The URL can be used to link to this page

2016-04-12 CC Agenda PacketPLEASE TURN OFF ALL 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. MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2016 - 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS '`Consent A eenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. Page Opening meeting 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda, with any amendments 4. *Consent Agenda *A. Approve payment of claims 706-740 *B. Approve Resolution Accepting Bid for the 2016 Street, Utility and Retaining 741-742 Wall Improvements - Bartlett Boulevard, Cypress Ln/Maywood Rd and Tuxedo 742 Boulevard (Phase II), City Project Nos. PW -16-01, PW -16-02, PW -16-03 *C. Approve Resolution Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for 743-748 the 2016 Crack Seal and Seal Coat Projects and Receipt of Quotes, City Project 748 Nos. PW -16-07 and PW -16-08 G1 im *E *F *G Approve a 1 Day to 4 Day Temporary On -Sale Liquor License for Northwest Tonka 749 Lion's April 24, 2016 pancake breakfast fundraiser at the Gillespie Center, with fees paid Approve Resolution Approving Expansion Permit for 1555 Dove Lane (Planning Case No. 16-06) Approve Resolution Approving Variance for 4926 Crestview Road (Planning Case No. 16-07) Approve Resolution Approving Sign Variation/Modification for 2544 Commerce Boulevard (Planning Case No 16-10) *H Approve Resolution Approving Public Gathering Permit and Musical Concert Permit for 2016 Music in the Park Program at Surfside Park and Beach, with Fees Waived Due to Public Purpose of Gathering Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to 3 minutes per speaker.) Action to approve minutes from March 22, 2016 Regular Council Meeting 750-777 751 778-796 780 797-812 799 813-818 815 819-828 7. Representatives from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office presenting the 2016 Sale Book/ 829-831 PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Property Valuation Report Discussion and Action on a Resolution Supporting Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan 832-850 Council 9. City Manager, Eric Hoversten, requesting the following items tabled from March 22, 2016 Council Meeting be remanded to Staff for further review and study. A. Discussion and action on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the Mound City Code as it Relates to Administration and provisions for Administrative Fines B. Discussion and action to approve Resolution Authorizing Publication of An Ordinance by Title and Summary, as it relates to Administration C. Resolution Amending 2016 City of Mound Fee Schedule 10. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments/reports from Councilmembers B. Reports: Mound Fire Department - March 2016 851-853 C. Minutes: Planning Comm — March 15, 2016 Special Meeting 854-855 D. Correspondence: 11, Adjourn 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: Lviv tv-. citvo nlotind. eor7r. Jnrlt�i&!Ipl APRIL j Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Apr 19 — 9:00 — State of the County (Hopkins Center for Performing Arts) Apr 19 - 6:30 - Department Heads Annual Reports to the City Council Apr 26 — 6:55 — HRA Regular Meeting Apr 26 — 7:00 — CC Regular Meeting (Council Photo) May 1 — Enter summer hours (7:30 — 5:00 M -T, 7:30 —1130 F) through 30 Oct May 7 — 9:00 - Heartsafe Training, Gillespie Center May 10 — 6:55 — HRA Regular Meeting May 10 — 7:00 — CC Regular Meeting May 24 — 6:55 — HRA Regular meeting May 24 — 7:00 — CC Regular Meeting City Offices Closed 30 May — Memorial Day City Official's Absences Please notify the City Manager in advance of an absence. Some votes require more than a simple majority and Staff needs to plan accordingly. Inquire in advance, please...... Council members are asked to call or email their questions in advance of a public meeting so that more research may be done or additional information may be provided that will assist in your quality decision- making. City of • - 04-12-16 YEAR BATCH NAME DOLLAR AMOUNT 2016 BOLTMENKFEB167,159. 041216CITY $ 1 2016 5,177.2 2016 032216CTYMAN $ 4,915.98 2016 032516CTYMAN $ 71953.85 2016 040816CTYMAN $ 39,490.32 2016 041216CITY $ 221,201.56 2016 041216HWS $ 126,614.55 2016 041216FIRE $ 21452.37 TOTAL CLAIMS 504,964.83 Current Period: April 2016 Batch Name BOLTMNKFEB16 User Dollar Amt $97,159.00 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $97,159.00 Refer 2 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA Cash Payment E 402-43120-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0188066 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0188067 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0188060 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0188066 2/29/2016 Cash Payment G 101-22000 Deposits $0.00 In Balance 04/07/16 12:07 PM Page 1 MSA SYSTEM COORD UPDATE SVCS THRU $1,547.00 FEB 12 2016 SURFACE WATER MGMT SVCS THRU FEB $77.00 12 2016 GENERAL ENGINEERING SVCS THRU FEB $1,270.00 122016 WCA ADMINISTRATION STORMWATER $98.00 SVCS THRU FEB 12 2016 WOLNER FIELD PARKING LOT ANALYSIS- $742.50 ENGINEERING SVCS THRU FEB 12 2016 Invoice 0188084 2/29/2016 Project PW1501 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 .a-. u. Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,734.50 4 � Refer y r 3 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA Project 15-4 Cash Payment E 401-43114-303 Engineering Fees 2014 STREET, UTILITY IMPROV PROD. PW14- $8,576.00 Project PW1504 01 ENG SVCS THRU FEB 12 2016 $186.50 Invoice 0188071 2/29/2016 Project PW1401 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA 2014 SANITARY SEWER REHAB -ENG SVC $1,065.00 2015 TUXEDO BLVD ST IMPROV PROD ENG $4,273.00 THRU FEB 12 2016 PW 14-05 Invoice 0188073 2/29/2016 Project PW1405 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs SEWER DISCHARGE/I & I - ENG SVC THRU $650.00 FEB 12 2016 Invoice 0188074 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs GIS UPDATES ENG SVC THRU FEB 12 2016 $3,052.50 Invoice 0188083 2/29/2016 Project 15-4 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $13,343.50 Refer 4 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA � - Cash Payment E 401-43115-303 Engineering Fees 2015 GRANDVIEW BLVD ST IMPROV PROJ $5,565.50 Invoice 0188076 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 0188063 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 0188072 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 0188077 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 401-43135-303 Engineering Fees Invoice 0188075 2/29/2016 ENG SVC THRU FEB 12 2016 PW 15-01 Project PW1501 UPDATE STREET & UTILITY MAPS $3,460.00 ENGINEERING SVCS THRU FEB 12 2016 Project 15-4 2015 LIFT STATION IMPROV PROJ PW15-04 $2,221.00 ENG SVC THRU FEB 12 2016 Project PW1504 2015 BARTLETT BLVD WATERMAIN $186.50 REPLACE PROJ PW 15-09 COMMERCE TO LOST LAKE BLVD ENG SVC THRU FEB 12 2016 Project PW1509 2015 TUXEDO BLVD ST IMPROV PROD ENG $4,273.00 SVC THRU FEB 12 2016 PW 15-02 Project PW1502 -707- Current Period: April 2016 04/07/16 12:07 PM Page 2 101 GENERAL FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 427 SEAL COAT FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $3,022.00 $80,350.00 $1,547.00 $77.00 $1,308.50 $10,679.50 $175.00 $97,159.00 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $97,159.00 Total $97,159.00 m Cas h Payment G 101-23348 PC16-01 4948 EDGEWATE 4948 EDGEWATER DR DEVELOP REVIEW $77.00 ENGINEER SVCS THRU FEB 12 2016 Invoice 0188064 Cash Payment 2/29/2016 E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay FA 2015 UNK N 5-11RENG $220.00 IMPROV PROJ PW 1SHIRE SVC THRU FEB 12 2016 Invoice 0188070 2/29/2016 Project PW1511 015IMPWILSHIRETUNK N $902.00 Cash Payment E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay FA OV PROJ PW 1BLV5-1 RUNG SVC THRU FEB 12 2016 Invoice 0188078 2/29/2016 Project PW1511 Transaction Date 4!6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $16,905.00 Refer d5 BOLTON AND MENK, INCORPORA PW 16THRU 05 2016 LIFT STATION IM2 $231.00 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA ENG SVC 20 6PROJ Invoice 0188082 2/29/2016 G 101-23327 MCESL39 BRADFORD/WIL Project PW1605 MCES LS #39 & INTERCEPT REPLACEMENT $932.50 Cash Payment PROS ENGINEERING SVCS HRU FER 2016 Invoice 0188070-2 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 401-43146-303 Engineering Fees 2016 STREET ! S $16,380.00 ENG SOPROJ VCITHRU FEB2P20016 PWR6 Invoice 0188081 2/29/2016 E 401-43116-303 Engineering Fees Project PW1603 BLVD T ET IIMPR $24,544.50 Cash Payment FRO B W 6 Ot ENG SVCRTLETT FEB012 2016 Invoice 0188079 2/29/2016 E 401-43136-303 Engineering Fees Project PW1601 2016 TUXEDOLVD EAST STREET IMPROV $21,011.00 Cash Payment PROJ PWSVC THRU FEB 12 20 6 16-02 Invoice 0188080 2/29/2016 Project PW1602 2016 & SEAL COAT ROJ PW 16-07 $77.00 Cash Payment E 427-43121-303 Engineering Fees ENG SVC THRU FEB 6 Invoice 0188082 2/29/2016 Project PW1607 Transaction Date 416/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $63,176.00 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 427 SEAL COAT FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $3,022.00 $80,350.00 $1,547.00 $77.00 $1,308.50 $10,679.50 $175.00 $97,159.00 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $97,159.00 Total $97,159.00 m CITY OF MOUND 04/07/16 10:08 AM Page 1 Current Period: April 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees EXECUTIVE LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 $391.50 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41600-314 Legal P/W PUBLIC WORKS LEGAL SERVICES FEB 2016 $145.00 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23342 PC15-21 5040 ENCHANTED 5040 ENCHANTED- LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 $398.50 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Due 12/31/2015 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,177.20 Batch Name KENGRAVFEB16 User Dollar Amt $5,177.20 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $5,177.20 $0.00 In Balance Refer_ 46 KENNEDYAND GRAVEN _ _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 $957.00 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41600-316 Legal P & I PLANNING LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 $1,551.48 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 401-43136-300 Professional Srvs 2016 STREET IMPROV PROJ PW 16-02 $377.00 LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Project PW1602 Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees CITY DATA PRACTICE REQUESTS LEGAL $594.50 SVCS FEB 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23293 A. KING -2201 CENTERVIE 2201 CENTERVIEW- KING LEGAL SVCS FEB $126.00 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41600-316 Legal P & I PLANNING- PHOTOCOPIESO HENNEPIN CTY $5.70 REACORD EASE- LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23344 PC 15-23 1732 CANARY KO 1732 CANARY LN LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 $14.50 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23327 MCESL39 BRADFORD/WIL MCES LIFT STATION #39 INTERCEPT $471.00 IMPROV PROD LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23349 1861 COMMERCE -TRIDENT 1861 COMMERCE BLVD PC 16-03 LEGAL $48.34 SVCS FEB 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23350 PC 16-04 69 WAIVERPLATT B9 WAIVER PLATTING WYC- PC 16-04 $48.34 LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23351 PC16-5 XXXDRUMMOND PL XX DRUMMOND PLP- PC 16-05 LEGAL SVCS $48.34 FEB 2016 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees EXECUTIVE LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 $391.50 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41600-314 Legal P/W PUBLIC WORKS LEGAL SERVICES FEB 2016 $145.00 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Cash Payment G 101-23342 PC15-21 5040 ENCHANTED 5040 ENCHANTED- LEGAL SVCS FEB 2016 $398.50 Invoice 130819 3/30/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Due 12/31/2015 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,177.20 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS WIT= Current Period: April 2016 10100 Wells Fargo $4,800.20 $377.00 $5,177.20 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $5,177.20 Total $5,177.20 EM 04/07/16 10:08 AM Page 2 O��2nV2�s�N CITY ��F MOUND Page Payments Current Period: March 2016 Batch Name 032216CTYK&4N User Dollar Amt *4,915.98 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $4,915.98 Refer 2MOUND MARKETPLACE ASSOC Cash Payment E6OS4875U-412Building Rentals $0.00 In Balance - 2015 COMMON AREA MTCE &mSURANCE $1,60610 RECONCILIATION -HWS BALANCE DUE |nvoico2015RECON 4/1/206 Transaction Date 3/22/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,60670 1 WAYZATA, C/rYOF _ Cash Payment E6V1-494V0438Licenses and Taxes 2O1GFORD F'150CREW CAB #31O' MOTOR $1.621.23 VEHICLE SALES TAX. REGISTRATION, TITLE -FILING FEES- WATER DEPT Invoice 032216 3/16/2016 CaohPaymont E1V14520V-43VLicenses and Taxes 2V1OFORD F35OCREW CAB #410 -MOTOR $1.688.05 VEHICLE SALES TAX, REGISTRATION, TITLE -FILING FEES- PARKS DEPT Invoice 032216 3/102010 Transaction Date 3D2/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total *3.30920 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101GENERALFUND $1,688I5 0O1WATER FUND $1,621.23 OUgMUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $1.600.70 Pre -Written Check mIDO Checks to be Generated by the Computer $4.015.98 Tota 1 $4,915,98 -711- CITY OF MOUND 03/25/16 1:05 PM Page 3 Payments Invoice 132032 2/1/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 132042 2/2/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 132097 2/4/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41930-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 132114 2/5/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies PRE OSHA INSPECTION- SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, NSAP LINK, EYE BIT COIL CHAIN - PARKS SHOP SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, 3" MAGNET BIT HOLDER, 2 PK 9V ALK BATTERIES 20 CT 45 GALLON TRASH BAGS - SHREDDING DOCUMENTS CITY HALL ENAMEL GLOSS, PAINT TRAY, 3 PK BRUSH 6" FOAM ROLL COVER, 4" CRIMP WHEEL, ROLL REFILLS, MINI WIRE BRUSH, THINNER, METAL PRIMER, CUP BRUSHES - WELL #8 Invoice 132146 2/8/2016 -714- $29.14 $13.12 $23.38 $112.33 Current Period: March 2016 Transaction Date 3/24/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.78 Refer3 TRUE VALUE, MOUND (PW PKS) Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, 25' CABLE SNAK $17.02 FISH TAPE Invoice 131442 1/7/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies 1/2 GALV 90 DEGREE ELBOW, UTILITY $27.40 LOCKS #202 Invoice 131636 1/14/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies MAS BIT $12.59 Invoice 131772 1/21/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, 25' CABLE SNAK $1.60 FISH TAPE Invoice 131804 1/22/2016 Cash Payment E 101-43100-210 Operating Supplies 24" STEEL SNOW PUSHER $41.39 Invoice 131804 1/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies COUPLING, GALV NIPPLES, FEBREEZ, JET $45.07 DRY RINSE, AIR FRESHENER, 90 DEGREE ELBOWS, SNAP COVERS, GRY RECT BOX EXTENSION, TOGGLE SWITCH Invoice 131874 1/26/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies BLUE ENAMEL, YELLOW GAS TAPE, 2 OZ $17.06 PIPE COMPOUND, MURIATIC ACID Invoice 131876 1/26/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies RETURN GALV NIPPLES, GRY RECT BOX -$4.50 EXTENSION Invoice 131880 1/26/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS $1.35 Invoice 131891 1/26/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies AUTO FUSE, WHITE INLINE FUSE HOLDER $8.08 Invoice 131894 1/26/2016 Transaction Date 3/24/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $167.06 Refer 4 TRUE VALUE, MOUND (PW PKS) Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS $4.28 Invoice 132018 2/1/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, 1/4 X 6 MASONRY $35.62 BIT- PARKS SHOP Invoice 132032 2/1/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 132042 2/2/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 132097 2/4/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41930-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 132114 2/5/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies PRE OSHA INSPECTION- SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, NSAP LINK, EYE BIT COIL CHAIN - PARKS SHOP SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, 3" MAGNET BIT HOLDER, 2 PK 9V ALK BATTERIES 20 CT 45 GALLON TRASH BAGS - SHREDDING DOCUMENTS CITY HALL ENAMEL GLOSS, PAINT TRAY, 3 PK BRUSH 6" FOAM ROLL COVER, 4" CRIMP WHEEL, ROLL REFILLS, MINI WIRE BRUSH, THINNER, METAL PRIMER, CUP BRUSHES - WELL #8 Invoice 132146 2/8/2016 -714- $29.14 $13.12 $23.38 $112.33 Current Period: March 2016 03/25/16 1:05 PM Page 4 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 60 YD MASKING TAPE, DUST MASKS $9.43 Invoice 132176 2/9/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS, EYE BIT- PARKS $2.11 SHOP Invoice 132168 2/9/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies RED VINYL DBL HOOK, 1 1/2" 1 HOLE EM 7 $10.37 STRAP -PARKS Invoice 132177 2/9/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 1" ONE HOLE EMT STRAP $2.67 Invoice 132180 2/9/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies RETURN 1" ONE HOLE EMT STRAP, 50 PK $7.24 3/4" 1 HOLE STRAPS- #315 Invoice 132181 2/9/2016 Cash Payment E 285-46388-210 Operating Supplies PINE SOL CLEANER, PARKING DECK $10.79 Invoice 132195 2/10/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 2 PK YELLOW FUEL CELL PACK- #315 $16.19 Invoice 132205 2/10/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 3 PC POLY VARNISH BRUSH SEET, $7.53 Invoice 132240 2/12/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies 6 ML THREADLOCKER- BLUE $6.29 Invoice 132370 2/18/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS $9.27 Invoice 132248 2/12/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies GRIP X BLACK LINER, CD CLOTHES HOOK, $6.81 POL GAS CYLINDER, BRZ CATCH SPEAR - #315 TRUCK WATER Invoice 132249 2/12/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies FORD BLUE ENAMEL- WELL #8 $4.04 Invoice 132305 2/16/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies PIPE COMPOUND, SEAL TAPE, RED $14.40 NIPPLES- WATER DEPT Invoice 132376 2/19/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies 200 W LIGHT BULBS- DEPOT BLDG $16.16 Invoice 132356 2/18/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies 90 DEGREE ELBOW- WATER DEPT $2.24 Invoice 132380 2/19/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply PLASTIC PAINT TRAY, XYLOL SOLVENT- $27.88 WELL #8 Invoice 132390 2/19/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies SOLDER- PUB WRKS SHOP $17.99 Invoice 132444 2/23/2016 Project 16-3 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply 4 PK AA LITHIUM BATTERIES, $21.57 Invoice 132467 2/24/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply SCREWS, NUTS, BOLTS $0.72 Invoice 132489 2/25/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies MOP BUCKET W1 RINGER, 10" FLOW $94.48 BRUSH- PARKS BLDG Invoice 132507 2/26/2016 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply LATH BUNDL 50- STREETS $18.99 Invoice 132545 2/29/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41930-210 Operating Supplies 16 PK AA BATTERIES- CITY HALL $12.99 Invoice 132549 2/29/2016 _715_ CITY OF MOUND 03/25/16 1:05 PM Page 5 Payments Current Period: March 2016 Cash Payment E602-49450-210 Operating Supplies FURNACE FILTERS- PUB WRKS SHOP $6.46 Invoice 132417 2/22/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply POLY LAWN RAKE- PARKS $34,18 Invoice 132456 2/24/2016 Transaction Date 3/24/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $564.19 Refer . 6 WILSON, JAMES Cash Payment R 281-45210-34735 Multiple Slip Permits REFUND OF DOCK FEES- VOLUNTARY $375.00 WITHDRAWAL- J. WILSON Invoice 032516 3/22/2016 Cash Payment R 281-45210-34705 LMCD Fees REFUND OF DOCK LMCD FEES- $15.00 VOLUNTARY WITHDRAWAL- J. WILSON Invoice 032516 3/22/2016 Transaction Date 3/25/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $390.00 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $1,569.20 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $104.78 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $390.00 285 MOUND HRA $10.79 601 WATER FUND $4,342.38 602 SEWER FUND $1,139.76 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $396.94 $7,953.85 Pre -Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $7,953.85 Total $7,953.85 lim Batch Name 040816OTYMAN Payments V40�1V1O�uAw �� Page Current Period: April 2016 User Dollar Amt Computer Dollar Amt Refer BRENSHELLIFINE LINE DESIGNS CaahPaymont g101-2315ONew Construction Escrow Invoice 040816 4/5/2016 ��90.32 $0.00 In Balance -REFUND CONSTRUCTION ESCROW- 5240 $5,000.00 SULGROVE RD BP 2014-00723 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 1000 Total $5,000-Oo ---------- Cash �Payment R28U-452 0-34725DockPonnds REFUND OVERPAYMENT DOCK FEES- 47O3 *26.25 Invoice 040816 416/2016 Transaction Date 4/512010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $26.25 E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NETWORK ETHERNET SVC 3-20-16 THRU 4- $185.24 Cash Payment 20-16 Invoice 4595546 3/20/2018 Cash Payment E1U1-41920-321 Telephone, Cells, &Rudi NETVVORKETMERNETGV�3'2O'10THRU4' $555.71 2&'10 Invoice 4595546 3/202018 Transaction Date 4/5/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $740.95 Rnfer 5GfR7ENGG4&�F�NCENTER INC. _ -------- Cash Payment E 101-+5200e20xepam/wam 2PRUNER8`ouvp.v . HOLSTERBELT, FELCOS/Am- $170.96 PARKS Invoice 302775/1 2/12/2016 Cash Payment E1O1'4520�232Lendonape�e0srio| 22O"�LANDPLANTERTER�AC�TT�' 0 *1V7�9O DOYVNTOVVNSTREETSCAPE Invoice 383151/1 3111/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2018 Wells Fargo 10100 Total *284.92 Refer - OLSEN, ERIK -RE�UNDCONGTRUCT|�NEG�ROV�514� --h� -'� -- $5.0O0.O0 EMERALD DR- BP2V14'OVHV2 Invoice 040816 4/5/2010 Transaction Date 4/5/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5.000.00 Refer ---h P-' � GYVTRAILS ASSOC 2n1OSNOVVMO8|LE $7.69575 MTCE-DNRPMT#2 2'29'10 Invoice 041216 3/21C018 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,89575 Refer 8 VE7DONNVR£LES8Cash _ Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Rodi SEWER TRUCK #1V9DATACARDSVC 2'11- $35.01 16 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment EOO2-4 9450-321Telephono.Ce|ls.&Rad| PUB WKS GUPVVE*C#115R. HANGDN *35.01 D/TACARDGVC 2'1116THRU3-10-2016 Invoice 9701901940 3U0/2016 Project 16-3 Cash Payment EOO2-*S450-321Telephone, Cells, &RadiPUB WKS JET PACK LAPTOP A|RCARD $35-01 SVC 2'1146TMRV3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2018 -717- Project 16-3 Current Period: April 2016 04/06/16 10:48 AM Page 2 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 101-42400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi FIELD OFFICER DATACARD SVC 2-11-16 $17.51 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment E 101-42115-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi FIELD OFFICER DATACARD SVC 2-11-16 $17.50 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC FIRE UNIT #42 DUTY $35.01 OFFICER 2-11-16 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC FIRE UNIT#39 RESCUE $35.01 UTILITY 2-11-16 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC FIRE ENGINE #40 2-11-16 $35.01 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi DATACARD SVC FIRE ENGINE #29 2-11-16 $35.01 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi WATER TRUCK #315 DATACARD SVC 2-11- $35.01 16 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi WATER TRUCK #512 L. GIESE DATACARD $35.01 SVC 2-11-16 THRU 3-10-2016 Invoice 9761901940 3/10/2016 _ Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $350.10 Refer �7 VERIZON WIRELESS Cash Payment G 101-13100 Due From Other Funds CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $31.32 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment G 101-22816 Personal Cell Phone CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $0.00 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $92.94 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $116.71 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $91.74 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 101-42400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $38.43 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $93.96 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $55.32 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $101.54 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3113/2016 -718- CITY OF MOUND 04/06/16 10:48 AM Page 3 Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment E 101-42115-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi CELL PHONE CHARGES 2-14-16 THRU 3-13- $15.66 2016 Invoice 9762110484 3/13/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $637.62 Refer 4 VILLAS LOST LAKE HOMEOWNER Cash Payment E 281-45210-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 040816 4/6/2016 Cash Payment E 281-45210-381 Electric Utilities REIMBURSE 2015 VILLA DOCKS WATER ; I y0.8G REIMBURSE 2015 VILLA DOCKS $807.15 ELECTRICITY Invoice 040816 4/6/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,003.97 Refer 10 XCEL ENERGY _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-381 Electric Utilities ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- PARKS $289.92 Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 25-16 THRU 3-27-16 Cash Payment E 101-45200-381 Electric Utilities ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- DEPOT $64.45 Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 ELECTRIC SVC 2-27-16 THRU 3-28-16 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- SEWER $3,641.17 Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- $2,252.92 STREETS Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41930-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41910-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 285-46388-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Cash Payment E 101-42115-381 Electric Utilities ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- WATER $4,136.02 ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16 HWS $1,446.21 ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16 CITY $1,711.37 HALL ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- FIRE $1,711.37 DEPT ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- $805.28 CENTENNIAL BLDG ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- $2,512.95 PARKING DECK ELECTRIC SVC - 1-25-16 TO 2-24-16- CIVIL $45.35 SIRENS Invoice 493562447 3/14/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $18,617.01 XCEL ENERGY Refer 9 ER _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 EER Electric Utilities SHORELINE -COMMERCE STREET LIGHTS 2- $54.46 25-16 THRU 3-27-16 Invoice 495324696 3/28/2016 $79.29 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities ELECTRIC SVC 2-27-16 THRU 3-28-16 CARLOW RD LIFT STATION Invoice 495580827 3/30/2016 Transaction Date 3/2/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $133.75 -719- Current Period: April 2016 Fund Summary 10UVWells Fargo 1O1GENERAL FUND $24,122.77 222AREA FIRE SERVICES $2.138.19 201COMMONS DOCKS FUND $1.030,22 2B5MOUND HRA $2.512.95 601 WATER FUND $4.322.75 8O2SEWER FUND $3.917.23 0OSMUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $1.446.21 $39,490,32 Pre -Written Checks *000 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $39,490.32 Im 04088010:48Aw Page 4 CITY OF MOUND 04/06/16 5:07 PM Page 1 Current Period: April 2016 Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-4943/22/2 Gas Utilities 2649 EMERALD DR. LS E3 GENERATOR $24.53 NATL GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 -721- Batch Name 041216CITY User Dollar Amt $221,201.56 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $221,201.56 $0.00 In Balance 1 ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS _Refer Cash Payment E 222-42260-325 Pagers -Fire Dept. REPAIR MINITOR VHF PAGER- FIRE DEPT $108.00 Invoice 58966 Cash Payment 3/8/2016 E 222-42260-325 Pagers -Fire Dept. REPAIR MINITOR VHF PAGER- FIRE DEPT $108.00 Invoice 58936 Cash Payment 3/8/2016 E 222-42260-325 Pagers -Fire Dept. REPAIR MINITOR VHF PAGER- FIRE DEPT- $129.50 BATTERY PACK Invoice 58967 Cash Payment 3/8/2016 E 222-42260-325 Pagers -Fire Dept. REPAIR MINITOR VHF PAGER- FIRE DEPT $108.00 Invoice 59385 3/30/2016 — Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $453.50 Refer 2 ASSURED SECURITY, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Building Repairs REKEY 4TH FLOOR CENTENNIAL $506.56 ENTRANCE LEVER, UNIV KNOB, DEADLOCK CYLINDER, REPLACE 2 WORN OUT MORTISE LOCKS Invoice 73995 3/22/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $506.56 Refer-__ 35 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY Cash Payment E602-49450-210 Operating Supplies PUB WKS COFFEE $57.00 Invoice T147607 3/30/2016 Project 16-3 Transaction Date 4(5/2016 � Wells Fargo 10100 Total $57.00 Refer m� „�o4p a • 3 BOYER TRUCKS _ 2016 FORD F350 CREW CAB #416 PARKS $34,920.00 E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA Cash Payment TRUCK Invoice F62789 3/15/2016 PO 24608 Sales of General Fixe TRADE IN 2004 FORD F350 PARKS TRUCK -$9,500.00 Cash Payment R 101-48500-39101 Invoice F62789 3/15/2016 PO 24608 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 � Wells Fargo 10100 Total $25,420.00 Refer 4 BOYER TRUCKS _ FORD #150 CREW CAB -GAS $32,892.00 Cash Payment E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay FA POWERED #316 WATER TRUCK PO Invoice F62788 3/15/2016 PO 24607 R 601-49400-39101 Sales of General Fixe TRADE IN 2002 CHEVY 2500 1 TON WATER $8,500.00 Cash Payment TRUCK Invoice F62788 3/15/2016 PO 24607 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $24,392.00 Refer «5 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MWNEG Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1758 SUMACH LANE LS GENERATOR NATL $17.95 GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-4943/22/2 Gas Utilities 2649 EMERALD DR. LS E3 GENERATOR $24.53 NATL GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 -721- Current Period: April 2016 04/06/16 5:07 PM Page 2 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4791 NORTHERN RD LS D1 GENERATOR $21.79 NATL GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 041216 Transaction Date Refer _ Cash Payment 3303 WATERBURY RD LS GAS SVC 2-18-16 $20.69 THRU 3-18-16 2990 HIGHLAND BLVD LS B1 GENERATOR $20.69 NATL GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 4948 BARTLETT LS E2 GENERATOR NATL $21.79 GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 4728 CARLOW RD LS GENERATOR NATL $20.69 GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 5808 GRANDVIEW BLVD LS GENERATOR $19.60 NATL GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 4922 THREE PTS BLVD LS GENERATOR $21.79 NATL GAS SVC 2-18-16 THRU 3-18-16 3/22/2016 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $189.52 44CONCEPT LANDSCAPING E 101-45200-440 Other Contractual Servic REMOVE BEAVER LODGE @ LOST LAKE W/ BARGE- HAUL TO SURFSIDE & LOAD INTO CITY TRUCKS $1,462.00 Invoice 3399 4/5/2016 PO 24634 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,462.00 Refer_ 6 CONCRETE CUTTING AND CORlN Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA WACKER PLATE COMPACTOR W/ WATER $2,249.00 TANK & WHEEL KIT Invoice 59021 3/21/2016 PO 24629 Project 16-3 Cash Payment E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA 1 BLOWER, 2 WEEH WHIP S, 1 CHAIN SAW $1,763.00 & CHAIN Invoice 103325 3/22/2016 PO 24628 Cash Payment R 101-48500-39101 Sales of General Fixe TRADE IN 2 WEED TRIMMERS & 3 CHAIN -$300.00 SAWS Invoice 103326 3/22/2016 PO 24628 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,712.00 Refer 45 CONLEYS WILDLIFE CONTROL, LL� Cash Payment E 10145200440 Other Contractual Servic REMOVE 2 LIVE BEAVERS FROM LOST $600.00 LAKE PARK- DAMAGING TREES, SHORELINE & INFRASTRUCTURE Invoice 465 4/2/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $600.00 Refer � 7 EMERGENCY RESPONSE SOLUTI Cash Payment E 222-42260-300 Professional Srvs 24 SCBA FLOW TESTS -INCLUDES FACE $2,190.00 PIECE, 22 STAND ALONE FACE PIECE TESTS Invoice 5973 3/1/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Faroo 10100 Total $2,190.00 CITY n4�snsa�,Pw Page 3 �� MOUND Current Period: April 2016 PAINT, BRUSHES- PARK """' |mmkce007315 3/1/2010 -723- Refer OfAO7IJVALCOMPANY _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply ALLOY SVVK�ELHK7TON *32754 /nvoicoMNVVAC44OO8 2/22/2016 Project 16-3 CoshPaymont E1O1451OO-22URopoir/NaintSupply ASPHALT CUTTER -STREETS $100.00 Invoice MNVVAC45081 30/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $427.54 Raher 9FINANCE AND COMMERCECash _ Payment Publishing ADV FOR BIDS 2U1OSTREET, UTILITY $52.32 IMPROV PROJPIN 10-01 Invoice 742647860 3/14/2018 Pn4octPVV1001 Cash Payment E4U14313O'35l Legal Notices Publishing ADV FOR BIDS 2O1OSTREET, UTILITY $52.31 IMPROV PR{UPIN 16-02 Invoice 742647860 3/14/2018 Pn4aoxPVV10V2 Cash Payment E40143146-551Legal Notices Publishing ADV FOR BIDS 2O10STREET, UTILITY $52.31 IMPROV PROJPIN 16'U3 Invoice 742647860 3/1*/2016 Pn4octPVV1OV3 Cash Payment E4n1-4311O'30OProfessional Swa ADV FOR BIDS 2O1OSTREET, UTILITY $52.31 IMPROV PROJPVV1O'O4 Invoice 742647860 3/14Q016 PugomPVV15V4 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $209,25 Refer 1OF/vET��KNDLOGY _ ---------- 800hPayment ----omio ��NT�LY��NAGEDGVCQNETVVORK E1o1'41ozo-o«oOther uonts,oua/u $1.2g0�OV MTCE-APRIL 2015 Invoice 10416-27 4/1/2016 CaohPoymont E1O141S2D-440Other Contractual 8nmix NETWORK SUPPORT BLOCK OF1OHOURS- $1.200.00 3-23-1O Invoice P237-35 3/23/2010 Transaction Date 4/5/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2.490,00 Refer 11HAWK LABELING SYSTEMS _ ---n Payment c//2-.^250-2OOOffice Supplies BLACK ONYELLOWS/NOLOE.BLACK ON $92.35 CLEAR REPLACEMENT TAPE, WHITE Ow RED SINGLE, BLACK OmRED 8|NGLErAPE Invoice 202555 3/11/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $92,35 Refer 12 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED _ --' -' 1sOL8CHLORINE CYUNDERG&BULK $2.447.8* MUDROFLVOGiL|C|C8QD Invoice 3856081 3/22/2016 Transaction Date 4/512016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2.447,84 Refer�rO�OO Cash E1D143100�� O�opaMuh�8upp� REPAIR SIGN � Invoice 100492 308/2010 Cash Payment �ORepu�ain��upp4X� E8O1484OO�� uX1/8�N�L�G.4X10FLAT. $1��On BLACK PIPE, WALL PIPE Invoice 100584 3/22/2010 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $814.00 Refer3PACK8-RCG.�A|NTTR�YS. EC� _ 5GAL VVH|TE $159,00 PAINT, BRUSHES- PARK """' |mmkce007315 3/1/2010 -723- Current Period: April 2016 04/00065:07PN Page 4 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $159.00 Refer 43 HOME DEPOTIGECF (P/149 Cash Payment E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay FA WATER TRUCK #316 BUILDOUT MATERIALS- $125.41 PLYWOOD, UNDERLAYMENT, SHELF, QTR TOOLHOLDERS Invoice 8O77 00 3/31/2016 Cash Payment E6014940O-22ORepoir/Maint Supply DVVVP/PEG.PVCCAPCUPG-VVATERMAIN $75.84 BREAK COMMERCE BLVD Invoice 0060003 3/29/2010 Cash Payment E6V24345O-22ORepoir/NaintSupply MANILLA AROPE-SEWER DEPT $33.50 Invoice 0060003 3/29/2016 Cash Payment E1V1'431OU-22OSign Repair Materials 1/24X8SANDE PLYWOOD- 0GN8H0P. $266.61 HEAT TOOL GUN- DIGITAL VAR TEMP, 3O^ ADJUSTABLE RUBBER STRAP -SIGN SHOP Invoice 0060003 3/29/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Tu�| $501,30 Refer 14 HOVERSTEN, ERIC Cash Payment E1O14131O-331 Use ofpersonal auto RBk8BMILEAGE- CITY MEETINGS- BOLTON $135.54 & MENK.MOVvD.LEAGUE OFMNCITIES, ^ � ORONOPD, MCES MPLG - E. H0VERGTEN MARCH 2O1 Invoice 041216 3/30/2010 Transaction Date 4/5/2018 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $135�54 Refer 15HYDRO KlEAN Cash Payment E6O24S4SO-22VRopair/NointSupply 4-GAGRECHARGEABLE GAS MONITOR, $1.253.10 USB DATA CABLE, DATA LOGGING SOFTWARE- PUB vxRKG Invoice 54365 2/29/2016 Project 16-3 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1.253.10 Refer 16 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATI CunhPaymom E1q141110433Dues and Subscriptions 2ND OTR2O18LMCDLEVY PAYMENT *4.890.00 Invoice 041218 3/15/2010 Transaction Date 4/5/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total *4.89100 Refer 17 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC Cash Payment E0o14S4O0-22ORepair/NointSupply 5^FORM SEAL HOSE CLAMP *72.79 Invoice 9303975967 3/23/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $72.79 Refer 18LEAGUE MNCITIES INSURANCE T _ Cash Payment E1O14111V-151 Workers Comp |nsununo 1STINSTALLMENT 2O1UWORKERS COMP $17.58 INS 2'1'16TMRU2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2018 Cash Payment E1V1-4131O'151Workers Comp |noumno 1GTINSTALLMENT 2V1VWORKERS COMP $301.59 INS 2'1'1OTMRU2-1'17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2010 � Cash Payment E1O1-*15D8'151 W�dmroComp|nuu�nc 1GTINSTALLMENT 2U1OVVORKEROCOMP $927.54 INS 2-1'16TMRU2-1'l7 Invoice 31795 3/13/2010 Cash Payment E1O14211O-151Workers Comp |noununo 1GTINSTALLMENT 2O15WORKERS COMP $0.00 INS 2-1-18THRV2-1-17 |mmkce 31795 3U3/2016 -724- CITY OF MOUND 04/06/16 5:07 PM Page 5 Current Period: April 2016 101-42400-151 Workers Comp Insuranc 1ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $510.11 Cash Payment E INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 101-43100-151 Workers Comp Insuranc 1ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $4,879.74 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 101-45200-151 Workers Comp Insuranc 1ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $2,781.30 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 222-42260-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 1ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $7,765.79 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 281-45210-151 Workers Comp Insuranc 1 ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $388.55 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 601-49400-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 1ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $2,344.70 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 602-49450-151 Workers Comp Insuranc 1ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $2,772.89 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 609-49750-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 1 ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $1,862.16 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 E 675-49425-151 Worker s Comp Insuranc 1ST INSTALLMENT 2016 WORKERS COMP $0.00 Cash Payment INS 2-1-16 THRU 2-1-17 Invoice 31795 3/13/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $24,551.75 Refer 19 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR� Cash Payment E 101-41930-202 Duplicating and copying COPY ROOM KONICA C652 -COLOR $47.83 OVERAGE - 2-14-16 THRU 3-13-16 Invoice 2193986 Cash Payment 3/11/2016 E 101-41930-202 Duplicating and copying COPY ROOM KONICA C652 - BLACK & $112.51 WHITE OVERAGE - 2-14-16 THRU 3-13-16 Invoice 2193986 3/11/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total �_ $160.34 Refer 20 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SAC CN Cash Payment G 602-21825 SAC Deposits SAC CHARGES 1ST QTR 2016 $14,760.90 Invoice 041216 4/5/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14,760.90 Refer 21 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WASTE Cash Payment E 602-49450-388 Waste Disposal-MCIS WASTEWATER SVCS MAY 2016 $55,735.75 Invoice 0001053900 4/4/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $55,735.75 Refer 39 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT-(SCHAR Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply ECHO CHAIN SAW- PARKS DEPT $71.48 Invoice L09569 3/15/2016 $11.44 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair LEAF BLOWERS TANKER #11 Invoice P41157 4/2/2016 Transaction Date 3/1/2016 Wells Fa- 10100 Total $ 82.92 - CITY OF MOUND 04/06/16 5:07 PM Page 6 Payments Current Period: April 2016 _Refer 22 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA Cash Payment E 601-49400-470 Water Samples MONTHLY CHLORINE REPORT & COLIFORM $77.50 WATER TESTS -10 Invoice 800537 3/22/2016 Transaction Date 4/1/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $77.50 _Refer 38 MN CLEAN SERVICES, INC. Cash Payment E 101-41930-460 Janitorial Services JANITORIAL SVC- APRIL 2016- CITY HALL $245.20 Invoice 0416M01 4/1/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-460 Janitorial Services JANITORIAL SVC- APRIL 2016- FIRE DEPT $245.20 Invoice 0416M01 4/1/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services JANITORIAL SVC- APRIL 2016- CENTENNIAL $326.93 BLDG Invoice 0416M01 4/1/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-460 Janitorial Services JANITORIAL SVC- APRIL 2016- PUBLIC $163.47 WORKS BLDG Invoice 0416M01 4/1/2016 Project 16-3 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 .,.., n.M Wells Fargo 10100 Total $980.80 Refer 46 MNSPECT�rrm�..�� Cash Payment E 101-42400-308 Building Inspection Fees MARCH 2016 BUILDING INSPECTION FEES $8,674.02 Invoice 6762 4/4/2016 Cash Payment G 101-20800 Due to Other Governments MARCH 2016 - ELECTRICAL STATE -$12.00 SURCHARGE FEE CREDIT Invoice 6762 4/4/2016 Cash Payment R 101-42000-32220 Electrical Permit Fee MARCH 2016 ELECTRICAL INSPECTION -$214.00 PERMIT FEE CREDITS Invoice 6762 4/4/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,448.02 Refer37 MTI DISTRIBUTING INCA Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply FILTERS- AIR, OIL SPIN ON, ELEMENT $272.80 FILTERS, HYD FILTERS, BELL CRANK-RH Invoice 1053768 3/17/2016 Project 16-3 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply RETAINING T RING, THRUST WASHER, $26.20 FLANGE BUSHING Invoice 1054080 3/21/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $299.00 Refer 23 NEA TON BROTHERS EROSION LL Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply MULCH SOX- GRANDVIEW $100.00 Invoice 24970 1/28/2016 Transaction Date 4/1/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 24 NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAI Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic REPLACE LOWER SEAL PUMP #1 @ $265.00 SHOREWOOD LIFT STATION Invoice 7578 3/15/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic REPLACE LOWER SEAL PUMP #2 @ $265.00 CLOVER CIRCLE LIFT STATION Invoice 7578 3/15/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total .�� 40 $530.00 Refer�e NEWMAN SIGNS, INC. -726- CITY OF MOUND 04/06/16 5:07 PM Page 7 Current Period: April 2016 Invoice 160248 3/21/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage Invoice 160248 3/21/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage 160248 3/21/2016 FEB 2016- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE FEB 2016- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $346.91 $346.92 Invoice Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Ps Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,175.97 Refer 35 OPUS 21 MGMT SOLUTIONS Cash Payment E 101-43100-226 Sign Repair Materials T -ACTION DIGITAL DECAL MAGNETS- 24 $39.16 Invoice TI -0295751 3/15/2016 MARCH 2016 -CIS DATA HOSTING, PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $39.16 Refer 41 OFFICE DEPOT _ TONER- PRINTER INK, STAPLES HWS $326.11 Office Supplies Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Invoice 160322 4/4/2016 Invoice 829918782001 3/22/2016 PO 23470 $334.20 Cash Payment Transaction Date 4/5/2016 �. Wells Fargo 10100 Total $326.11 Refer -�- � -42 OFFICE DEPOT _ REDI-SEAL ENVELOPES, 9 X 12, $68.92 E 101-41930-200 Office Supplies Cash Payment ANOTEPADS, DDRESS LABELS, PENS Invoice 831304152001 3/28/2016 PO 24687 Invoice 160322 $5.99 Cash Payment E 101-41910-200 Office Supplies BUBBLE MAILERS $4,175.41 Invoice 831304152002 3/28/2016 PO 24687 4/5/2016 � Wells Fargo Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $74.91 Refer 25 OPUS 21 MGMT SOLUTIONS $2,745.21 _ E 601-49400-307 Admin/Finance/Compute FEB 2016 -CIS DATA HOSTING, $1,741.07 Cash Payment PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 20140635 3/30/2016 Invoice 160248 3/21/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-307 Admin/Finance/Compute FEB 2016 -CIS DATA HOSTING, $1,741.07 Transaction Date PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Wells Fargo 10100 Total Invoice 160248 3/21/2016 Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage Invoice 160248 3/21/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage 160248 3/21/2016 FEB 2016- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE FEB 2016- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $346.91 $346.92 Invoice Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Ps Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,175.97 Refer 35 OPUS 21 MGMT SOLUTIONS $1,753.50 Cash Payment E 601-49400-307 Admin/Finance/Compute MARCH 2016 -CIS DATA HOSTING, PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 160322 Cash Payment 4/4/2016 E 602-49450-307 Admin/Finance/Compute MARCH DATA ICTR $1,753.51 PRODUCTION, BILLING, ALL2016-CIS SUPPORT Invoice 160322 4/4/2016 MARCH 2016- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $334.20 Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage Invoice 160322 4/4/2016 MARCH 2016- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE $334.20 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage Invoice 160322 4/4/2016 10100 Total $4,175.41 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 � Wells Fargo Refer n., w 26 ORONO, CITY OF _ JAIL CHARGES- PER DIEM $2,745.21 E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners Cash Payment FEES FEB 016 Invoice 20140635 3/30/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,745.21 Rafar M ....n 27 POTTS,AKENNETH N. P.A.W _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-304 Legal Fees I041216 4/1/2016 1ST QTR 2016 PROSECUTION SVCS $12,500.00 nvoice Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $12,500.00 Refer 28 REPUBLIC SERVICES ,, -727- CITY OF MOUND 04/06/16 5:07 PM Page 8 Payments Current Period: April 2016 . ..,>;Y.ti° „�Yl"��'�rex„.3:k+;X�w .na.k'wM1�,Fb:;d� iSu�,HN3 •. Cash Payment E 222-42260-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa APRIL 2016 GARBAGE SVC FIRE DEPT $184.21 Invoice 0894-004054725 3/25/2016 Cash Payment E 101-41930-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa APRIL 2016 GARBAGE SVC CITY HALL $184.21 Invoice 0894-004054725 3/25/2016 Cash Payment E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa APRIL 2016 GARBAGE SVC- PUB WRKS $280.93 Invoice 0894-004054727 3/25/2016 Project 16-3 Cash Payment E 101-41910-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa APRIL 2016 GARBAGE SVC- CENT BLDG $191.35 Invoice 0894-004052499 3/25/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa APRIL 2016 GARBAGE SVC -PARKS BLDG $462.46 Invoice 0894-004052722 3/25/2016 Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic MARCH 2016 CITY WIDE RECYCLING $12,991.77 SERVICE Invoice 0894-004052446 3/25/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14,294.93 Refer _ RICOH USA, INC. _ _29 Cash Payment E 222-42260-202 Duplicating and copying FIRE DEPT COPIER ADDITIONAL IMAGES $41.40 FEE 12-04-15 THRU 3-09-16- 1 ST QTR 2016 Invoice 96548299 3/25/2016 Transaction Date 3/3/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $41.40 Refer 37 SCHARBER AND SONS OF LONG L Cash Payment E 101-45200-218 Clothing and Uniforms PARKS -APRON CHAPS- G. BALL $94.95 Invoice P40362 2/11/2016 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies PARKS- SUPPLIES- 0 RING $9.38 Invoice P40362 2/11/2016 Transaction Date 3/1/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $104.33 Refer5 .� 30 SPORTAGULAR, INC. Cash Payment E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms MAKE 2 PATCHES TO COVER OLD NAME & $10.00 EMBROIDER ERIC- ON 2 JACKETS Invoice 041216 3/22/2016 Project 16-3 Transaction Date 415/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10.00 Refer 31 TAYLOR ELECTRIC COMPANY�� Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic RELOCATE 2 SERVICE MAST FROM OLD $1,818.95 XCEL ENERGY POLE TO NEW XCEL ENERGY POLE AT 5701 BARTLETT BLVD Invoice 890 3/15/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,818.95 Refer 32 TRI TECH DISPENSING Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPLACE DEFROST TIMER- FIRE TRUCK $235.18 Invoice 52661 3/23/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair REPLACE DEFROST TIMER- FIRE TRUCK- $137.00 BALANCE DUE Invoice 52661 3/23/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $372.18 Refer 33 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE AND Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply MOUNT NEW TRUCK TIRE- PUB WRKS $224.67 Invoice 762704 3/1/2016 Project 16-3 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $224.67 Refer__ 34 ZARNO TH BRUSH WORKS, INCORw�_728` Y a«e r*Tiiw• • 9 Current Period: April 2016 04/06/16 5:07 PM Page 9 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply DISPOSABLE GUTTER BROOMS & ELGIN $2,096.00 ALL PRO STRIP BROOM -15 QTY Invoice 0158931 3/10/2016 PO 24625 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,096.00 Fund Summary Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $221,201.56 Total $221,201.56 EM 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $75,386.17 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $11,356.07 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $388.55 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS $209.25 601 WATER FUND $33,825.76 602 SEWER FUND $84,855.72 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $2,188.27 670 RECYCLING FUND $12,991.77 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND $0.00 $221,201.56 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $221,201.56 Total $221,201.56 EM Current Period: April 2016 Batch Name 041216HWS User Dollar Amt $126,614.55 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $126,614.55 $0.00 In Balance 04/07/16 12:06 PM Page 1 Refer 1 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $108.30 Invoice 1990608410 3/24/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Due 12/31/2014 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $108.30 Refer _ 2 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY Gash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $264.25 Invoice 3088838 3/17/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT -$45.31 Invoice 341367 3/18/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $198.25 Invoice 3090080 6/24/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $417.19 _Refer �3 BAUHAUS BREW LABS Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $188.00 Invoice 6841 3/17/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $188.00 Refer 4 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS, C -FOLD TOWELS $220.29 Invoice 93646800 3/2112016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $17.00 Invoice 93646800 3/21/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS $33.30 Invoice 93681600 3/28/2016 Cash Payment E609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES- SHELF STRIPS $62.00 Invoice 93712600 4/1/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $332.59 Refer 6 BELLBOY CORPORATION� Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $780.83 Invoice 52973600 4/1/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $11.79 Invoice 52973600 4/1/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $7,152.28 Invoice 52724900 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $72.32 Invoice 52724900 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$28.70 Invoice 523808cr 2/19/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,988.52 Refer 7 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,574.54 Invoice 52885100 3/28/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,285.20 Invoice 52790500 3/21/2016 -730- CITY OF MOUND 04/07/16 12:06 PM Page 2 Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $62.90 Invoice 1090537912 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,925.25 Invoice 1090537911 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,694.21 Invoice 1090535052 3/9/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,682.36 Refer 13 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,242.00 Invoice 1080450577 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,284.72 Invoice 1080450575 3/24/2016 -731- Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,859.74 Refer 5 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $60.00 Invoice 93624600 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MDSE- DBL JIGGER, POWER BOMB SHOT $59.10 CUPS, PLASTIC FLASK Invoice 93624600 3/16/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $119.10 8 BERNICKS BEVERAGES AND VEN� _Refer Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $68.40 Invoice 286827 3/23/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $787.53 Invoice 286828 3/23/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,213.05 Invoice 288171 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $110.00 Invoice 288172 3/30/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 � Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,178.98 Refer ^ v9 BLU SKY PUBLISHING _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising 1/4 PAGE AD APRIL 2016 LAKE MTKA $168.00 MOVERS PUBLICATION Invoice 16993 3/26/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising 1/4 PAGE AD APRIL 2016 WEST METRO $175.00 BUSINESS PUBLICATION Invoice 16993 3/26/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $343.00 Refer 11 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $5,436.80 Invoice 1090543256 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $71.40 Invoice 1090543257 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,364.14 Invoice 1090540380 3/22/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,872.34 Refer 10 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $62.90 Invoice 1090537912 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,925.25 Invoice 1090537911 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,694.21 Invoice 1090535052 3/9/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,682.36 Refer 13 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,242.00 Invoice 1080450577 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,284.72 Invoice 1080450575 3/24/2016 -731- CITY OF MOUND 04/07/16 12:06 PM Page 3 Payments Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $23.94 Invoice 1080450576 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,720.94 Invoice 1080447238 3/17/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,017.99 Invoice 1080447239 3/17/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,289.59 Refer 12 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $110.00 Invoice 1080453040 3/31/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,408.68 Invoice 1080453039 3/31/2016 Refer 15 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC��_ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $72.00 Invoice 1080453041 3/31/2016 $931.60 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$70.00 Invoice 2080129143 3/3/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$19.41 Invoice 208022836 3/23/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,501.27 Refer 14 COCA COLA BOTTLING -MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa COCA COLA PRODUCTS- MIX $248.72 Invoice 0168085506 3/29/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $248.72 Refer 15 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC��_ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $931.60 Invoice 1193571 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,492.72 Invoice 1195970 3/30/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,424.32 Refer 16 GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INCORPORA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $96.00 Invoice MN00002552 3/31/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $2.25 Invoice MN00002552 3/31/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 � Wells Fargo 10100 Total $98.25 Refer 17 HOHENSTE/NS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $528.00 Invoice 816051 3/17/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $423.76 Invoice 000157 3/31/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 � Wells Fargo 10100 Total $951.76 Refer 18 INDIAN !BLAND WINERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $223.68 Invoice 3039 3/24/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 � Wells Fargo 10100 Total $223.68 Refer 19 JJ TAYLOR. DISTRIBUTING MINN -732- CITY OF MOUND 04107/16 12:06 PM Page 4 Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment Invoice 5394763 Cash Payment Invoice 5394761 E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 3/16/2016 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 3/16/2016 _733_ $2,946.70 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,197.10 Invoice 2489733 3/22/2016 $84.30 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 2489734 3/22/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,281.40 Refer 20 JJ TAYLOR. DISTRIBUTINGMINN Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $49.20 Invoice 2489765 3/30/2016 $38.80 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 2489765 3/30/2016 $5,523.70 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 2489764 3/30/2016 -- — Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,611.70 Refer__ �. 21 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR _�- Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$1,306.20 Invoice 568287 3/24/2016 $254.13 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 5395984 3/17/2016 -$99.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 568288 3/24/2016 $9.71 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT Invoice 567152 3/14/2016 $19.42 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT Invoice 567153 3/14/2016 "$13.15 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT Invoice 567154 3/14/2016 -$52.60 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT Invoice 567155 3/14/2016 -$20.46 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT Invoice 565794 3/3/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total -$1,266.d1 Refer h , 22 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $134.00 Invoice 5399981 3/23/2016 $2,519.01 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 5399982 3/23/2016 $2,734.05 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 5399979 3/23/2016 $30.75 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 5399980 3/23/2016 $1,740.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 5399978 3/23/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,157.81 Refer 24 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment Invoice 5394763 Cash Payment Invoice 5394761 E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 3/16/2016 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 3/16/2016 _733_ $2,946.70 Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 5394762 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 5394764 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 5118015cr 3/3/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 559483CR-REV 1/8/2016 04/07/16 12:06 PM Page 5 WINE $3,198.55 LIQUOR $8,867.05 LIQUOR CREDIT -$20.46 WINE $34.00 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15,058.09 Refer 23 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment Invoice 5405104 Cash Payment Invoice 5405102 Cash Payment Invoice 5405103 Cash Payment Invoice 5405105 E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 3/30/2016 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 3/30/2016 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 3/30/2016 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 3/30/2016 $32.25 $5,293.86 $2,618.00 $0.00 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 - Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,944.11 Refer 25 MARGRON SKOGLUND WINE IMP Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $470.00 Invoice 20019524 3/18/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $9.00 Invoice 20019524 3/18/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $479.00 Refer 26 MARLIN S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY SVC 3-3-16 $390.05 Invoice 31678 3/3/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY SVC 3-7-16 $31.90 Invoice 31684 3/7/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY SVC 3-10-16 $224.75 Invoice 31702 3/10/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $646.70 Refer 27 MOUND, CITY OF Cash Payment E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities WATER SERVICE 2-1-16 THRU 3-1-16 HWS $56.84 Invoice 041216 3/20/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $56.84 Referb� 28 MUZAK - MINNEAPOLIS ..�. Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic 04-01-16 THRU 06-30-16 MUSIC SERVICE- $382.31 HWS Invoice 52335776 4/1/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $382.31 Refer 29 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $246.00 Invoice 8540191 3/21/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $5.25 Invoice 8540191 3/21/2016 -734- CITY OF MOUND 04/07/16 12:06 PM Page 6 Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment /2016 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 2951778 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $251.25 Referyy x ... 30 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 233957 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,234.57 Invoice 8541190 3/28/2016 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale $30.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 8541190 3/28/2016 4/5/2016 $1,246.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE _ Invoice 8542240 4/4/2016 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale $18.75 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 8542240 4/4/2016 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,529.32 Refer H �31 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R WINE SPECTATOR PUBLICATIONS 3-31-16 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,639.60 Invoice 2944703 3/16/2016 $2,839.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2944702 3/16/2016 $1,040.20 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2948237 3/23/2016 $396.85 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 2948238 3/23/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Tota! $5,915.65 ooao 39 pi -in l IPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC Cash Payment /2016 E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 2951778 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 2951779 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 233957 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 233956 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $224.25 WINE $647.25 WINE CREDIT -$40.00 LIQUOR CREDIT -$152.25 LIQUOR $2.95 Invoice 229550CR-REV 118 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $682.20 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Refer 33REDBULL DISTRIBUTION CO. INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $166.50 Invoice 15625856 3/31/2016 -$55.87 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX credit Invoice 13543-185 3/31/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $110.63 Refer 34 SCHRAM WINERY, LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $240.00 Invoice 14082 3/21/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $240.00 Refer 35 SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R WINE SPECTATOR PUBLICATIONS 3-31-16 $15.00 EDITION Invoice S0508048 2/23/2016 -735- owUrn6 12:06 PM �� Page Payments Current Period: April 2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total *15.00 Refer 3,SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OFM _ Cash Payment EOO9-4875U-253Wine For Resale WINE $1.687.84 mvnioa 1389984 3124/2010 Cash Payment EO094975O'251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2.087.30 Invoice 1309995 3/24/2016 _ Cash Payment E5O9'4S7S0-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$61.50 Invoice 9075698 5/25/2018 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4.28164 Refer--- 36 -SOUTHERN WANE &SPIRITS OF M Cash Payment E#VV-48750'253Wine For Resale WINE $1.308.00 Invoice 1387893 3/17/2016 Cash Payment E6VS4S750'251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1.892J0 Invoice 1387091 3/17/2016 Cash Payment EOV94S75O`254Soft Drinks/Mix For RouaMIX BEER $77.74 Invoice 1307092 3/17/2016 Cash Payment EO094975&253Wine For Resale WINE $1.560.00 Invoice 1382835 3/31/2016 � Cash Payment E60949750'251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2.683.87 Invoice 1392334 3/31/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $7,502.41 383TCLOUD REFRIGERATION, _ CehPuyment E60948750-400Repaim& Maintenance HVAC MTCE'REPLACE COOLER DOOR *514.14 GASKETS & ADJUST OTHERS- MVvS Invoice 293983 1/26/2015 Transaction Date 4/5/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $51414 /Refer39 SmEE7IANDORC/ARD _ Cash Payment E608-4S75O-253Wine For Resale WINE *60.00 Invoice 727 3/23/2010 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $60�00 Refer 407H0RPEDISTRIBUTING Q7MPAN _ Cash Payment EsV9-49ra0-2uoBeer For Resale BEER *4.680.05 Invoice 1061431 4/5/2016 Cash Payment EOo9-4ersD-252 Beer For Resale BEER *76.50 Invoice 1061432 4/5/2016 Cash Payment E0O9-*97so-os2Beer For Resale BEER '$arJO Invoice 00110178 3/29/2016 Cash Payment EOO9-43750-252Beer For Resale BEER $2510 Invoice 00110180 3/29/2016 Cash Payment EVVR4S75V-252Beer For Resale BEER $2.171.09 Invoice 1054807 3/22/2016 Cash Payment EOO8-w9750-252Beer For Resale BEER $3.856.70 Invoice 1058000 3/29/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $8.00� Invoice 1050080CR 5/29/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2010 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,759.74 Refer 42VIN000PN INCORPORATED - -736- CITY OF MOUND 04/07/16 12:06 PM Page 8 Payments Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $360.13 Invoice 0147283 3/17/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $7.50 Invoice 0147283 3/17/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $224.00 Invoice 0147282 3/17/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $5.00 Invoice 0147282 3/17/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $596.63 Refer 41 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $485.58 Invoice 0147842 3124/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $12.00 Invoice 0147842 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $705.00 Invoice 0147843 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $9.00 Invoice 0147843 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa SODA $40.00 Invoice 0147844 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $1.50 Invoice 0147844 3/24/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,253.08 WACONIA BREWING COMPANY _Refer ---43 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $200.00 Invoice 3944 3/22/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $200.00 Refer n , , 44 WINE COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $128.00 Invoice 420934 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $1.65 Invoice 420934 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $688.00 Invoice 420802 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $11.55 Invoice 420802 3/24/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT -$80.00 Invoice 419543 3/8/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $540.50 Invoice 421359 3/31/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $9.90 Invoice 421359 3/31/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 w,wa Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,299.60 Refer x 46 WINE MERCHANTS Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT -$136.00 Invoice 707065 3/9/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,312.00 Invoice 7073152 3/17/2016 _737_ CITY OF MOUND 04/07/16 12:06 PM Page 9 Payments Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $126,614.55 $126,614.55 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $126,614.55 Total $126,614.55 -738- Current Period: April 2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT -$280.00 Invoice 707205 3/18/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT -$128.00 Invoice 706990 3/2/2016 Transaction Date 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $768.00 Refer.,. 45 WINE MERCHANTSp.A�.,,.�,�,x,�.,�,�,�.�,�., Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,747.00 Invoice 7072994 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT -$104.00 Invoice 707166 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $190.00 Invoice 7072993 3/16/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,234.50 Invoice 7073949 3/23/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,270.00 Invoice 7074937 3/30/2016 Transaction Date -.47Z 4/5/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,337.50 Refer. WINES USA LLC,,,, Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $104.00 Invoice 16689 3/30/2016 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY $2.50 Invoice 16689 3/30/2016 Transaction Date 4/6/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $106.50 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $126,614.55 $126,614.55 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $126,614.55 Total $126,614.55 -738- CITY OF MOUND 04/07/16 11:59 AM Page 1 Current Period: April 2016 Batch Name 041216FIRE User Dollar Amt $2,452.37 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $2,452.37 $0.00 In Balance Refer 1 BLUE LAGOON MARINE _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies OIL FOR FIRE BOAT #28 $92.00 Invoice 2127032 3/31/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $92.00 Refer 2 FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES, 1� Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies 2- CUSTOM 6" LEATHER PROBATIONARY $149.50 HELMET FRONTS & 1 CAPTAIN HELMET FRONT Invoice 9229 3/24/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $149.50 Refer � 4 FIRE MARSHALLS ASSOC MINNES�� Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2016 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES- TONY $40.00 MYERS ASST. CHIEF OPERATIONS Invoice 041216 4/7/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $40.00 Refer_ 3 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE 1 YR 2016 $29.95 SUBSCRIPTION Invoice 041216 4/7/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $29.95 Refer_. w a 6 JUBILEE FOODS _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies ICE FOR FIRE DEPT FREEZER $23.94 Invoice 041216 3/23/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $23.94 Refer � 5 MNFIAM BOOK SALES Cash Payment E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies PUMPING &APPARATUS $720.00 DRIVER/OPERATOR EXAM PREP MATERIALS- 12 QTY Invoice 2216 Cash Payment 3/28/2016 E 222-42260-208 Instructional Supplies PUMPING & AERIAL APPARATUS $215.00 INSTRUCTORS KIT Invoice 2216 3/28/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $935.00 Refer 7 MYERS, TONY _ $295.00 Cash Payment E 222-42260-434 Conference & Training EMT REFRESHER COURSE- ALLIED MEDICAL TRAINING- 3-28-16 REIMB T. MYERS Invoice 041216 4/7/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $295.00 ReferM v s. 8 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASS Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2016 -ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES MOUND $175.00 FD Invoice 041216 4/7/2016 Transaction Date 417/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $175.00 Rcfar.... Kt.�.w. 9PERFORMANCE PLUS LLC �a —739— I Current Period: April 2016 04/07/16 11:59 AM Page 2 Cash Payment E 222-42260-305 Medical Services PRE PLACEMENT MEDICAL EXAM $322.00 PHYSICAL, MASK FITTING, DRUG SCREEN - NEW FIREFIGHTER- M. LINDER Invoice 4288 3/28/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $322,00 Refer 10 WRISTBANDSALE.COM Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies HEART SAFE WRISTBANDS- 1100- FIRE $199.99 DEPT Invoice WSUS001575 4/1/2016 Cash Payment E 222-42260-217 Fire Prevention Supplies SMOKE ALARMS SAVE LIVES WRISTBANDS- $189.99 1100- FIRE DEPT Invoice WSUS001575 4/1/2016 Transaction Date 4/7/2016 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $389.98 Fund Summary 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 10100 Wells Fargo $2,452.37 $2,452.37 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $2,452.37 Total $2,452.37 s Ea(.DL- Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 - Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952) 448-8838 - Fax (952) 448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com April 7, 2016 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2016 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements — Bartlett Blvd., Tuxedo Blvd, Phase II, Cypress Ln./Maywood Rd. City Project Nos. PW -16-01, PW -16-02, PW -16-03 SAP 145-103-003 (Bartlett); SAP 145-110-003 (Cypress); SAP 145-109-005 (Maywood) Award of Bid Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: Bids were received at City Hall on March 29, 2016 for the 2016 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements project — Bartlett Boulevard, Tuxedo Boulevard Phase II, Cypress Lane/Maywood Road, with the following results: CONTRACTOR Ryan Contracting GMH Asphalt NW Asphalt Geislinger & Sons AMOUNT BID $2,758,554.25 $3,175,544.07 $3,267,999.90 $3,302,503.00 The low bid from Ryan Contracting was significantly below the Engineer's Estimate of $3,549,000. They are out of Elko New Market, MN and are well qualified to successfully complete this type of work. It is our recommendation that the Council adopt the attached resolution awarding the 2016 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements — Bartlett Boulevard, Tuxedo Boulevard Phase II and Cypress Lane/Maywood Road in the amount of $2,758,554.25 to Ryan Contracting. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. OW4�Z-4aGGAt,.� Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. City Engineer DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an - --- _' opportunity employer -741- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 16 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR THE 2016 STREET, UTILITY AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — BARTLETT BOULEVARD, TUXEDO BOULEVARD PHASE 11, CYPRESS LANE/MAYWOOD ROAD (PW -16-01, PW -16-02, PW -16-03) WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 2016 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project — Bartlett Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard to Shoreline Drive, Tuxedo Boulevard from Clyde Road to Wilshire Boulevard, Cypress Lane from Shoreline Drive to Maywood Road and Maywood Road from Wilshire Boulevard to its west end, bids were received on March 29, 2016, opened and tabulated according to law, with the following bids received and complying with the advertisement: Ryan Contracting $2,758,554.25 GMH Asphalt $3,175,544.07 NW Asphalt $3,267,999.90 Geislinger & Sons $3,302,503.00 AND WHEREAS, it appears that Ryan Contracting of Elko New Market, MN is the lowest responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Mound, Minnesota, that the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Ryan Contracting of Elko New Market, MN, in the name of the City of Mound for the 2016 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April 2016. Mark Wegscheid, Mayor Attest: Catherine Pausche, City Clerk -74?- ® ; s Q Consulting Engineers & Surveyors H 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952) 448-8838 - Fax (952) 448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com April 7, 2016 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2016 Crack Repair and Seal Coat Projects City Project No. PW -16-07 and PW -16-08 Recommended Project Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: One of the City's infrastructure management programs is the annual crack sealing and seal coating of select City streets. These street maintenance applications are typically done approximately 5 years after the street has been reconstructed. Studies have shown that these maintenance techniques add to the overall life of bituminous pavement. The recommended 2016 Crack Seal project area includes the streets within the 2012 Street Reconstruction Project — north Island Area. See attached Figures 1 and 2 for the 2016 Crack Seal Project location. The recommended 2016 Seal Coat project area includes the Island portion of the 2011 Street Reconstruction project, which was crack sealed in 2015. The Rigdewood/ldlewood/Highland portion of the 2011 Street Reconstruction project was crack sealed and seal coated as a separate project in 2015. See attached Figures 1 and 2 for the 2016 Seal Coat Project location. A resolution authorizing the preparation of plans and specification and receipt of quotes for the 2016 Crack Seal Project and the 2016 Seal Coat Project is attached for the Council's consideration. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Iw. Daniel L. Faulkner, P. E. City Engineer DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is a--1.1 opportunity employer -743- I r-7 4, It', I %tA I Fk 4 mm NOLHO14ig 0 00 I I I rzi z 2z -g t; C 0 z Su 02>Wl 5 zz� L r w Z*d Z z 75 ow W 0 z 2 dd Z x §U LD r-1 0 • 11 • L I 1:4*401"l 101010161st, i • • i 1 0 . . . - . - , • • ,• , WHEREAS, the City has established a Seal Coat Fund funded through municipal state aid funds for maintenance and the municipal liquor store profits, to assist in the maintenance of its residential streets; and WHEREAS, the City Engineers Association of MN recommends crack sealing and seal coating every four to six years as cost-effective maintenance practices to extend the useful life of residential streets; and WHEREAS, the Island portion of the 2011 Street Reconstruction Project was crack sealed in 2015 in anticipation of seal coating these city streets in 2016; and WHEREAS, the 2012 Street Reconstruction Project area is in need of crack sealing this year; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to order preparation of plans and specifications, and to order the City Engineer to receive quotes for the 2016 Crack Seal Project and 2016 Seal Coat Project. Adopted by the City Council this 12`h day of April 2016. Mark Wegscheid, Mayor ATTEST: Catherine Pausche, Clerk sm '71 A.lEWA'i7 0ENT.i9�'i'!1S1L9C`nF.k�`'; �.. Name of orqanization Minnesota Department of Public Safety Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 222, St. Paul, MN 55101 651-201-7500 Fax 651-297-5259 TTY 651-282-6555 APPLICATION AND PERMIT FOR A 1 DAY TO 4 DAY TEMPORARY ON -SALE LIQUOR LICENSE Date organized Tax exempt number July 1950 Address City State Zip Code 2590 Commerce Blvd Mound `I Minnesota 155364_ -� Name of person making application Business phone Home phone Jackie Greenslit I 1 11952-297-7863 Date(s) of event Type of organization April 24th, 2016 ❑X Club [] Charitable F� Religious E] Other non-profit Organization officer's name City State Zip Code _ Jason Zattler--Pres. jSt.Boni Minnesota_ Organization officer's name City__ State Zip Code Marc Deoper-Hove—Sect. Mound Minnesota 155364 Organization officer's name City '1 State Zip Code Minnesota I I� Organization officer's name City State Zip Code _ Minnesota � �� Location where permit will be used, if an outdoor area, describe. Gillespie Center 2590 Commerce Blvd Mound, MN 55364 Pancake Breakfast If the applicant will contract for intoxicating liquor service give the name and address of the liquor license providing the service. No If the applicant will carry liquor liability insurance please provide the carrier's name and amount of coverage. Yes/Wiser Insurance/USG/ 1,000,000.00 to 2,000,000.00 APPROVAL APPLICATION MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OR COUNTY BEFORE SUBMITTING TO ALCOHOL AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT City or County approving the license Fee Amount Date Fee Paid Date Approved Permit Date City or County E-mail Address City or County Phone Number Signature City Clerk or County Official Approved Director Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement CLERKS NOTICE: Submit this form to Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division 30 days prior to event. ONE SUBMISSION PER EMAIL, APPLICATION ONLY. PLEASE PROVIDE A VALID E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR THE CITY/COUNTY AS ALL TEMPORARY PERMIT APPROVALS WILL BE SENT BACK VIA EMAIL. E-MAIL THE APPLICATION SIGNED BY CITY/C( 749-'o AGE TEMPORARYAPPLICATION@STATE.MN.US ANAP1906 Executive Summary TO: Mound City Council and Staff FROM: Rita Trapp, Consulting City Planner Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: April 6, 2016 SUBJECT: Planning Case No. 16-06 Expansion Permit for 1555 Dove Lane (PID No. 12-117-24-43-0059) REQUEST SUMMARY The applicants, Eric and Emily Lein, have applied for an expansion permit to allow the construction of an attached garage addition and a house remodel which includes construction of a second floor on their existing home. The 16,126 square foot shoreland property is located on the west side of Dove Lane at its intersection with the lake and has an existing home that was constructed in 1902. As shown on the attached survey, the existing home is constructed 0.3 feet over the front property line (east side). The home's footprint is 1,037 square feet and includes a single -stall, tuck under garage in the basement. The applicants are proposing a 1,380 square foot addition that includes a two -car garage addition, new entry and house remodel to include a second story on the home with dormers. The garage portion of the proposed addition has been set back 22.5 feet from the front property line. The new entry that connects the existing house to the attached garage addition lines up with the existing building line in the SW corner. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their April 5, 2016 meeting. Draft minutes from that meeting have been prepared for your review. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the expansion permit with the conditions and findings as proposed by Staff. RECOMMENDATION Given Staff and the Planning Commission recommendations for approval, a resolution has been prepared for City Council consideration. 123-750-'hird Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 RESOLUTION NO. 16 - FOR 1565 DOVE LANE PLANNING CASE •' PID •12-117-24-43-0059 WHEREAS, the applicants, Eric and Emily Lein, submitted a request for an expansion permit to allow the construction of an attached garage addition and a house remodel which includes the construction of a second floor with dormers; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the R -1A single-family residential zoning district; and WHEREAS, the property includes a home that was constructed in 1902 which is located over the front property line by 0.3 feet; and WHEREAS, the property is subject to the Woodland Point settlement agreement; and WHEREAS, the applicants are proposing to construct a two -car garage addition, new entry area, and house remodel that includes a second story with a dormer; and WHEREAS, the garage portion of the proposed addition has been set 22.5 feet from the front property line. Although the new entry area is in the front yard setback area, it connects the existing home to the new garage along the existing building line; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 129-40 (a) outlines the criteria for granting an expansion permit which is provided below: (1) the proposed expansion is a reasonable use of the property considering: a. function and aesthetics of the expansion. b. absence of adverse off-site impacts such as from traffic, noise, odors and dust. c. adequacy of off-street parking. (2) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying the expansion are unique to the property and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since enactment of this chapter have had no control. -751- (3) the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (4) the expansion would not adversely affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (5) the expansion requested is the minimum needed. ; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested expansion permit for the proposed project are contained in the Planning Commission report for the April 5, 2016 meeting and the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the expansion permit subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the expansion permit request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 5, 2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the expansion permit as recommended by Staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the expansion permit request at its April 12, 2016 meeting and determined that approval would allow the property to be used in a reasonable manner; and WHEREAS, the City Council's decision on the expansion permit application was made within the timelines included in Minnesota Statutes 15.99; and WHEREAS, in granting approval, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The criteria of City Code Section 129-40 (a) are being met. 2. Improvements to the residential use of this property are in keeping with how it is zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan. 3. The desire for an attached garage and additional living area is reasonable for a residential property. 4. The existing home encroachment of 0.3 feet into the Dove Lake right- of-way is an existing condition that is not being increased as a result of the proposed addition and remodel project. -752- 5. The existing location of the home on the property limits where an addition can be constructed. The applicant has attempted to reduce the impact of the addition by locating more than half of the new footprint more than 20 feet from the front property line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby incorporate and restate the recitals set forth above and approve the expansion permit for the property at 1555 Dove Lane with the following conditions: 1. Any 3 foot eaves located on the front of the house within 20 feet of the front property line shall be reduced to 2 feet. 2. Final design of the driveway shall be subject to the review and acceptance of the Public Works Director or his designee. Driveway alignments which involve the use of public right of way may be subject to additional permitting requirements. -- 3. Applicant shall provide written attestation that the proposed project does not violate the provisions of the Woodland Point Settlement Agreement. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 5. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action. 6. Applicant shall provide all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 7. Impervious surface coverage shall be less than 40% of the site. Hardcover calculations will be verified as part of building permit process. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 10. No building permit will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution at Hennepin County is provided unless an escrow of sufficient amount is on file with the City. The applicant may also direct the City to record the resolution with the fees to be taken out of the escrow. -753- 11. Effective September 1, 2011, new Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) rules related to wetlands, floodplain, erosion control and others are in effect. These rules are now under the jurisdiction of the MCWD as regulatory authority and permitting was officially turned back to the District by the Mound City Council on August 23, 2011. Applicant is directed to contact the MCWD related to the new regulations and applicable permits that may be needed to undertake the proposed project. Evidence from the MCWD in the form of a permit or waiver must be provided before release of any future building permit. The variance is hereby approved for the following legally described property: (- to be inserted ) Adopted by the City Council this 12th of April, 2016. Mark Wegscheid, Mayor Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk APRILMINUTE EXCERPTS MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION 1 Chair Penner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. ROLL CALL Members present: Chair Cindy Penner; Commissioners Jeffrey Bergquist, David Goode, Doug Gawtry, Jameson Smieja, Bill Stone, Pete Wiechert, and Jennifer Peterson (7:02). Members absent: Jason Baker. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Secretary Jill Norlander. BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Case No. 16-06 Expansion Permit 1555 Dove Lane Applicant: Eric and Emily Lien Smith introduced the proposed expansion permit. The applicants have applied for an expansion permit to allow the construction of an attached garage addition and a house remodel that includes construction of a second floor on the existing home. The expansion permit is needed because the existing home, where a second story is proposed, is constructed 3 feet over the front property line. Smieja asked about the Woodland Point settlement agreement affected the city and how it applies to the planning case. Eric Lien, 1555 Dove Lane, provided some background about the settlement agreement which goes back to the 1990s and involved the abutters/non-abutters ownership and interest in the Commons as well as the City's dock program. Smith added that the settlement agreement applies to the owners in the original platted area and also provided for the City to continue to operate the dock program in particular locations in the Woodland Point plat area. Smith also mentioned that the condition included in Staff's recommendation requiring the applicants to attest in writing that what is being proposed does not violate the agreement. MOTION by Bergquist, second by Stone, to recommend approval with staff recommendations 1-11 and findings of fact 1-5. MOTION passed 7-0. Commissioner Goode recused himself from voting due to potential for conflict of interest. M&M Planning Commission Rita Trapp, Planning Consultant Sarah Smith, Community Development Director March 31, 2016 16-06 Expansion Permit Eric and Emily Lein 1555 Dove Lane (PID 12-117-24-43-0059) April 5, 2016 Low Density Residential R -1A Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The applicants, Eric and Emily Lein, have applied for an expansion permit to allow the construction of an attached garage addition and a house remodel which includes construction of a second floor on their existing home. The 16,126 square foot shoreland property is located on the west side of Dove Lane at its intersection with the lake and has an existing home that was constructed in 1902. REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Section 129-40 (a) states that an expansion permit for a nonconforming structure may be granted to provide relief to the landowner where the application of the City Code imposes practical difficulties. In determining whether practical difficulties exist, the City Council shall evaluate the following criteria: (1) the proposed expansion is a reasonable use of the property considering: a. function and aesthetics of the expansion. b. absence of adverse off-site impacts such as from traffic, noise, odors and dust. c. adequacy of off-street parking. (2) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying the expansion are unique to the property and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since enactment of this chapter have had no control. (3) the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. (4) the expansion would not adversely affect or alter the essential character of the neighborhood. (5) the expansion requested is the minimum needed. 60 -DAY PROCESS Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny the land use request unless an extension is executed by the City in accordance with state rules. Minnesota Statutes 645.15 sets forth the procedures for determining "Day 1" for the purpose of application of the 60 -day rule and was determined to be February 27, 2016. SITE INFORMATION The 16,126 square foot shoreland property has an existing home that was constructed in 1902. As shown on the attached survey, the existing home is constructed 0.3 feet over the front property line (east side). The home's footprint is 1,037 square feet and includes a single -stall tuck under garage in the basement. The applicants are proposing a 1,380 square foot addition that includes a two -car garage addition, new entry and house remodel to include a second story on the home with dormers. The garage portion of the proposed addition has been set back 22.5 feet from the front property line. The new entry that connects the existing house to the attached garage addition lines up with the existing building line in the SW corner. STAFF/CONSULTANT/AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. Members are advised that some comments received during review have been addressed and are therefore not included in this report. See additional comments provided below: Melissa Manderschied, This property is subject to the Woodland Point settlement City Attorney agreement. The applicant should be required to attest that what is being proposed does not violate that agreement. The driveway as proposed does not align with the edge of the constructed portion of Dove Lane. Additional discussion is needed to determine whether adjustments can be made or if other permitting is needed. The applicant will need to meet the requirements of Section 129- 40. -757- Scott Qualle, Building Official Heidi Quinn, MCWD Eric Hoversten, City Manager & Public Works Director Greg Pederson, Fire Chief Building permit application was submitted and is under review. Building Official has requested submittal of engineering information. MCWD issued an Erosion Control permit for the above mentioned address at 3/2/2016. There are no discrepancies in what is being proposed and what MCWD permitted. No issues. No fire code or life safety concerns. An expansion permit is needed because the existing home is constructed 0.3 feet over the front property line. The applicant is proposing interior remodel and construction of a second floor on the existing home and two-story addition that includes an attached garage. The second floor addition will be within the same footprint as the main level. As shown on the survey, the garage portion of the addition will be more than 20 feet from front property line. There is a bluff noted on the survey in Waurika Commons. The home is located outside of the bluff setback area. The proposed elevations show eaves of varying depths —16", 2' and 3'. City Code Section 129-197 (c)(1) states that eaves can encroach into setback areas provided they do not extend more than 2 feet. The 3 foot eaves are located on the west and east sides of the home. Given that the east side of the home is already on the property line, 3 foot eaves in that location are not allowed. The applicant will be required, and has agreed, to reduce the 3 foot eaves proposed to a maximum of 2 feet. The second story addition includes a 4'x by 10' foot balcony on the lakeside. Staff has determined the balcony to be in conformance. The driveway is currently proposed to extend at an angle from the garage to Dove Lane. The driveway intersects Dove Lane where the constructed road terminates and would involve the construction of a portion of the driveway in the public right of way. The applicant has been advised that additional discussion is needed with the Public Works Director regarding the proposed driveway and additional permitting may be needed depending on the final location/alignment. City Code requires a minimum driveway width of 10 feet and maximum width of 24 feet. ami • The proposed hardcover calculations provided by the applicant indicates that the hardcover will be more than 2,500 square feet under the maximum allowed. This will be verified as part of the building permit process. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the expansion permit for this site subject to the following conditions: Any 3 foot eaves located on the front of the house within 20 feet of the front property line shall be reduced to 2 feet. 2. Final design of the driveway shall be subject to the review and acceptance of the Public Works Director or his designee. Driveway alignments which involve the use of public right of way may be subject to additional permitting requirements. 3. Applicant shall provide written attestation that the proposed project does not violate the provisions of the Woodland Point Settlement Agreement. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 5. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action. 6. Applicant shall provide all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 7. Impervious surface coverage shall be less than 40% of the site. Hardcover calculations will be verified as part of building permit process. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information prior to building permit issuance. 9. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 10. No building permit will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution at Hennepin County is provided unless an escrow of sufficient amount is on file with the City. The applicant may also direct the City to record the resolution with the fees to be taken out of the escrow. U -Sea 11. Effective September 1, 2011, new Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) rules related to wetlands, floodplain, erosion control and others are in effect. These rules are now under the jurisdiction of the MCWD as regulatory authority and permitting was officially turned back to the District by the Mound City Council on August 23, 2011. Applicant is directed to contact the MCWD related to the new regulations and applicable permits that may be needed to undertake the proposed project. Evidence from the MCWD in the form of a permit or waiver must be provided before release of any future building permit. In recommending Staff approval, the following findings of fact are offered: 1. The criteria of City Code Section 129-40 (a) are being met. 2. Improvements to the residential use of this property are in keeping with how it is zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan. 3. The desire for an attached garage and additional living area is reasonable for a residential property. 4. The existing home encroachment of 0.3 feet into the Dove Lake right-of-way is an existing condition that is not being increased as a result of the proposed addition and remodel project. 5. The existing location of the home on the property limits where an addition can be constructed. The applicant has attempted to reduce the impact of the addition by locating more than half of the new footprint more than 20 feet from the front property line. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission, it will be forwarded to the City Council for action at an upcoming meeting. At this time, possible meeting dates include April 12tH or April 26tH EXPANSION PERMIT FE9 Z61 61 "�_M_ou APPLICATION 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 553 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. Case No. SUBJECT Address Q PROPERTY Lot 6� qLA ej-tS� Block LEGAL [ESC. Subdivision PID # 1� - i 97- �4-4S-00,51 Zoning: R1 RIA R2 R3 BI B2 B3 (Circle one) PROPERTY Name 9 16A . Email 42(-tL- -7 OWNER t® Address � S s Q(__-'0Q__\V\ Phone Home Wvq--Sp--�' 3 ork Fax ,APPMART Name Email (ZVkk'k \4 - rL 62 �\ #F-eTtfER SSSS 06 3AZ zR4AN— Address OWNER) Phone Home l�-9?7-(PX'� -Work Fax Has an application ever been m?de for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? Yes ( ) No ((_). If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): V Expansion Permit Information (1/14/2016) Page 4 of 6 sm o'c.z Case No. 3. Please complete the following information related to the property and building's conformity with the zoning regulations for the district in which it is located including the expansion permit request. SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED EXPANSION (or existing) 1 Front Yard: (NSew) 1-7- b ft. ft. Side Yard: E W) Side Yard: N&E W) ft. Rear Yard: (N S E0 'S ft. _16A ft. Lakeside: (US E W) :5 Q ft. ft N S E W) ------ a___.------® ft. Street Street Frontage:(P,_"1'V) Lot Sizer sq ft sq ft__sq ft Hardcover: sq 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 ( ), No If no, specify each non -conformity: ck,�,i- V/le- 5. Are there exceptional or extraordinary circumstances justifying the expansion unique to the property such as lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owners of the property since enactment of this chapter have no control? Please check all that apply: ) too narrow ( )topography )too small ( )drainage Kexisting situation )tooshallow shape other: spe 3cify 1- l Please describe: lan wuh aA d drty- ME W0#09COMM uo sfi VL (�� 0��1� X2,5 %R,t �6�m v-0, V A W Expansion Permit Information (1/14/2016) Page 5 of 6 sum Case No. � cQ 6. Were the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted 0 982)? Yes No�. If yes, explain: 7. Were the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances created by any other person -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes IV I, No If yes, explain: E; /V �Iw /Ow wa;�` CW Are the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances for which yqu request an expansion permit peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ), No (\ej. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? /I /,I 'r "7 / 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. Date Applicants _16� Applicant's Signature Date Expansion Permit information (1/14/2016) Page 6 of 6 WWI VA V-2 9 �t LLJ Cl: coo -C 6 o (13 ro� ��i c cc V -6U o �b uj cj)-i c o� o �� Q. N �= `°� v�=roco p 15 �°' 2a --a CL �, © CL cl fl 06«f4 f4- o OL z '2' -- IAP t t w&; -t > 0 E LLOMI-Li I t TIN A i .73 T - FEB = -Nm tA �-y+ 61685INCl IRCT. MOUND. tM 55364 1b R£StO EMGE i>R ^ EYlll'f e ERIC L�€N 1565 Do VE LPVE M MSINCLMRCT. MOUND, MN 55364 B52A9SB585 ELE�AT,oNS !� Q Fr y a I Tz q-21 Fall,l--1 E d 1= C- qj Fr ns < .�, - ••; rs I. F,A reg ° � t $ °. f4 F I E n r xv �A ??2 HEn2 ftE3loeµc¢ Fery: �� F!, J a', Cr'IILi ? {:.(tIG LIEN 1955 OA/E L.t r1E Csuk u. or 4 r-IDU µD "1'N, i2 a:-Ly 1590; 61WStNCLAIRCT. MOUND, MN 55.364 952J85-9595 BASiµ kMT-p6EV- 5EGT1o�.r Ind .l�b� EMIL,( i rvO - QDVE LAPS 6168LAJ SINCR CT. MOUND, MN 55364 952<959595 FMH">JG --P5 iF 77A—v 4 EMIL,( i rvO - QDVE LAPS 6168LAJ SINCR CT. MOUND, MN 55364 952<959595 FMH">JG --P5 iF 77A—v F--P,tG� i6, --6{i Li L -(0-A 15's 5 P Ve ' -A �4t CALCULATIONBUILDING HEIGHT HOW-TO•` Per Mound City Code, Section 129-2, building height and building line .are defined as follows: Builds Height. The vertical distance to be measured from the average gide of a bgjid to the top, to the cornice of a fiat roof, to the deckline of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wail of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Building Line. A line parallel to the street right-of-way or the ordinary high water level at any story level of a building and representing the minimum distance which all or any part of the building is set back from said right-of-way fine or ordinary high water level. 1. Describe the type of roof style proposed: 6YW'. _ {i.e. pitched, fiat, shed roof, etc.) 2. Provide the average grade elevation of the building line facing the street: I'. based on proposed.grades referenced on submi survey. 3. Provide the averse rade elevation of the building line facing the rear of the lot or lake: based on proposed grades referenced on submitted survey. 4. Provide the average grade elevation of the building line(s): 6. Provide- the height of the proposed structure as measured from the lowest grade elevation to highest point of structure: 3� 6. Provide the proposed height of the s r b sa�/on a definition of building height referenced above: The applicant (or designated representative) must provide written and graphic documentation to confirm that the proposed height of the new structure, based on the Zoning Ordinance definition, meets the height regulations of the applicable zoning district. Graphics document IpUlt be scaled to allow for checking by Staff. -775- El PROPERTY ADDESS: OWNER'S NAME: P- (L i LOT AREA HARDCOVER C91,PULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) 3-1 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ........ .... - ................... —.- LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% (for Lots of Record) .......... Existing Lots of Record I may have 40 -p I ercent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 129 -385 -(see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by.the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE 5 2.X 0 TOTAL HOUSE..... ............................. .............. DETACHED BUILDINGS X (GARAGE/SHED) lad X TOTAL DETACHED BUILDINGS ... .......... ................ prq DRIVEWAY, PARKING X AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. X Tf P9 X ?-LA4 DECKS open decks (114" min. Opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover. TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ............... ......... : ............... X TOTAL DE -el< ... ....... ........... — — X X TOTAL OTHER ................. ................................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ........................ ......... ................ UNDER I OVER (injd'te difference) .... .... . . I I-— ........... . PREPARED BY � 75.411-776- Revised 1/10 - E -I+-1 (0- 1-1 /L F J DATE E I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: April 6, 2016 PLANNING CASE NO. 16-07 SUBJECT: Variance LOCATION: 4928 Crestview Road (PID No. 13-117-24-11-0158) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND The City Council will consider an application from Tim Druk for a variance to allow the construction of single-family home on an undersized, existing lot of record at 4928 Crestview Road. The applicant has a purchase agreement with the current property owners, Ralph and Laverne Torborg, to buy the subject property. The 9,706 square foot property is located on the north side of Crestview Road a short distance from Three Point Boulevard. A variance is needed for the construction of a home on this property because Section 129-6 of Zoning Code states that a lot of record in a residential district may be used for residential purposes as long as it meets the setbacks and minimum lot area requirements. The R-1 zoning district requires a minimum 10,000 square foot lot. Details regarding the application are contained in the Planning Report which has been included as an attachment. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their April 5, 2016 meeting. There were 3 neighbors who were present at the meeting. In general, questions were about trees on the property and drainage in and around the neighborhood especially due to topography. The applicant indicated that trees will need to be removed to accommodate the project but commented he wants to retain as many trees as he can. Mr. Druk also indicated he is in the process of having house/site plans prepared for the property, including engineering. The applicant was receptive to working with the neighbors related to the upcoming project. Mr. Druk also commented the 30 foot front setback requirement is challenging related to the subject property's topography. It was mentioned that survey/plan review by the Public Works Department is part of the building permit review process; also that additional grade information to include abutting property information may be needed. Based on its review, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval, subject to conditions, as recommended by Staff. A draft of the meeting minutes is included for your reference. As both the Planning Commission and Staff recommended approval of the request, Staff prepared the attached resolution for City Council consideration. • Property owners abutting the subject site, per Hennepin County tax records, were notified by letter on April 6, 2016 to inform them of the variance application request and the Tuesday, April 12, 2016 City Council meeting. -779- RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE FOR 4928 CRESTVIEW ROAN PLANNING CASE #' ! WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Druk, is requesting a variance to allow the construction of a new single-family home on an existing, undersized lot of record at 4928 Crestview Road ("subject property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has a purchase agreement with the current property owners, Ralph and Laverne Torberg, who consented to the application; and WHEREAS, Section 129-6 states that a lot of record in a residential area may be used for residential dwelling purposes provided the area meets all setback and minimum lot requirements; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-1 single-family residential and the minimum lot area requirement is 10,000 square feet; and WHEREAS, the subject property was platted as Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block 24, Shadywood Point; and WHEREAS, the current owners combined the original platted lots in January 2014 at Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the size of the combined lots is 9,706 square feet according to the surrey prepared for the subject property; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to build a conforming home on the subject property; and WHEREAS, City Code Section 129-39 (a) outlines the criteria for granting variances which is provided below: (a) Criteria. A variance to the provisions of this chapter may be granted, but is not mandated, to provide relief to the landowner in those zones where this chapter imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the owner's land. No use variances may be granted. A variance may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist: (1) The variance proposed meets the criteria for Practical Difficulties as defined in City Code Sub. 129-2. (2) Granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district nor be materially detrimental to property within the same zone. (3) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. (4) A variance shall only be permitted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. ; and WHEREAS, according to City Code Sec. 129-2, "Practical Difficulties" is defined as follows: Practical Difficulties, as used in conjunction with a variance, means that: (i) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property including unusual lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances not created by the landowner; and (iii) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested variance for the proposed project are contained in the Planning Report dated March 30, 2016 and the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the variance was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 5, 2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend Council approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the variance request at its April 12, 2016 meeting and determined that approval would allow the property to be used in a reasonable manner; and WHEREAS, the City Council's action on the variance meets the City's decision requirements contained in Minnesota Statutes 15.99. WHEREAS, in granting approval, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: -781- A. The criteria included City Code Section 129-39 (a) are met. B. The construction of a single-family home is a reasonable use of the residentially zoned property and is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of both the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. C. The subject property was platted for single-family residential purposes prior to the establishment of current zoning regulations. D. The subject property has frontage on an improved, public road. E. While undersized, a conforming home can be built on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby incorporate and restate the recitals set forth above and approve the variance for the property at 4928 Crestview Lane with the following conditions: A. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of one (1) trunk water area charge, (1) trunk sewer area charge, one (1) water connection fee, and one (1) sewer connection fee at the time of building permit issuance. The amount due shall be the amounts listed in the City's 2016 Fee Schedule. B. Applicant shall be limited to no more than 40% hardcover on the site as required by the City Code. C. Applicant shall be responsible for MCES SAC charge at the time of building permit. The 2016 rate for the MCWD SAC is $2485.00. D. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. E. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information for building permit issuance. F. 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. G. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. H. No building permit will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution at Hennepin County is provided. 1. 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. Em The variance is hereby approved for the following legally described property: L 0 TS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 24, SHAD YWOOD POINT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April, 2016. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mark Wegscheid mM -O MOUNDMINUTE EXCERPTS ADVISORY PLANNING Chair Penner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. ROLL CALL Members present: Chair Cindy Penner; Commissioners Jeffrey Bergquist, David Goode, Doug Gawtry, Jameson Smieja, Bill Stone, Pete Wiechert, and Jennifer Peterson (7:02). Members absent: Jason Baker. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Secretary Jill Norlander, BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Case No. 16-07 Variance — Lot Size 4928 Crestview Road Applicant: Tim Druk Smith reviewed the details of the planning case. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a new single-family home on an undersized, existing lot of record. The 9,707 square foot property is located on the north side of Crestview Road. Currently vacant, the property has frontage on an improved public road and meets the bulk requirements for an R-1 lot, with the exception of the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. No additional variances are required. Matt Orinstien, 4925 Glen Elyn Road, concerned about erosion control. They've had issues in the past and finally solved them. They are concernedabout the additional hardcover and disturbance causing a problem. Sandy Orinstien, 4925 Glen Elyn Road, have spent thousands of dollars into solving the water problem. She would like to know what guarantees they have as construction begins. Smith commented that the subject property and adjacent properties will need to be evaluated together. Smith also mentioned that an on-site meeting to include involved parties may be helpful during the development review process. William Carrow, 4929 Glen Elyn, has also battled the water problem with an expensive retaining wall. He indicated the undeveloped lot is in its natural condition. He also commented that the removal of a lot trees may create a water problem. He also inquired about the red ribbons on the trees on the property and where the applicant plans to put the house. Tim Druk, proposed owner at 4928 Crestview Road, is currently consulting with engineers for the proposed site plan and that the proposed house they were contemplating does not work for elevations so they are back to the beginning on the house design. He indicated he wants to keep as many trees as he can and that the red ribbons means indicates the tree(s) are staying for now. He also commented that the 30 -foot front setback may be difficult to work with because of the topography. MOTION by Stone, second by Wiechert, to recommend approval with staff recommendations 1-9 and findings 1-5. MOTION passed unanimously. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: PLANNING CASE NO. SUBJECT: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ZONING: Planning Commission Sarah Smith, Community Development Director March 30, 2016 16-07 Variance 4928 Crestview Road (PID No. 13-117-24-11-0158) Low Density Residential R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant, Tim Druk, is requesting a variance to allow future construction of a new single- family home on an undersized, existing lot of record at 4928 Crestview Road ("subject property.") The applicant has a purchase agreement with the current property owners, Ralph and Laverne Torborg, to buy the subject property. City Code Section 129-39 (a) states that a variance may be granted to provide relief to a landowner where the application of the City Code imposes practical difficulty for the property owner. In evaluating the variance the City Council must consider whether: (1) The variance proposed meets the criteria for Practical Difficulties as defined in City Code Sub. 129-2. (2) Granting of the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this chapter to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district nor be materially detrimental to property within the same zone. (3) The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty. (4) A variance shall only be permitted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. According to City Code Sec. 129-2, "Practical Difficulties" is defined as follows: Practical Difficulties, as used in conjunction with a variance, means that: (i) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; (ii) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstance unique to the property including unusual lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances not created by the landowner; and (iii) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 60 -DAY PROCESS The variance application was submitted on March 22, 2016. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Mound has sixty (60) days to approve or deny the land use request unless an extension is executed by the City in accordance with state rules. Minnesota Statutes 645.15 sets forth the procedures for determining "Day 1" for the purpose of application of the 60 -day rule and was determined to be March 23, 2016. NOTIFICATION Abutting property owners, per Hennepin County tax records, were sent written notice on March 30, 2016, informing them of the variance request and that it was being included on the Tuesday, April 5, 2016 Planning Commission meeting agenda for review and recommendation. SITE INFORMATION The 9,707 square foot property is located on the north side of Crestview Road a short distance from Three Points Boulevard. Currently vacant, the subject property has frontage on an improved public road and meets the bulk requirements for a R-1 lot with the exception of the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size. Lots 5 and 6, Block 24, Shadywood Pointe, which currently make up the subject property were combined at Hennepin County in January 2014. A survey was previously done for the property on January 16, 2014 by Van Neste Surveying and was submitted with the application. No building plans were submitted with the application. However, based on discussions with the applicant, a new survey and preliminary plans for the proposed house are being prepared and may be available at Tuesday's meeting. The applicant has indicated that the proposed house will be conforming. :. STAFF/CONSULTANT/AGENCYREVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to all involved departments, consultants and agencies for review and comment. Members are advised that some comments received during review have been addressed and are therefore not included in this report. Comments received to date have been summarized below: Melissa Manderschied, City Attorney The requirements in City Code Sec. 129-39 for variances need to be met. DISCUSSION A variance is being requested because the lot is under the minimum 10,000 square feet lot size as is required by Section 129-6 of the City Code. Sec. 129-6. Existing lots of record. A lot of record in a residential district may be used for residential dwelling purposes provided: (1) The area thereof meets all setback and minimum lot area requirements of this chapter. In the shoreland management area, all single-family detached lots shall have a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet in the R -1A and R-2 districts and 10,000 square feet in the R-1 district, while all two-family and twin homes in the R-2 district shall be located on lots having a minimum area of 14,000 square feet. (2) It has frontage on an improved public right-of-way. (3) it was under separate ownership from abutting lands upon or prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. ® This property consists of two (2) existing lots of record that were platted prior to the establishment of current zoning regulations and combined. As stated previously, the applicant will be constructing a house that is conforming to setback and hardcover limitations. No other variances are being requested. This will be confirmed during the building permit process. Im STAFF RECOMMENDATION in accordance with City Code Sec. 129-39 (a), Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of a variance to construct a home on an undersized existing lot of record subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of one (1) trunk water area charge, (1) trunk sewer area charge, one (1) water connection fee, and one (1) sewer connection fee at the time of building permit issuance. The amount due shall be the amounts listed in the City's 2016 Fee Schedule. 2. Applicant shall be limited to no more than 40% hardcover on the site as required by the City Code. 3. Applicant shall be responsible for MCES SAC charge at the time of building permit. The 2016 rate for the MCWD SAC is $2485.00. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 5. Applicant shall be responsible for procurement of any and/or all local or public agency permits including, but not limited to, the submittal of all required information for building permit issuance. 6. 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. 7. The applicant shall be responsible for recording the resolution with Hennepin County. The applicant is advised that the resolution will not be released for recording until all conditions have been met. 8. No building permit will be issued until evidence of recording of the resolution at Hennepin County is provided. 9. 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. In recommending Staff approval, the following findings of fact are offered. 1. The criteria included City Code Section 129-39 (a) are met. 2. The construction of a single-family home is a reasonable use of the residentially zoned property and is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of both the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. 3. The subject property was platted for single-family residential purposes prior to the establishment of current zoning regulations. 4. The subject property has frontage on an improved, public road. 5. While undersized, a conforming home can be built on the property. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission, it will be forwarded to the City Council for action at an upcoming meeting. At this time, possible meeting dates are Tuesday, April 12, 2016 or April 26, 2016. VARIANCE n4L CIT APPLICATION 2415 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364 Phone 952-472-0600 FAX 952-472-0620 Application Fee and Escrow Deposit required at time of application. Planning Commission Date Case No. City Council Date Please type or print legibly SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot Block LEGAL I DESC. Subdivision PID# Zoning & R1A R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 (circle one) PROPERTY Name �13 et Email OWNER Address Phone Home 1�:2 c z44!j.-) Work —Fax V/1 11 A (n APPLICANT Namemm, Emai I (IF OTHER THAN Address Ll 3t) 113 S -f 5E Dt)a')o OWNER) Phone Home G0-`1-S5Q Work 763 -�59 -007 Y Fax I Has an application ever been ma 'Pe for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? Yes NoV. 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.)-. C Variance Information (11212015) Page 4 of 6 -790- 7-1 Case No. �_ f 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (-X) No ( ). If no, specify each non -conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED Front Yard: (N S E W) _3 (�) ft. Side Yard: (N S E W) t_� 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: , C q ft REQUESTED (or existing) _ � fit. ft. i� ft. ft. ft. VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. qq 12— sq ft sq 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 *), 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: Variance Information (1/2/2015) Page 5 of 6 _791_ Case No. & Was the practical difficulty 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: �6 7. Was the practical difficulty created by any other human -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No ( ). If yes, explain: a� 8. Are the conditions of practical difficulty for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes {, No ( ). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I acknowledge that I have read all of the 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 Applicant's Signatl Variance Information (1/2/2015) Page 6 of 6 _792_ Date4/2 2 P� Date 7 1� This information sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 952-472-0607. ZoningGeneral Information Sheet R ZoningDistrict Residentia PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS — Lot Area Lot Width and Setback Requirements Minimum Lot Area..........................................................................10,000 Square Feet MinimumLot Width_ . .... .... ....................................................... ...................60 Feet FrontYard Setback...................................................................................... 3OFeet SideYard Setback........................................................................................10F eet RearYard Setback .................. . ......................... . ...........................................15 Feet MinimumLot Depth........................................................................................80 Feet Lakeshore / Ordinary High Water Setback..........................................................50 Feet Minimum Floor Area Requirement... ........................................... ........ 840 Square Feet 'Minimum lot frontage on an improved public street shall be 60 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall be 60 feet at the front building setback line. Applicable side or rear yard setbacks apply to lot lines abutting fire lanes, alleys or unimproved street right-of-ways. Building Height. The vertical distance to be measured from the average grade of a building line to the top, to the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, to a point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof, to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof, to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. No building hereafter erected shall exceed two and one half (2-1/2) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height, LOTS OF RECORD, Special Provisions Corner Lots (City Code Section 129-197 (e Lot width I Minimum side and setback 40 - 50 feet 10 feet 50 — 80 feet 20 feet 81 feet or more 30 feet Side Yard Requirements — The required side yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet, Lot width I Minimum setback on 1 side and 40 — 79 feet 6 feet 80 — 100 feet 8 feet 101 feet or more 10 feet Front Yard — Except as regulated in Section 129-197 (f) of the City Code, the front yard setback shall be based on the lot depth as follows: Lot depth Minimum front yard setback 60 feet or less 20 feet 61 — 80 feet 24 feet 81 feet or more 30 feet W O -793- HARDCOVER REQUIREMENTS Impervious surface coverage of lots shall not exceed 30 percent of the lot area. On existing lots of record, impervious coverage may be permitted by a maximum of 40 percent providing that techniques are utilized as identified in Section 129-385 (g)(2). Impervious cover is any surface impervious or resistant to the free flow of water or surface moisture, including all buildings, driveways and parking areas whether paved or not, tennis courts, sidewalks, patios and swimming pools. Open decks (114" minimum opening between boards) shall not be counted in impervious cover calculations. DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS (GARAGES/SHEDS) — Lot Coverage and Setback Reguirements An accessory building shall be considered to be an integral part of the principal structure unless it is five (5) feet or more from the principal structure or use and providing that the structure exceeds 120 square feet. Area and Size Requirements (see hardcover requirements on page 1) A. Accessory buildings shall not exceed a total gross floor area of 3,000 square feet or 15% of the total lot area whichever is less. B. Each individual accessory building shall not exceed 1,200 square feet of gross floor area, C. The total number of accessory buildings for lots measuring 10,000 square feet or less shall be two (2). On lots exceeding 10,000 square feet, accessory buildings shall be limited to a total of three (3), 2. Front Yard Setback. All accessory buildings shall meet thte same front yard setback requirements as the principal building, except for lakeshore and through lots. For detached garages on a iakeshore or through lots, a minimum twenty (20) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the street; an eight (8) foot front yard setback is required if the garage door(s) open to the side lot line. 3. Side Yard Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the rear yard with a minimum of a six (6) foot setback in side yard location. On through and lakeshore lots, a detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the side lot line in the front yard. Whenever a garage is designed with the doors facing a side lot line, the minimum distance between the doors and the side lot line shall be twenty (20) feet. 4. Rear Setback. A detached accessory building may be located within four (4) feet of the rear lot line. 5. Lakeshore Setback. Detached accessory buildings must maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water. DECKS See separate deck handout for more information. Front and Sides... .......... ......... .................... ........ Same as Accessory Building Setbacks Rear..............................................................................................................10 feet ELEVATION Ordinary High Water Flood Elevation Lowest Floor Elevation REQUIREMENTS LAKE MINNETONKA 929.4 MCWD 931.5 933 CITY 931 DUTCH LAKE 939.2 940 942 LAKE LANGDON 932.1 935 937 i -794- -795- -"S8�'49' 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE SET 3/8 IN REBAR 22 E 29.9$ ' �W/ CAP #'i023 MATH CAP µ4t09 — ��' i 30 (P LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NSIDE POUND 1/2 (LAt) �T)' se7�p INCH IRON PIPE \ 40 p l �. LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, ' HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA y z- vaP • \ \ \ `\ PREPARED EOR: s6 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ BRUCE ELLENSON \ \ \ \ \ �ry \\ \ p \ _969` 9'"_mso\ \ • \ \ \ / \ \ 8 •vaP d 9) W \ 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE W/ , UNREADABLE CAP I \z ut \ \ \ ) uaP \ \ \ \ P \\` • ]] PLAT) ! DH EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: April 6, 2016 PLANNING CASE NO: 16-10 ZONING: B-1 Central Business District COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Linear SUBJECT: Review of sign permit application and request for sign variance/modification The City Council will consider a sign permit application from Ken Nash, on behalf of Surfside Bar and Grill (former Cattails Kitchen & Cocktails restaurant) and sign variation/modification request as provided by City Code 119. 2 (e) to install a 21 square foot wall sign on the south side of the building located at 2544 Commerce Boulevard that abuts their parking lot. According to City Code Sec. 119-5 (a), wall signs not exceeding ten percent, up to a maximum of 48 square feet, whichever is smaller, are allowed on buildings with frontage on a public, off- street parking lot accommodating 25 more cars provided that all sides abutting is either public right of way or commercially zoned property. Details regarding the submitted application are contained in the Planning Report which has been included as an attachment. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their April 5, 2016 meeting. Applicant Ken Nash was present at the meeting. Mr. Nash indicated there was a wall sign on the south side of the building previously and also indicated that they plan to modify the location of the proposed wall sign. He also confirmed that the wall sign itself is not lit. However, they are planning to install architectural lighting to provide downcast lighting for the sign. Mr. Nash also indicated they are planning to open at the end of April. Based on its review, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval, subject to conditions, as recommended by Staff. A draft of the meeting minutes is included for your reference. As both the Planning Commission and Staff recommended approval of the request, Staff prepared the attached resolution for City Council consideration. OEM Property owners abutting the subject site, per Hennepin County tax records, were notified by letter on April 6, 2016 to inform them of the sign permit request and the Tuesday, April 12, 2016 City Council meeting. MM RESOLUTION APPROVING SIGN VARIATION/MODIFICATION FOI 2544 COMMERCE BOULEVARD PLANNING CASE NO. WHEREAS, the applicant, Ken Nash, submitted a sign permit application and sign variation/modification request to allow installation of a wall sign on the south side of the building located at 2544 Commerce Boulevard; and WHEREAS, according to City Code Sec. 119-5 (a), wall signs not exceeding ten percent, up to a maximum of 48 square feet, whichever is smaller, are allowed on buildings with frontage on a public, off-street parking lot accommodating 25 or more cars provided that all sides abutting is either public right of way or commercially zoned property; and WHEREAS, City Code Sec. 119-2 (2) allows a variation/modification to the City's sign regulations where it can be shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, that strict compliance of the regulations would cause a hardship. A variation/modification may be granted only if the variation/modification does not adversely affects the spirit or intent of Chapter 119 (Signs). A request for a sign variation/modification requires review by the Planning Commission prior to consideration by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the south elevation of the building at 2544 Commerce Boulevard faces an off-street parking lot exceeding 25 spaces and the proposed wall sign to be installed is 21 square feet; and WHEREAS, details regarding the requested variance for the proposed project are contained in the Planning Report dated March 30, 2016 and the submitted application and supporting materials from the applicant; and WHEREAS, Staff recommended approval of the sign variation/modification subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the sign modification/variation was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 5, 2016 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend Council approval of the sign variation/modification; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the sign variation/modification request at its April 12, 2016 meeting and determined that approval would allow the property to be used in a reasonable manner; and -799- WHEREAS, the City Council's action on the sign variation/modification meets the City's decision requirements contained in Minnesota Statutes 15.99; and WHEREAS, in granting approval, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: A. The proposed 21 square foot wall sign is less than the 48 square foot allowance (lesser of 10 percent of wall size and 48 square feet) for wall signs abutting a public parking lot with 25 or more spaces. B. The south side of the building faces a parking lot that significantly exceeds 25 spaces. C. The existing building (south face) is approximately 39 feet wide. Installation of a wall sign on this elevation breaks up the building facade. D. The proposed design of the sign is compatible with the building exterior and is consistent with the signage for the west side of the building and the freestanding sign. E. There are two parking lots which separate the restaurant building and the Gillespie Center. F. Signage on the south face of the building allows for visibility for customers, especially northbound vehicular traffic on Commerce Boulevard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 6T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound does hereby incorporate and restate the recitals set forth above and approve the sign variation/modification for the property at 2544 Commerce Boulevard with the following conditions: A. Lighting for the building/sign shall meet the lighting/glare requirements in the City Code. B. Permits for installation of the wall sign and lighting shall be obtained. Applicant shall be required to contact MnSpect, the City's building official, to determine what permits are required to undertake the proposed sign/lighting installation. C. No signage shall be installed until all permits have been issued. :11 The sign variation/modification is hereby approved for the following legally described property: (-to be inserted-) Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April, 2016. Mark Wegscheid Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk APRILMINUTE EXCERPTS Chair Penner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Members present: Chair Cindy Penner; Commissioners Jeffrey Bergquist, David Goode, Doug Gawtry, Jameson Smieja, Bill Stone, Pete Wiechert, and Jennifer Peterson (7:02). Members absent: Jason Baker. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Secretary Jill Norlander. QM02AAMAQUEE Planning Case No. 16-10 Sign Variation/Modification 2544 Commerce Boulevard Applicant: Ken Nash Smith introduced the request to install a 21 square foot wall sign on the south side of the building abutting their off-street parking lot. City Code only allows signs on building frontages bordering public parking lots providing all sides abutting are either public right of way or commercially zoned property. Ken Nash, 2544 Commerce Boulevard, showed a picture of the previous VFW sign on the same side of the building. Nash feels there could be some confusion with the pylon sign between the 2 parking lots and that the proposed wall sign may help alleviate this issue. Mr. Nash also showed a photographic image of the south wall that included a slight modification for the proposed sign. MOTION by Goode, second by Smieja, to recommend approval subject to staff recommendations 1-3 and findings 1-6. MOTION passed unanimously. Planning Commission Sarah Smith, Community Development Director March 30, 2016 (revised April 7, 2016 to correct typos, etc.) 16-10 B-1 Central Business District Linear Review of sign permit application and request for sign variance/modification Summary. The Planning Commission will review a sign permit application from Ken Nash, on behalf of Surfside Bar and Grill (former Cattails Kitchen & Cocktails restaurant) located at 2544 Commerce Boulevard and request for a sign variation/modification as provided by City Code 119. 2 (e) to install a 21 square foot wall sign on the south side of the building abutting their off-street parking lot. According to City Code Sec. 119-5 (a), wall signs not exceeding ten percent of wall signs, up to a maximum of 48 square feet, whichever is smaller, are allowed on buildings with frontage on a public, off-street parking lot accommodating 25 more cars provided that all sides abutting is either public right of way or commercially zoned property. A copy of City Code Sec. 119-5(a) is included as an attachment to this report. Review Procedure. City Code Sec. 119-2 (2) allows a variation/modification to the City's sign regulations where it can be shown that by reason of topography or other conditions, that strict compliance of the regulations would cause a hardship. A variation/modification may be granted only if the variation/modification does not adversely affects the spirit or intent of Chapter 119 (Signs). Requests for a sign variation/modification requires review by the Planning Commission prior to consideration by the City Council. Discussion. The subject property includes frontage on the west side on Commerce Boulevard and Lost Lake/Minnetonka on the east side. The property to the west is commercial/open space use, the property to the north includes a single-family residence, and the property on the south side of the parking lot is The Gillespie Senior Center. The new owners recently purchased the property and are planning to open the new restaurant at the end of April, if possible. Existing/proposed signage includes the installation of new wall signage on the west facing elevation of the building and reuse of the existing freestanding sign in the vicinity of the parking lot. The applicants are requesting City approval to install a small wall sign on the south side of the building to break up the facade as provided by Sec. 119-2 (e). Architectural lighting (downcast) is also contemplated to be installed to compliment and enhance building and sign. The City's regulations to allow for a variation/modification approval were incorporated into the City Code in October 2010. Previously, the code required variance approval. The VFW was the occupant of the building prior to Cattails. According to information in the property jacket, permits were approved in 1992 to allow installation of awnings/canopies, with lettering, over two (2) door entrances in the rear of the building. Property owners abutting the subject site, per Hennepin County tax records, were notified by letter on March 30, 2016 to inform them of the sign permit request and the Tuesday, April 5, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the sign permit application and request for sign variation/modification for the property at 2544 Commerce Boulevard subject to the following conditions: 1. Lighting for the building/sign shall meet the lighting/glare requirements in the City Code. 2. Permits for installation of the wall sign and lighting shall be obtained. Applicant shall be required to contact MnSpect, the City's building official, to determine what permits are required to undertake the proposed sign/lighting installation. 3. No signage shall be installed until all permits have been issued. In recommending approval, Staff offers the following findings of fact: •1. 1. The proposed 21 square foot wall sign is less than the 48 square foot allowance (lessor of 10 percent of wall size and 48 square feet) for wall signs abutting a public parking lot with 25 or more spaces. 2. The south side of the building faces a parking lot that significantly exceeds 25 spaces. 3. The existing building (south face) is approximately 39 feet wide. Installation of a wall sign on this elevation breaks up the building facade. 4. The proposed design of the sign is compatible with the building exterior and is consistent with the signage for the west side of the building and the freestanding sign. 5. There are two parking lots which separate the restaurant building and the Gillespie Center. 6. Signage on the south face of the building allows for visibility for customers, especially northbound vehicular traffic on Commerce Boulevard. City Council Review. Required. At this time, the anticipated date for City Council consideration of the sign permit application and variation/modification request is Tuesday, April 12, 2016. 1 SIGNS Chapter 119 SIGNS Sec. 119-1. Purpose. (a) The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the general health, safety, welfare, and order within the city through the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial series of standards, regulations, and procedures governing the erection, use and/or display of devices, signs, or symbols serving as visual communicative media. (b) The provisions of this chapter are intended to encourage creativity, a reasonable degree of freedom of choice, an opportunity for effective communication, and a sense of concern for the visual amenities on the part of those designing, displaying, or otherwise utilizing needed communication media of the types regulated by this chapter; while at the same time ensuring that the public is not endangered, annoyed, or distracted by the unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate, or unnecessary use of such communication facilities. (Code 1987, § 365.01) Sec. 119-2. Administration and enforcement. (a) Permit required. Except as herein exempted, no person shall install, erect, relocate, modify, alter, change the color, or change the copy of any sign in the city without first obtaining a permit. If a sign authorized by permit has not been installed within 365 days from the date of issuance of the permit, said permit shall become void and no fee shall be refunded. (b) Application and fee. Application for permits shall be made in writing upon printed forms furnished by the city. Each application for a permit shall set forth the correct PID number of the tract of land upon which the sign presently exists or is proposed to be located, the location of the sign on said tract of land, the manner of construction and materials used in the sign, a complete description and sketch of the sign and such information as the City Council deems necessary. Every applicant shall pay a fee for each sign regulated by this chapter before being granted a permit. Sign permit fees shall be as established by the city. A triple fee shall be charged if a sign is erected without first obtaining a permit for such sign. Temporary signs shall be exempt from fees and permits except as noted in section 119-4(i). (c) Annual inspection. The building official may annually inspect all signs to see that every sign complies with the minimum standards set forth in this chapter. A written record of all such inspections shall be kept. (d) Exemptions. No permit shall be required for the following signs; provided, however, that all signs herein exempted from the permit requirements shall conform with all other requirements of this chapter: (1) Window signs placed within a building and not exceeding 50 percent of the window area. (2) Address, name place and/or identification signs having an area of two square feet or less. (3) Signs erected by a governmental unit. (4) Signs as described in section 119-4(i). (5) Signs which are entirely within a building and not visible from outside said building. (6) Campaign signs. (7) Off-street information signs. (e) Variations/modifications. The City Council may grant a variation/modification from the requirements of this chapter as to specific signs where it is shown that by reason of topography or other t1. SIGNS conditions that strict compliance with the requirements of this chapter would cause a hardship. A variation/modification may be granted only if the variation/modification does not adversely affect the spirit or intent of this chapter. Written application for a variation/modification shall be filed with the City Clerk and shall state fully all facts relied upon by the applicant. The application shall be supplemented with maps, plans, or other data which may aid in an analysis of the matter. The application shall be referred to the Planning Commission for its recommendation and report to the City Council. (f) Existing nonconforming signs. Any sign existing at the time of adoption of this chapter which does not conform to the provisions hereof shall not be rebuilt, altered, or relocated without being brought into compliance with the requirements of this chapter. After a nonconforming sign has been removed, it shall not be replaced by another nonconforming sign. Whenever use of a nonconforming sign has been discontinued for a period of three months, such use shall not thereafter be resumed unless in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. (g) Existing illegal signs. All illegal signs existing at the time of adoption of this chapter which do not conform to the provisions hereof shall be removed within three months of the adoption of this chapter and subsequent notification by the city. (h) Violations. If the building official finds that any sign regulated by this chapter is prohibited as to size, location, content, type, number, height or method of construction, or is unsafe, insecure, or a menace to the public, or if any sign has been constructed or erected without a permit first being granted to the installer of said sign, or to the owner of the property upon which said sign has been erected, or is improperly maintained, or is in violation of any other provisions of this chapter, he shall give written notice of such violation to the owner or permittee thereof. If the permittee or owner fails to set forth in this chapter, following receipt of said notice: (1) Such sign shall be deemed to be a nuisance and may be abated by the city by proceedings taken under Minn. Stats. ch. 429, and the cost of abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a special assessment against the property upon which the sign is located; and/or (2) It is unlawful for any permittee or owner to violate the provisions of this chapter. No additional licenses shall be granted to anyone in violation of the terns of this chapter or to anyone responsible for the continuance of the violation, until such violation is either corrected or satisfactory arrangements, in the opinion of the building official, have been made towards the corrections of said violation. The official may also withhold building permits for any construction related to a sign maintained in violation of this chapter. Pursuant to Minn. Stats. § 160.27, the building official shall have the power to remove and destroy signs placed on street right-of-way with no such notice of violation required. (Code 1987, § 365.05; Ord. No. 20-1988, 4-17-1989; Ord. No. 00-111, 1-21-2001; Ord. No. 01-2001, 2-25-2001; Ord. No. 09-2010, 10-31-2010) Sec. 119-3. Rules of construction and definitions. (a) The language set forth in the text of this chapter shall be interpreted in accordance with the following rules of construction: (1) Whenever a word or term defined hereinafter appears in the text of this chapter, its meaning shall be construed as set forth in such definition. (2) All measured distances expressed in feet shall be to the nearest tenth of a foot. In the event of conflicting provisions, the more restrictive shall apply. (b) The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Address, nameplate and/or identification signs means a sign for postal numbers, whether written or in numerical form and may bear the name of the occupant of the building. I In., -807- SIGNS (5) Central business (B-1) district. €a a. Wall signs. Wall signs are permitted on each street frontage provided said sign does not exceed 15 percent of said wall up to the maximum or 175 square feet in area. Individual signs shall not exceed 100 square feet. Additionally, wall signs not exceeding ten percent of said wall up to a maximum of 48 square feet, whichever is smaller, are permitted on each building frontage abutting a public, surface parking lot accommodating 25 or more cars providing that all land abutting all sides of the parking lot is either public right-of-way or commercially zoned properly. b. Freestanding sign. One freestanding sign per street frontage provided, however, said sign does not exceed 48 square feet in area and 25 feet in height and is not placed closer than ten feet from any street right-of-way. The ten -foot setback may be increased at intersections or other areas where freestanding signs may obstruct vehicular site distances. C. Area identification signs. One area identification sign is permitted per street frontage per commercial development provided, however, said sign does not exceed 48 square feet except as provided herein, and 15 feet in height, and is not placed within ten feet of any street right-of-way. Area identification signs for retail shopping centers containing at least 20,000 square feet of attached gross floor area shall be permitted to have one area identification sign per street frontage provided said sign does not exceed 120 square feet in area. Shopping center signs shall be subject to the same height and setback limitations of other B-1 area identification signs. Where area identification signs are used, no freestanding signs shall be permitted. In addition to area identification signs, one wall sign is permitted for each business use with at least 2,000 square feet of gross floor area. Such signs shall not exceed 48 square feet. d. Roof signs. Roof signs shall be permitted if they are an integral part of the architecture of a building. Such signs shall not extend more than five feet above the roof line of the building or exceed 75 square feet in area. Roof signs shall be limited to one face, parallel to the front of the building. e. Changing signs. Changing signs are permitted providing that they do not exceed 18 square feet in total area. If placed in a window, such signs shall not exceed 25 percent of the total wall window area. f. Comprehensive sign plan. Comprehensive sign plan required as outlined in section 119-4(0). g. Motor fuel station or motor fuel station, convenience store. Lettering of or sign labels which are an integral part of the design of a gasoline pump shall be permitted. Additionally, wall signs and freestanding signs are permitted subject to subsections (5)a and b of this section. h. Lake frontage wall signs. Wall signs in accordance with the requirements outlined in subsections (5)a and b of this section are permitted on a lake frontage. Such signs shall be approved by conditional use permit. (6) General business (B-2) district. Same regulations as outlined in subsection (5) of this section. (7) Neighborhood business (B-3) district. a. Wall signs. Wall signs are permitted on each street frontage provided said sign does not exceed ten percent of said wall up to 48 square feet in area, whichever is smaller. U. f N b.5.40' 00" W 170.00 w o` f sp, f eek MSK K�� iL Ma Ate'....... .... � `• ` ^ ' � VK tf YM[tt1000 Mf 064r�f 1M4T i 1111 A AlT UfA�D tBtl/f$R W6101 M tAteb Q 19i BTAA iM W001A ECO r -----m t d . _ }Zii-t'��tJ$. t .'"T /"- �,� - S� �+41i►+lb N�,j j } I 44 '" - � SL: Si 3® 1A 9&trp-i n PAW -4 t4 ' s t�AGis KED � 24' �QOtT'tvi�d uFb • -t=)a5Tt ►.K's tD�mom► WatMC JD z i ��t.a rrr� nt G� .✓a'rx.ti ._.__- .✓,i,,_tL T _..J '.�, ® ALV T't � w-® G i a V. , -----m t d . _ }Zii-t'��tJ$. t .'"T /"- �,� - S� �+41i►+lb N�,j j } I 44 '" - � SL: Si 3® 1A 9&trp-i n PAW -4 t4 ' s t�AGis KED � 24' �QOtT'tvi�d uFb • -t=)a5Tt ►.K's tD�mom► WatMC JD z i ��t.a rrr� nt G� .✓a'rx.ti ._.__- .✓,i,,_tL T _..J '.�, ® ALV T't � w-® G i a V. , 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-0604 MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Date: April 5, 2016 Re: April 12, 2016 City Council Consent Agenda Item — 2016 Music in the Park Summary. Westonka Community Education is requesting approval of a Public Gathering Permit and a Musical Concert Permit for this year's Music in the Park program being held at Surfside Park and Beach on Thursday evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (excluding setup and teardown) on the following dates: June 16 June 23 June 30 July 14 July 21 July 28 Comments. Music in the Park is an annual summer event in Mound that has been held for many years. This year's program and activities will be similar to previous years and includes weekly concerts and vendors/food. This City's contact for the event is Lindsey Rague from Mound Westonka Community Education. A temporary sign permit will be required for the event but can be issued administratively. Per information from Ms. Rague, the City owns the banner and assists with putting it up and taking it down on concert days. ® As Music is the Park is an event for community enjoyment, Staff recommends waiver of the involved permit fees. Staff forwarded event information to the Public Works and Parks Departments, the Mound Fire Department and the Orono Police Department. Event -813- information was also forwarded to the Hennepin County Transportation Department, the LMCD and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. Requested Action. A (draft) resolution, approving the permit applications and waiving involved fees, subject to conditions, has been prepared for Council consideration. Staff recommends approval. Page 2 -814- RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT AND MUSICAL CONCERT OR SURFSIDE2016 MUSIC IN THE PARK AT 1 BEACH FEES WAIVEit DUE TO PUBLIC PURPOSE OF GATHERING WHEREAS, on December 8, 2015, the City Council of the City of Mound adopted Resolution 15-146 to establish its fee schedule for 2016 ("Fee Schedule"); and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule set public gathering permit fee range from $300-600 per day with the actual amount to be determined by the City Manager and City Staff upon receipt of the permit application stating the specific use and requirements of the City for the proposed public gathering; and WHEREAS, the Fee Schedule set the musical concert permit fee at $100 per day; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of City Code of Ordinances, Section 50-20, on March 16, 2016 and March 21, 2016 respectively, Lindsay Rague, on behalf of Mound Westonka Community Education, submitted a public gathering permit application and musical concert permit application for the 2016 Music in the Park concert season, an annual event held during the summer months at Surfside Park and Beach; and WHEREAS, the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager and City Staff, have reviewed said applications; WHEREAS, the City Manager and City Staff desire to waive the related permit fees associated with the summer music program as it benefits the community as a whole and the primary objective of the event is not to benefit a private interest but rather to encourage community participation and is open to all residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this Resolution. 2. The following permits are approved: a. Public Gathering Permit b. Musical Concert Permit 3. Permit fees for the 2016 Music in the Park program are waived as the activities are in the public interest due to the overwhelming public benefits. 4. Applicant shall be responsible for making arrangements for this year's activities in cooperation with all involved City departments including, but not limited to, the Mound Public Works and Parks Departments; also the Orono Police Department. MIM 5. Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any other permits or approvals that may be required (i.e., Hennepin County Transportation Department, Hennepin County Environmental Health, etc.). Passed by the City Council this 12th day of April, 2016. Mayor Mark Wegscheid Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 PUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT Use of a public park or commons by any group consisting of 15 or more individuals. Use is not to interfere with traffic and general use of the park or commons or to be beyond the ability of the police in maintaining order. NO LIQUOR OR BEER MAY BE USED IN ANY QF THE CITY PARKS OR BUILDINGS.. Group is to remove all litter and trash and provide a deposit to insure cleaning up of the park area. PERMIT FEE: $300/DAY TO $600/DAY* DAMAGE DEPOSIT: $500 TO $1000/DAY* *Permit fee and damage deposit amount to be determined by City Manager and City Staff upon receipt of application stating specific use and requirements. Date(s) of Use ftA- v, Area to be Used ?0 - Time Frame Intended Use tAusic- �00c� Expected Attendance XOO- 1600 Organization LJ 1P.S kv ^.\Pc% conava UA r 4-,, 4d, C0% e% U Representative's Name 0 Address U Telephone No. Home: Work: OjS,),Lj�%-901kl, Drivers License Number A I Departmental Approval City Clerk Police Dept. Park Dept. Fire 22et. M.- 0 z; 10 Uld ay 0 BN C CITY OF MOUND 2415 WUMIRE BLVD. MOUND, MwNFSOTA 55364 MUSICICAL IC NC]ERT PERiY1T APPLICATION (including, but not llmire; to, live mv-sic,- - sic provided by a disc jockey, end/or any type of amplified music) LOCATION OF MUSICAL CONCERT: ------- TYPE OF MUSfCTCAL CONCERT, --� —i- —L- — TIME PERIOD OF MUSICAL CONCERT LS ^ (HOURS PERMITTED: Mon - Sun; 7:00 am - 10:00 REQUESTED EXTENSION OF HOURS: (Council approval must be received to conduct a musical Concert after 10:00 pm) APPLICANT- CONTACT ADDRESS:---!-;-.�-0k Acl ADDRESS:— — — E-MAU V—k I V% WORK PHONE YN I-JOMB PRONE Applicant' —s iialt'—Ur�c— Date 757, ,A �i6& D6ied 1,pro MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES March 22, 2016 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 22, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers of the Centennial Building. Members present: Mayor Mark Wegscheid, Council Members Heidi Gesch, Ray Salazar, and Kelli Gillispie Members absent: Jennifer Peterson Others present: City Manager and Public Works Director Eric Hoversten, Fire Chief Greg Pederson, Planning and Development Director Sarah Smith, Field Officer Stewart Simon, Administrative Assistant Mary Mackres, City Attorney Melissa Manderschied, and Katie Morford. 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 Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event it will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open meeting Mayor Wegscheid called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch, to approve the agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent agenda MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch, to approve the consent agenda. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $213,614.49 B. Approve minutes: March 8, 2016 Council Meeting 1 0 0 1k 0 0 0 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. None offered. Hoversten provided to the council an itemized listing for professional affiliations and conference attendance proposed for the City Manager and Public Works Director functions, which totaled $4,308.70, or 80% of budget. MAN Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 Hoversten noted the national conference for the APWA is being held in the Minneapolis area this year so that would not incur overnight lodging costs in addition to the City Engineers Association Annual Conference also being held in Minneapolis. Hoversten requested approval of the resolution. Mayor Wegscheid applauded Hoversten's effort to seek out further education and expand on his city manager responsibilities, but said that the MN City County Managers Association (MCMA) is an arm of the International City County Managers Association (ICMA), which is an extension of the United Nations. Wegscheid said this is not an organization that reports to, or takes guidance or direction from, our governor, from our local councils, our state senate, the House of Representatives, or any part of the federal government, making it a body outside the U.S. government. The Mayor added Mound is a form of local government in the United States and we are a sovereign country. Mayor Wegscheid believes that a local government shouldn't take influence from any organization in any way that is not bound by the same building blocks that the City of Mound prescribes to. Wegscheid says these organizations come across with what seem to be great ideas, are very friendly to environmental issues and push for equality in a lot of areas, all under certain pretenses that look favorable. The Mayor added that whenever he has a discussion about these groups, there is a quote that rings true for him. It is a quote from Daniel Webster, who was a U.S. senator in the 1800s. "It's hardly too strong to say that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are many men in all ages, who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters." Wegscheid stated that his point in reciting the quote is that these organizations come off as very friendly with very good appearing intentions; but, the truth of the matter is that the more you look into them, they are against private property rights, they want government to control all productive land, and, in their mind, to share in the equity with the population. Wegscheid says that everybody has their rights and opinions and that is what is great about the United States. Wegscheid says this is his opinion. The Mayor added that although he supports Hoversten's requests, the Mayor does not support the processes or theories of the ICMA and does not support the City funding the organization. Salazar stated he concurs exactly with the Mayor's thoughts about the ICMA and would not support the City Manager's participation in the Minnesota City County Management Association or his membership in it. Gillispie mentioned that the Westonka Community and Commerce dues have increased this year to $125. Gillispie brought this up to inform the council. Gesch wants to clarify that first two line items in Exhibit A are to be excluded from the resolution. Wegscheid reminded Council that this is not a final notice of all the meetings and/or conferences that Hoversten can participate in. If something comes up at a later time, Hoversten can come back to council to request more funds. MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch, to approve resolution, with amendment to exclude the first two line items in Exhibit A. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 1 Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 RESOLUTION NO. 16-37: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER CONFERENCES, TRAINING, DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR 2016 7. Fire Chief, Grecs Pederson, requesting discussion and direction to staff regarding Mound Fire Department participation in a grant -funded study of potential shared services among multiple local departments Pederson presented the fire district shared services study for several area fire departments. Pederson started working on this project in 2002 which shows these concerns and the concept of shared services have existed for many years, but change is generally difficult for the fire services. The sharing of services and apparatus has been much more of a topic for discussion lately. The West Hennepin Lakes Fire Group has been meeting to talk about issues facing fire services. There are two specific priorities that the fire department wants to study in this grant —1) Using a regional fire training coordinator among a number of departments. This would be beneficial in order to get more consistent and better trained fire fighters, especially important with the increase in use of mutual aid between departments. Pederson stated the Mound Fire Department's training is very good and he is an advocate of training with our neighbors to make everyone better. 2) The second priority is regarding recruitment and retention of staff. Pederson stated many fire departments struggle with daytime response time due to the lack of staff availability. Pederson stated these two goals are modest but also complicated. The West Hennepin Lake Area Fire Group (WHLAFG) was organized to address this problem. He added that other cities involved have approved the study and Mound is behind in approval due to the transition of the new City Manager. Pederson noted the Mound Fire Department is working well with 40 firefighters and good administrative support, but said the wait list of applicants is down from past years. Pederson said Mound's apparatus and equipment are well maintained and the facility fits Mound's needs well. Pederson reported that the number of firefighters has been consistent over the years, retirements are spread out and there is a succession plan in place. Pederson says the department is looking to up their recruitment this year. The MFD never advertised in the past but may start to recruit at the high school. Pederson stated the issues in fire service include training and recruiting/retention especially in rural areas. He added that the number of volunteer firefighters decreased 100,000 in the U.S. over the past 30 years and, in response, the number of career full-time firefighter numbers are going up. Pederson added that all volunteer firefighter departments are a bargain to cities which have them. Pederson presented statistics which showed in 2002 that 76% of FD's in the country were all volunteer units and by 2014 the trend is going down as 66% of Fire Departments are now all volunteer. Pederson said the study will look at personnel, apparatus/equipment and facility issues which FD's face. He added the calls for Fire Department services are going up and the FD wants to look to the future and maintain the Mound volunteer fire model as long as it can. Pederson added paid on-call volunteer Fire Departments are facing higher call volume, a lesser number of structure fires, and more medical calls and mutual aid calls. Mound uses larger fire apparatus less which saves money and is a good opportunity to share with other -821- Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 City FD's. He feels it is a good idea to look at the larger picture with the neighboring cities. Minnetrista is very interested in this study. Pederson says the shared services grant program will fund a maximum of $40,000 to applicants. No money is coming out of Mound's budget. However, a 10% match is required, but this can be in in-kind services. Mound's commitment would be $5000, which could be $500 in labor, which could be done in one day. Cities are not required to make changes based on the study's recommendations. Pederson said the grant was awarded about a month ago in the amount of $23,500. A firm, McGraf Inc., has been chosen to complete the study. Other city councils in the WHLAFG have approved participation in the study other than St. Bonifacius which declined to participate. Chief Pederson supports the concept and recommends that Mound participate. The Mayor asked if the study is looking at outcomes, will it give recommendations on how to get there? Pederson says that recommendations and action items will be part of the plan. Pederson says the study must be completed and grant money awarded by June 30, 2016. Pederson says that Mound is ready with their information once approval is made. Wegscheid asked what the process is for review. Pederson says that representatives from each city would sit in with other elected officials to discuss. The Mayor agreed that it is good to be proactive. Pederson thinks the west metro will continue to grow and noted Minnetrista is now paying 26% of Mound Fire Department's budget. Minnetrista is not interested in starting their own Fire Department and still expects Mound to cover their City. Mound's share of the budget over the past 10 years has gone down to about 54%. Gillispie asked if the grant covers the entire cost of study. Pederson confirmed yes, with the exception of the in-kind service at 10% each Fire Department must contribute. Gillispie reminded Pederson of the local job fair being held at Westonka High School in April with all the local businesses and said she will forward information to Pederson. Salazar concurs that this is a great study and good business going forward. Mound Fire Department is in the business of putting out fires and saving lives. Salazar is sad to see that St. Bonifacius has declined to participate. MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gillispie, to direct the City Manager to engage in the shared fire and rescue services study and to send out the enclosed letter. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 8. Planning and Community Development Director, Sarah Smith., providing a presentation on League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust dL CITI Land Use Incentive Program and Land Use Training by PC, Staff and CC Smith presented information for the City to participate in League of MN Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) land use trust program. Smith added the cost is relatively inexpensive at $30 per course and requires that one class be taken online by three members of the council, the planning commission chair, plus one additional member, and the person responsible for the Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 day-to-day planning activities which is typically the City Planner. Smith added that the City Planning Commission talked about the program at a recent meeting and there are several members who are interested in participating. Smith mentioned that after the first six online course fees are paid, all other courses are free. Smith conveyed that each course is approximately 45 minutes long, with a short quiz at the end. Smith suggests that if the Council does commit to this, we should move quickly as once all the courses are completed, the endorsement gets put on the City's policy. Smith feels that for $180, this is very little money for some good training. Smith says that there is no timeline requirement and this can be done on everyone's own schedule. Smith says that the sooner all the required courses have been completed, the sooner the endorsement is put on the policy, saving the City money on any potential insurance claims. Mayor Wegscheid feels this is a reasonable opportunity and suggests that Peterson should be a participating member from the council as she is the liaison to the Planning Commission. Wegscheid stated he would like to participate, as well as Gillispie, as they are on the Development Committee. Gillispie sought clarification from Smith on which courses need to be taken. Smith said that in order to qualify for the endorsement, the six individuals must take the first course. After the six paid courses, any more who want to take a course can do so at no cost. Hoversten stated that we need to confirm the "starting lineup" in order to meet the minimum requirements for the endorsement. Hoversten said that ironing out who those first people are to take the courses is important. Once the City has met the required commitment, then the opportunity can be opened up for others to enroll in the courses. Smith says that all of the Planning Commission members are interested in taking the LMCIT courses. MOTION by Wegscheid, seconded by Salazar, to direct staff to participate in the LMCIT Land Use incentive Program. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Smith says that staff will get everyone signed up with a log -in code to participate. 9. _Planning and Community Development Director, Sarah Smith, requesting discussion and action on An Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 of the Mound City Code as it Relates to Administration and provisions for Administrative Fines Smith presented an amendment to Council to utilize another tool to promote and obtain compliance with city code violations which are attached to land. Staff has put together a model ordinance based on existing code regulations of the City, incorporating a process on when to use the administrative fines, how to use it, an appeal process, establishment of a hearing officer, establishment of a process that allows for an appeal by an aggrieved party in the event they disagree with the hearing officer, providing a due process in the event there are concerns with the administrative citation. Smith shared some background information on the city code violation process. The City uses a complaint based code enforcement policy. Smith says that the usual and customary process is that the City gives a warning; a seven-day period elapses; there is a new Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 inspection; then there is a second warning given; then, another seven days elapses; then, a third and final notice is given. In most cases, there is about 90% compliance with self abatement. Smith says that there is still a gap. There are a handful of cases that need a stronger tool or an alternate tool to achieve compliance. Smith says that the City wants to work with property owners. This code gives the City the opportunity to issue an administrative citation. According to Smith, this can be used for anything attached to land such as building code and property matters. In the event that an administrative citation is issued and a fee is assigned and not paid, the City can assess this amount to the property taxes. The City wants to hear from the people who have caused the problem. Absent a reaction from them, then the City can issue a citation. The administrative citation kicks in and gives a grace period of seven days. If, after seven days, the person does not comply, then a daily penalty kicks in. Fees are increased per day, and at the end of the period allowed in the code, the penalty fees would be due and payable. If the person does comply in the end and they will have their fees waived if the code issue is taken care of. Smith does not think this would be the primary tool, but will be another tool to use. Smith stated that the key is the City still has an opportunity to issue a warning, to issue a citation, and for the fees to be waived in the event of a decision and appeal process. Smith says the City wants compliance, but also to be reasonable. Smith has seen that people take notice when there is a monetary fee associated with compliance issues. The Mayor stated that when action is not being taken the City needs to have some teeth to make change happen. Wegscheid added the administrative action is an exploratory effort to see what the options are for resolution to on-going code violations. Wegscheid said he would like to see the process clearly written in the code to ensure the person receives proper notice of the timeline of the process before the threat of a fine. Manderschied clarified with Wegscheid if he is asking for a correction notice to be put into the code. Wegscheid wanted to know how we validate that a warning is received. Is it done through certified mail? Mayor Wegscheid stated that if the City is taking the time to find someone, then the City should also take the time to make sure the person understands the process they face. Wegscheid asked if this would apply to CUP violations as well. Smith stated that the CUP process is different. The administrative citation process would not be a tool to be used in the CUP violation. Wegscheid says that the ultimate goal is to work out the issue and get a positive result. Wegscheid added the only tool with CUP is to suspend their business. He asked if the Council if they feel this needs to be a part of the CUP process. Gillispie thinks there should be something more with the CUP as these tend to take too long of time to be resolved. Gesch says that CUP violation and nuisance violations do not go together. Gesch believes there could be something similar to this code to be used for CUP violations. Salazar agrees with Gesch that there is a need for something similar but CUP issues can be addressed at a later meeting. Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 Mayor stated that Section 3a states that anyone in the City can enforce the code. Wegscheid feels that this needs to be clarified as to which staff person can enforce city code. Manderschied responded that the type of violation dictates which staff position is charged with enforcing the code. Smith stated that if someone is gone, the City would still want to be able to issue a citation. Wegscheid said that in Section 3b, it states that if a hearing is requested, this must be done in writing by the property owner, and they must add the property address at which the violation is issued to and that this needs to clearly be spelled out. Wegscheid also said that in Section 7, Item 4, it should be clearly stated that once the fine is assessed, we don't continually fine. Wegscheid states that he is not comfortable with the fine schedule and believes two hundred dollars per day is a lot and noted the Council is not here to bankrupt people, they are here to resolve an issue. Wegscheid thought two hundred dollars per day will lead to a lot of noise. The Mayor asked for feedback from the council. Salazar stated that he agrees this tool is necessary; however, it needs to be retooled. He said the fees are highly punitive and the two hundred dollars per day is ridiculous as, too often, problems that occur with people's properties are from lack of money in which to fix the problem or procrastination, or both. Slapping people with a large, daily fine will exacerbate the situation. Salazar says he was upset when he read this and that he believes a flat fee is reasonable, but a punitive compounding fee is not good. Salazar says the whole process needs to be retooled and the City needs to do something though this is too much. Manderschied said a manageable option is to have a fee structure based on the passage of time. For example, $100 for days 1-7, $150 for days 8-14, etc., maxing out at a certain number. Manderschied asked Salazar if this is something he would deem reasonable. Salazar stated he wants a flat fee. Gillispie said she does not agree with a flat fee. Gesch likes Manderschied's suggested fee schedule because with more time and a little bit more bite, Gesch feels that the offender can have the chance to fix things. Gesch says this gives the people time to react, and does not feel the per day increasing fines are workable. Smith mentioned repeat offenders, and asked if the Council is comfortable if the City uses a double fine structure with these chronic conditions? Smith said that sometimes the City gets compliance and everything is good for 60 days or so, and then everything starts to fall apart again. Smith feels that the City could use one-year as a look -back period. The City would use the same schedule that the council has been talking about it, but the fee would be doubled. The Mayor said he thought the look back provision seems reasonable. Manderschied says that the look -back provisions are helpful especially if the person appeals and you get to the hearing officer stage, the violators typically raise the argument that they didn't know this was a violation. When you have that look -back period, they can't have that argument because they have already been fined for it. Gillispie wanted to clarify the process: 1) a warning is issued; 2) seven days pass; 3) second warning; 4) seven days pass; 5) third and final warning, then fine? Smith says the City gives Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 three seven-day warnings. Smith says that the City tries to work with people to get compliance. It's the last 10% that is most bothersome for the neighborhood. Gillispie has no issue with $100 for the first fine with then $50 per week. She stated there needs to be teeth or the issues will not be resolved by the 10%. Gesch is ok with the graduated fee schedule with enough time for people to resolve the issue. Manderschied has learned that the timing of the notice is critical. Most people need the weekend to do the work. Manderschied suggested giving fewer warning notices, but 14 days to comply so they can utilize weekend time. Wegscheid feels it would be beneficial to give them two weekends to comply to a warning. Salazar likes the idea of incorporating the weekends, but doesn't like fewer warnings. Salazar feels that 10 or 14 days and three notices would work well. What about people who leave their homes for extended periods of time? What about snowbirds? Smith says that the City uses different methods to get in touch with people. Different sections of the code state different ways to notify people. Smith says the City will use all methods when appropriate. The City does a pretty good job of trying to make contact with the people. She added the majority of cases the City sees occur when the weather is warm. Hoversten says the definition to serve notice in a certified mail methodology would be most appropriate because the City would either get a certified receipt or know there was no one at the property. Manderschied feels it is helpful to send out notifications by first-class mail as well because there is a different forwarding protocol for that. Salazar says it is important to give people as much time and work with them and seven days is too short, but felt ten to 14 days and three attempts are reasonable. Smith says that the majority resolve themselves within the first seven day period. Gesch restated that the sections of the code that need to be worked on are the 1) fee schedule; 2) money/timing; 3) notification process; and, 4) warning system. Smith says she will add specific language on the intent and scope of this process which is for violations based on things attached to property/land and not other areas. Smith says the code also needs to define the look -back period. Smith confirmed with the Council that it is fine with the repeat offender portion and that the fees would be doubled. Wegscheid suggested putting language in the code that states that once fees are assessed the fees will terminate at some point. MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gillispie, to table the ordinance for re -tooling to be ready for discussion at next Council meeting of April 12, 2016. All voted in favor. Motion carried. F-01". Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 10. Discussion and action to approve Resolution Authorizing Publication of An Ordinance by Title and SummalEy, as it Relates to Administration Refer to discussion of the ordinance in Item 9 of the agenda. MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gesch, to table resolution for retooling of ordinance to be ready for discussion at next Council meeting of April 12, 2016. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 11. Resolution Amending 2016 C& of Mound Fee Schedule Refer to discussion of the ordinance in Item 9 of the agenda. MOTION by Salazar, seconded by Gillispie, to table resolution for re -tooling of ordinance to be ready for discussion at next Council meeting of April 12, 2016. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 12. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments/reports from Council Members B. Reports: Mound Fire Department Activity Report - Feb 2016 YTD C. Minutes: Planning Commission - Feb 8, 2016 Planning Commission - Feb 16, 2016 D. Correspondence: Sr. Perspective Magazine Article on Westonka Historical Society (Mar 2016) Fire Chief Pederson shared the story of starting the heart safe community program. Pederson worked with Kevin Borg of the Westonka School District to get all the students at Mound Westonka High School (MWHS) trained in compression -only CPR. Pederson found that it is very difficult to get 1 '/ hour time of 900 students at MWHS. Pederson commented that the staff there was impressively organized. Pederson said there was an article in The Laker about heart safe/hands on training. Pederson stated the event was held on Thursday, March 10, 2016, in which employees from numerous public safety agencies taught life safety skills to 900 students. The 900 were split up into three groups: AED use, compression only CPR, and survivor stories. Fifty-five instructors came in from the outside to assist with the training. Pederson shared that Hennepin County is one of the top two counties in the U.S. for survival of cardiac arrest with an about 50% survival rate. Compression -only CPR is very easy to learn. Pederson shared various stories of survivors who were alive because someone performed CPR. Pederson shared two dates where the Mound Fire Department will have instruction on heart safe compression -only CPR: Tuesday, April 26, 2016, 7:00 pm - 8:30 pm at the Gillespie Center Saturday, May 7, 2016, 9:00 am - 10:30 am at the Gillespie Center Pederson said there will be more sessions in the future including an event in April at the Orono Middle School. That one is not open to the public. Mound City Council Minutes — March 22, 2016 Pederson shared pictures of the event held at MWHS and encouraged the council to attend one of the upcoming sessions. Hoversten said that it's good the City is engaged in preparing the community to be ready to respond in emergency situations. This is a great opportunity to allow the community to connect with great resources and professionals such as the Fire Department staff. Hoversten commended Pederson for getting the program started. Gillispie commented that the AED machines are not inexpensive. She asked if there are grants for businesses to purchase AED machines. Pederson stated that public use AEDs range from $1500-$2000 each. Pederson has looked for grant money and the only money that he found was from the Orono Rotary and that was for the heart safe program, not for businesses to purchase AEDs. The Minnetrista crime fund will also donate money to the heart safe program. Pederson says it is a challenge getting AEDs out in the community. Pederson stated getting the basic training out there for people to perform compression -only CPR until the AED arrives is crucial. Mayor Wegscheid mentioned the Sr. Perspective Magazine, who did an article on the Westonka Historical Society. Hoversten reminded the Council of upcoming meetings: March 28 - He noted a potential quorum notice will be posted for the bias and sensitivity training meeting. April 12 - A photographer will be at the Council meeting for the official Council photo. 13. Adjourn MOTION by Gesch, seconded by Gillispie, to adjourn at 8:46 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mayor Mark Wegscheid Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Date: April 7, 2016 To: City Mayor and City Council From: Catherine Pausche, Director of Finance and Administration Subject: Hennepin County Assessor's 2016 Property Valuation for Pay 2017 The assessors will be at the April 12th meeting to present a summary of the 2016 assessment and to take questions. Property values have increased significantly in the last 12 -18 months which will be welcome news to some, but others may not like the corresponding increase in their taxes. It is all relative, and, as a City, we have to emphasize we only have control over the City levy, not property values and the other taxing districts. I have placed the 2016 HC Tax Assessment Document (ie, sales book) on the www.cityofmound.com website on the Government\Mayor and Council page where the agendas are placed. The document shows the sales by property type used to determine the following overall increases: Summary of the 2016 Assessment Residential + 9.8% Condos + 7.1% Residential Lakeshore + 6.9% Townhouses + 9.1% Commercial + 6.7% Double Bungalow's +12.0% Industrial 0% Residential Zero Lot Line + 7.4% Apartments + 9.0% Each year the estimated market values are analyzed along with sales data from the market. A recalculation of land and building values is then made to all property types. Additional exhibits summarizing changes by city follow. Please let me know if you have any questions. Q d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0, 'o-O cl 0 CO alz p 0 0 0 m Ul) V CIJ N 04 cv) CU Lo 0,0 CR N N O (P (P M w F- Uco o v cNr- C', ci ,j Na) r- u) to 4 oi ui co CV) co m rl- M cn C%J M I- CV) C*4 LO CN v e -e 0 e Cl) r-- cl Cb M cl .6 ci CO vi 9 6 c,5 9 4 0 co v C� cl Co 0) to w r� CO) N -'t CO V2 cn ul co co r- c� u� N On r- m v c) u� two r- o v rl� LO C) C� to 04 ai r--� 1 1 C14 1 1 -fl C6 vi 06 C., 0 0 C14 — N r- CNI I- v V) M cq f- 0--e O-!z O) cp 9 C6 to N C? co V co v Co mLO C) C\l N CN C4 O Z'? O CA Co m M M (p Lq o v cli cli 00 (D F- LO N C14 m v In co C:� (14 m CD0 LO cxo N M N Cr cl CO 6 O Co p N c6 4 c6 1 9 T T M N M LO 00 0) co CN Oo m 001 C) O m m u? v r- r o m b r- r- w CO 6 c6 t-.: 6 6 6 cj r-� 0 0 W W C) OD 9 co CD Cb Ci Ci to v m cl w Lo LO L9 T C? tom. tl_: C,6 C) C 6 cei 6 LO LO 00 m I-U') C:) to m C? -e, 00 C', Lg 9 p 9 9 T C6 6 V-: CV C5 9 6. N m 0 LO to v co 00 m m CDLO OR U� U� C'4 c! ol w r- F- 1 c6l 61 L6 M CIO to tlo O) LU z < m < z 0 1 1-- 0 ui Im a z z > 0 0 0 < z 0 w x ui W < z < D z -i Z Z Z (L LU ui z z Z 0 ui u ui z ! 0 R K- o I I 0 0 —`'a ui X 0: - x m 0 cl ui (D i ai a[ 21 0 0 ol 1-- 9 3: 1 > <i March 23, 2016 Dear Mayor, Yesterday we sent a letter to city councilmembers in the metropolitan area, including the members of your City Council, reiterating our position on Metropolitan Council reform (as detailed in our letter to you dated February 8, 2016). We wanted to make sure that all metropolitan elected officials are fully informed of our efforts and of the rationale behind them. We also used the opportunity to report that 30 jurisdictions have adopted our principles thus far (list attached). We would like to reiterate our sincere desire for a dialogue on this important topic, and are more than happy to meet with you and your Council to discuss why we feel these efforts are so vital to the continued success of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Please contact any of the undersigned or Claire Pritchard at (651) 438-4540 or at Claire. Pritchard(cDco.dakota.mn.us with any questions or concerns, or to set up a time to discuss these issues. Sincerely, Rhonda Sivarajah Anoka County Board of Commissioners /Zj' cott Schulte Anoka County Board of Commissioners Nancyuweiler Dakota County Board of Commissioners Matt Look Anoka County Board of Commissioners Randy aluch ik Carver County Board of Commissioners . d&WU Liz kman Dako a County Board of Commissioners Chris Gerlach Mike Beard Dakota County Board of Commissioners Scott County Board of Commissioners Jon Ulrich Cott County Board of Commissioners rinciples on Metropolitan CouncilReform: List of Adoptees (as of March 22, 2016) Cities Blaine Jordan Bethel Lino Lakes Centerville Loretto Chanhassen Mayer Chaska New Germany Cologne New Prague Columbus Norwood Young America Elko New Market Oak Grove Farmington Prior Lake Forest Lake St. Francis Ham Lake Shakopee Hamburg Victoria Hampton Watertown Counties Anoka Dakota Carver Scott County Administration February 8, 2016 Dakota County Administration Center 1590 Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 Dear Manager/Administrator/Clerk, 651.438.4528 We are part of a coalition of County and City leaders from the suburban metropolitan area Fax 651.438.4405 who have become increasingly concerned with a lack of accountability from the www.dakotacounty.us Metropolitan Council, especially as its scope of authority and involvement in regional issues continue to expand. It is our belief that an updated Metropolitan Council governance structure, one that makes the Council accountable to the regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions, would benefit this region greatly. We seek your support for the attached principles for reform that would increase local participation and collaboration to help guide orderly growth and economic development in our region. We ask that you adopt the attached resolution calling for substantive change to the Council. Structure Limits Local Representation Metropolitan Council members are non -elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. We believe the Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation and representation from other local elected officials. This call for reform echoes the 2011 conclusion of the nonpartisan Office of the Legislative Auditor. In the evaluation report Governance of Transit in the Twin Cities Region, Legislative Auditor Nobles recommended a Council with a mix of gubernatorial appointees and elected officials from the region. Substantial Changes In Role of Council Since 1967 The Metropolitan Council was established in 1967 to provide regional planning services for the Twin Cities area. However, at the same time the Council's management of growth, in particular its coordination of regional services, has changed dramatically. The Council's scope has increased, but not its level of accountability to the local governments and citizens of the metropolitan area. Many citizens and local government officials feel disconnected from the present Metropolitan Council, undermining its credibility and preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. In closing, we hope you will join us in our call for reform by adopting the attached resolution with principles to strengthen regional planning and development. We welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to present this and discuss further. Please contact Claire Pritchard at 651.438.4540 (or at Claire. Pritchard@co. dakota.m n. us) for more information or to schedule a presentation by an elected official to your Council or Board. We look forward to working with you in this effort to unite the region for continued growth and prosperity. Please make every effort to return the adopted resolution to Claire.Pritchard@co.dakota.mn.us by Tuesday, March 8, or as early as possible given your approval process. Sincerely, Jeff Joh on Hennepin County Board of Commissioners Matt Look Anoka County Board of Commissioners Brian Kirkham Bethel City Council Tom orkman CarvE r County Board of Commissioners Nancy Scho eiler Dakota County Board of Commissioners Chris Gerlach Dakota County Board of Commissioners Mike Beard Scott County Board of Commissioners Enclosures: 3 Rhonda Sivarajah Anoka County Board of Commissioners S/chuite71j4Aoard of Commissioners Randy Mal nik Carver County Board of Commissioners Denny Lau enburger Mayor, City of Channassen Lizork n dd�tw Dakota unty Board of Commissioners Mike Franklin Jordan City Council O—)''1 C� / /'(� % f , Jo ric Scott County Board of Commissioners -835- MWQWAWAQN 1:44*41111110100010MIM RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PRINCIPLES FOR REFORM OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL WHEREAS, regional planning and local government cooperation is vital to the continued success of the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is, by statute, the regional planning agency for the Minneapolis -St. Paul Metropolitan Area, with broad authority, including the ability to levy taxes, charge fees and set regional policy; and WHEREAS, cities and counties are the entities most directly affected by policies and financial decisions of the Metropolitan Council, making them the primary constituents of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council's scope of authority and involvement in regional issues has expanded significantly over the years; and WHEREAS, a governmental entity, particularly one with taxing authority, to be effective, must be credible, and responsive and accountable to those it represents; and WHEREAS, the appointment of Metropolitan Council members resides solely with the Governor, effectively making the Governor the primary constituent of the Metropolitan Council; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the Metropolitan Council lacks accountability and responsiveness to them as direct constituents; and WHEREAS, many cities and counties believe that the authority to impose taxes and set regional policy should -be the responsibility of local government elected officials; and WHEREAS, reform is necessary to ensure that the Metropolitan Council is an effective, responsive, and accountable partner for regional development and progress. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Metropolitan Council should not operate as a state agency answerable to only one person, the Governor, as it does in its current form; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Mound supports reform of the Metropolitan Council that adheres to the following principles: 1. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region; II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council; III. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council; IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor; V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government; VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of April 2016. Attest: Catherine Pausche, City Clerk Mark Wegscheid, Mayor Metropolitan Governance Reform Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition -Statement of Objectives - A coalition of local governments throughout the metropolitan area has joined together to develop a position statement and a set of principles for improving metropolitan governance in the Twin Cities. The Coalition supports the need for regional planning, collaboration and coordination, but seeks to expand local government representation on the Metropolitan Council. The Coalition's objectives for its collective effort to improved governance are: 1. To articulate a vision of responsive and effective metropolitan governance—as represented by a Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform of the Metropolitan Council 2. To align local government interests behind a reform effort—through formation of a broad coalition of metropolitan Cities and Counties —and a common position. 3. To be prepared for any efforts—legislative and otherwise—to reform the governance structure and functioning of the Metropolitan Council. Attached is the Coalition's Statement of Belief and Principles for Reform. Twin Cities' Local Government Coalition Principles for (Metropolitan Council Reform The following principles were developed by a coalition of cities and counties in the metropolitan area, a coalition created to advocate for reform of the Metropolitan Council. The group believes that an effective Metropolitan Council should reflect the following principles, which were developed based on the group's core Statement of Belief (printed below). STATEMENT OF BELIEF: The Metropolitan Council, due to its taxing and policy authority, should be accountable to a regional constituency of those impacted by its decisions. it should not operate as a state agency—as it does in its current form—answerable to only one person, the Governor. Principles for Metropolitan Council Reform: 1. A majority of the members of the Metropolitan Council shall be elected officials, appointed from cities and counties within the region. II. Metropolitan cities shall directly control the appointment process for city representatives to the Metropolitan Council. Ill. Metropolitan counties shall directly appoint their own representatives to the Metropolitan Council. IV. The terms of office for any Metropolitan Council members appointed by the Governor shall be staggered and not coterminous with the Governor. V. Membership on the Metropolitan Council shall include representation from every metropolitan county government. VI. The Metropolitan Council shall represent the entire region, therefore voting shall be structured based on population and incorporate a system of checks and balances. 2 -839- Background and Justification of Position The Metropolitan Council was created to provide for the orderly and economic development of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. It has the responsibility and authority to guide the region's growth and to provide important regional services. The Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott support the concept of a regional approach, and have no wish to abolish the Council or diminish the importance of regional collaboration. However, the Council's management of growth, and in particular the coordination and delivery of regional services has changed dramatically. At the same time, the role of counties has evolved. Increasingly, Counties have undertaken direct provision of regional services including: hazardous and solid waste management, transit funding and transitway development, regional parks, regional highways, water resources planning and watershed management, greenway and bikeway development, farmland and open space preservation, the regional library system, fiber communications networks, and the 800 MHz radio network. The Council's recent focus on reducing poverty and disparities makes it even more essential that within the governance structure there is understanding and improved coordination with county programs --- which exclusively provide economic assistance, social services, workforce development/employment, counseling, public health, nutrition and family "home visiting" services, workforce and specialized housing programs and many other anti -poverty and human services. in these and many other circumstances, the State, Metropolitan Council and city governments have all looked to counties to provide both the financial and political leadership needed to address key regional issues. Thus, while a strong regional approach is necessary for many issues, it is necessary for the regional governing body to feature strong county representation, as well as representation from other local elected officials. Currently, the members of the Council are non -elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder. The best way to ensure that the interests of citizens of the metropolitan -area are represented is to have a preponderance of locally elected officials on the Council --individuals that do not serve exclusively at the pleasure of the Governor. This will have the added benefit of allowing the Council to meet federal guidelines to serve as the region's Metropolitan Planning Organization, a move encouraged by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to make the Council "more directly accountable to its public'." Regional governance is vital to the metropolitan area's continued success. However, in order for a regional body to be effective it must be credible, meaning that regional citizens must feel that the body effectively represents their goals and values. Citizens currently feel disconnected from the Metropolitan Council, preventing it from functioning as an effective regional governance body. The coalition of suburban counties is working to join the Metropolitan Council with the people it represents, so the region as a whole can unite for continued growth and prosperity. 'Letter from representatives of FTA and FHA to Ann R. Goering of Ratwik, Roszak, & Maloney, P.A., Aug. 3 2015 3 -840- 1) Why now? Reform of the Metropolitan Council has been an issue on the minds of many local governments for many years. However, political realities have created obstacles that thwarted many previous attempts at reform. The release of ThriveMSP2040 reinvigorated the drive for reform in many cities and counties who were unhappy with aspects of the plan. However, our call for change is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. Councilmembers do not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one: the Governor. We realized this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive204O was the catalyst that renewed our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 2) Who makes up the coalition? The coalition originated with officials from Anoka, Carver, Dakota, and Scott Counties, who share a collective opinion that the Metropolitan Council must be more accountable to the regional constituency. They made the decision to develop principles for reform, and, knowing it was important to have the perspective of cities represented as well, invited certain city officials with interest in reform to join the group. The city officials (listed in Attachment A) represent themselves alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of their entire councils. Together this group developed a mutually -agreed-upon set of principles for reform. 3) You're asking cities to adopt these principles, knowing that they go against the position of Metro Cities. Doesn't this undermine the work of the Metro Cities organization? We believe that Metro Cities plays a vital role in advocating for city interests, and we did invite them to play a part in the development of the shared principles. However, they ultimately decided to withdraw from the group due the incompatibility of our positions. We had hoped to work together toward reform, and we hope to work together in the future if the position of the organization changes. However, in the meantime we are aware of many cities with positions on Metropolitan Council reform that contradict the official Metro Cities position, and we believe that those cities should have their voices heard in the Legislature. 1 4) What are the next steps? These draft principles have been distributed to every city and county in the metropolitan area, and we hope to have as many as possible adopt these principles. We are happy to discuss the principles, along with our reasons for wanting reform, with any Board or Council in the area. During the Legislative Session we will present these adopted resolutions to Legislators to illustrate how important reform is to local governments in the metro -area, and we will work with Legislators to advance reform proposals that meet the adopted principles. S) How do other cities do it? Every other major metropolitan area's regional planning organization (see Attachment B), as well as every other regional planning organization in Minnesota, is made up of a majority of local elected officials. 6) is this an effort to get rid of the Metropolitan Council? Absolutely not. Regional governance is important, but it would be more effective and credible with local representation. In the current system, Metropolitan Council members are non- elected individuals answerable only to the Governor, an office that has often been elected without majority support from metropolitan -area voters. The Council, which has the ability to levy taxes on metropolitan -area residents, should be answerable to the citizens and taxpayers of the area it represents rather than a single officeholder and should feature strong county representation from local elected officials. 7) Is this a reaction to the ThriveMSP2040 plan? No. Many cities and counties were unhappy with aspects of the Council's plan. However, our call for reform is not a reaction to the specifics of the plan, or to how it allocates resources. Instead, the experience drove home to many what little incentive the Council has to take into account the opinions of local governments. The Council does not answer to the local constituency, but rather to a constituency of one- the Governor. We realized that this was the core problem, and the release of Thrive2040 was the catalyst to renew our efforts to build a coalition for governance reform. 8) Is there other support for this? Yes, many other entities and organizations have come out in support for reform. In 2011, for example, the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report recommending that the Metropolitan Council be composed of a majority elected officials, citing the Council's "limited credibility" due to a governance structure that limits accountability. 2 -842- The City of Minneapolis also passed a resolution on January 14, 2011, asking the Legislature to reform the Council so that a "majority of council members shall be locally elected city and county officials." Furthermore, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, responsible for certifying the Council as eligible to receive federal transportation and transit funding, have encouraged reform of the Council to make it "more directly accountable to its public." 9) Would these principles turn the Metropolitan Council into a Council of Governments (COG)? No. Councils of Governments have little authority beyond transportation planning and regional coordination of service. The level of authority that the Legislature has granted the Metropolitan Council, including the authority to levy taxes, is unique. None of the proposed principles diminish Council authority in anyway, and will not transform the Council into a COG. 10) Do you oppose the Governor? No. This is not a partisan issue- we would feel the same way whether the Governor was a Republican or a Democrat. What troubles us is that the entire membership and focus of the Council can shift depending on who is in power. The Council should represent the interests of the region, not a single individual. 11) Is this about the suburbs complaining? No. This is about ensuring that the entire region feels represented by the Metropolitan Council. 12) Is the Met Council accountable to their constituents? No. Although the Met Council has the power to levy taxes on metropolitan area residents, it is not accountable to those residents and is instead solely accountable to the Governor, an individual that over the last five election cycles was only once elected with majority support from metro -area voters. 3 -843- QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PRINCIPLES THEMSELVES: 13) Aren't local elected officials too busy to serve on the Council? There is a time commitment to serving on the Council, true, but it is only a part-time engagement. Many current Metropolitan Council members hold other full-time jobs. Furthermore, local elected officials serve on the metropolitan planning organizations of every other large city in the country. if these principles are enacted it will be part of cities and counties' role to ensure that those appointed to the Council are comfortable with the time commitment. 14) Isn't it a conflict of interest to ask an official elected by one specific city or county to represent an entire region? Local elected officials already serve in many capacities where they must consider regional interests. The Council's Transportation Advisory Board, for example, which recommends allocation of transportation and transit funding throughout the region, is made up of majority of local elected officials. The Counties Transit Improvement Board and the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Board are two other examples where local elected officials serve and represent the interests of an entire region. Even the structure of County Boards and City Councils requires local elected officials to represent the interests of the entire city/county, rather than the specific district that elected them. 15) What happens if a local elected official leaves office in the middle of his/her Metropolitan Council appointment? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. These issues will be considered as a plan develops. 16) What about the criticisms of the role of the Council? These principles don't address any of that. True, and many of us do have thoughts on the role of the Council. However, we believe that the first step is to reform the governance of the Council. Once the Council is accountable to its metropolitan constituency we can consider the role that it should play in the region's future. 17) You mention a system of voting and checks and balances- can you elaborate? We purposely made these principles high-level. We do not want to get into the details of a specific plan; that is the job of the Legislature. However, we do believe that the Council should represent all citizens in the area, without allowing the large urban core to drive all decision making. 4 -844- ATTACHMENT A: PARTICIPANTS IN THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNANCE WORKING GROUP Participating County Officials: Anoka County: Commissioner Matt Look Councilmember Bill Coughlin Commissioner Scott Schulte Mayor Denny Laufenburger Commissioner Rhonda Sivarajah Mayor Bob Crawford County Administrator Jerry Soma Carver County: Commissioner Randy Maluchnik Commissioner Tom Workman County Administrator Dave Hemze Dakota County: Commissioner Chris Gerlach Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler Commissioner Liz Workman County Manager Brandt Richardson Scott County: Commissioner Mike Beard Commissionerlon Ulrich County Administrator Gary Shelton Participating City Officials: Bethel: Councilmember Brian Kirkham Burnsville: Councilmember Bill Coughlin Chanhassen: Mayor Denny Laufenburger Elko New Market: Mayor Bob Crawford Jordan: Councilmember Mike Franklin Lino Lakes: Mayor Jeff Reinert Prior Lake: Mayor Ken Hedberg Rosemount: Councilmember Jeff Weisensel Shakopee: Mayor Bill Mars Attachment B San D Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas i Council The Council cor Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council. The Board consistsof 15 locai'elecfed officials, 4 other government representatives, and 1 citizen representative (position is.currently vacant). North Jersey Transportation The 3 other government representative's are from the Port Authority, the NJ Governor's Planning Authority Authorities Unit, NJ Department of Transportation, and NJ TRANSIT. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member. The The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, 2 representatives of the federal government, 1 representative of state government, and 2 representatives of local organizations. Metropolitan Transportation The state representative is from the California State Transportation Agency. Commission (Oakland CA) The 1 organizations are the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. T It T Summary: "The majority of vo' members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas The Board consists of 9 local elected officials, 3 judges, and a non-voting member of the Texas Legislature. North Central Texas Council of The metro -area cities are represented by mayors or councilmembers; the counties are Governments represented by judges. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials (although there are no county elected officials- counties are represented by judges). There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 14 local elected officials, 8 representatives from other governments and organizations, and 2 nonvoting representatives from the federal government. The elected`officials are all mayors and selectmen of local towns; there are no county representatives. Boston Region MPO There are 2 representatives from regional planning organizations, as well as representatives from regional transit and transportation authorities and the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of the voting members are local elected officials. There are also no citizen members. The Board consists of 23 local elected officials, 15 citizens, and 1 non-voting representative from the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. There is 1 citizen representative from each of 15 districts in the metro area, elected by the Atlanta Regional Commission 23 public officials. Summary: All voting members are either local elected officials or are citizen members selected by local elected officials. Summary: All v elected official; Acials or are selected by local Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas The Board consists of 32 local elected officials and 2 representatives from state government. National Capital Region The 2 state representatives are legislators from the Maryland and Virginia General Transportation Planning Board Assemblies. Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen The Council consists of 32 local elected officials, 4 state representatives, and 1 member of; a citizen organization. The elected officials are mayors, councilmembers, etc. from metro towns, cities, and reservations. Maricopa Association of Governments There are also 2 representatives each from the State Transportation Board and the Arizona Department of Transportation. Finally, there is a representative from the Citizens Transportation Oversight Commission. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There is one citizen member, a representative of a citizen oversight commission.' _ - The Executive Committee consists of 11 local elected officials, 3 at -large members, and representatives from the Pennsylvania Department of Economic Development, Southwestern Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office. Commission Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are 3 at -large members. Sr 94 ary: The majority of.voting members are either local elected officials or local nment staff members. There.are no citizen members. Attachment B Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Large Metropolitan Areas The Board consists of 5 local elected officials, 3 city representatives, 1 state representative, and 7 non-voting members from various federal and state agencies. New York Metropolitan The 5 local elected officials are the County Executives of the 5 metro counties. The city Transportation Council representatives are heads of the New York City Transportation Authority, Department of Transportation, and Department of City Planning. The state representative is from the New York State Department of Transportation. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials or representatives from city government. There are no citizen members. The Board consists of 7 local elected officials and 4 representatives from state Baltimore Regional departments (3 non-voting). Transportation Board A representative from the Maryland Department of Transportation has voting privileges. Summary: All voting members, except one, are local elected officials. _ The Council has a general assembly consisting of delegates from all local governments in the region. The Executive Committee consists of local elected officials as well as Southeast Michigan Council of representatives from community colleges and the Regional Transit Authority of Southeast Governments Michigan. Southern California Association of Governments The Regional Council consists of elected local officials representing 67 districts, all members of the Los Angeles City Council and the Mayor, as well as 1 elected representative from each of the 6 counties in the district, and representatives from regional transportation commissions and tribal governments. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen members. Inte Metropolitan Planning Agencies in Minnesota Grand Forks - East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization two The Board consists of 6 local elected officials as well as 2 representatives from the Planning Commissions of the City of Grand Forks and the City of East Grand Forks. Summary: The majority of voting members are local elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. The Board consists of 11 elected officials and 3 representatives from the Fargo and Fargo -Moorhead Metropolitan Moorhead Planning Commissions. Council Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen _representatives. The Board consists of 11 local elected officials as well as representatives from the Central St. Cloud Area Planning Minnesota Transportation Alliance and St. Cloud Metro Bus. Organization Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Metropolitan Council The Council consists of 16 citizens appointed by the Governor. Summary: All voting members are citizens. There are no elected officials on the Council.y The Board consists of 16 local elected officials, including 2 representatives from school districts, and 2 citizen members. Rochester -Olmsted Council of Governments La Crosse Area Planning Committee Mankato/North Mankato Area Planning Organization Summary: The majority of voting members are elected officials. There are two citizen representatives. The Board is made up of 6 local elected officials. Summarv: All voting members are elected officials. There are no citizen representatives. Z 50 O,m (L (1) w 13 U) 1--o Z W.L- L.L a a. W 0 W CL z0 :)c o Ocn E CD W C14 Mound -p. City of '• r January through March, 2096 Fire Alarm / False Alarm Report Fire No Date Address Fire Alarm Type 1Smoke1C0 Activity or Action Taken False Pre - Alarm ventable 4 1/3/2016 531f Maywood Road x Nothing Found N Y 5 1/4/2016 422 Wilshire Blvd x Faulty Detector N N 7 1 1/6/2016 1 234LWilshire Blvd x I I I Burnt Food N Y 13 1 1/10/2016 1 210 Basswood Lane x Nothing Found N N 15 1 1/12/2016 1 4Wilshire Blvd x Child pulled pull station Y Y 17 1 1/13/2016 1 24 Lost Lake Road x Bad Detector N Y 34 1/28/2016 21 Commerce Blvd x Waterflow N Y 45 2/6/2106 24 Commerce Blvd x Reset Alarm N Y 56 2/16/2016 3 Dickens Lane x Cancelled Enroute Y Y 59 2/17/2016 26 Shannon Lane I I x Cancelled Enroute N N 86 1 87 3/7/2016 3/7/2016 2 Commerce Blvd, AM 20 Commerce Blvd I x I x I Contacted Maintenance Faulty Detector N N Y Y 89 3/8/2016 „ 53 Shoreline Drive Ix ., Broken Sprinkler Head N Y 100 3/15/2016 20 Bellaire Lane. wx ` CO levels found N N 2016 YTD TOTALS FIM J:\admin\REPORTS - Fire Incident R Performance\2016 Performance Reports12016 Fire Alarm - False Alarm Reports by City RA MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISS101 MARCH 15, 2016 1 Chair Penner called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Members present: Chair Cindy Penner; Commissioners Jason Baker, Jeffrey Bergquist, Jameson Smieja, David Goode, Doug Gawtry, Bill Stone, and Jennifer Peterson. Members absent: Pete Wiechert. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Secretary Jill Norlander. Members of the public: none MOTION by Baker, second by Stone, to approve the agenda. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Goode, second by Bergquist, to approve the February S, 2016 meeting minutes as written. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Stone, second by Goode, to approve the February 16, 2016 meeting minutes as written. MOTION carried unanimously. OLDINEW BUSINESS A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Cindy Penner nominated David Goode as vice chairman; David Goode nominated Cindy Penner as Chairperson. Written ballots were collected and both positions were confirmed as nominated. B. Discussion/Action — Planning Commission Work Rules Smith gave a history of the most recent changes. A suggestion was made to change the alternate meeting date (B.1.b.) to non-specific. MOTION by Gawtry, second Stone, to approve the replacement of "Tuesday" with "day" in section B.1.a. of the Planning Commission Work Rules. MOTION carried unanimously. C. Planning Commission Projects List 1. 2030 Mound Comprehensive Plan section review Chapter 10 (Strategic Initiatives/implementation) Smith summarized Chapter 10. A general updating of cited code section will need to be done because the city code has been re -codified since the last comp plan revision; Parks and Docks are no longer 1 commission; statements that were in the city code that no longer apply will be addressed; the public process needs to be reflective of what the community wants; staff priority is how to get the community to engage. Timeline: Draft out for public comment in early 2017; Final to Met Council by 12/31/2018. No questions or comments D. Council liaison/Staff report ® The last council meeting was 30 minutes long • Moonlight Trail was a success • Staff is following up on workshop priorities • Administrative citation code draft will go to council in April • Pawn shop and massage center regulations are being drafted • Trident rezoning was approved and are now working on detailed plans • Regulations (liquor licensing) for breweries/brew pubs are in the works E. Preliminary discussion — study regarding Lakeshore lots located at street ends Staff will be doing an inventory of lots and options of what can/should be done. Should the rules change or not? What if there is only a handful; then what? Should there be standards for fronts/sides? Should there be different standards for undeveloped, developed, or redeveloped lots. These are the considerations that will be brought to the commission. F. Information i. Shoreland Overlay District information in the packet— informational at this point ii. Vacation of ROW extending to public water iii. LMCIT land use incentive program — on-line training for reduced insurance premiums Staff will research details and update PC iv. Comprehensive plan update workshop in Minnetonka PC members to let staff know if they intend to go for posting purposes ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Penner, second by Goode, to adjourn at 7:40 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. Submitted by Jill Norlander -855- 3 of 6 HENNEPIN COUNTY CUMULATIVE GROWTH - 03/22/2016 H PERCENT OF CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR (Original Assessment as Approved) 5 YEAR 10 YEAR PT*** 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 TOTAL TOTAL LONG A -0,7 0.0 -2.6 -5.1 -0.1 01 5.7 1.0 2.8 13.8 25.0% 14.7% LAKE C 3.3 -0.5 -2.3 -63 -15.9 -11.8 -0.7 0.7 0.4 3.4 -8.4% -27.9% 1 5.1 0.4 -1.6 -6.4 -19.4 -4.6 -0.5 0.9 0.0 3.7 -0.7% -22.2% R 4.4 -18 -3.3 -1.3 -9.8 1.3 -2.7 5.0 -U 10.2 13.7% -1.7% X 0.0 -1.1 -20.9 0.0 -2.2 -6.0 -41 7.4 0.7 -1.9 -4.4% -26.8% Y 1.2 0.0 -4.6 -1.2 -2.7 -14.9 0.6 4,8 4.9 2.9 -3.2% -10.1% LORETTO A 1.0 0.0 0.0 -11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -U 2.2 2.0 3.5% -7.7% C 10.2 1.1 -5.4 -14.1 -2.0 0.0 1.4 -0.6 0.0 3.9 4.7% -7.1% F 2.5 -5,5 -3.8 -10.5 -0.3 -17.8 15.5 0.6 -6.0 2.6 -7.9% -23.4% 1 4.2 0.5 -5.5 -13.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% -14,2% R 0.4 -11.6 -6.0 -7.6 -0.6 -11.2 7.7 5.2 6,4 1.9 9.1% -16.4% Y 0.2 -5.3 -10.9 -17.0 -0.9 -7.8 -5,9 11.7 3.5 3.1 3.4% -281% MAPLE A 3.0 0.6 0.5 -6.5 -0.6 6.1 3.2 11.7 7.4 9.6 44.0% 393% GROVE C 8.7 1.4 -6.1 -4.1 -3.4 -5.9 0.0 1.3 0.0 -0.6 -5,2% -9.2% F 5.6 11.2 -17.3 -143 -7.2 -10.1 -17.6 3.2 3.4 3.1 -18.5% -37,3% 1 13.0 2.6 -6.6 -1.1 -6.2 -11.3 -0.7 1.2 1.5 0.1 -9.4% -91% R 3.8 -3.0 -5.4 -5.9 -3.5 -6.5 0.5 7.7 3.0 1.9 6.2% -8.1% X 1.5 -4.9 -5.3 -8.9 -4.5 -9.4 -1.4 9.5 8.5 5.3 11.8% -11.1% Y 1.6 -4.3 -5.6 -7.3 -4,9 -11.8 -1.5 13.6 2.3 8.1 9.1% -11.7% MAPLE A 2.5 0.0 0.0 -6.0 -0.2 -0.3 0.5 1.7 2.6 2.9 7.6% 3.4% PLAIN C 17.5 2.0 -1.5 -15.2 -6.0 -13.0 -2.0 0.2 4,5 1.0 -9.8% -151% 1 19.1 3.1 0.0 -14.5 -5.7 -143 -0A 0.5 5.1 0.1 -9.8% -107% R 0.8 -0.8 -4.2 -11.0 -6.4 -10.9 9.8 0.1 8.1 5.0 11.2% -11.3% X 0.0 0.0 0.0 -10.0 44 -9.9 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 -1.8% -15.5% MEDICINE A 0.0 0.0 -3.0 -5.0 -9.8 -19.3 8.9 10.5 0.0 3.9 0.9% -16.2% LAKE C 0.0 17 -10.8 -11.0 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6% -19.4% R 2.4 0.9 -2.9 -7.0 -4.7 -13.9 2.3 10.8 -2.3 12,8 7.6% 44% MEDINA A 2.0 0.0 -18.1 -12.1 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 3.2 7.8% -22.4% C 7.7 11.6 -6.0 -7.4 -5.6 -0.5 -0,6 -0.1 -0.2 3.2 1.8% 0.5% F 6.4 6.6 0.4 -3.8 -7.8 1.5 0.5 3.5 6,2 0.2 123% 13.5% 1 10.2 6,3 -4.3 -6.2 -4.1 0.0 -61 0.0 1.6 2.9 -1.8% -1.0% R 6.7 -1.6 -3.0 -8.1 -5.6 -6.3 1.6 3.0 3.7 3.4 5.1% -7.1% X 0.0 0.0 -15.0 -11.6 -0.1 -13.2 11.1 1.1 10.0 8.2 16.0% -12.9% Y 0.5 9.3 -5.0 -8.7 -1.3 -11.6 -3.2 1.8 0.4 5.5 -7.7% -13.2% MINNEAPOLIS A 3.5 0.0 -0.1 -8.2 -2.4 -0.3 2.5 10.9 16.1 11.1 462% 35.5% C 11.3 0.0 0.6 -8.9 -4.1 -0.2 2,9 3.6 8.9 7,6 24.7% 21.9% 1 5.7 0.0 2.4 -6.1 -6.6 -5.7 -0.1 1.6 5.3 5.4 6.2% 0.8% R 1.1 0.0 -2.6 -3.4 -3.5 -4.8 -0.2 7.7 4.0 6.1 12.9% 3.7% X -1.2 0.0 -47 -6.8 -2.5 -6.5 0.9 8.8 8.5 6.1 18.2% 1.1% Y -1,8 0.0 -3,9 -5.8 -8A -7.3 0.4 3.0 10.5 5.6 11.9% -8.9% MINNETONKA A 7,3 0.6 -0.2 -4.4 2.1 11.3 4.3 7,6 7.5 11.4 49.6% 57.3% C 10.3 4.3 -3.5 -3.6 0.0 0.2 0.5 3.8 6.6 0.1 11.5% 19.4% F 13.4 0,0 0.0 57 -0.4 -0.4 -1.6 -0,1 10.3 -53.1 -49.4% -39.5% 1 6.1 3.1 -0.6 -1.8 -1.4 -1.3 0.8 3.5 0.1 1.0 4.1% 9.6% R 2.3 -1.8 45 -6.7 -2.3 -3.8 -1.2 5.9 4.6 1.6 7.0% -6.4% X -1.0 -4.6 -9.6 -9.7 -6.0 -12.7 -3.9 10.2 14.2 3.1 8.9% -21.1% Y 0,6 -3.6 -5.3 -5.2 -3.9 -8.6 -0.1 8.0 1.9 11.2 11.7% -6.5% 3 of 6 HENNEPIN COUNTY CUMULATIVE GROWTH PERCENT OF CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS 03/22/2016 PT'** 2007 2008 2009 2010 (Original Assessment as Approved) YEAR MINNETONKA C 2011 2012 2013 BEACH R 3.4 3.0 0.0 _10.0 0�0 2014 2015 2016 5 YEAR 10 YEAR MINNETRIsTA C 9-0 -0-1 -6.7 -5.9 -3.1 0.0 00 0.0 TOTAL 0.2 2.7 -8.5 - -27 -4.2 TOTAL 2.3 -0.1 IZ3 26.3 Z'9 6.7 -6.8% -10,7% F T1 -6.9 -0.7 -3.2 -0.9 11.3% 1 0 1 -4-7 -8.1 -9.5 -12.2 6.1 _0.8 47 1'0 3.1% XR 00 0-0 -11.5 6.2 -8.4% 5.4 -2.5 -3.8 -9.8 -2,4 -17.8 0.0 0.0 -1. 1 -0.7 28 -6.7% 4.1 -4.9 -6.6 0.0 0.0 178% -21.3% Y -2.7 5.5 00 6,7 2,3% -28.9% - 1'00�0 00 6.0 5.1 -17 -13.3% MOUND A 0-1 -7.4 4.5 -12.2 -3,3 -9.7 -1.6 17.3 8.0% G 2.9 -2.0 -1.9 -6.7 -2.3 15.1 4.6% 1 4.8 -1,9 -3.3 -0.8 0.3 3.0 17.2% -11.9% R 1.4 -13.3 -1.6 -o'l -2.8 -0,9 3.8 9.0 8.2 0-0 O -C) -5-6 0�0 4�2 6.7 16.0% 70% X 0,0 0.0 8.7 50.8 7.0% -9"3% 02 -84 -9.2 -9.5 -9.5 -3.0 Y 2.9 -3.1 -9A -12.3 -5,2 -199 9.9 0.8 0.0 63.9% 56.'9% NEW 2.8 6.1 -7,7 -81 -14.6 -0.8 17.9 8.3 53% -14.0-/, HOPE A -0.9 -0.4 -1.6 -8.5 -5.7 9,9 -0.1 7.1 0.'2% - 1,3 9.1 248% C 8.3 3.7 - .6 -T6 44 -0.6 4.8% -17.'2% 1 7.7 1.7 - 5.6 -2.1 -0.5 2.1 1.6 110 R 1.8 5.0 -1-0 -2.1 45 -1.9 1.5 -0'8 12.7 29.00/, 15.3% X -18 -6.7 -8.0 -3.3 -3.0 5.9 5.'8 Z5 -3.30/, -0 10 -22 4.9 -1 -5.8 -8.8 3.2 . /0 Y 2.1 -5.7 -2'0.6 -18.2 -8,0 -21.9 2.3 6A 44 3.6 8.50/, 9.3% ORONO 5-9 -13.6 -1 33 11.1 7.40/, A 0.3 -15.4 0.'7 24�O 3.2 8.4 0.3% -132% C 0.8 -0.3 -9.9 _0. 1 15.1 4.5 271% -37,2% F 1.2 2.9 -2.6 -8.7 0.0 4.4 2.7 11.1 -29.7% 1 4.0 0-0 -1.5 -2.9 0.0 13.1 34,7% 21 % R -9.4 0-0 47 44 -8.2 0.2 -2.1 .9 7.2 -10.2 49 -5,9 -0.4 -1.3 IZ4 3,7 -1.2% -9.9% X 0-1 -3.9 -7.8 -6.9 -2.7 -0.8 -8.0 -6.7% Y -4.6 -13.1 -7,8 -1.8 7,8 5.5 3.3% -12.3% -0.2 -8.4 -35.3 27 2.4 5.6 -21.4% OSSEO -4.7 -4.4 -9.6 -1&3 -0.3 15.3 3.'9 00 0.5% -110% A t4 3.4 -4.8 7.3 2.*g 10A 31,9% -35,'2% C " -1.2 12.3 22.1 % 1 -0.3 -0.1 -3,8 -16.1 -0.5 0.0 21 3.2 30.5 -18.0% 3. 1 -9,2 -0.8 -10�9 XR -7.2 0.0 -3 -0.5 43 -5�3 11,6 53.59/, 28.4% -0.4 -Z5 -4.5 -11.6 01 0.0 ()o -4,4 - 16 0-0 -3.1 '5 -162% Y -3.3 -9.4 -9.9 _9 1 .4 -Z 1 12.1 jj�q 2. -4.5% -27.7% 0. -4.0 3.2 -10,0% 0 -11.5 -12.3 1.'2 -5.4 -4.7 8,9 TO 3.0 -4189/, -29 PLYMOUTH A 14,1 1.3 -6�4 -8.6 -1 3.1 46 1'0 O�7 6-0% -17,0% C 3% F 14.9 0.9-5,1 -3.4 -0.4 11.1 3.0 gn 5.8% -29,5% 6.8 -5�O 1.0 4.6 0.*� 10.2 1 21,8 2.0 -2-1 4.7 0.4 2.6 IZ3 54.4% 5Z0% -5.1 -5.7 0.5 1.2 6.8 R 2.8 -5.1 -0.8 3A 13.0 -0.3 15.3% -2.8 -4.8 -5.8 10 -1.4 23.8% X 2,3 51 -2.4 -4.4 -1.6 04 8 13.0% 10.8% Y 0.0 - -6.0 -9.7 -2.1 0.8 6�0 1.6 4, 7.8% RICHFIELD 4.8 -6,5 -6.1 -3.4 10�4 4 1 115 2.9 6,8% 19.7% A -5.8 -0.7 6 ' 6.0 7.1 -6.6% C 0.1 11 -3.2 -4.0 -0.1 .8 4.2 6.1 8,8% -12,8% 1 10.2 4.1 -7.1 1.2 10.4% -10.8% 4.9 -12.0 2 3.9 5.2 R 0-0 -2,9 -5.8 1.2 9,1 13.8 37.3% 29.0% X 2,8 -47 -7.6 -2.0 -11.2 -1.9 5.8 4.9 2.4 Y -1.4 -4.9 -7.6 -ZO -74 0.0 1.3 3.2 12.59/, 1.9% 02 2,5 46 -18.4 _Z9 -2.'4 -3.1 9.1 2.9 7.3 -8.9% -143% ROBBINSDALE A -5.0 -22.5 -1.0 _9.1 -3.6 10.5 4.0 8.1% -11A% -2.7 -3.8 23.8 8 ' 2 17"0% C -7.5 0-2 -4-3 -0.9 -4,0 7.8 12.0% -17,1% 1 6.3 -16.1% 8.2 13.4 -0,4 -10.7 5.8 7.2 1-4 4 XR TO 39 -1,5 -10.3 6.2 -7.9 - 1 28.9% 0-5 -2.6 -9.0 _10 -2.8 -8.6 -0.9 00 10.2% 1.3 2 -7.6 8,2 0.0 0,0 .1 6.1 -3.9% Y 11.3 4 _26.5 -42.8 -31.6 ' -8.9 16.8 -1.9 0.0 -% -23.2 -0.1_9.-4.9 -1.7 7.8 4-0% -5.5% -2.9 4.4 7.6 30 -21,0% 5 -17,0 -3 . 3 7. 37,3% 0 12.6 10.0 -63.3% 6.4% -20.2% 4 of 6 5 of 6 HENNEPIN COUNTY CUMULATIVE GROWTH - 03/22/2016 H PERCENT OF CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR (Original Assessment as Approved) 6 YEAR 10 YEAR PT*** 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 TOTAL TOTAL ROCKFORD A 2.7 3.2 0.0 -7.6 0.0 0.0 4,5 0.1 7.4 4.4 17.3% 14.9% C 8.2 0,0 -10.1 -23.9 0.0 0.0 0.7 -1.4 0,0 0.2 -0.5% -263% 1 8,5 -10.5 -10.3 -10.1 -0.8 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% -22.3% R 1.6 -0.5 -9.4 -112 -2.6 -6,7 -3.1 8.1 4.2 6.1 8.0% -16.3% Y -0.2 1.9 -10.7 -12.0 -0,9 -10.4 -4.2 5.5 2.9 6.1 -1.1% -21.7% ROGERS A 3.6 0.0 -3.8 -6.2 0.0 9.0 6.3 4.5 5.0 8.2 37.6% 28.6% C 10.6 0.3 -7.7 -11.7 -12.3 -6.7 -2.3 0.9 11 1,2 -5.9% -25.4% F 24.6 0.9 -10.7 -32.3 -3.9 -0.5 7.1 7.4 -0.7 -2.4 10,9% -18.9% 1 6.3 2.1 -6.6 -9.0 -5.0 7.9 1.1 -0.5 1.9 0.8 11.5% -2.3% R -3.9 -3.1 -10.2 -8.5 -7.0 -0.7 -2.6 9.4 4.4 3.7 14.6% -18.5% X 1.3 -3.1 -1.2 0.8 -6.6 4.9 0.2 7.6 -5.5 7.9 15.3% 5.3% Y -2.2 -8.3 -8.8 -10.0 -18,8 8.8 13.5 6.4 5.4 12.5% -17.2% SAINT A 0,0 0.0 0.0 -8,2 0.0 -1.3 0,0 9.6 8.9 11.5 31,4% 20.6% ANTHONY C 10.5 44 -0.6 -5.1 -0.2 -3.3 4.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.3% 7.0% 1 1.0 1.0 0.0 -0.4 0.0 -11.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 -7.6% -6.2% R 2.5 -4.9 -5A -5.9 -1.4 -5.9 45 5.8 14.7 22 16.1% -0.3% X -2.5 -7,7 -9.2 -101 -8.1 -11.7 -23.8 -07 22.0 14,1 -7.0% -37.2% Y 1.8 -2.3 -5.6 -7.6 -2.6 -11.1 -6.0 -5.2 25.5 6.0 5.4% -10,9% SAINT A 0.7 0.0 -0.4 -12.4 -4.1 -0.2 2.0 0.6 13 10,5 15.1% -3.0% BONIFACIUS C 10.9 1.5 -2.0 -4.8 -8.9 -11.9 -0.6 1.2 0.4 0.0 -11.0% -14.9% 1 6.9 0.8 -1.1 -4.6 -6.9 -63 -0.6 -4.2 -0.9 0.0 -12.0% -16.7% R 0.6 -4.7 -5.8 -3.3 -7.7 -10.5 2.8 8.1 33 6.8 9.7% -11.5% X -26.7 -10.3 -26.8 -75.3 -6.7 -6.6 220.5 0.0 0.0 25.6 276.0% -58.3% Y 0.6 -5.9 -8.7 -11.2 -82 -7.1 0.1 1.3 21.2 6.2 21.3% -14.6% SAINT A 2.9 1.7 0.9 -2.3 0.7 4.5 7.1 8.1 12,5 11.9 52.3% 58.2% LOUIS C 11.5 5.4 -03 -5.3 0.7 2.0 4.7 46 7.1 6.9 21.5% 35.8% PARK 1 9.8 4.4 0.2 -3.4 -0.7 -37 -0,2 -0.6 0.9 2.0 -1.7% 8.3% R 1.9 -0.5 -2.3 -4.6 -2.5 -43 -2.4 47 3.9 4.4 &1% -2.2% X 2.1 -4,6 -3.7 -10.4 -4.0 -4.0 -7.3 7.8 8.4 7.5 11.8% -9.8% Y 1.1 -1.6 -0.1 -91 -2.4 -12.6 -2.5 7.3 9.1 7.5 7.2% -5.5% SHOREWOOD A 0.5 0.0 -4.1 -22.3 -0.7 1.7 6.0 3.2 8.9 1.9 23.5% -8.2% C 15.0 3.4 -3.1 -7.0 -0.3 -0.4 1.8 0.6 1.9 3.4 7.5% 14.8% F 0.8 2.3 6.6 -10.9 168.2 -0.5 106.2 -27.4 -2.2 -7.4 34.9% 254.2% R 3.7 0.4 -2.2 -7.6 -4.1 -4.6 -2,1 6.6 3.7 2.6 5.9% -4.4% Y 0.7 -4.1 -4.7 -8.4 -5.0 -5.3 -3.8 143 2.6 1.1 8.0% -13.5% SPRING A 33 0.5 -0.2 -10,6 47 -0.1 1.7 0.2 9.6 21.0 35.0% 19.2% PARK C 3-6 2.9 -1.9 -7.7 -2.2 -1.1 -0.4 0.0 2.6 5.3 6.4% 0.4% 1 2.1 0.0 -10.8 -10.8 -1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2% -20.1% R 10.6 2.7 -101 -6.2 -7.6 -12.8 -3.7 8.0 2.6 11.5 3.8% -8.2% X 9.7 -8.7 -5.9 -38-2 -67 -0.7 1.1 4.6 8.6 23.4 40.7% -23.5% Y 7.3 5.5 -10.0 -20.6 -2.7 2.4 -4.0 5.9 1.3 5.9 11.7% -12.1% TONKA C 14.4 0.0 -1.6 -2.2 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 0.8 8.2 8.5% 17.1% BAY R 11.0 1.2 -3.8 -6,8 -4.4 -6.3 -3.7 7.4 0.8 4.4 2.0% -1.8% Y 7.0 2.6 -4.8 -8.6 -6.7 -7.0 -1.9 1.1 10.1 6.3 8.0% -3,7% WAYZATA A 3.7 0.0 -0.8 -3.7 -4.5 0.0 2.6 5.4 4.1 7.7 21.2% 14.7% C 5.1 0.3 -4.7 -12,5 -4.9 -1.2 7.5 3.2 2.5 3.3 16,1% -3.0% R 6.5 0.2 -5.8 -6.0 -0.6 -10.5 -3.6 5.8 4.9 4.7 0.3% -5.8% X 4.5 -0.5 0.2 -3,8 -11.4 -3.0 0.0 1,2 -2.8 4.4 -0.4% -11.6% Y 4.7 0.5 -3.6 -4.6 -4.3 -5.0 -4.8 3.7 3.4 2.6 -0.5% -7.8% WOODLAND R 4.7 44 -4.5 -3.9 -5.8 -6.3 -3,8 3.1 7.0 21 1.6% -8.3% 5 of 6 *Note For Utility Properties (Property Type I" - which for this report is included with the Industrial property type category), Building and Machinery Values are assessed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and these values are typically not availablefor the current assessment until mid -summer. *Growth is based on static parcels only and is a net change menaing improvement amounts have been removed. -A =A, HF, 11L, 11-V C=CGCND,NPSCSL,SA,1 F= BF, DF, F, FF, FP, LF, LV R = B, BJ, D, DJ, R, RL, RM, SR X = X, XC, XAl, AX 6 of 6 HENNEPIN COUNTY CUMULATIVE GROWTH - 03/22/2016 H PERCENT OF CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 6 YEAR 10 YEAR PT*** 2007 2008 2009 2010 (Original Assessment as Approved) 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 6 YEAR 10 YEAR PT*** 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 -1.2 -5.8 0.0 19 4.1 6.8 10.4 12.9 44.0% 39.5% TOTAL TOTAL HENNEPIN A 3.6 0.2 -0.6 -6.8 -1,0 2.2 3.5 8.9 13.2 12.3 46.4% 39.4% COUNTY C 12.0 4.4 -2.3 -7.8 -2.4 0.6 1.3 2.4 7.3 4.6 17.1% 20-4% F 4.8 0.9 -10.4 -9.1 -3.3 -3.6 4.4 2.9 -1.9 -4.1 -2.6% -18,9% 1 9.5 3.6 -2.1 -5.6 -3.2 -2.4 -0.6 0.2 0.5 3.6 1.2% 2.7% R 2.7 -3,2 -4.6 -6.3 -3.6 -5.4 -1.0 7.8 3-6 4,0 8.8% -6.8% X 0.9 -3.8 -6.3 -8.7 -3.6 -7.1 -1.4 9.0 7.9 6.9 15.2% -7.8% Y 3.0 -41 -6.2 -7.8 -5.0 -8.5 -12 8.0 4.8 4.9 7.3% -12.9% *Note For Utility Properties (Property Type I" - which for this report is included with the Industrial property type category), Building and Machinery Values are assessed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and these values are typically not availablefor the current assessment until mid -summer. *Growth is based on static parcels only and is a net change menaing improvement amounts have been removed. -A =A, HF, 11L, 11-V C=CGCND,NPSCSL,SA,1 F= BF, DF, F, FF, FP, LF, LV R = B, BJ, D, DJ, R, RL, RM, SR X = X, XC, XAl, AX 6 of 6 6 YEAR 10 YEAR PT*** 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2016 TOTAL TOTAL SUBURBAN A 3.7 0.4 -1.2 -5.8 0.0 19 4.1 6.8 10.4 12.9 44.0% 39.5% HENNEPIN C 124 4.0 -3.5 -7.3 -1.6 0.8 0.5 1.9 4.9 2.8 11.3% 14,5% F 4.8 0,9 -10.5 -9.2 -3.3 -3.8 4.4 2.9 -1.9 -2.5 -1.2% -17.9% 1 11.0 2.6 -3.1 -5A -2.5 -1.8 -0.8 0.4 4.1 3.1 5.0% 6.8% R 3.2 -2A -5A -7.0 -3.6 -5.7 -1.3 7.8 3.5 12 7.2% -7.9% X 1.8 -3.0 -7.4 -10.3 -4.5 -9.3 -3.3 9.2 7.6 6.3 9.5% -14.2% Y 14 -3.9 -6.3 -8.0 -4.8 -7.9 -1.3 8.3 4.5 5.9 8.9% -11.2% *Note For Utility Properties (Property Type I" - which for this report is included with the Industrial property type category), Building and Machinery Values are assessed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue and these values are typically not availablefor the current assessment until mid -summer. *Growth is based on static parcels only and is a net change menaing improvement amounts have been removed. -A =A, HF, 11L, 11-V C=CGCND,NPSCSL,SA,1 F= BF, DF, F, FF, FP, LF, LV R = B, BJ, D, DJ, R, RL, RM, SR X = X, XC, XAl, AX 6 of 6