shorelines closer to the main body of the lake (shaded in yellow) were treated with endothall at 1 mg/L and triclopyr at 0.5 mg/L (Fig 1). The entire treatment represented 48% of the littoral area or 23% of the 403 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that prevailing winds averaged between 10 and 15 mph on the day of treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Phelps Bay - Approximately 150 acres (average 5.9 feet deep) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 55% of the littoral area or 40% of the 373 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were < 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days post - treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay - Approximately 160 acres (average 5.7 feet) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 91% of the 175 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were between 4 to 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days following the application. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay is located near the outlet of Lake Minnetonka, and water flow rates were measured at approximately 150 CFS (or 300 acre feet per day). This issue was discussed in a • pretreatment conference call and it was decided that while the rate of outflow was not optimal from a treatment efficacy standpoint, the closed nature of the bay would insure that exposures would be dictated by outflow versus dispersion from the treatment zone. Aquatic Plant Evaluations: At the request of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Vicksburg, MS initiated plant surveys on all three basins to evaluate the plant communities and establish background data for potential future aquatic plant management demonstrations. The survey was conducted by John Skogerboe, ERDC Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Spring Valley, Wl. Surveys were conducted in late June, 2007 and early September 2007. Additional surveys will be collected following the initiation of plant management demonstrations in order to evaluate their effectiveness. Prior to conducting the first surveys, 50x50 m grids were established for each basin using computer mapping software. The grids were downloaded unto GPS (Global Positioning System) equipment accurate to 10 to 20 ft. Samples were collected using a 36 -cm wide rake attached to a rope. At each sample point, the rake was thrown from the boat approximately 10 to 20 ft and then raised up to the water surface. Each species was then recorded for each sample point. Percent occurrence of plant species was calculated by dividing the number of points where a particular species was present by the total number of sample points in the littoral zone. The average number of species per sample point, and the total the number of native plant species in each basin were calculated. • -2797- Water Sampling: • Water samples were collected by US Army ERDC personnel prior to the treatment and at 1 (15 -18 hour), 2, 3, and 4 days post - treatment on all three bays. Carmen's was further sampled at 5, 8, and 15 days, and Phelps and Grays were sampled at 7 and 14 days post- treatment: Sample sites for each bay were selected both within and outside of the application zones. This allowed for determination of herbicide residence within the plots as well as dispersion of residues from the treated areas. Maps showing the treated areas and water sample sites are included in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Based on prior experience with liquid herbicide applications, the majority of water samples were collected at mid - depth. Within each bay sites were also designated for vertical sampling at 3 depths (25, 50, and 75% of the average depth). Vertical water column sampling is conducted to insure that herbicides spread from top to bottom in the water column. Following collection, water samples were acidified and shipped to the University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Endothall analyses were conducted via immunoassay. For triclopyr analyses, water samples were shipped to the SePRO Corporation for analysis via immunoassay and BPLC. Results are analyzed and reported as the endothall acid and triclopyr acid. This is an important distinction, as the recommended treatment rates of 1.0 mg/L endothall represent the active ingredient concentrations of the endothall salt. The maximum recoverable endothall acid would be 0.71 mg/L (710 ppb) based on the 1.0 mg/L treatment. The maximum recoverable • residue of the triclopyr would be 0.25 mg/L. The y -axis of the residue graphs in Figures 4, 5, and 6 reflect the maximum detectable residues for both endothall and triclopyr based on the target application rates to the treatment plots. Results Water Sampling: Pretreatment sampling indicated residues of both endothall and triclopyr were not detectable. Following herbicide application, data indicate there was a rapid dilution within and dispersion of residues from Carmen's Bay (Figure 4). While the target endothall concentration was 710 ppb in the treatment plots following application, residues collected at —15 hr post - treatment were typically reduced by 80 to 90 %. Moreover, residues were essentially equivalent both within and outside the treated areas, suggesting rapid dispersion from the treated area. A similar pattern of dilution and dispersion was also noticed for triclopyr residues (Figure 4). Based on the cold water temperatures (12 C) at the time of application, it is highly unlikely that microbial degradation played a role in the loss of endothall from any of the treatment sites during the initial 15 -hour period. The residues detected in Phelps Bay showed better retention through —15 hr post- treatment when compared to Carmen's Bay; however these initial concentrations were • IM. •: • still less than 50% of the target rate (Figure 5). The pattern of residue dissipation from the individual sites was not consistent. Despite the above- mentioned concerns with outflow from Grays Bay, this treatment provided the most consistent pattern of initial residue detection and degradation over time (Figure 6). Treatment of a large fraction of this Bay still only resulted in detection of initial residues less than half of the predicted concentration. Nonetheless, in contrast to Carmen's and Phelps, residue dissipation was much slower resulting in several days of exposure to herbicide concentrations that could provide herbicidal impacts. Vertical water column sampling in all three bays ( Carmen's sites 2 and 4, Phelps sites 1 and 2, and Grays site 3) indicated that herbicides were distributed evenly through the water column. This is indicative of isothermal conditions at the time of treatment and it may explain the rapid mixing of residues from the treatment sites to the deeper water areas within the bays. Aquatic Plant Evaluations: Carmen's Bay Pre - treatment: The littoral zone (depth :S 15) contained 181 sample points which was 59% of all sample points (Figure 8). The distribution of Eurasian watermilfoil, curly -leaf pondweed, and native aquatic plants in Carmen's Bay are shown in Figure 9. Eurasian • watermilfoil was found at 58% (Jun 07) and 60% (Sep 07) of littoral zone sample points, and curly -leaf pondweed was found at 28% (Jun 07) and 4% (Sep 07) of the littoral zone sample points (Table 1). The decline in percent occurrence of curly -leaf pondweed was due to normal senescence in late spring and early summer. The native plant community was dominated by coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum, dicot), clasping -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii, monocot), flat -stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis, monocot), and sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata, monocot). Plant species were distinguished as monocots or dicots because some aquatic herbicides are selective for dicots while others are broad spectrum herbicides which can affect both monocots and dicots. The native plant community was composed of 18 different species including 6 dicots, 11 monocots, and 1 macro -alga. Post treatment: Post treatment plant data showed no decline in the percent occurrence of Eurasian watermilfoil (Table 1). The data did indicate a decline in curly -leaf pondweed in Jun 08 (28 %) compared to Jun 07 (4 %). Two native species (wild celery and water star -grass) significantly increased in occurrence in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07, and one species (flat -stem pondweed) significantly declined. Overall the number of native species per sample point increased in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07 and the percentage of sample points with native species increased. Grays Bay Pre - treatment: The littoral zone (depth < 15) contained 216 sample points which was 84% of all sample points (Figure 10). The distribution Eurasian watermilfoil, curly -leaf • pondweed, and native aquatic plants in Grays Bay are shown in Figure 11. Eurasian -2799- watermilfoil was found at 86% (Jun 07) and 86% (Sep 07) of littoral zone sample points, • and curly -leaf pondweed was found at 20% (Jun 07) and 3% (Sep 07) of the littoral zone sample points (Table 2). The decline in percent occurrence of curly -leaf pondweed was due to normal senescence in late spring and early summer. The native plant community was dominated by coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum, dicot), big -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius, monocot), clasping -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii, monocot), flat -stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis; monocot), and sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata, monocot). Plant species were distinguished as monocots or dicots because some aquatic herbicides are selective for divots while others are broad spectrum herbicides which can affect both monocots and dicots. The native plant community was composed of 18 different species including 6 dicots, 11 monocots, and 1 macro -alga Post treatment: Post treatment plant data showed a decline in the percent occurrence of Eurasian watermilfoil (Table 2) from 54 % in Sep 08 compared to 86 % in Sep 07. The data also indicated a decline in curly-leaf pondweed in Jun 08 (5 %) compared to Jun 07 (20 %). Four native species (coontail, slender naiad, wild celery and water star -grass) significantly increased in occurrence in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07, and one species (flat - stem pondweed) showed a significant decline. Overall the number of native species per sample point decreased in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07 and the percentage of sample points with native species remained about the same. Phelps Bay • Pre - treatment: The littoral zone (depth :!S 15) contained 257 sample points which was 703% of all sample points (Figure 12). The distribution Eurasian watermilfoil, curly -leaf pondweed, and native aquatic plants in Phelps Bay are shown in Figure 13. Eurasian watermilfoil was found at 65% (Jun 07) and 67% (Sep 07) of littoral zone sample points, and curly -leaf pondweed was found at 36% (Jun 07) and 5% (Sep 07) of the littoral zone sample points (Table 3). The decline in percent occurrence of curly -leaf pondweed was due to normal senescence in late spring and early summer. The native plant community was dominated by coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum, dicot), big -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius, monocot), clasping -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii, monocot), flat -stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis, monocot), and sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata, monocot). Plant species are distinguished between monocots and dicots because some aquatic herbicides are selective for dicots such as Eurasian watermilfoil while others are broad spectrum herbicides which can affect both dicots and monocots. The native plant community was composed of 23 different species including 8 dicots, 14 monocots, and 1 macro -alga Post treatment: Post treatment plant data showed no decline in the percent occurrence of Eurasian watermilfoil (Table 3). The data did indicate a decline in curly -leaf pondweed in Jun 08 (36 %) compared to Jun 07 (1%). Two native species (wild celery and water star -grass) significantly increased in occurrence in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07, and one species (flat -stem pondweed) significantly declined. Overall the number of native species per sample point increased in Sep 08 compared to Sep 07 and the percentage of sample points with native species increased. 6►:II • 10 C� Discussion: The detection of much lower than expected residues at 15 hr post application in the treatment plots of all 3 bays indicates an initial rapid dilution of herbicides within the bays. It is very likely the water from the treated areas rapidly mixed with untreated water in the deeper zones resulting in much lower than predicted initial concentrations. The detection of relatively high residues in plots established outside of the treatment zones is evidence of rapid dilution within the bays. Furthermore, within both Carman and Phelps bay, the inability to maintain these initial, albeit lower residues over time, suggests rapid dispersion of the treated water into the main lake. Our research group has focused numerous trials on the relationship between herbicide concentration and exposure time (CET) and target plant control. Higher concentrations of herbicide can provide control given shorter exposure periods, while lower concentrations can often provide excellent control under longer -term exposure scenarios. While there is ample evidence that combinations of endothall and triclopyr can provide control of Eurasian watermilfoil, the effectiveness of this combination (or any treatment combination) is dictated by the actual concentrations and exposures that result following application to the treatment site. As noted above, the treatment concentrations used for the applications to the bays in Lake Minnetonka were on the lower end of the maximum label use rates. To provide some perspective on the residue profiles achieved in the three bays, a theoretical 24 -hour half life decay curve was plotted and compared to the average endothall residue values obtained within the treated sites of the bays (Figure 7). The reports of less than desired Eurasian watermilfoil control on Carmen's Bay are not totally unexpected given the residue profiles. The loss of more than 80 to 90% of the herbicide from the treated plots within 15 hr indicates a very short initial exposure to the targeted residues. Moreover, the inability to maintain a prolonged exposure period to these lower residuals was not conducive to achieving target plant control. While the residue profile on Phelps bay presents a more complicated profile than that observed on Carmen's bay, the same factors likely impacted plant control. The initial treatment did not provide for maintenance of the higher residues within the treated plots and the resultant lower rate residuals that spread throughout the bay were rapidly dispersed into the main body of the lake. In contrast to Carmen's, the residue data from Phelps suggest it is likely that some areas received an initial adequate exposure to cause some level of herbicide injury, while other areas within the bay did not. This type of residue patchiness would make efficacy evaluations difficult to evaluate on a bay wide scale. -2801- Grays bay showed a much different long -term residue pattern than either Carmen's or • Phelps bay. While the initial residues were much lower than predicted, these concentrations did persist for several days. It is likely that exposure to extended low concentrations in Grays Bay resulted in the level of Eurasian watermilfoil control that was initially achieved. Despite the ability to maintain longer -term residues in Grays bay, there are reports of some Eurasian watermilfoil recovery in this plot. It is likely that outflow did have an impact on the results achieved in this bay. Eurasian water milfoil control was significantly less than anticipated in all three bays based on previous, growth chamber mesocosm, and field data. Herbicide residue data indicate that the exposure times of the herbicides in all three bays were insufficient for good control, even though the large size of the treatment areas should have allowed for longer exposure times. The cause of the short exposure times is still being investigated. Residue data for Grays bay showed that exposure times were longer due to the enclosed setup of the bay. Grays bay did show a decline in Eurasian watermilfoil, while the other bays did not. Curly -leaf pondweed was significantly reduced in occurrence. The native plant community was not adversely affected, even though some species (wild celery and water star -grass) showed consistent increases in all three bays and once species (flat -stem pondweed declined in all three bays. Water - lilies did not appear to be adversely affected. References Crowell, W.J., N. Troelstrup, L. Queen, and J. Perry. 1994. Effects of harvesting on • plant communities dominated by Eurasian watermilfoil Lake Minnetonka, MN. Journal of Aquatic Plant Management 32:56 -60. Getsinger, K.D., J.D. Madsen, E.G. Turner, and M.D. Netherland. 1997._ Restoring native vegetation in a Eurasian watermilfoil- dominated plant community using the herbicide triclopyr. Regul. Rivers Res. And Manage. 13: 357 -375. Green, W.R. and H.E. Westerdahl. 1990. Response of Eurasian watermilfoil to 2,4 -D concentrations and exposure times. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 28: 27 -32. Madsen, J.D. and K.D. Getsinger. 1995. Assessment of aquatic plants before and after a triclopyr treatment in Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota. pp. 90 -95 in Proceedings, 29th Annual Meeting, Aquatic Plant Control Research Program. Miscellaneous Paper A -95 -3. US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180. Netherland, M.D., W.R. Green, and K.D. Getsinger. 1991. Endothall concentration and exposure time relationships for the control of Eurasian watermilfoil and hydrilla. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 29: 61 -67. Netherland, M.D. and K.D. Getsinger. 1992. Efficacy of triclopyr on Eurasian • watermilfoil- concentration and exposure time effects. J. Aquat. Plant -2802- • Manage. 30:1 -5. Parsons, J.K., K.S. Hamel, J.D. Madsen, and K.D. Getsinger. 2001. The use of 2,4 -D for selective control of an early infestation of Eurasian watermilfoil in Loon Lake, Washington. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 39:117 -125. Poovey, A.G. J.G. Skogerboe, and C.S. Owens. 2002. Spring treatments of diquat and endothall for curly -leaf pondweed control. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 40:63 -67 Poovey, A.G., K.D. Getsinger, J.G. Skogerboe. T.J. Koschnick, J.D. Madsen, and R.M. Stewart. 2004. Small-Plot, Low -Dose Treatments of triclopyr for Selective Control of Eurasian Watermilfoil. Lake and Reserv. Manage. 20(4): 322 -332. Skogerboe, J.G., and K.D. Getsinger. 2002. Endothall species selectivity evaluation: Northern latitude aquatic plant community. J. Aquat. Plant Manage. 40:1 -5. Skogerboe, J.G., and K.D. Getsinger. 2006. Selective control of Eurasian watermilfoil and curly -leaf pondweed using low doses of endothall combined with 2,4 -D. APCRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC /TN APCRP- CC -05). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and • Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. U -2803- Figure 1. Carmen's Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations R ww.vve_.nurw NMl1 rs) Av7. -111 Figure 2. Phelps Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. • C] • • Figure 3. Grays Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. • • -2805- 700 600 500 Qf 400 s 0 300 c W 200 100 0 250 200 J ftft = 150 L Q. O 100 �L 50 RE 1 Carman's Bay Endothall Residues � May 14 -1 DAT EM May 15 May 16 May 17 May 18 May 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Carman's Bay Triclopyr Residues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 4. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Carmen's Bay, Lake Minnetonka. -2806- 0 •I 10 � 0 • 700 Phelp's Bay Endothall Residues J 500 CD .= 400 a s 0 300 V C W 200 100 0 250 Phelps Bay Triclopyr Residues N11 J CO 150 i A Q O v 100 �L .111 M May 15 -1 DAT May 16 ® May 17 D May 18 May 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 5. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Phelps Bay, Lake Minnetonka. -2807- 700 01117 -j 500 -400 e� z o 300 a c w 200 100 0 250 200 150 L Q. O v 100 50 Gray's Bay Endothall Residues � May y 16 1 DAT � May 17 May 18 � May 21 Grays Bay Triclopyr Residues 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site *I 0 � • C� 750 600 C. 450 a a U .a 2 300 150 0 0 —0 Hypothetical 24 hr half -life •••••••O••••••• Carmens Bay residues through 4 d - --t -- Phelps Bay residues through 4 d — — Grays Bay residues through 4 d o................ 2 3 Days Post- treattment 4 Figure 7. A hypothetical residue profile comparing a 24 -hour half -life versus the actual average values obtained following sampling of treatment sites on 3 bays of Lake Minnetonka. 11M Figure 8. Carmen's Bay 2007 point intercept sample grid (50x50 m) • TOPOUS O" Data use subject to Ncense. o soo 'Ow 24(3S DeLorme. iopo USa+► 6:0, MN (1.4G E) Data Zoom 14-7 www.delomie.com • -2810- . Figure 9. Carmen's Bay aquatic plant distribution, 2007 • • Eurasian watermilfoil (red dot) Curly -leaf pondweed (blue dot) –. --d b — Native plants (green dot) -2811- Figure 10. Gray's Bay 2007 point intercept sample grid (50x50 m) Tb$* UUM a.0 oil �4 4Zzr ♦Z w 1 02 46 7 8 9 1 14.»42 13 44 :'45 56,17: w ' � - — � Q�'� E3• O C�i ' it � E1 fl L1 p- t 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 `27 28 ,2S X30 ' 2 3 �U tJ ti , 'i7 � °a t3 C1 C1 t3 d f 31x 3334 35 36 738'`39 40 49 42`43 44,45 50 54 52 53 54 55 56 57K 58A 59, 60 64 r62 63 64 X65 66, 67 s t ib C5 ` Cf ❑ `LY Q D ` `Ci rD LI C) C] L7 L3 Ci* 1 7 69 X70 72 73 J4 T5 T6 T7 78 TS'f $0 81;82 83 84 85 86 87 4 4 y n r7 Gi_ C f 0 d` l it x 89 90 91 S2 93 94 -95 96 9TF 9,19-10010,11 02403104105106 907108409;9 0 =aC! fr xfl tE1'►dr�+' a rz PS,`s X111 1.9241311(41V45946117 918419120121.i22123124125 „42612,74.428129430434 f32 !33 934135136 4371381391401411W 143144145 +146WA4944915(t151152,95�3 �y yam\ ii .,L7, i"l Cff•,n: ri% O `Ci.Ti i"i ci ri i f vi3� r1,, R t54155456�15T +958 8 459460164.4621634 46516616T.468469170f74 tT2 ' '� �� 173174975176477 7817998018! +18218314485 8618T188��ai'yxu p "t n i7 f3a iJ Cf tit Cf ';`, tf PlL7►"t' 'Qr a f 190191492153494195196197198199200201 202203204 >k j f: rP2052062072082092102f1r2�1224324421521624T218 19 ” i b C1 Cu1 ia''i�ti''1'F °r i d q f�1 j Cx 2 2. ; 232233 . 220221 .2223224225226227228229230239 , t �23y4�235239237238239240241242243244y ,245246247 -- sp A , �, •�� �t't %tltra' tt�'' t� l�"'.1`it"%i :r't�' . t'�:t� C2", - �y �� 7N! 245250251' 252253254255256'25725825526026! . �ij QGy Fik9•i..fC}y r3ii` f?I * iy „ 63 264265266 267268269 2T027t sy� <" x war 11 try QY M �2722732T42TS2T62T72T8 r 27.02802R282291, ti t '+ Data use subject to license. 0 2005 DeLorme.. Topo USAO 5.0. c sac iaoo MN (1.3= E) Data Zoom 14-7 www.defornie.com -2812- *I 101 *I • Figure 11. Grays Bay aquatic plant distribution, 2007 Eurasian watermilfoil (red dot) Curly -leaf pondweed (blue dot) — w.d.b —" is • www,dft— Native plants (green dot) www.d.bme.cam -2813- Figure 12. Phelp's Bay 2007 point intercept sample grid (50x50 m) Fr �..t'�. g.- i] .*'Ear _" ••t.•#+��K.,.w* � ♦ ..�,� �` �`� �'� .*. a k�� F � � y. { ♦ f s fir'. � � co§ 4i �G _ $ qy ♦ $ `♦ � , _. 7�• 40 1i�4213 44�:: `b � � � -,�, �� 4l � Y ! rrrr (ress .o-+hM 0"�,b!M" '* 6TL"t WDwrV(a �E� �fVFISO Oi S249W W �6 8J ilk VIM I, x "^�Ir�'-� 74' 476'T8.7T78'T6 �D: '1 EY E� E4�a6#�ET �"� BEY 8f 8Y 83 84 >. 1� 87 �ti ,��s ° •'"" =!� e•e yew ° rsr �an�hi s ne �r,r.�„ *rt�ix�'i �rr'�ei�� U1 tee. ese^�siaatil�� »7w� �, , � r� r '. �` 8B 10Gi0i1�Z' 10�10490e{ AEttil 1�10B11011113` f1$ fi411b11811i11 $1'Ifi#2Qi4"Ig�cfY$t2gYbr ";+% ke�s'.#t� f<t :+�}��x�s,sre,rsfr�.ele R�� "t#t tR ^ rt•+ tswMr 'raaa�rr.ri�,M,re,�re�✓�"*atr' y261g712b12B134iE� lSEt3ClEb13b1E? 1351354+ ifi14; 14Ett5�! �146�4b147fi8rt4E1+tSfb016^1616E ' iiii» ket.. t'1 >''�YEi{``iGj'+±T41'�`r'�,`R Rl'1�+�}�` `s'idt'�YR!'I Yt► -�.1R ',,.�X «�5,�r 4. 1b44561bE4671S5468f8618��BF1�18i48618B1 fE6(854?tl l"4TE1,7117417i4T $ tTi"lTls4T61E61S;18E1ESmw trura...M,»: ear, ���rti �vl !r.��*flr41P�rLSM�(�, ='xxYk.. ezeryie�t°3 =r.�„�esr�, 'slt�a�9't♦ *��f� ", e•t:�r- slwa,hertS,ra�:.^M�'" 1E41$E4E548?fEE1EEf@ 618: t$' s48$ t$414164@544i't9518�3f04E0Q+P44 x$1'3'12 ga,s eA�;e♦ -3fe�t .rf �Aaf a+x'�s xr��sttnC >=Tsfi7w a± e�tsi• re rr►:.tft� °s�i�r�e�,T�f�t(K.r,a �r♦%�:x 2i334E21fY18Y1iY1f21f 2 6=24 rt.: rrsx`nr 1rG.� %3i 'uf��i9�� o1«'f4 f�fifeltkl'JI !ITeRA�i'*�'�5R "� r 24 t91 31-fa . f?l tf Y3R #S► E tM maze Y 7"l k -re %IIIibf wa7 'M M ti �=7 �7i273ZTktT -oft A* 2T$ ♦ " �Y80 2EQ28f$L� :ref •se^eW+f;aktzeY •a^R♦ j6.�"a►�rs �• =:ere .fit ei![ =t�1 �d 30 SEk30E � krt 30YEQE3�DE3#J7E6t38i34C34'�4 „ �» nM�71l. a'.+ � ,3� «t�„T��:aSbf:euAl�z.�aae�JA ♦ >� I^s��7et��r+.'teK rY,;�! �° s '� ♦� r S3i�1X310E4i�i6S1t32D32382t? 3?fa2tS2R3Yl�tt5213S0� , �- ��.; ���.`��alsi��tE�ea►` $�2'�i���� ' � *Rx7el:''eR�.#t�: ex.�l. f � ��* � ti . 36'�E6:36136f3 e6E�389 � f` � -' 'rat4 �•` �• t, � y: '�'f�K4rkA'�ne� °:ms�ae.. .� ��.r,° '� �,, _ Y�- -r��sa►� ♦ elf" 3st4 =e�nk EzbzM'' j [3i8, '� f Altkr'r;'w4rN, ' F R ik, s Data use subject to license. i r 0 Sw 1000 C� 2006 DeLorme. 7opo U'SA@ 6.0. Data Zoom 14-5 www.delorme.com W:ME • 01 '0 0 Figure 13. Grays Bay aquatic plant distribution, 2007 Eurasian watermilfoil (red dot) Curly -leaf pondweed (blue dot) www.tldormeaun www.tlelatme.tam Native plants (green dot) -2815- Table 1. Plant diversity data for Carmen's Bay Percent occurrence results: Carmen's Bay Exotic submersed macrophytes ( %) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Curly -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) Native submersed macrophytes ( °�) water marigold (Bidens beckii) coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) elodea (Elodea canadensis) Northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum) slender naiad (Najas flexilis) big -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis) white -stem pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) clasping -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonir) flat -stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) white water crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris) sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata) great bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris) wild celery (Vallisneria americana) water star -grass (Zosterella dubia) Native floating -leaf macrophytes ( %) fragrant water -lily (Nymphaea odorata) Submersed macro-algae ( %) chara Number of sample sites Number of sample sites in littoral zone (depth < 15 ft) Percent points in littoral zone Mean number of species per point (littoral zone) Mean number of native species per point (littoral zone) Percentage of points with plants Percentage of points with native plants Number of plant species Number of native plant species Jun 07 Sep 07 Jun 08 Sep 08 58 60 62 72 28 4 4 0 4 4 1 10 42 40 39 35 3 5 3 6 7 8 2 7 12 10 3 24 9 9 3 1 3 4 3 15 2 2 1 4 2 1 1 1 24 25 15 28 24 21 5 4 2 0 2 0 17 20 10 16 2 2 1 1 4 6 5 23 7 7 5 26 10 10 13 14 7 6 6 14 305 305 304 301 181 181 175 170 59% 59% 58% 56% 2.64 2.30 2.10 3.05 1.78 1.68 1.25 2.32 85 83 85 95 72 73 69 85 20 19 21 20 18 17 19 19 *All percent occurrence data is based on percentage of littoral zone -2816- • • • • Table 2. Plant diversity data for Gray's Bay Percent occurrence results: Gray's Bay Exotic submersed macrophytes ( %)* Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Curly -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) Native submersed macrophytes ( %)* water marigold (Bidens becki►) coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) elodea (Elodea canadensis) slender naiad (Najas flexilis) big -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis) white -stem pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) clasping -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsonii) fern pondweed (Potamogeton robbinsit) flat -stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) white water crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris) sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata) wild celery (Val isneria americana) water star -grass (Zosterella dubia) • Native floating -leaf macrophytes ( %)* spatterdock (Nuphar advena) fragrant water -lily (Nymphaea odorata) Submersed macro-algae ( %)* chara Number of sample sites Number of sample sites in littoral zone (depth < 15 ft) Percent points in littoral zone Mean number of species per point (littoral zone) Mean number of native species per point (littoral zone) Percentage of points with plants (littoral zone) Percentage of points with native plants (littoral zone) Number of plant species Number of native plant species Jun 07 Sep 07 Jun 08 Sep 08 86 86 50 54 20 3 5 0 1 1 1 2 38 40 45 56 8 9 15 19 5 2 21 35 27 28 18 16 3 3 1 4 7 8 1 0 10 5 2 2 62 60 51 45 24 23 16 17 54 51 12 6 3 1 2 0 19 21 13 16 5 5 6 17 1 1 2 13 4 5 4 4 7 7 6 7 13 8 3 11 258 258 262 264 216 216 218 238 84% 84% 83% 90% 3.95 3.75 3.22 3.24 2.89 2.91 2.4 2.7 99 98 94 98 94 94 91 97 20 20 20 18 18 18 18 17 *All percent occurrence data is based on percentage of littoral zone -2817- Table 3. Plant diversity data for Phelp'sBay • Percent occurrence results: Phelps Bay Jun 07 Sep 07 Jun 08 Sep 08 Exotic submersed macrophytes ( %) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) 65 67 60 69 Curly -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) 36 5 1 7 Native submersed macrophytes (% water marigold (Bidens beckii) 7 8 2 4 coontail (Ceratophy/lum demersum) 52 55 56 69 elodea ( Elodea canadensis) 1 2 3 5 northern milfoil (Myriophyllum sibiricum) 5 8 5 11 slender naiad (Najas flexilis) 13 10 8 21 big -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) 18 23 15 6 Illinois pondweed (Potamogeton illinoensis) 16 17 8 11 floating -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton natans) 1 1 1 1 white -stem pondweed (Potamogeton praelongus) 2 3 3 7 small pondweed (Potamogeton pusillus) 4 0 2 7 clasping -leaf pondweed (Potamogeton richardsoni►) 27 29 23 24 fern pondweed (Potamogeton robbins6) 3 3 3 1 flat -stem pondweed (Potamogeton zosteriformis) 37 40 10 17 white water crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris) 5 1 5 0 grassy arrowhead (Sagittaria graminea) <1 1 0 1 softstem bulrush (Scirpus validus) 1 1 1 1 sago pondweed (Stukenia pectinata) 15 17 5 10 • great bladderwort (Utricularia vulgaris) 2 2 2 2 wild celery (Vallisneria americana) 8 9 12 25 water star -grass (Zosterella dubia) 5 7 5 27 Native floating -leaf macrophytes ( %) spatterdock (Nuphar advena) 7 7 5 5 fragrant water -lily (Nymphaea odorata) 19 21 18 22 Submersed macro-algae ( %) chara 3 2 1 2 Number of sample sites 365 365 363 360 Number of sample sites in littoral zone (depth < 15 ft) 257 257 255 255 Percent points in littoral zone 70% 70% 70% 71% Mean number of species per point (littoral zone) 3.53 3.12 3.2 3.44 Mean number of native species per point (littoral zone) 2.51 2.7 2.2 2.66 Percentage of points with plants 97 96 91 92 Percentage of points with native plants 89 91 85 90 Number of plant species 25 24 24 24 Number of native plant species 23 22 22 22 *All percent occurrence data is based on per • MUM • Draft Report on Herbicide Residues Following Apra 2008 Treatments of Three Bays on Lake Minnetonka Michael D. Netherland US Army Engineer Research and Development Center Gainesville, FL 32653 Background: In April 2008, large areas of Carmans Bay, Phelps Bay, and Grays Bay on Lake Minnetonka were treated with a combination of the registered aquatic herbicides endothall and triclopyr. Treatment plans called for endothall and triclopyr to be applied at target concentrations of 1 mg a.i./L and 0.25 mg a.e./L respectively. For perspective, the maximum label rate of endothall is 5.0 mg a.i./L and triclopyr is 2.5 mg a.e. /acre. In conjunction with these treatments, US Army ERDC personnel collected water samples and conducted analyses to determine residuals for the two active ingredients. Sampling protocols were designed to determine initial dilution and dispersion patterns in order to link efficacy to herbicide residues. Treatments: Carman Bay — Approximately 95 acres (avg. 6.4 feet deep) were treated on April 13, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. The shorelines closer to the main body of the lake were treated with endothall at 1 mg/L and triclopyr at 0.5 mg/L (Fig 1). The entire treatment represented 48% of the littoral area or • 23% of the 403 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that prevailing winds averaged between 10 and 15 mph on the day of treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Phelps Bay - Approximately 150 acres (average 5.9 feet deep) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 55% of the littoral .area or 40% of the 373 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were < 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days post - treatment. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay - Approximately 160 acres (average 5.7 feet) were treated on April 14, 2008. Herbicides were applied by boat with subsurface injection via trailing hoses. This treatment represented 91 % of the 175 -acre bay. Notes from the treatment date indicated that winds were between 4 to 6 mph and remained light and variable for several days following the application. Water temperatures were between 12 and 12.5 C. Grays Bay is located near the outlet of Lake Minnetonka, and water flow rates were measured at approximately 150 CFS (or 300 acre feet per day). This issue was discussed in a pretreatment conference call and it was decided that while the rate of outflow was not optimal from a treatment efficacy standpoint, the closed nature of the bay would insure that exposures would be dictated by outflow versus dispersion from the treatment zone. Water Sampling: • Water samples were collected by US Army ERDC personnel prior to the treatment and at 1 (15 -18 hour), 2, 3, and 4 days post - treatment on all three bays. Carmans was further -2819- sampled at 5, 8, and 15 days, and Phelps and Grays were sampled at 7 and 14 days post- • treatment. Sample sites for each bay were selected both within and outside of the application zones. This allowed for determination of herbicide residence within the plots as well as dispersion of residues from the treated areas. Maps showing the treated areas and water sample sites are included in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Figure 1. Carman Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations Es �rrndusnaaaeu NY(t Y6 r-7— r1 f Figure 2. Phelps Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. -2820- 101 C, • Figure 3. Grays Bay treatment area (shaded sites) and locations of 6 water sampling sites. • Based on prior experience with liquid herbicide applications, the majority of water samples were collected at mid - depth. Within each bay sites were also designated for vertical sampling at 3 depths (25, 50, and 75% of the average depth). Vertical water column sampling is conducted to insure that herbicides spread from top to bottom in the water column. Following collection, water samples were acidified and shipped to the University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants. Endothall analyses were conducted via immunoassay. For triclopyr analyses, water samples were shipped to the SePRO Corporation for analysis via immunoassay and HPLC. Results are analyzed and reported as the endothall acid and triclopyr acid. This is an important distinction, as the recommended treatment rates of 1.0 mg/L endothall represent the active ingredient concentrations of the endothall salt. The maximum recoverable endothall acid would be 0.71 mg/L (710 ppb) based on the 1.0 mg/L treatment. The maximum recoverable residue of the triclopyr would be 0.25 mg/L. The y -axis of the residue graphs in Figures 4, 5, and 6 reflect the maximum detectable residues for both endothall and triclopyr based on the target application rates to the treatment plots. -2821- Results: • Pretreatment sampling indicated residues of both endothall and triclopyr were not detectable. Following herbicide application, data indicate there was a rapid dilution within and dispersion of residues from Carmans Bay (Figure 4). While the target endothall concentration was 710 ppb in the treatment plots following application, residues collected at —15 hr post- treatment were typically reduced by 80 to 90 %. Moreover, residues were essentially equivalent both within and outside the treated areas, suggesting rapid dispersion from the treated area. A similar pattern of dilution and dispersion was also noticed for triclopyr residues (Figure 4). Based on the cold water temperatures (12 C) at the time of application, it is highly unlikely that microbial degradation played a role in the loss of endothall from any of the treatment sites during the initial 15 -hour period. The residues detected in Phelps Bay showed better retention through —15 hr post- treatment when compared to Carman Bay; however these initial concentrations were still less than 50% of the target rate (Figure 5). The pattern of residue dissipation from the individual sites was not consistent. Despite the above - mentioned concerns with outflow from Grays Bay, this treatment provided the most consistent pattern of initial residue detection and degradation over time (Figure 6). Treatment of a large fraction of this Bay still only resulted in detection of initial residues less than half of the predicted concentration. Nonetheless, in contrast to • Carman and Phelps, residue dissipation was much slower resulting in several days of exposure to herbicide concentrations that could provide herbicidal impacts. Vertical water column sampling in all three bays ( Carmans sites 2 and 4, Phelps sites 1 and 2, and Grays site 3) indicated that herbicides were distributed evenly through the water column. This is indicative of isothermal conditions at the time of treatment and it may explain the rapid mixing of residues from the treatment sites to the deeper water areas within the bays. Discussion: The detection of much lower than expected residues at 15 hr post application in the treatment plots of all 3 bays indicates an initial rapid dilution of herbicides within the bays. It is very likely the water from the treated areas rapidly mixed with untreated water in the deeper zones resulting in much lower than predicted initial concentrations. The detection of relatively high residues in plots established outside of the treatment zones is evidence of rapid dilution within the bays. Furthermore, within both Carman and Phelps bay, the inability to maintain these initial, albeit lower residues over time, suggests rapid dispersion of the treated water into the main lake. Our research group has focused numerous trials on the relationship between herbicide concentration and exposure time (CET) and target plant control. Higher concentrations • of herbicide can provide control given shorter exposure periods, while lower -2822- • concentrations can often provide excellent control under longer -term exposure scenarios. While there is ample evidence that combinations of endothall and triclopyr can provide control of Eurasian watennilfoil, the effectiveness of this combination (or any treatment combination) is dictated by the actual concentrations and exposures that result following application to the treatment site. As noted above, the treatment concentrations used for the applications to the bays in Lake Minnetonka were on the lower end of the maximum label use rates. To provide some perspective on the residue profiles achieved in the three bays, a theoretical 24 -hour half life decay curve was plotted and compared to the average endothall residue values obtained within the treated sites of the bays (Figure 7). The reports of less than desired Eurasian watermilfoil control on Carman Bay are not totally unexpected given the residue profiles. The loss of more than 80 to 90% of the herbicide from the treated plots within 15 hr indicates a very short initial exposure to the targeted residues. Moreover, the inability to maintain a prolonged exposure period to these lower residuals was not conducive to achieving target plant control. While the residue profile on Phelps bay presents a more complicated profile than that observed on Carmans bay, the same factors likely impacted plant control. The initial treatment did not provide for maintenance of the higher residues within the treated plots and the resultant lower rate residuals that spread throughout the bay were rapidly • dispersed into the main body of the lake. In contrast to Carmans, the residue data from Phelps suggest it is likely that some areas received an initial adequate exposure to cause some level of herbicide injury, while other areas within the bay did not. This type of residue patchiness would make efficacy evaluations difficult to evaluate on a bay wide scale. • Grays bay showed a much different long -term residue pattern than either Carman or Phelps bay. While the initial residues were much lower than predicted, these concentrations did persist for several days. It is likely that exposure to extended low concentrations in Grays Bay resulted in the level of Eurasian watermilfoil control that was initially achieved. Despite the ability to maintain longer -term residues in Grays bay, there are reports of some Eurasian watermilfoil recovery in this plot. It is likely that outflow did have an impact on the results achieved in this bay. Discussion Points: 1. Would greater levels of plant biomass in the treatment plots mitigate rapid dispersion? Earlier demonstration trials were conducted in May and June. 2. Given the rapid dispersion of the herbicide, was there enough biomass to take up the herbicide and translocate it to rootcrowns ? 3. Should higher treatment concentrations be considered in bays subject to rapid dispersion? -2823- 700 600 -j 500 = 400 0 300 V W 200 100 0 250 200 J CD 150 CL 0 100 F- 50 Carman's Bay Endothall Residues � May 14 -1 DAT EM May 15 May 16 f May 17 May 18 ® May 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Carman's Bay Triclopyr Residues 0 1 ■lq ■rA ■r ■m ■pr■ ■ug■ ■FAM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 4. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Carman Bay, Lake Minnetonka. -2824- *I 01 *I 10 I* • 700 Phelp's Bay Endothall Residues .11 J 500 m = 400 e� o 300 V C w 200 100 0 250 Phelps Bay Triclopyr Residues 200 J 150 L CL 0 100 L 50 a � May 15 -1 DAT May 16 � May 17 = May 18 � May 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Sample Site Figure 5. Endothall and triclopyr residues collected from seven sites in Phelps Bay, Lake Minnetonka. -2825- 700 .11 -j 500 aM = 400 ea s o 300 v c w 200 100 0 250 200 J CD 150 L CL 0 z 100 ALL r 50 Gray's Bay Endothall Residues Grays Bay Triclopyr Residues 1 2 3 4 Sample Site -2826- � May 15 -1 DAT UM May 16 � May 17 May 18 � May 21 5 6 7 *I *I • • • C7 750 . N600 CL 450 N 2 300 150 0 0 -- 0 Hypothetical 24 hr half -life •••••-.0--••••• Carmens Bay residues through 4 d - -�- -- Phelps Bay residues through 4 d — — Grays Bay residues through 4 d —_.. IN 0 ...................... ?s 2 3 Days Post- treattment 4 Figure 7. A hypothetical residue profile comparing a 24 -hour half -life versus the actual average values obtained following sampling of treatment sites on 3 bays of Lake Minnetonka. -2827- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT October 2008 October 2008 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REV_ ENUE GENERAL FUND 83.33% • PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED Taxes Business Licenses 3,339,007 18,500 0 1,897,279 - 1,441,728 56.82% A Non- Business Licenses /Permit 247,900 0 12,834 17,606 121,827 -895 126,073 95.16% B Intergovernmental 322,060 166,733 229,763 - - 92,297 49.14% C Charges for Services 89,400 2,629 89,012 123,356 71.34% D Court Fines 55,000 .5,958 54,017 -388 99.57% E Street Lighting Fee Franchise Fees 108,000 8,900 91,206 -983 - 16,794 98.21% F 84.45% G G.O. Equipment Certificates 298,000 150,000 65,681 154,125 243,867 - 54,133 81.83% H Charges to Other Dpts 12,000 206,498 154,125 4,125 102.75% 1 Park Dedication Fees 0 -287 8,463 -3,538 70.52% J Other Revenue 263,050 0 564 1,100 27.667 1,100 - 235,383 0.00% K 10.52% L TOTAL REVENUE 4.902.917 02= .935.929 _1.966 gg FIRE FUND 1,107,774 181,111 961,172 - 146,602 DOCK FUND 167,450 665 158,125 -9,325 MOUND HRA 25,273 3,092 9,624 - 15,649 WATER FUND 966,000 84,244 801,133 - 164,867 SEWER FUND 1,522,500 123,356 1,176,930 - 345,570 LIQUOR FUND 2,600,000 233,415 2,204,582 - 395,418 RECYCLING FUND 220,600 20,084 166,270 - 54,330 STORM WATER UTILITY 175,000 12,796 213,663 38,663 INVESTMENTS (Net of Exp) 10,059 206,498 206,498 59 86.77% 94.43% 38.08% 82.93% 77.30% 84.79% 75.37% 122.09% • Explanations of Revenue to Budaet as of 10131108 A (Unchanged from prior month) Tax capture ratee for May Settlement was 103% with delinquencies higher than budgeted. Also, the MN Dept of Rev will be distributing the October and December (short • settlement) of property taxes which should project close to our budgeted revenue projection. B (Unchanged from causeonuo` licenses have already been purchased, which emakes up most f this for the year, this is perms q revenue. Other permit revenue is mostly captured already as well, since most festivals and other events requiring permits have already occurred. C Non - Business licences and permits is only at about 50% of the projected revenue for 2008. Building permits are at about 51 %; there were also more plumbing connection charges which now stand at about 45 %. Both percentages are low for being this far into the year, but slow activity was anticipated. The first half of Market Value Homestead for th Credit will receive hOctober econd MVHC payment in December. 79,797) was 44% of our budget for the year. Police State Aid was received October 1 st ($86,936) and was 114% of the budgeted $76,000. E Charges for services went up slightly from last month because of additional kennel boarding revenues. The percentage remains high because of antennal leases which are paid at the beginning of the year. F Court fines increased from he prior month due to another month worth of court fines received (about $4000) and er $2, 6 0 in additional admin citations. so far n 2008. he administrative fines were not budgeted for and a ccount for G The street lighting fee is right on budget with a steady revenue stream. • H Franchise fees increased significantly from the prior month because 3rd Quarter payments were received for cable, Xcel Energy and Centerpoint which brings the percentage just slightly under budgeted projections for this time of year. The GO Equipment Certificate was endedcu'vbei g $ 60k instead of the projected $150k. There will be two amount because the certificate P more bills coming out of here for the cost of issuing the bonds. J Revenue from Charges to other Departments is negative for the month of October because neopos postage charges came out of here for the postage machine, these charges get allocated to each department quarterly as they use postage. Copier charges to each department are also allocated here. K Park Dedication fees is at zero now because of the halt in activity and new developments. L Other revenue increased slightly II scell n allocated here. including depot rental fees and cemetery lot sale. At year -end interest w -2829- -2830- 0 � •. is CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT October 2008 83.33% BUDGET October 2008 EXPENSE YTD EXPENSE VARIANCE PERCENT EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council Promotions 79,629 64,648 4,583 58,176 21,453 73.06% A City Manager /Clerk 348,488 25,380 17,250 47,398 0 26.68 /o B Elections 17,925 5,982 263,927 84,561 75.73% C Finance 379,807 24,693 8,787 268,418 9,138 49.02% D Assessing 92,050 4 121,389 68.04% E Legal 140,507 7,823 90,875 93,399 1,175 98.72% F City Hall Building & Srvcs 123,718 9,604 47,108 66.47% G Computer 20,000 102,093 21,625 82.52% H Police 1,890,110 133,034 4,293 1,692,350 15,707 21.47%1 Emergency Prepardeness 7,100 79 29 84.25% J Planning /Inspections 460,283 35,543 5,671 266,516 1,760 1 ,429 79.87% K Streets Parks 810,532 65,722 632,453 193 767 178,079 57.9tl% L Park Dedication Fees 545,174 - 58,500 534,034 11,140 78.03% M 97.96% N Cemetery 10,771 _ - #DIV/01 O Recreation 5,000 - 8,537 2,234 79.26% P Transfers Cable TV 488,696 40,724 51 407,247 4,949 ' 81,449 1.02% Q 83.33% Contingencies 43,200 41,700 11,387 33,944 9,256 R 78.57% S 1,994 71,364 (29,664) 171.14% T GENERAL FUND TOTAL 5,569,338 425,052 4,449,385 1,119,953 79.89% Area Fire Service Fund 1,107,773 131,642 890,254 217,519 80.36% Dock Fund 215,164 4,019 78,443 136,721 36.46% HRA Fund 70,100 1,256 54,017 16,083 0 77.06 /o Capital Projects 1,480 843,613 3,206,103 (3,204,623) Parking Deck I - 1,155 268,312 (268,312) TIF 1 -2 Downtown Mound - - 1,457 (1,457) TIF 1 -3 MHR - 9,272 1,456,788 (1,456,788) Water Fund 1,374,387 56,148 1,291,757 82,630 0 93.99 /° Sewer Fund 1,362,546 95,749 1,203,803 158,743 0 88.35 /o Liquor Fund 551,013 44,286 420,697 130,316 0 76.35 /o Recycling Fund 239,980 19,614 171,677 68,303 71,54% Storm Water Utility 164,668 8,041 257,730 (103,062) 166.63% -2830- 0 � •. is � 0 16 10 Ex lanations of Ex enses to Bud et as of 10/31/08 A Council expenses to date are under budget primarily because of fewer dues and subscriptions than budgeted. 13 (Unchanged from prior month) Promotions are under budget because a large portion was budgeted for the senior trust account which has not been expended. C City Manager /Clerk are under budget, salaries are on budget; there is no capital expense; other operating expenses are also on or under budget. D Election pay was disbursed for the primary election; the remaining will be paid out for the general election in November. E Finance is under budget primarily because salaries are under budgeted amounts; other operations expenses are also generally on or under what was budgeted. F Assessing's percentage is high because the hennepin county fee for assessing for the year has been paid and other than minor postage and printing toss, that is what makes up the expense. G Legal expenses are under budget at the end of October. The main reasons are because expenses related to the Board of Prisoners are only at 10,804 or 36% of budgeted amounts and Professional Services are also well under budget at 41%. H City hall building and services' percentage is on budget for this time of year. Capital expenses are just under the total budgeted for the year while contractual services are over the total budgeted amount for the year. However, building repair as well as repair and maintenance expenses are all under buget. All together, city hall building and services are on budget for the year. I (Unchanged from the prior month) Computer is under budget because contractual services have been under budget all year so far. There is usually more expense here toward year -end. J Police expenses are slightly over budget; regular pay is under budgeted amounts while overtime and part-time pay expenses are over budget. Clothing, motor fuels and telephone l expenses and other rentals at total budgeted amounts for the year or over those amounts, white cap' Y police are under budgeted amounts for the year. In total police are on budget for the year. (Also, p have yet to receive reimbursement for personnel costs in association with the RNC.) K Emergency prepardeness is slightly under budget due to siren maintenance being paid up -front in January. Conference expense is on budget at about 82 %; operating supplies are under budget and currently at about 72% of total budgeted expense. L Planning and inspections is under its budget in almost every expense Tine. The major factors why P81 is well under budget is due to building inspection fees at $51,686 or about 37% of the total budgeted amount. Professional services are also around 37% of the budgeted amount There has been no capital outlay expense in 2008 however there was $6,000 in the budget. Because of all these factors, P &I is under budget M outlay, motor andeelectric n aroe eitheAover ore near total b dgeted amounts for the year. Other items year—capital y , machinery and egipment repair and maintenance as other contractual services (36% of total budgeted), (5o %) and salt (32 %) are under their budgeted amounts. Overall streets come in just under budget. N Parks is at about 98% of the total budget as of the end of October. The high percentage of total budget is due to some areas being well over budgeted amounts such as building repair ( der tree removal (ld lie this motor fuels (148 %) and capital outlay (130 %). Other areas, however, are well under and otheroutilitiesls time of year, landscape material (48 %). other equipment ment re p air and maintenance (71%), (electric, gas and garbage). O (Unchanged from prior month) No park dedication fee expense. P (Unchanged from prior month) Cemetery is on budget; the annual allocation from parks for mowing has been completed. Q {Unchanged from prior month) Recreation expenses are very low due to no expense spent on capital outlay when there was capital expense budgeted for. R Transfers are on budget. s Cable TV's percentage is on budget because the third quarter payment was made in October. T Contingencies is high because of severance being allocated here, If this was not included, contingencies would be around 49% of the budgeted amount. -2831- Mound Fire Department Fire Commission Meeting Wednesday November 19, 2008 11:00 a.m. —1:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Old Business and Miscellaneous • Insurance Services Office (ISO - PPC) Review of Evaluation Process • Insurance Services Office — PPC Audit results (preliminary) • ISO Public Protection Classification report coming soon • Year -to -Date MFD Fire and Rescue call activity comparison for 2008 2. Financial Topics and Considerations • 2009 Fire Department Budget update • Capital Equipment and Apparatus plan • Assistance to Firefighters Grant request and results • Review and discussion of MFD Budget Management and Cost Saving Initiatives 3. Hot Topics and General Communications • Emergency Responses — Critical calls for MFD service • Firefighter staff — Probies complete probationary period, one firefighter retires • Fire Departments in the NEWS! 4. Other miscellaneous • Fire Commission members for 2009 • Fire Commission meeting schedule for 2009 5. Adjourn. -2832- 0 � 01 Ul r FIRE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MINNETONKA BEACH: Suzanne Griffin — City Administrator Mike Taylor — Council Member MINNETRISTA: Mike Funk — City Administrator George Zenanko — Council Member MOUND: Kandis Hanson — City Manager MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT: Greg Pederson — Fire Chief SHOREWOOD: Brian Heck — City Administrator SPRING PARK: Gary Hughes — Council Member • New Member List - 2008 -2833- ISO's Public Protection Classification (PPC) Program Page 1 of 3 C. ISO's Public ISO's Public Protection Classification (PPC") Protection Classification Program (PPC) Program To help establish appropriate fire insurance premiums for residential and commercial Fire Suppression properties, Insurance companies need reliable, up -to -date Information about a Rating Schedule community's fire - protection services. ISO provides that information through the Public Your Community's rotection Classification (PPCTM) program. PPC Survey What is the PPC program? ISO collects Information on municipal fire - protection efforts In communities throughout Selected Technical the United States. In each of those communities, ISO analyzes the relevant data using Subjects our Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). We then assign a Public Protection Classification from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents exemplary public protection, and Class 10 Access indicates that the area's fire - suppression program doesn't meet ISO's minimum criteria. al Technical Documents By classifying communities' ability to suppress fires, ISO helps the communities evaluate their public fire- protection services. The program provides an objective, countrywide standard that helps fire departments in planning and budgeting for facilities, equipment, and training. And by securing lower fire insurance premiums for communities with better public protection, the PPC program provides incentives and rewards for communities that choose to improve their firefighting services. ISO has extensive information on more than 44,000 fire- response jurisdictions. How this website can help you • This website contains a wealth of Information about the PPC program and the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS). The website can also lead you to specific information about your community's PPC code and what you can do to get a better code. Some of the technical information In the site is available to registered customers and fire officials only. Find out how to register. Follow the links for: Public Protection Classification program ■ Origins of public protection grading ■ How the PPC program works ■ Benefits of the PPC program for communities ■ ISO's PPC Program: Helping to Build Effective Fire - Protection Services (text of an ISO study) ■ Effective Fire Protection: A National Concern (text of an ISO study) ■ How PPC info affects individual insurance policies ■ Scope of the PPC evaluation ISO's Community Outreach Program ■ Community Outreach Questionnaire ■ PPC evaluation process ■ What if our PPC gets worse? ■ Can one fire affect our community's PPC? ■ Split classifications • ■ Facts and figures about PPC codes around the country http : / /www.isomitigation.com /ppc /0000 /ppc00n 2kt-1 11/19/2008 ISO's Public Protection Classification (PPC) Program ■ Presentations and classes for fire department personnel • Fire Suppression Rating Schedule • FSRS overview • Minimum facilities and practices to get a PPC rating ■ Minimum criteria for Class 9 ■ Minimum criteria for Class 88 Minimum criteria for Class 8 or better ■ Scores and PPC ratings ■ Items considered in the FSRS ■ Ordering PPC and BCEGS documents Your community's PPC survey ■ Your community's PPC survey ■ Scheduling the survey ■ Preparing for the survey ■ Initial visit ■ Fire alarm survey ■ Fire department survey ■ Water - supply survey ■ After the survey ■ What if our PPC is worse? ■ Requesting more information from ISO is ■ Seeking advice from independent consultants ■ Presurvey information request forms Selected technical subjects Page 2 of 3 • Technical subjects overview • Needed fire flow ■ Monitoring emergency circuits for integrity ■ Criteria for distribution of companies ■ Response -time considerations ■ Engine- company equipment ■ Service- company equipment ■ Ladder - company equipment ■ FSRS equivalency list ■ Maximum age for apparatus ■ Automatic aid ■ Training ■ Water - supply evaluations ■ Alternative water supplies ■ Relative -value tables ■ Divergence factors Access to technical documents These pages are available to registered customers and fire chiefs only. Find out how to • register. hq: / /www.isomitigation.com/ppc /0000 /ppc00n' W— 2835- 11/19/2008 ISO's Public Protection Classification (PPC) Program Page 3 of 3 Fire Suppression Rating Schedule and commentaries For more information ... ... on any topic related to the PPC program or the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, click Talk to ISO Mitigation, or call the ISO mitigation specialists at 1- 800 - 444 -4554. p 1996, 2008 Insurance Services Office, Inc. All rights reserved. Site Index FAQ Privacy Policy ISO Trademarks hq:/ /www.isomitigation.com /ppc /0000 /ppc00 2$361 11/19/2008 Cl • • • • Scope of the PPC Evaluation ISO's Public Protection Classification (PPC) Program Origins of Public Protection Grading How the PPC Program Works Benefits of the PPC Program for Communities ISO's PPC Program: Helping to Build Effective Fire- Protection Services Effective Fire Protection: A National Concern How PPC Info Affects Individual Insurance Policies Scope of the PPC Evaluation ISO's Community Outreach Program ISO's Community Outreach Questionnaire Evaluation Process What If Our PPC Gets Worse? Can One Fire Affect Our Community's PPC? Split Classifications Facts and Figures Presentations and Classes Scope of the PPC" Evaluation Page 1 of I The purpose of an ISO public protection survey is to gather information to determine a PPCTT9, which insurers use for underwriting and to calculate premiums for fire insurance. The Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) recognizes fire - protection features only as they relate to suppression of fires in structures. In many communities, fire suppression may be only a small part of the fire department's overall responsibility. ISO recognizes the dynamic and comprehensive duties of a community's fire service. We understand the complex decisions a community must make in planning and delivering emergency services. However, we evaluate only features related to reducing property losses from fire. For more information ... ... on any topic related to the PPC program or the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, click Talk to ISO Mitigation, or call the ISO mitigation specialists at 1- 800 - 444 -4554. • @ 1996, 2008 Insurance Services Office, Inc, All rights reserved. Site Index FAQ Privacy Policy ISO Trademarks http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/PpcO011" 2837 - 11/19/2008 How the PPC Program Works ISO's Public Protection Classification (PPG) Program Origins of Public Protection Grading How the PPC Program Works Benefits of the PPC Program for Communities ISO's PPC Program: Helping to Build Effective Fire - Protection Services Effective Fire Protection: A National Concern How PPC Info Affects Individual Insurance Policies Scope of the PPC Evaluation ISO's Community Outreach Program ISO's Community Outreach Questionnaire Evaluation Process What If Our PPC Gets Worse? Can One Fire Affect Our Community's PPC? Split Classifications Facts and Figures Presentations and Classes How the PPC"" Program Works Pagel of 2 The PPCTM program provides important, up -to -date information about municipal fire- protection services throughout the country. ISO's expert staff collects information about the quality of public fire protection in more than 44,000 fire districts across the United States. In each of those fire districts, ISO analyzes the relevant data and assigns a Public Protection Classification — a number from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents exemplary fire protection, and Class 10 Indicates that the area's fire- suppression program does not meet ISO's minimum criteria. Virtually all U.S. insurers of homes and business property use ISO's Public Protection Classifications in calculating premiums. In general, the price of insurance in a community with a good PPC is substantially lower than in a community with a poor PPC, assuming all other factors are equal. A community's PPC depends on: • fire alarm and communication systems, including telephone systems, telephone lines, staffing, and dispatching systems • the fire department, including equipment, staffing, training, and geographic distribution of fire companies • the water - supply system, including the condition and maintenance of hydrants, and a careful evaluation of the amount of available water compared with the amount needed to suppress fires For more information ... ... on any topic related to the PPC program or the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule, click Talk to ISO Mitigation, or call the ISO mitigation specialists at 1- 800 - 444 -4554. http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/0000/ppc0004.h $1 - 11/19/2008 • • ISO - ISO's PPC Program sDcwernbad the study in Adobe POF format CGIZIUMI tS Introduction i ISO's PPC program accurately measures the quality of public fire protection in 45,000 fire districts across the country Better fire protection — as measured by the PPC program — leads to lower losses. I, The PPC program provides an incentive for communities to improve the quality of their fire protection — and communities respond to that incentive. When a fire district improves its PPC, the entire community can benefit economically. ISO's outreach efforts help communities quickly realize the economic benefits of improved public protection. IM When a community improves its fire protection, everyone benefits. Page 1 of 2 F 0 It's the largest single cause of property loss in the j United States. In the last decade, fires have caused direct losses of more than $12o billion and countless billions more in related costs. But that's not all. Every year, fires injure more than 20,000 people. And every year, more than 3,000 Americans die in building fires. A community committed to saving lives and property needs trained firefighters, proper equipment, and adequate supplies of water. Insurance companies consider it good public policy — and good business — to promote and encourage the efforts of individual communities to improve their fire- protection services. That's why, for almost a century, U.S. property insurance companies have funded key initiatives aimed at fire prevention and fire mitigation. In the battle against fire losses, one of the insurance industry's most important weapons is the Public Protection Classification (PPCTM) program from The PPC program provides important, up -to -date information about municipa fire- protection services throughout the country. A community's investment in fire mitigation is a proven and reliable predictor of future fire losses. So insurance companies use PPC information to help establish fair premiums for fire insurance — generall offering lower premiums in communitie with better protection. By offering economic benefits for communities that invest in their firefighting services, the PPC program provides a real incentive for improving and maintaining public fire protection. And that incentive produces results. The program also provides help for fire departments and other public officials as they plan for, budget, and justify improvements. "The Public Protection Classification information we obtain from ISO allows California Casualty to properly categorize and rate property Insurance risks based on an objective measure of the quality of fire protection at each risk location. Most small to medium -sized insurers have no way of independently amassing enough loss data and fire - district information to create their ,own fire - protection classification system. Affiliating with ISO for that information allows us to leverage ISO's extensive field- research operation and expertise. From the standpoint of improving public safety, fire- district leaders are well aware of ISO's PPC classification system, and any efforts they 'undertake to improve their assigned protection class undoubtedly enhances the level of fire protection enjoyed by their communities." Chuck Muenzen, CPCU, ARP Vice President California Casualty But the most significant benefit of the Management Co. PPC program is its effect on losses. Statistical data on insurance losses bears out the relationship between excellent fire protection — as measured by the PPC program — and low fire losses. And in a recent survey of fire chiefs, 97% of the respondents said that the PPC program is important in helping the community save lives and property. Follow the links for more information on ISO's PPC programs. http: / /Www.iso. comIResearch- and - Analyses IStuA ;- -- a- A- WhitepaperslISO -s- PPC - Progra... 11/19/2008 -2839- ISO - ISO's PPC Program Page 2 of 2 Next Section: ISO's PPC program accurately measures the quality of public fire protection in 45,000 fire districts across the country C 1996, 2008 Insurance Services Office, Inc. All rights Site Index FAQ Privacy Policy Conditions of Use ISO Trademarks reserved. http: / /www.iso.comIResearch- and- AnalysesIStiiiii E'e- nnrl- Whitepapers /ISO -s- PPC - Progra... 11/19/2008 -2840- • • ISO - ISO's PPC Program - Page 4 vDawn load the study in Adobe POF format contents 11 Introduction r ISO's PPC program accurately measures the quality of public fire protection in 45,000 fire districts across the country Better fire protection — as measured by the PPC program — leads to lower losses. The PPC program provides an incentive for communities to improve the quality of their fire protection — and communities respond to that incentive. When afire district improves Its PPC, the entire community can benefit economically. ISO's outreach efforts help communities quickly realize the economic benefits of improved public protection. When a community improves its fire protection, everyone benefits. The Pik: p mgmm provides an ineeutive bw el- rtuiAtiee to imgrwm the quality of their hire proWdion — and ectm munitiee respond to that inemiktvve. A survey of fire chiefs conducted for ISO by the independent opinion research firm ORC International shows how much community fire officials rely on the PPC program. The survey, based on telephone interviews with a sample of 501 fire chiefs and other fire department officials from across the country, reveals that the PPC program plays an important part in most communities' decisions on their fire- protection services. Ninety-two percent of the fire chiefs and other officials interviewed said that, in planning for, budgeting, or justifying improvements or changes in their communities' public fire protection, the effect of such changes on the PPC is very or somewhat important. Page 1 of 2 Fifty -nine percent of the fire chiefs and celebrated its 50th anniversary — other officials reported that, in the last and its PPC Class 1 rating —with a five years, they have used ISO's PPC glittering display at the Las Vegas program in planning for, budgeting, or Convention Center. justifying improvements or changes in their communities' public fire protection. And 69 percent said they plan to use the PPC program that way in the next three years. The fire chiefs and officials said they had used the PPC Program: • for planning or other economic purposes • as a guide for making improvements in their community fire services • for justifying expenditures and improvements • in building a new fire station or to help determine the location of a new station • in buying or upgrading equipment • in increasing staff or training of staff HOW THE PPC PROGRAM AFFECTS COMMUNITIES' DECISIONS ON FIRE PROTECTION In planning for, budgeting, or http: / /www.iso.com/Research- and - Analyses /StLiA284l A- )VWtepapers/ISO -s- PPC- Progra... 11/19/2008 ISO - ISO`s PPC Program - Page 4 Page 2 of 2 justifying improvements or changes in your community's public fire protection, how important is the effect such a change might have on your community's PPC? WHAT FIRE CHIEFS SAID ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PPC PROGRAM Planning for, budgeting, or justifying changes in public fire protection Ninety-four percent of the fire chiefs and other officials said that planning for, budgeting, or justifying improvements or changes in public fire protection is an important use of the PPC program. Helping the community save money on fire insurance Ninety-six percent of the sample said that helping the community save money on fire insurance is important. Helping the community save lives and property And fully 97 percent said that helping the community save lives and property is an important use of the PPC program. Source: a survey conducted by the opinion research firm ORC International, based on telephone interviews with Sol fire chiefs and other fire department officials Next Section: When a fire district improves its PPC, the entire community can benefit economically. 0 1996, 2008 Insurance Services Office, Inc. All rights Site Index FAQ Privacy Policy Conditions of Use ISO Trademarks- reserved. http: / /www.iso.com/Research- and - Analyses /St•_ 2842 - 1- Whitepapers/ISO -s- PPC- Progra... 11/19/2008 0 � • • 140 I• Mound Fire Department 2008 Activity Report October 2007 vs. October 2008 Fire / Rescue Calls In Our Primary Service Area Mutual Aid Calls Out Of Our Service Area Total Of All Fire / Rescue Calls Including Mutual Aid Fire / Rescue Personnel Hours In Our Primary Service Area Mutual Aid Fire / Rescue Personnel Hours Fire / Rescue Personnel Hours Including Mutual Aid 2007 447 7 454 8,963 317 9,280 Fire / Rescue Personnel Hours Including Mutual Aid 9,280 Maintenance Hours 960.5 Training (In House) Hours 2,080 -2843- YTD 2008 450 13 463 9,361 665 10,026 10,026 1,113.5 2,777.5 00 O O N ti Cd F� Q t GO a � o � a� bA 0 N PC 4) .r ls� y es b4 PC C a �" O to v' O 22 O . Q" O bo N �• U 61 a� O -O O U 'G 6/3 b 0&0 Lppa O O c� U � v� • � � � �' .� .� � O'n � � OM_'c~d yo vUi4G'�' N Q. 2 N &4 L.L V -8 8 M -0V U c° V � W E ED to wC6 a o O M C 0 d' 0 4-4 o 0 N 0, '+ .y 04 b o I M cts bo i WI a �o 3 y., CIO td • IS 0 o .— nz � b N 0 � a o � ' tw 8 x.0 • CA COQ ' O .�' G � pr '.7" 4R pp e� ca C4 t9 w C4 on -00 y ¢'� y >,� C :024 8 Go w � • � F ao N O rn ti G~i 69 Go •b � �r � W O vOi � � � � rn � U � 'C y 'O � � � �. U O y • Fj" b � .. U a pNw U 604 ed —2845— N 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD • IF OF MOUND MOUND, MN 55364 -1687 PH: (952) 472 -0600 FAX: (952) 472 -0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com November 21, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Bonnie Ritter RE: Recount for U.S. Senator Thursday, November 20, 2008, Jodi Rahn and I took the City's 5,740 ballots from the November 4t" General Election to the City Hall in Independence to participate in the U.S. Senate recount. Other cities participating in that recount were: Corcoran, Greenfield, Hanover, Independence, Loretto, Maple Plain, Medina, Minnetrista, Rockford, Spring Park and St. Bonifacius. There were a total of over 24,000 ballots that were counted by six teams. I served as one of the officials that sorted the ballots based upon the principles of voter intent as outlined by state statute. I had a representative from Coleman looking over one shoulder and a representative from Franken looking over the other. They were flanked by my "counters ". If one of the representatives posed a challenge to my decision, attorneys from each party and the attorney present from Hennepin County would gather to discuss. After review, some challenges were found by both parties not to be valid and would then be counted for the intended candidate. The results from the City of Mound's ballot recount were: Totals reported on Election Night: Totals after hand recount of 11/20/08: Coleman Franken Other 26567 2072 1010 2656 2072 1010 There were two of our ballots that were challenged (one from each party) that will go on to the Canvassing Board meeting scheduled for December 16. It was an interesting experience to say the least. printed on recycled paper 2846- • • PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND DOCKS COMMISSION • Thursday, November 13, 2008 is is Present: Chair Mike Mason, Vice Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Pat Meisel, Sue Pilling, Mike Wilkus, Council Representative John Beise Absent: Don Heywood Chair Mason called meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. 1. Approval of Agenda: MOTION by Meisel to approve agenda as written. SECOND by Pilling. Motion carried unanimously 3. Comments and present None presen 4. Discuss: blic n Permit — Carob Hammer 1 17 -24 -31 -0014 Hillcrest Rd & Diamond Ln Fackler revie ed the Public Lands Permit and staff comments. Carol Hammer, 5972 Hillcrest Road addressed the Commission. Hammer stated the area she proposes to plant is not in the wetland area, but the road right -of -way adjacent to it, and she feels there would be no change in the water flow. Discussion followed. Meisel asked if she would keep the green space near the hydrant as is. Hammer stated she would. MOTION by Funk to approve the request with the limiting how much planting can be done around the hydrant area. Friendly amendment by Meisel to include a hold harmless agreement is required. SECOND by Meisel. Voting yes: Mason, Funk, Pilling, Meisel, Beise. Voting no; Wilkus. Motion Carried 5. Discuss: Zero Gravity Skate Park — Security Cameras -2847- A Fackler stated staff looked at costs for having cameras at the Skate Park from quotes previously received by Ray Hanson for cameras at the Parking Ramp. Based on this quote, the cost would be around $8,500. Pilling asked if park dedication funds could be used for this expense. Fackler stated he would check with the attorney. Pilling voiced concerns about safety and parents not allowing children to go to skate park because of rumored drug dealing and unacceptable behaviors of individuals at the skate park. Mason stated he has heard similar stories. Meisel stated the skate park is well known through the western suburbs, and we want a positive reputation of the Skate Park. Discussion followed. Pilling requested staff asks the Police Department if they feel cameras would be effective at the Skate Park. MOTION by Beise to request City Council allow up to $5,000 from Park Dedication funds, assuming its allowable, and have staff pursue an accurate estimate of costs for a camera m for the skate park. SECOND by Pilling. Motion carried uJWously Discuss: Dock Location Map Cqblpr 7#9 Fackler reviewed the prop The Dock Location Map is A E on the Dock Location Map. the City Council in January. the 2009 Dock Location Map as Motion carried unanimously. final report included in the packet. Discussion Review: BSU Count Fackler reviewed the boat counts for the 2008 season. Discussion followed on multiple slips, and if more can be added. Beise asked the cost of adding multiples, and questioned if the City is losing money on the multiple slips. Review: Calendar Fackler noted a meeting will be held in December 10. Reports: City Council Representative Beise 2009 reported the Council has been working on the budget. The 2009 street project has been approved. 2 • • • Park Superintendent Fackler stated we're looking for Commissioners for the POSDC. Veterans Memorial Plaza was dedicated on November 8, 2008. Parks staff is getting ready for winter. MOTION by Mason to adjourn. SECOND by Meisel. Meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m. 3 Congratulations to the 2008 MnAPA award winners The following projects received awards at the Chapter conference in September in our annual awards program. Congratulations to all. Outstanding Planning or Urban Design Category Honor Award: Extreme Makeover: Rebuilding Community on the River, City of Sauk Rapids, Dahlgren Shardlow Uban, Inc. MeritAward: Montrose Alternative Urban Areawide Review, City of Montrose, Bolton & Menk, Inc. CM eritAward: Mound Transit Center, City of Moundbersman & Armstrong, Inc. Merit Award: Waterford Commons, City of Rosemount MeritAward: Uptown Small Area Plan, City of Minneapolis, Cuningham Group Architecture MeritAward: Riverdale Station Area Transit Oriented Development Guidelines, City of Coon Rapids, Cuningham Group Architecture MeritAward: Design for Health.net, Ann Forsyth, Humphrey Institute MeritAward: Excelsior & Grand Redevelopment, City of St. Louis Park, ESG Architects Merit Award: Presbyterian Homes Development, City of Eden Prairie MeritAward: Astra Village Master Plan and Design Guidelines, McCombs Frank Roos Associates Public Education Category Honor Award: Great River Energy's Corporate Headquarters Student Category Honor Award: Design in the Margins, Laura Baker, Humphrey Institute MeritAward: Green Cities Green Jobs, Audrey Vesota Flack, Humphrey Institute Lifetime Achievement: Bill Majewski, former planner with the City of Duluth Ross Olson, Sauk Rapids DavidAlbersman, Albersman & Armstrong Gina Mitchell, Bolton &Menk, Inc, Michael Lamb, Cuningham Group Jennifer Zierke, Great River Energy Michael Franzen, City of Eden Prairie Jay Demma, Bonestroo Eric Zweber, City of Rosemount �F Carissa Schively Slotterback, Humphrey Institute Gunnar Isberg scholarships: Emily Becker and Pictured from left to right: William Smith, Michael Lamb, Michele Samuel Woods McPherson, MarcNevinski Em ■ fin# g `lnn�sa : ■ ■� RIM& i0 s ■ _,,. 9", -2850- CenterPoint, • Energy November 4, 2008 Ms. Kandis Hanson 5341 Maywood Rd Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Hanson: 800 LaSalle Avenue PO Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459 -0038 I am writing to inform you that on November 3, 2008, CenterPoint Energy filed with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to change its rates for utility distribution service. A rate filing is the regulatory process that public utilities must follow to formally change rates and services for their customers. This filing will affect the rates paid by all of 41 CenterPoint Energy's more than 790,000 customers. The process for changing our rates will take about one year, with interim (temporary) rates implemented on January 2, 2009 and final rates implemented in the fall of 2009. For your information, I enclosed a news release covering some of the basic information about our filing. Please contact me if you have any questions or would like additional information about the filing. Information is available at our Web site at CenterPointEnergy.com/ratecase. Sincerely, Al Swintek Local Government Relations 612 -321 -4799 612- 321 -4812 Enc. -2851- CenterPoint For more information contact Media: EnergyBecca Virden .71 Phone 612.321.4879 Investors: • Marianne Paulsen Phone 713.207.6500 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Page 1 of 2 CenterPoint Energy files to change natural gas distribution rates for customers in Minnesota MINNEAPOLIS — November 3, 2008 - CenterPoint Energy (NYSE: CNP) today filed an application with the Minnesota Public Utility Commission (MPUC) to change the company's natural gas distribution rates. If approved, the new rates will increase the average residential customer's bill by about 6 percent or $5.50 per month. "CenterPoint Energy Minnesota revenues are not keeping pace with increasing costs," said David Baker, CenterPoint Energy's vice president of gas operations in Minnesota. "We recognize the importance of keeping our rates as reasonable as possible; however, the ability to earn a reasonable return on investment is critical to our ability to continue providing safe and reliable service to our customers in Minnesota." This filing seeks approval to change the distribution charge on a customer's natural gas bill, which makes up about 20 percent of the total bill and covers the cost of distributing natural gas. The filing does not apply to the cost of natural gas, which is the wholesale price the company pays for natural gas, and makes up about 80 percent of the bill. The wholesale price of natural gas changes monthly depending on market prices and is passed on directly to customers with no mark -up. The principal reasons CenterPoint Energy is proposing to change base rates are: • Increased operating costs including higher uncollectible customer account expenses and the related collection and customer service costs, along with inflationary increases on other expenses, • Increased expenses related to conservation improvement programs, • Decreased average customer use because of energy efficiency and building construction improvements, and • Increased capital structure costs. -more- -2852- Amk CenterPoint. For more information contact fC Media: new Becca Virden Phone 612.321.4879 • Investors: Marianne Paulsen Phone 713.207.6500 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Page 2 of 2 Additionally, CenterPoint Energy has proposed a pilot rate adjustment mechanism that separates the company's revenue from the volume of natural gas sold. By better aligning the interests of our company and our customers, these rate designs support the promotion of conservation and energy efficiency. Customers will see the first change on bills beginning January 2, when interim rates are expected to take effect. Interim rates will stay in place until a decision is made by the MPUC and the company implements final approved rates. In 2009, public hearings will be held to provide customers and other interested parties the opportunity to comment on the rate request, followed by formal hearings at the MPUC: CenterPoint Energy expects a final decision from the MPUC and the new rates to be implemented in late 2009. If approved, the new rates would generate approximately $59.8 million or 3.9 percent in additional revenue on an annual basis. The effect on individual monthly bills will vary • depending on natural gas use and customer class. If final approved rates are lower than interim rates, CenterPoint Energy will refund the difference to customers with interest. If the final rates are higher than the interim rates, customers will not be required to make up the difference. Customers with questions about the proposed change to natural gas distribution rates can call CenterPoint Energy at - 612- 372 -4727 or 1- 800 - 245 -2377, or visit the company's Web site at www.CenterPointEnergy.com /ratecase. CenterPoint Energy, Inc., headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a domestic energy delivery company that includes electric transmission and distribution, natural gas distribution, competitive natural gas sales and services, interstate pipelines and field services operations. The company serves more than five million metered customers primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. Assets total over $18 billion. With about 8,600 employees, CenterPoint Energy and its predecessor companies have been in business for more than 130 years. In Minnesota, CenterPoint Energy is the state's largest natural gas distribution utility, serving nearly 790,000 customers in 260 communities. The utility also operates a non - regulated business in Minnesota called Home Service Plus ®. For • more information, visit the Web site at www.CenterPointEnergy.com -2853- [r s V O N d co O O N L E V -2854- co O r T_ r r' _•0 ca N U • p o c o c m o o m E IL (D c IL G c a c n �, r2 C 3 Vl0 = V v 0 OD 3 d 3 _ 41 u wo a/ a J U W J N 'd •O ..i 'd 0 m C4 C m C m m ` T mp ° 0 U T° U O G �' N D LL O = E C 0 0 t a 13 U L v g J O ° v IL LL y U N U Z � r LL I N N IL U) LL u_ U U K 5 W "� W = N T ITC U C V l6 m G U N 0 V R w T !TC a v oo m o c ao m a 7-1 a u dv 7 N @� 7 3 10 3 N Cp p � •N J p a J r U -� r F m N~ O ~ F 01 F-' U � U U IL j y C m O e 0 R O .� 7 N G C N D �, tl! D ° I u `°e m L° T a m U L V �, m ° u vc ° o U ° LL LL G= U U Lu ii i J U) O (n 1, c r y . C y � V d N r p d O tl) 9 V X X N K V x V K W W g W W W m0 �+' 1 I �'� C w r_ M C T T O m U 0 1 C> (> �. m O U O IC 0 0 d1 G IL -6 N IC 4rL� Ip 0. ri G y 0 Q 111 V '4, '.6 0 co V m m i o 'Ip o J S v U N ~ N U~ R r ~ J N H g M ~ m m Vrd U U J x C J R 2 W 2 2 "E ' N 'V 'O 'E I O m 1 O ? C ° O m m a o l o m c T v 3 a T m V �' V N ° 7 V >' i v m c C C C S3 C rL d C ° = Y d • N L J rL r cT J CD C V Z N i E E E E E E E E E E E E E m 0 CL 0,0 CL m 0 0.a 0 0 m 0010 as m CL CL 0 0 0 m�aa 0.010 M M I M MI M M M M M M M Nf M M� M CC N 1� OI N A M l N I A 01 N 1� CA N A -2854- co O r T_ r r' _•0 ca N U • • R V+ co U 00 O O N L V d • —2855— co O T_ O T N U I i = Y m •� Y C m = Y 'ry F Y ! V m 'OO C O J N 'NC R J N 'OC C O d ' N J O C c d 3 O ❑ C y O C O C y $ C ° a c c C� r o $' ao c= 2 o - I O C Y a m a 0 T CO N 3 O d m N 3 d �a = O N 3 LL O > W Y O ct t L O N LL V W Y ° U. t U fa A C9 � lq I I 0. (Q C7 ~ T I N V la = Y V C1 �' R +O+ T c d C O T ° A c w N U l0 > l6 a d V f0 m N c V m M o V c= f6 o 0 L C t0 d ❑� ._ = c d 1= w ❑ 12 d m N 12 3 O m = r r 7 •C• 00 r 7 O m° = c N E I 1 o _c F- N F- h U fNq ►L- d m m 0) c 1° °m d c- L t d c c d d c rn c arn e+> m C a V X a y C" a _ - c a a V X 0 (D W X L N Cl) J V lL c I I Ic N 3 I I I i N 7 I O O> O O V O O C d w y =❑ N 3 3 to N 0 a —y ❑ C y O N d L❑ a N d V y V = N N d 0 L C• M N d .°.� V V = O N d s a N 7 N y O d 01 3 X O �O r 3 y O CI N 3 X O M 7 y y O G) ~ U' co ❑ ~> W m ~ L7 N G H> W m H y � I IN N IN O T c •O Y •O O ma C o m C o 0c 0 y ❑ c m ft c = tm = c = m c c ° r O • = p C 0 C O CG) d to r O r° Q. ❑ N O O O c m 0 CL a U) i I (n ! E! E E E E E E E E E E E E E E �o ! a a R a a R a a ev a c. R a a 00 M M 0 M 0 M 10) 0 M 0 M 0 M 10) 0 M 0 M 0 M 0 Cl) 0 M 0 M 010 M M m N h N h N h 611 N h m N h —2855— co O T_ O T N U rH Go C4 E -2856- • C •O • C* N 4) LO LL LL N LL LL CID, cm 0) U) C 4 61 0 N 'cc -0 V 0 tv U) E O V 4) 'O -j E (D C? V CD ch 00 C V 0 4) co 0 m 0 4) 4) X cn CL 0) r- 0 0 U C4 CL 0 c 0 c ig -6 z C -i -0 0 >� v m >% O G3 'o > 0 r CL V if 0 u 'o m .2 U) LO) C IL 0 M U >% GS V 0 4) r c C-4 'a r? 7FD 4) 0) C? 0 cl. x a r. 'a m r Go 0 c CL to o x c 04 C-4 0 0 > CM 0 2 1 ui w 06 1 =0 0 w U), : i � � � i I '� i I I i -2856- • C •O •