The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-09-08 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. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 - 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING NEW LOCATION: WESTONKA SCHOOLS PERFORMING ARTS CENTER 1. Opening meeting 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approve agenda, with any amendments *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature, have been evaluated by staff, recommended by staff for approval by the Council, 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. At this time, anyone present who wishes to offer dissenting comment to any items on the Consent Agenda is invited to identify themselves and the item of concern so that the it may be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered after discussion in normal sequence. Separate introduction or further support from petitioners or requestors is not required at this time and removal of an item from the Consent Agenda for this purpose is not required or appropriate. 4. *Consent Agenda Page *A. Approve payment of claims 1692-1725 *B. Approve minutes: August 25, 2020 Regular Meeting 1726-1730 *C. Cancel October 20, 2020 Special Meeting Workshop 1731 *D Approve Resolution Approving a Front Yard and Side Yard Setback Variance 1732-1751 for 5381 Baywood Shores Drive (Planning Case No. 20-16) 1734 *E Approve Miscellaneous Project -related Pay Items in the total amount of 1752-1758 $4021.29 for the 2019 Street and Utility Improvement Project (PW -19-01) and 2019 Retaining Wal Project (PW -19-10) 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. (Limit to 3 minutes per speaker.) 6. City Manager and Director of Public Works Eric Hoversten requesting action on a 1759-1763 Resolution to authorize Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract agreement 1761 for manhole inspection services 7. City Engineer Brian Simmons presenting final construction costs for 2019 Street and 1764- 1767 Utility Improvement Project (Sherwood Drive) PW -19-01 for discussion and actions: A. Approve Resolution Declaring Cost to Be Assessed, and Ordering Preparation 1766 of Proposed Assessment on 2019 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement PLEASE TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Project—Sherwood Drive, City Project PW -19-01 B. Approve Resolution for Hearing on Proposed Assessment for 2019 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project—Sherwood Drive - PW -19-01 8. Catherine Pausche, Director of Finance and Administrative Services, with an overview of the 2021 Preliminary Budget and Levy and requesting action on the following resolutions: A. Discussion on unique budget requests — Cemetery & Pumper Truck B. Action on Resolution Approving a Levy not to Exceed $248,555 for the Purpose of Defraying the Cost of Operation, Pursuant to the Provisions of MSA 469, of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of and for the City of Mound for the Year 2021 1767 ** SEE SEPARATE PACKET" 1768-1773 1775 C. Action on a resolution authorizing changes to debt service levy 1776-1781 schedules and to appropriate funds in the debt service fund for bond 1776 series 2011B, 2018A & 2020A D. Action on Resolution Approving the 2021 Preliminary General Fund Budget 1782-1783 in the amount of $5,756,287; Setting the Preliminary Levy at $6,291,072; and 1782 Approving the Preliminary Overall Budget for 2021 E. Action on a Resolution providing for the sale of $8,915,000 General 1784-1804 Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A ($4,335,000 Infrastructure, $615,000 Fire Truck 1804 $3,965,000 2011B Refunding for interest savings) F. Mayor Salazar announcing: The 2021 Final Budget and Levy discussions and decisions will take place at the Dec 8, 2020 Regular Meeting, at 7:00 pm, in the Council Chambers. Public comments will be taken at this meeting. Comments or questions on the 2021 Budget and Levy can be directed to the Finance Director at 952-472-0633. 9. Information/Miscellaneous A. Comments/Reports from Council members B. Reports: Finance Department —July 2020 1805-1807 Liquor Store — August 2020 1808 C. Minutes: Planning Commission 4/7/20, 7/7/20, 7/21/20 1809-1839 D. Correspondence: 10. Adjourn COUNCIL BRIEFING September 8, 2020 In tune with Phase III of the Stay Safe MN Plan; through mid-November, we will re -open Council and Commission meetings to in-person attendance for our residents. Meetings will be hosted in the Westonka Schools Performing Arts Center where social distancing requirements can be met. Council meetings will continue to be held the second and fourth Tuesday each month with agendas and meeting details/locations posted to the City website the Thursday prior under the "Mayor and Council' section of the "Government" tab of the Home Page. Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! 8 September - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 8 September - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 22 September - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 22 September - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 6 October — National Night Out Cancelled for 2020 13 October - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 13 October - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 27 October - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 27 October - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 3 November — General Election Day — Polls Open 7 am — 8 pm 10 November - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 10 November - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at Westonka Performing Arts Center 24 November - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 24 November - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting LOCATION TBD 8 December - 6:55 PM — HRA Regular Meeting (as may be required) 8 December - 7:00 PM — City Council Regular Meeting at LOCATION TBD City Offices Closed Until Further Notice; by Day -to -Day Essential Business by Appointment Only City Official's Absences Please notify the City Manager in advance of an absence. Inauire 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 Mound Claims 09-08-20 YEAR BATCH NAME DOLLAR AMOUNT 2020 0720KENGRAV $ 21598.75 2020 PRIMEELECT $ 31782.88 2020 PAYREQ082520 $ 149,977.54 2020 082420ELANCC $ 41616.82 2020 0820ESCROWREF $ 47,000.00 2020 090820CITY $ 1941726.33 2020 090820HWS $ 1611137.62 TOTAL CLAIMS 11 $ 563,839.94 - 1692- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Payments Batch 0720KENGRA $2,598.75 Refer 924 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN _ Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SVCS- JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs ADMINISTRATIVE LEGAL SVCS- RE: COVID COMPLIANCE COUNCIL MTGS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment G 101-23428 6371 BAYRIDGE RD-AMAC 6371 BAY RIDGE RD- LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Cash Payment G 101-23397 HARBOR DISTRICT TOWN MOUND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Cash Payment E 101-41600-316 Legal P & I PLANNING LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Cash Payment G 101-23441 4801 TUXEDO ABATEMENT 4801 TUXEDO BLVD ABATEMENT ACTION LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 1720 RESTHAVEN LN HAZARDOUS BLDG MATTER LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Cash Payment G 101-23418 COMMERCE PLACE REDE COMMERCE PLACE DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Cash Payment E 475-46386-300 Professional Srvs MOUND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156517 8272020 Cash Payment G 101-23397 HARBOR DISTRICT TOWN MOUND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT LEGAL SVCS JULY 2020 Invoice 156572 8272020 Transaction Date 9/32020 Due 12/312017 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $2,544.75 475 TIF 1-3 Mound Harbor Renaissan $54.00 $2,598.75 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $2,598.75 Total $2,598.75 -1693- 09/03/20 11:51 AM Page 1 $271.75 $31.00 $62.00 $636.50 $263.50 $240.50 $78.50 $201.50 $54.00 $759.50 $2.598.75 f CITY OF MOUND 08/20/20 4:30 PM Page 1 Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch PRIMEELECT $3,782.88 Refer 1400 ANDERSON, DOUG Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $168.00 Refer 1421 BRICKLEY, DAVID Cash Payment ELECTION 8-11-20- 16 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE TRAINING PAY- $42.00 PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 4 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $210.00 Refer 1408 BATINICH, ROBERTA J. _» Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $105.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 10.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 1406 BOSER, TERESA Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 8 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Total $125.00 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 1421 BRICKLEY, DAVID Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 7 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 $80.00 $20.00 Total $100.00 $70.00 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 1417 BUTTERFIELD, ALLEENE Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 7 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Total $20.00 $90.00 $70.00 $20.00 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $90.00 Refer 1420 CAMPBELL, REBECCA Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $70.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 7 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 _ Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $90.00 -1694- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Refer 1409 DAVIS, MARY 08/20/20 4:30 PM Page 2 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $155.00 ELECTION 8-11-20-15.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $35.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 3.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $190.00 Refer 1402 DOEPNER-HOVE, CARSTEN Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $160.00 ELECTION B-11-20-16 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $180.00 Refer 1413 DOEPNER-HOVE, STACY Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $168.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 16 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE TRAINING PAY- $42.00 PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 4 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $210.00 Refer 1403 EWER, PATRICIA Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $85.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 8.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $35.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 3.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $120.00 Refer 1419 HOVERSTEN, SONJA Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $70.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 7 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 .,._�. Wells Fargo 10100 Total $90.00 Refer F- 1418 JERDE, DON _ Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $82.50 ELECTION 8-111-20-8.25 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $102.50 Refer 1404 JERDE, MARCIA -1695- CITY OF MOUND 08/20/20 4:30 PM Page 3 Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $80.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 8 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 1407 JOHANSEN, KEVIN _ Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $160.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 16 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $180.00 Refer 1405 JOHNSON, B.J. _ Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $125.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 12.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $145.00 Refer 1423 LAU, MARGERY� Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $80.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 8 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 1422 LIBKE, ROBERTW Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $70.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 7 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20-2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $90.00 Refer 1411 MEYER, PETER C. Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $75.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 7.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $95.00 Refer 1412 NAGEL, SOPHIE -1696- CITY OF MOUND 08/20/20 4:30 PM Page 4 Payments Current Period: August 2020 -1697- Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $75.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 7.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $35.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 3.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $110.00 Refer 1415 SCHURMAN, RITA Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $120.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 12 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $140.00 Refer 1414 SING -LYNCH, LUANN _ Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $44.63 ELECTION 8-11-20-4.25 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE TRAINING PAY- $21.00 PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $65.63 Refer 1401 SPIESS, NICHOLE Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE PAY -PRIMARY $168.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 16 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE TRAINING PAY- $42.00 PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 4 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $210.00 Refer 1426 STADSKLEV, JOLEEN��x Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $82.50 ELECTION 8-11-20- 8.25 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 10141410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total M $102.50 Refer 1427 STARR, NANCY _ Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $150.00 ELECTION 8-11-20-15 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $170.00 Refer 1426 VINSON, LISA -1697- CITY OF MOUND 08/20/20 4:30 PM Page 5 Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $162.75 ELECTION 8-11-20- 15.5 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION HEAD JUDGE TRAINING PAY- $42.00 PRIMARY ELECTION 8-11-20- 4 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $204.75 Refer 1424 WALLACE, SHERI Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $80.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 8 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 1410 WEISS SMITH, GRETCHEN �. Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $80.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 8 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.00 Refer 1416 WILLIAMS, KRISTIE Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $150.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 15 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $170.00 Refer 1425 YOUNGSTROM, MEGAN _ Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE PAY- PRIMARY $82.50 ELECTION 8-11-20- 8.25 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-300 Professional Srvs ELECTION JUDGE TRAINING PAY -PRIMARY $20.00 ELECTION 8-11-20- 2 HOURS Invoice 081120 8/11/2020 Transaction Date 8/20/2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $102.50 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $3,782.88 $3,782.88 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $3,782.88 Total $3,782.88 -1699- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch PAYREQ0825 $149,977.54 Refer 1 WIDMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA PAY REQ #1 - 2020 LIFT STATION IMPROV PROJ PW 20-05 WORK COMPLETED JUNE 22, 2020 THRU AUG 5, 2020 Invoice 081220 8/122020 Project PW2005 Transaction Date 8262020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 2 WIDMER CONSTRUCTION, LLC Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay FA Invoice 081220-2 8/12/202 Transaction Date 8262020 Fund Summary 602 SEWER FUND PAY REQUEST #2 2019 FERNSIDE FORCEMAIN IMPROV PROJ PW 19-05 WORK COMPLETED JUNE 2, 2020 THRU AUG 5, 2020 Project PW1905 Wells Fargo 10100 Total 10100 Wells Fargo $149,977.54 $149,977.54 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $149,977.54 Total $149,977.54 -1700- 08/26/20 4:51 PM Page 1 $107,869.03 $107.869.03 $42,108.51 $42,108.51 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Payments Batch 082420ELAN $4,616.82 Refer 839 ELAN CREDIT CARD _ Cash Payment E 101-42115-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi APPLE.COM- WEATHER APP FOR I-PAD- EMERGENCYSVCS Invoice 082420 7/192020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-440 Other Contractual Servic ZOOM.US- MONTHLY CHARGE TO RECORD COUNCIL MEETINGS TO CLOUD FOR LMCC Invoice 082420 7272020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-205 Computer Hardware/Soft AMAZOM.COM- 4 QTY 4 -PORT USB 3.0 HUBS W/ EXTENDED CABLES- 5 QTY HDMI TO VGA ADAPTER CONVERTERS Invoice 082420 7/112020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 403-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA AUTOANYTHING.COM- JOBOXALUMINUM INNERSIDE TOOL BOX- PARKS TRUCK #317 Invoice 082420 7242020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels Invoice 082420 7292020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420 7/132020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-210 Operating Supplies SPEEDWAY- GAS FOR WATER TRUCK #119 SAFELY6FEET.COM- 10 TABLE TOP SHIELD SCREENS- ELECTION JUDGES Project CV -19 AMAZON.COM- 2 QTY 37" SQUARE FOLDING TABLES- ELECTIONS Invoice 082420 822020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-205 Computer Hardware/Soft AMAZOM.COM- HDMI TO DISPLAY PORT ADAPTER Invoice 082420 7262020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 281-45210-440 Other Contractual Servic H2O TOWING & MARINE- TOWBOAT FROM BLACK LAKE COMMONS TO COOKS BAY BOAT LAUNCH- SURFSIDE 7-27-20 Invoice 082420 7272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-340 Advertising Invoice 082420 7272020 Cash Payment E 101-41110-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420 7/142020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies Invoice 082420 7262020 Cash Payment E 101-41410-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420 7/142020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420 7242020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420 7242020 IN PRIME ADVERTISING- MONTHLY WEBSITE HOSTING HWS WALGREENS- HAND SANITIZER- COUNCIL MTG @ PAC 7-14-20 Project CV -19 AMAZOM.COM- 4 BOXES DISPOSABLE 3 - LAYER EARLOOP PROTECTIVE FACE MASKS, 3M PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR -ANTI - FOG LENS, SAFETY GLASSES 24 PK - IMPACT & SCRATCH RESISTANT PROTECTIVE EYEWEAR Project CV -19 SAFELY6FEET.COM- CREDITED SALES TAX CHARGED ERRONEOUSLY Project CV -19 COSTCO.COM- 5 BOXES EARLOOP STYLE DISPOSABLE FACE MASKS- PUBLIC WORKS Project CV -19 COSTCO.COM- 5 BOXES EAR LOOP STYLE DISPOSABLE FACE MASKS- PUBLIC WORKS -1701 - Project CV -19 09/02/20 10:47 AM Page 1 $10.74 $43.01 $77.63 $1,130.75 $52.10 $1,276.86 $208.84 $25.99 $159.00 $100.00 $4.99 $133.94 -$89.36 $28.18 $28.17 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420 7242020 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420 7242020 Transaction Date 8242020 Refer 840 ELAN CREDIT CARD Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies Invoice 082420-2 7242020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7262020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7262020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7262020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7212020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7/192020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies COSTCO.COM- 5 BOXES EARLOOP STYLE DISPOSABLE FACE MASKS- PUBLIC WORKS Project CV -19 COSTCO.COM- 5 BOXES EAR LOOP STYLE DISPOSABLE FACE MASKS- PUBLIC WORKS Project CV -19 Wells Fargo 10100 Total BUYINSULATION PRODUCTS.COM- 5 N95 MOLDEX DUST MASKS- PACK OF 5 - FIRE DEPT Project CV -19 AMAZON.COM- 3 -LAYER DUST FILTER FOR FIRE DEPT VACUUM AMAZON.COM- WET/DRY VAC REPLACEMENT FILTER- FIRE DEPT AMAZON.COM- LIQUID SMOKE FOR FIREFIGHTER TRAINING- EXTREME HIGH DENSITY FOG JUICE, FOG MACHINE CLEANER AMAZON.COM- 1.5" TUBULAR WEBBING- 1 12"25'RED AMAZON.COM- LIQUID SMOKE FOR FIREFIGHTER TRAINING- 1 GAL FOG FLUID, EXTREME HIGH DENSITY FOG JUICE, FOG MACHINE CLEANER AMAZON.COM-ALUMINUM FOLDING TABLE 3' ADJUSTABLE HEIGHT- FOR SAFETY ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD- FIRE DEPT Invoice 082420-2 7/162020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-433 Dues and Subscriptions MN BOARD OF FIREFIGHTER TRAINING & EDUCATION -FIREFIGHTER LICENSES- M. JAKUBIK & G. PEDERSON Invoice 082420-2 7!72020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7/152020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7/82020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7/82020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies Invoice 082420-2 7242020 AMAZON.COM- HEAVY DUTY CANVAS CONTRACTOR TOOL BAG- FIRE DEPT HAZ MAT DQE- KORE KOOLER REHAB CHAIR REPLACEMENT RESERVOIR BAGS - FIRE DEPT COSTCO.COM CRYSTAL LITE, CHEX MIX, PRETZELS, COOKIES RICE KRISPIE BARS - REHAB TRAILER SUPPLIES- FIREFIGHTERS VITA FLEX LLC- BIOSAFETY FULL COVER HOODS- 50 QTY Project CV -19 -1702- 09/02/20 10:47 AM Page 2 $28.17 $28.17 $3,247.18 $125.00 $11.99 $13.99 $64.52 $21.80 $47.66 $65.99 $150.00 $12.24 $63.25 $145.54 $161.00 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: August 2020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies AMAZON.COM- DISPOSABLE COVERALL 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND WITH ATTACHED HOOD & BOOTS- ELASTIC 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $1,503.58 WRIST- CASE OF 25- FIRE DEPT Invoice 082420-2 7272020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair ELKART BRASS- FIRE ENGINE #29 REPAIR $28.18 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND MASTER STREAM DEVICE DECK GUN - $4,616.82 SAFETY ISSUE W/ LOCK MECHANISM Invoice 082420-2 7292020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 082420-2 7/302020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies Invoice 082420-2 7262020 Transaction Date 8242020 AMAZON.COM- ICE BAGS WITH DRAWSTRING HEAVY DUTY- COMMERCIAL GRADE- 500 PACK- FIRE DEPT AMAZON.COM- 1 PAIR PROTECTIVE SAFETY GLASSES- CLEAR ANTI -FOG, ANTI - SCRATCH - FIRE DEPT Project CV -19 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 101 GENERAL FUND $1,615.04 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES $1,503.58 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND $159.00 403 CAP REPLAC-VEHICLES & EQUIP $1,130.75 601 WATER FUND $80.27 602 SEWER FUND $28.18 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $100.00 $4,616.82 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $4,616.82 Total $4,616.82 -1703- 09/02/20 10:47 AM Page 3 $221.08 $195.24 $54.99 $15.35 $1,369.64 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Payments Batch 0820ESCRO $47,000.00 Refer 832 BODE, BROS GENERAL CONTRAC _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND - 2936 WESTEDGE BLVD- BODE BROS GENERAL CONTRACTING Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total 08/31/20 4:55 PM Page 1 $5,000.00 $5.000.00 Refer 830 FIELDSTONE FAMILY HOMES, INC. _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND- $10,000.00 4660 & 4670 MANCHESTER RD - FIELDSTONE FAMILY HOMES, INC Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,000.00 Refer 833 GONYEA HOMES & REMODELING _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND- $5,000.00 5028 ENCHANTED LN- GONYEA HOMES & REMODELING Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,000.00 Refer 834 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES, 1 _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND- $5,000.00 4933 THREE PTS BLVD- MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES, INC. Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,000.00 Refer 836 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS CORP _ Cash Payment G 101-23007 Erosion Control Escrow EROSION CONTROL ESCROW REFUND- $1,000.00 5133 EMERALD DRIVE- NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS CORP Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,000.00 Refer 828 NIH HOMES LLC _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND- $5,000.00 2660 LAKEWOOD LN- NIH HOMES, LLC Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,000.00 Refer 837 NTC HOMES, INC. _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND- $5,000.00 5238 PIPER RD- NTC HOMES INC. Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,000.00 Refer 829 REAL ASSESTS 11 LLC _ Cash Payment G 101-23007 Erosion Control Escrow EROSION CONTROL ESCROW REFUND- $1,000.00 4660 & 4670 MANCHESTER RD- REAL ASSETS II LLC Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,000.00 Refer 835 ROY CUSTOM HOMES, LLC _ -1704- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND - 4800 NORTHERN RD- ROY CUSTOM HOMES, LLC Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total 08/31/20 4:55 PM Page 2 $5,000.00 $5.000.00 Refer 831 THOMAS, JOHN R. _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND- $5,000.00 6016 BEACHWOOD RD- JOHN R. THOMAS Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,000.00 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 10100 Wells Fargo $47,000.00 $47,000.00 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $47,000.00 Total $47,000.00 -1705- CITY OF MOUND 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 1 Payments Current Period: September 2020 Payments Batch 090820CITY $194,726.33 Refer 800 AMERICAN MESSAGING _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -2020- $3.75 PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UI 9/12019 Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -2020- $3.75 PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UI 9/12019 Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -2020- $3.75 PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UI 9/12019 Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi MONTHLY PAGING MESSAGING SVC -2020- $3.75 PARKS & PUB WKS Invoice D2062026UI 9/12019 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15.00 Refer 824 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSO _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies PUBLIC WORKS MGMT PRACTICES $168.34 MANUAL- 10TH EDITION- 2 COPIES Invoice 758304 8/312020 PO 25180 Project 20-5 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $168.34 Refer 801 ASPEN EQUIPMENT _ Cash Payment E 403-43100-500 Capital Outlay FA DUMP BOX& PLOW PACKAGE BUILD FOR $54,157.00 2020 F-550 CAB & CHASSIS TRUCK #420 STREETS DEPT Invoice 10219363 8202020 PO 25000 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply JUMP SEAT MOUNT ASSEMBLY $271.31 Invoice 10219801 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $54,428.31 Refer 802 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic START UP NEW GENERATOR @ BARTLETT- $1,967.80 E-4 LIFT STATION -CHECKED WIRING, CHECK OUT FALSE ALARM @ DEVON LSCHECK ANTENNA & CABLE SHOREWOOD LANE LS Invoice 35248 8/172020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,967.80 Refer 849 CADY BUILDING MAINTENANCE _ Cash Payment E 101-41930-460 Janitorial Services SEPTEMBER 2020 CLEANING SVCS- CITY $550.00 HALL /POLICE Invoice 4976756 9/12020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-460 Janitorial Services SEPTEMBER 2020 CLEANING SVCS- FIRE $299.00 DEPT Invoice 4976756 9/12020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-460 Janitorial Services SEPTEMBER 2020 CLEANING SVCS- PUBLIC $425.00 WORKS BLDG Invoice 4976756 9/12020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services SEPTEMBER 2020 CLEANING SVCS- $425.00 CENTENNIAL BLDG Invoice 4976756 9/12020 -1706- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976756 9/12020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976756 9/12020 Cash Payment E 101-41930-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976756 9/12020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 4976756 9/12020 Transaction Date 9/12020 CLEANING SUPPLIES -2 -PLY WHITE REGULAR TOILET PAPER CLEANING SUPPLIES -2 -PLY WHITE REGULAR TOILET PAPER Project 20-5 CLEANING SUPPLIES -2 -PLY WHITE REGULAR TOILET PAPER CLEANING SUPPLIES -2 -PLY WHITE REGULAR TOILET PAPER Wells Fargo 10100 Total 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 2 $19.86 $19.86 $25.82 $13.90 $1.778.44 Refer 803 CENTERPOINT ENERGY (MINNEG _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4948 BARTLETT LS E2 GENERATOR NATL -$125.04 2649 EMERALD DR. LS E3 GENERATOR $25.96 GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1717 BAYWOOD SHORES DR. LS $23.18 Cash Payment GENERATOR NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 5808 GRANDVIEW BLVD LS GENERATOR $22.61 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4728 CARLOW RD LS GENERATOR NATL $22.62 GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1871 COMMERCE BLVD NEW LIFT STATION $22.04 GENERATOR NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 2649 EMERALD DR. LS E3 GENERATOR $25.96 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 5808 GRANDVIEW BLVD LS GENERATOR $22.61 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 2990 HIGHLAND BLVD LS B1 GENERATOR $22.61 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 5260 LYNWOOD BLVD. LS GENERATOR $22.62 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 4791 NORTHERN RD LS D1 GENERATOR $23.18 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1972 SHOREWOOD LN LS GENERATOR $22.04 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 3172 SINCLAIR RD LS GENERATOR NATL $23.73 GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities 1758 SUMACH LANE LS GENERATOR NATL $41.09 GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Invoice 090820 8242020 -1707- Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 090820 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-383 Gas Utilities Invoice 090820 8242020 Transaction Date 8/312020 CITY OF MOUND 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 3 Payments Current Period: September 2020 4922 THREE PTS BLVD LS GENERATOR $22.62 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Cash Payment R 281-45210-34725 Dock Permits 3303 WATERBURY RD LS GAS SVC 7-20-20 $22.62 THRU 8-20-20 PAYMENT- S. CLAYWELL 5077 WINDSOR RD LS GENERATOR NATL $22.62 GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 4783 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LS GENERATOR $76.72 NATL GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 8-20-20 Refer 852 CORE & MAIN LP 5330 BARTLETT LS E4 GENERATOR NATL $34.56 GAS SVC 7-20-20 THRU 7-20-20 WATER METER PARTS- GATE VALVES, Wells Fargo 10100 Total $325.78 Refer 934 CLAYWELL, SUZANNE _ Cash Payment R 281-45210-34725 Dock Permits REFUND DOCK PROGRAM KAYAK RACK $50.00 PAYMENT- S. CLAYWELL Invoice 090320 9/32020 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 852 CORE & MAIN LP _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies WATER METER PARTS- GATE VALVES, $4,234.64 VALVE BOXES, PIPING, GASKETS, CLIPS Invoice M 909228 8272020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $4,234.64 Refer 821 CUMMINS INC. _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic GENERATOR SERVICE- LIFT STATION L-1 $342.15 DEVON LANE Invoice E4-83456 8/182020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $342.15 Refer 804 DPC INDUSTRIES, INC. _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals 150# CHLORINE CYLINDERS- QTY 7 $714.00 Invoice 82700105-20 8202020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $714.00 Refer 859 FIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES, 1 _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies 1 CUSTOM 6" LEATHER ASSISTANT CHIEF $65.50 HELMET SHIELD Invoice 10630 8282020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $65.50 Refer 860 FIRE SAFETY USA, INCORPORATE _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-409 Other Equipment Repair SVC FIRE TRUCK- LADDER #44- REPLACE 0- $341.50 RING FOR OUTRIGGER UP -DOWN VALVE BLOCK Invoice 138036 8252020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $341.50 Refer 848 FIVE TECHNOLOGY _ -1708- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 4 Cash Payment E 101-41920-440 Other Contractual Servic NETWORK SVCE & MTCE- SUPPORT BLOCK $2,400.00 OF 20 HOURS Invoice P237-57 8242020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-440 Other Contractual Servic MANAGED SVC & NETWORK MTCE- $1,290.00 SEPTEMBER 2020 Invoice 10920-16 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,690.00 Refer 847 FRONTIERICITIZENS COMMUNICA _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NETWORK ETHERNET SVC 8-20-20 THRU 9- $150.00 20-20 Invoice 090820 8222020 Cash Payment E 101-41920-321 Telephone, Cells, & Radi NETWORK ETHERNET SVC 8-20-20 THRU 9- $175.00 20-20 Invoice 090820 8222020 Transaction Date 9/12020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $325.00 Refer 853 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-395 Gopher One -Call AUGUST 2016 LOCATES $160.65 Invoice 0080610 8/312020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-395 Gopher One -Call AUGUST 2016 LOCATES $160.65 Invoice 0080610 8/312020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $321.30 Refer 806 GRAINGER _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies SWIVEL SEAT KIT- UTILITY DEPT $17.26 Invoice 9623939064 8/182020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $17.26 Refer 805 GREEN WITH ENVY LAWN CARE, 1 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic WEED CONTROL- SPRAY CITY SIDEWALKS- $995.31 2ND APPLICATION 2020 Invoice 253354 8/172020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $995.31 Refer 8431NTECTURAL INC. _ Cash Payment E 403-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA RICHLITE SKATEBOARD RAMP DECKING 4' $1,220.00 X 8' - 4 QTY MOUND CITY SKATEPARK HALFPIPE RAMP Invoice 0007719 3/192020 PO 24898 Cash Payment E 403-45200-500 Capital Outlay FA RICHLITE SKATEBOARD RAMP DECKING 4' $941.00 X 8' - 4 QTY MOUND CITY SKATEPARK HALFPIPE RAMP Invoice 0007743 4/72020 PO 25001 Transaction Date 9/12020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,161.00 Refer 861 JEFFERSON FIRE AND SAFETY, IN _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-219 Safety supplies TFT DECON PAK FILL CAP ASSEMBLY $65.00 Invoice 120861 8/142020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $65.00 Refer 919 JOHNSON CONTROLS - TYCO INC. Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic WET SPRINKLER, BACKFLOW & $398.00 EXTINGUISHER TEST & INSPECT SVCS WELL HOUSE #8- EVERGREEN RD Invoice 21754920 7232020 -1709- CITY OF MOUND 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 5 Payments Current Period: September 2020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic WET SPRINKLER, BACKFLOW & $328.00 EXTINGUISHER TEST & INSPECT SVCS WELL HOUSE #3- CHATEAU LANE Invoice 21754928 7232020 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $726.00 Refer 936 JUBILEE FOODS _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa PRODUCE- LIMES FOR RESALE- HWS $75.00 Invoice 083120 8/82020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa PRODUCE- LIMES FOR RESALE- HWS $64.00 Invoice 083120 8222020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies TALL KITCHEN GARBAGE BAGS- HWS $11.74 Invoice 083120 8242020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies WHITE VINEGAR- HWS $3.98 Invoice 083120 8242020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies DINNERWARE FORKS- HWS $5.74 Invoice 083120 8252020 Project CV -19 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $160.46 Refer 807 LEAGUE MN CITIES INSURANCE T _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-361 General Liability Ins INSURANCE CLAIM- CITY'S JOHN DEER $653.45 GATOR BACKED INTO CLAIMANT'S VEHICLE BEHIND IT AT STOP LIGHT Invoice 6068 8/172020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $653.45 Refer 846 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES _ Cash Payment E 101-41110-433 Dues and Subscriptions SEPT 2020 THRU AUG 2021 MEMBERSHIP $9,441.00 DUES BASED ON CITY POPULATION 9,447 Invoice 326552 9/12020 Transaction Date 9/12020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,441.00 Refer 851 LEAGUE OFMINNESOTA CITIES _ Cash Payment E 101-41110-433 Dues and Subscriptions MN MAYORS ASSOC MEMBERSHIP DUES, -- $30.00 RAYMOND SALAZAR- SEPT 2020 THRU AUG 2021 Invoice Transaction Date 9/12020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $30.00 Refer 916 LIGHT SWITCH LED LIGHTING SOL _ Cash Payment E 101-41930-220 Repair/Maint Supply MATERIALS FOR LIGHT CONVERSION TO $3,461.09 LED CITY HALL & PUBLIC WORKS BLDGS Invoice 202054 9/22020 Cash Payment E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies MATERIALS FOR LIGHT CONVERSION TO $3,461.09 LED CITY HALL & PUBLIC WORKS BLDGS Invoice 202054 9/22020 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply MATERIALS FOR LIGHT CONVERSION TO $741.66 LED CITY HALL & PUBLIC WORKS BLDGS Invoice 202054 9/22020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply MATERIALS FOR LIGHT CONVERSION TO $741.67 LED CITY HALL & PUBLIC WORKS BLDGS Invoice 202054 9/22020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply MATERIALS FOR LIGHT CONVERSION TO $741.67 LED CITY HALL & PUBLIC WORKS BLDGS Invoice 202054 9/22020 -1710- CITY OF MOUND 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 6 Payments Current Period: September 2020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply MATERIALS FOR LIGHT CONVERSION TO $741.67 LED CITY HALL & PUBLIC WORKS BLDGS Invoice 202054 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $9,888.85 Refer 808 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INCORPOR _ Cash Payment E 101-41930-202 Duplicating and copying COPY ROOM KONICA C652 - COLOR $122.61 OVERAGE- 8-14-20 THRU 8-17-20 Invoice 3503602 8252020 Cash Payment E 101-41930-202 Duplicating and copying COPY ROOM KONICA C652 - B & W $95.50 OVERAGE- 8-14-20 THRU 8-17-20 Invoice 3503602 8252020 Transaction Date 8/302020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $218.11 Refer 854 MIDWEST SERVICES _ Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- TRUCK #1604, $720.00 #214, SINCLAIR GENERATOR Invoice 1144 8/112020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- TRUCK #219, $720.00 JOHN DEERE 5300 #197, GLEN ELYN & BAYWOOD SHORES GENERATORS Invoice 1144 8/42020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- CLAM BUCKET $712.50 #107, PELICAN SWEEPER #407, AVANT #220, CAT ROLLER #604, COMMERCE GENERATOR Invoice 1144 8272020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- TRUCK #109, $585.00 #315, T-650 BOBCAT BUCKET, START FREIGHTLINER PLOW TRUCKS, CLEAN TOOL ROOM, PUT AWAY STOCK ORDER Invoice 1144 8/82020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- TRUCK #420, $720.00 PELICAN SWEEPER #407, JD LOADER #107, CHECKED PINTLE HITCHES ON TRUCKS - GREASED & EXERCISSED SEIZED HITCHES Invoice 1144 8252020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- TRUCK #515, $495.00 TYMCO SWEEPER #304, PRESSURE WASHER ON TRAILER Invoice 1144 8202020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- TRUCK #420, $720.00 GRANDVIEW GENERATOR, TYMCO SWEEPER #304, JD LOADER #107, STIGA #106 Invoice 1144 8/182020 Project 20-5 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic MECHANIC SVCS- AUG 2020- TRUCK #320, $720.00 SINCLAIR GENERATOR, BALDOR LIGHT TOWER, UPDATED MTCE RECORDS FOR 2020 Invoice 1144 8/132020 Project 20-5 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,392.50 Refer 918 MILLER, MICHAEL _ Cash Payment E 281-45210-331 Use of personal auto REIMS MILEAGE- DOCK INSPECTIONS- M. $100.63 MILLER- 6-16-20 THRU 9-1-20 Invoice 090220 9/22020 CITY OF MOUND 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 7 Payments Current Period: September 2020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $100.63 Refer 809 MINNESOTA ELEVATOR, INCORP _ Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Servic AUGUST 2020- MONTHLY SVCE- $120.00 CENTENNIAL BLDG ELEVATOR Invoice 868805 8282020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $120.00 Refer 810 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA Cash Payment E 601-49400-470 Water Samples Invoice 1046413 8/182020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Refer 850 MINUTEMAN PRESS Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 21097 9/12020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 21097 9/12020 Transaction Date 9/12020 Refer 811 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIO Cash Payment E 222-42260-124 Fire Pens Contrib Invoice 090120 9/12020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Refer 822 MOUND WESTONKA SCHOOL DIS Cash Payment E 101-41110-431 Meeting Expense Invoice 083120 8/312020 Transaction Date 8/312020 MONTHLY CHLORINE REPORT & COLIFORM $110.00 WATER TESTS -10 Wells Fargo 10100 Total E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials $110.00 $1,340.65 500 QTY WATER METER INSPECTION - $49.95 DOOR HANGAR CARDS 500 QTY WATER METER INSPECTION - $49.95 DOOR HANGAR CARDS Wells Fargo 10100 Total E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials $99.90 SEPTEMBER 2020 - FIRE RELIEF PENSION $11,000.00 CONTRIBUTION STREETS Wells Fargo 10100 Total Invoice 258783 $11,000.00 PERFORMING ARTS CENTER FEES- $260.00 SOUND/LIGHT TECHNICIAN, & HOST FOR 3/4" MINUS MIX- 38.73 TONS 8-20-20 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AUG 12TH & AUG 25TH STREETS Project CV -19 Invoice 258860 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $260.00 Refer 844 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS, IN _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/4" MINUS MIX- 58.93 TONS 8-19-20 $1,340.65 STREETS Invoice 258782 8/192020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/8" FINE ASPHALT- 5.02 TONS 8-19-20 $361.44 STREETS Invoice 258783 8/192020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/4" MINUS MIX- 38.73 TONS 8-20-20 $881.11 STREETS Invoice 258860 8202020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/8" FINE ASPHALT- 2.03 TONS 8-20-20 $146.16 STREETS Invoice 258861 8202020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 3/8" FINE ASPHALT- 2.53 TONS 8-21-20 $182.16 STREETS Invoice 258921 8212020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 12" CLEAR RED ROCKS- 57.36 TONS 8-20-20 $1,904.35 STREETS Invoice 258860 8202020 - 1712 - CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials CONCRETE SAND- 202.04 TONS 8-19-20 STREETS Invoice 258782 8/192020 Transaction Date 9/12020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 812 OFFICE DEPOT Cash Payment E 101-41410-200 Office Supplies Invoice 117207327001 8212020 P025177 Cash Payment E 101-41930-200 Office Supplies Invoice 117207327001 8212020 P025177 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 119262328001 8252020 PO 8242020 Transaction Date 8/312020 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 8 $2,788.15 Total $7,604.02 3 ROLLS PAINTERS TAPE & 2 BOXES DYMO $43.37 ADDRESS LABELS -ELECTIONS COPY PAPER, SELF- INKING DATER STAMP, $153.57 NAME BADGE LABELS, AVERY FULL SHEET LABELS -WATER BILLINGS -CITY HALL COPY PAPER -CASE, STAPLES, PENS, $54.82 HIGHLIGHTERS- HWS Wells Fargo 10100 Total $251.76 Refer 813 OPUS 21 MGMT SOLUTIONS, LLC _ Cash Payment E 601-49400-307 Admin/Finance/Compute JULY 2020 -CIS DATA HOSTING, Invoice W5421501 8/52020 PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 200760 8212020 $13,417.06 Cash Payment E 602-49450-307 Admin/Finance/Compute JULY 2020 -CIS DATA HOSTING, Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS PRODUCTION, BILLING, CALL CTR SUPPORT Invoice 200760 8212020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-322 Postage JULY 2020- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE Invoice 200760 8212020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-322 Postage JULY 2020- UTILITY BILLING POSTAGE Invoice 200760 8212020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 814 ORONO, CITY OF Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners Invoice 20141654 8/192020 Transaction Date 8/312020 HENNEP CTY JAIL CHARGES- PER DIEM FEES JULY 2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 915 R.C. ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 222-42260-401 Building Repairs RETRO FIT TO LED- INTERIOR STAIRWELL LIGHTS @ PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG Invoice 7285 9/22020 Cash Payment E 405-41930-400 Repairs & Maintenance RETRO FIT TO LED- INTERIOR STAIRWELL LIGHTS @ PUBLIC SAFETY BLDG Invoice 7285 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,871.39 $1,871.38 $313.47 $313.48 $4,369.72 $375.00 $375.00 $152.82 $152.82 $305.64 Refer 825 RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS $13,417.07 Invoice W5421501 8/52020 Cash Payment E 101-45200-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS $13,417.06 Invoice W5421501 8/52020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS $13,417.07 Invoice W5421501 8/52020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS $13,417.07 Invoice W5421501 8/52020 -1713- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 9 Cash Payment E 101-43100-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs REPLACEMENT PEDALS- CAT ROLLER #107 - $902.22 STREETS DEPT Invoice P8030501 8/52020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic CREDIT 4WD LOADER RENTAL- PUB WKS -$1,791.37 Invoice R0032814 7212020 Cash Payment E 101-45200-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS -$1,791.36 Invoice W5421501 8/52020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS -$1,791.36 Invoice W5421501 8/52020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 4WD LOADER- PUBLIC WORKS -$1,791.36 Invoice W5421501 8/52020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $47,405.04 Refer 815 REPUBLIC SERVICES _ Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic AUGUST 2020 CITYWIDE RECYCLING SVC $14,494.95 Invoice 0894-005236332 8252020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $14,494.95 Refer 920 ROBERT DANA DESIGN _ Cash Payment G 101-23150 New Construction Escrow NEW CONSTRUCTION ESCROW REFUND- $5,000.00 2152 ASHLAND LN- ROBERT DANA DESIGN Invoice 090320 9/32020 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,000.00 Refer 917 ROBERTS, COLLETTE _ Cash Payment E 101-41500-305 Medical Services 2020 EYEWEAR -EXAM REIMB- C. ROBERTS $50.00 Invoice 090120 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $50.00 Refer 816 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPER -CITY _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-328 Employment Advertising PARKS- FT MTCE HELP WANTED AD $75.00 PUBLISHED 8-22-20 Invoice 791419 8232020 Cash Payment E 101-45200-328 Employment Advertising PARKS- FT MTCE HELP WANTED AD $75.00 PUBLISHED 8-29-20 Invoice 792471 8/302020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $150.00 Refer 935 TRUE VALUE- DELANO _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies 6 DULICATE BATHROOM KEYS- HWS $11.94 Invoice 115336 8/102020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies HAND SANITIZER- HWS $61.72 Invoice 115269 8/52020 Project CV -19 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $73.66 Refer 817 ULINE _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply HEXARMOR GLOVES PAIR L, 1 PAIR XL- $122.00 PARKS DEPT Invoice 123191798 8/142020 Project CV -19 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply BELL CORDED EARPLUGS- PARKS DEPT $26.88 Invoice 123191798 8/142020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $148.88 Refer 818 VESSCO, INCORPORATED -1714- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Cash Payment E 601-49400-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs REBUILT CHLORINE LINES & CLEANED AN INJECTOR -UTILITIES Invoice 80859 8/102020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 819WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIREAND _ Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Machinery/Equip Repairs MOUNT 2 TURF TIRES- PARKS EQUIPMENT Invoice 865605 8242020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispose DISPOSE OF 8 TIRES, 5 TRUCK TIRES AND 4 TRACKS Invoice 866282 9/12020 Project 20-5 Transaction Date 8/312020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 820 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 698142456 8262020 Cash Payment E 602-49450-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 698093439 8252020 Cash Payment E 101-43100-381 Electric Utilities Invoice 698071811 8252020 Transaction Date 8/312020 Refer 914 YESCO TWIN CITIES WEST 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 10 $525.00 $525.00 $34.00 $474.00 $508.00 ELECTRIC SVC 7-26-20 THRU 8-24-20 $79.46 CARLOW RD LIFT STATION ELECTRIC SVC 7-26-20 THRU 8-24-20 1871 $100.15 COMMERCE BLVD LIFT STATION 1790 COMMERCE STREET LIGHTS 7-26-20 $40.18 THRU 8-24-20 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $219.79 Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maintenance EXTERIOR NEON HWS LOGO LIGHT UPGRADE TO LED- HWS Invoice 2785 9/12020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-400 Repairs & Maintenance EXTERIOR NEON CIRCLE LOGO LIGHT UPGRADE TO LED- HWS Invoice 2786 9/12020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 823 ZARNO TH BRUSH WORKS, INCOR Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 0181553 8/192020 Transaction Date 8/312020 $801.32 $916.32 Total $1,717.64 DISPOSABLE GUTTER BROOMS- QTY 10- $1,320.00 TYMCO STREET SWEEPER Wells Fargo -1715- 10100 Total $1,320.00 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 403 CAP REPLAC-VEHICLES & EQUIP 405 CAP REPLAC-CITY BUILDINGS 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 10100 Wells Fargo $60,899.42 $15,548.81 $150.63 $56,318.00 $152.82 $21,093.49 $24,061.63 $2,006.58 $14,494.95 $194,726.33 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Computer $194,726.33 Total $194,726.33 -1716- 09/03/20 1:03 PM Page 11 CITY OF MOUND 09/03/2011: 49 AM Page 1 Payments Current Period: September 2020 Payments Batch 090820HWS $161,137.62 Refer 898 AMPHORA IMPORTS LLC Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $336.00 Invoice 8803 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $14.00 Invoice 8803 8272020 Invoice 0085627000 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $350.00 Refer 877 ARTISAN BEER COMPANY _ FREIGHT Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $847.50 Invoice 3435290 8282020 Refer 857 BELLBOY CORPORATION Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,112.60 Invoice 3434076 8212020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $230.90 Invoice 3430508 7/302020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT -$71.50 Invoice 494320 8242020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT -$30.75 Invoice 494325 8242020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,088.75 Refer 855 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS $29.70 Invoice 0101906000 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MDSE- GIFT BAGS, MN SPORTS TEAMS CAN $62.00 COOLERS Invoice 0101906000 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MDSE- JELLO SHOT CUPS $11.94 Invoice 0101885100 8212020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $19.60 Invoice 0101906000 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES- ROLL TOWELS $34.00 Invoice 0101863800 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES- DUM DUM POPS $15.00 Invoice 0101884200 8212020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $172.24 Refer 927 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 0085621800 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0085621800 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 0085627000 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 0085627000 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0085627000 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 857 BELLBOY CORPORATION -1717- $250.00 $7.75 $95.00 $3,250.37 $41.60 Total $3,644.72 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 09/03/20 11:49 AM Page 2 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $257.00 Invoice 0085576900 8282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,373.60 Invoice 0085574100 8282020 Invoice 0085525000 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $17.05 Invoice 0085574100 8282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,647.65 Refer 926 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-210 Operating Supplies SUPPLIES, BAGS $55.00 Invoice 0101938500 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MDSE- DOUBLE JIGGER $13.00 Invoice 0101938500 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $160.80 Invoice 0101938500 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $228.80 Refer 856 BELLBOY CORPORATION _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 0085525800 8262020 $10,563.52 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0085465500 8212020 $2,301.20 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0085525000 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 0085465500 8212020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 0085525000 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 0085525800 8262020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo Refer 858 BOOM ISLAND BREWING COMPAN'_ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 9772 8262020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo Refer 866 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1091162947 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1091164686 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1091164687 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1091163437 8212020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Refer 928 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN BEE Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1091166914 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale Invoice 1091166913 9/22020 $146.00 $13.95 $15.50 $1,198.85 $1,112.10 $3.10 10100 Total $2,489.50 $220.00 10100 Total $220.00 BEER $2,276.45 BEER $10,563.52 BEER $43.20 BEER $2,301.20 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15,184.37 BEER $90.60 BEER $10,559.05 -1718- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 09/03/20 11:49 AM Page 3 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,649.65 Refer 901 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $48.00 Invoice 1081172796 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $770.78 Invoice 1081172795 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $3,175.27 Invoice 1081172794 8262020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,994.05 Refer 863 BREAKTHRU BEVERAGE MN WINE _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $31.46 Invoice 1081169853 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $5,122.69 Invoice 1081169851 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,198.20 Invoice 1081169852 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $134.95 Invoice 1081169519 8/182020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $6,487.30 Refer 900 BROKEN CLOCK BREWING COOP _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $189.00 Invoice 4084 8252020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $189.00 Refer 929 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.P. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $215.15 Invoice 2457003 9/12020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $34.98 Invoice 2457003 9/12020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT -$12.85 Invoice 2457002 9/12020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $10,468.35 Invoice 2457001 9/12020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,705.63 Refer 902 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L.P. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,786.30 Invoice 2454428 8252020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER CREDIT -$18.80 Invoice 2454429 8252020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,767.50 Refer 903 CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE CO. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,699.50 Invoice 548183 8242020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,699.50 Refer 875 COCA COLA BOTTLING -MIDWEST Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa COCA COLA PRODUCTS- MIX $556.44 Invoice 3609211151 8/312020 -1719- CITY OF MOUND 09/03/2011: 49 AM Page 4 Payments Current Period: September 2020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $556.44 Refer 870 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $627.50 Invoice 123-06108 8252020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $627.50 Refer 930 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $1,690.00 Invoice 123-06201 9/12020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $49.00 Invoice 1282374 9/12020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,739.00 Refer 904 DRASTIC MEASURES BREWING _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $288.00 Invoice 715 8282020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $288.00 Refer 868 HOHENSTEINS, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $2,023.45 Invoice 216022 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $207.45 Invoice 216023 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $3,515.85 Invoice 241998 8202020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,746.75 Refer 931 JACK PINE BREWERY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $366.00 Invoice 3568 9/12020 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $366.00 Refer 858 JJ TAYLOR. DISTRIBUTING MINN _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,904.30 Invoice 3107995 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $72.45 Invoice 3107996 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $4,939.15 Invoice 3107963 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $133.90 Invoice 3107964 8202020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,049.80 Refer 869 JJ TAYLOR. DISTRIBUTING MINN _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $8,074.85 Invoice 3107935 8/132020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $201.95 Invoice 3107934 8/132020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $125.00 Invoice 3107940 8/132020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $8,401.80 Refer 864 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR _ -1720- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 09/03/20 11:49 AM Page 5 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $2,548.80 Invoice 1621150 8/172020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,603.20 Invoice 1621151 8/172020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$180.00 Invoice 112133 8/112020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR CREDIT -$124.99 Invoice 112855 8/142020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $79.95 Invoice 1518392-2 8/172020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $3,926.96 Refer 871 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $28.00 Invoice 1628571 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $10,768.61 Invoice 1628569 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $3,287.88 Invoice 1628570 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $5,727.50 Invoice 1623761 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,527.80 Invoice 1623762 8/192020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $22,339.79 Refer 885 LUPULIN BREWING COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $318.00 Invoice 31549 8272020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $318.00 Refer 892 MARLIN S TRUCKING DELIVERY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY SVC 8-13-20 $333.50 Invoice 36621 8/132020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight DELIVERY SVC 8-6-20 $571.30 Invoice 36606 8/62020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $904.80 Refer 905 MAVERICK WINE COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $255.96 Invoice 473707 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $1.50 Invoice 473707 8202020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $257.46 Refer 932 MODIST BREWING CO. LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $258.00 Invoice 16024 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $258.00 Refer 906 OUTSTATE BREWING COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $302.00 Invoice 1299 8212020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $302.00 1721 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Refer 911 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 99951 8/312020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 99951 8/312020 09/03/20 11:49 AM Page 6 $594.08 $10.00 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $604.08 Refer 865 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ $530.00 Total $530.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $40.00 Invoice 6082539 8262020 WINE $150.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $588.00 Invoice 6082537 8262020 BEER $165.00 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $418.50 Invoice 6082538 8262020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $315.00 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,046.50 Refer 873 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS, INC _ $219.38 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $1,091.82 Invoice 6079127 8/192020 ICE $176.92 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $54.50 Invoice 6079128 8/192020 ICE $230.69 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $4,198.03 Invoice 6079126 8/192020 ICE $301.44 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $5,344.35 Refer 883 PLUNKETT S, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 609-49750-440 Other Contractual Servic CONTRACTED PEST CONTROL SVC 2-24-19 $52.02 HWS Invoice 5387094 3/12016 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $52.02 Refer Cash Payment Invoice 12835 Transaction Date 912 PRYES BREWING COMPANY, LLC E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale 8202020 9/22020 _ BEER Wells Fargo 10100 $530.00 Total $530.00 Refer 907 SCHRAM WINERY & BREWERY LL _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $150.00 Invoice 000595 8282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $165.00 Invoice 000201 8282020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $315.00 Refer 890 SHAMROCK GROUP, INC. _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $219.38 Invoice 2540608 8292020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $176.92 Invoice 2539552 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $230.69 Invoice 2535086 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $301.44 Invoice 2536133 8222020 -1722- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE Invoice 2541942 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 888 SHANKEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R WINE SPECTATOR PUBLICATIONS 8-31-20 EDITION Invoice S0720753 7/142020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $15.00 09/03/20 11:49 AM Page 7 $152.58 Refer 908 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF M _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $3,102.00 Invoice 1985765 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $8,458.81 Invoice 1985766 8202020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $11,560.81 Refer 860 SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS OF M _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,204.00 Invoice 1988275 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $8,246.71 Invoice 1988274 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $78.00 Invoice 1988273 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $96.00 Invoice 1988276 8272020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $10,624.71 Refer 897 SP3, LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER $609.50 Invoice 25971 8272020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $609.50 Refer 894 SUMMER LAKES BEVERAGE LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $1,125.00 Invoice 1463 8212020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,125.00 Refer 884 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $10.00 Invoice 0262034 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $408.00 Invoice 0262034 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $120.00 Invoice 0262031 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $12.00 Invoice 0262031 8202020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $550.00 Refer 887 VINOCOPIA, INCORPORATED _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $356.88 Invoice 0262455 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $176.00 Invoice 0262436 8262020 -1723- CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 09/03/20 11:49 AM Page 8 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $5.00 Invoice 0262436 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $5.00 Invoice 0262445 8272020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $542.88 Refer 867 WINE COMPANY _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $624.00 Invoice 150180 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $11.55 Invoice 149599 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $868.00 Invoice 149599 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $11.55 Invoice 150180 8272020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $4.20 Invoice 150328 8282020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $384.00 Invoice 150328 8282020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $1,903.30 Refer 862 WINE MERCHANTS _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $23.00 Invoice 7296075 8262020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $2,388.00 Invoice 7296074 8262020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $2,411.00 Refer 909 WINE MERCHANTS _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX $23.00 Invoice 7295237 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT -$54.00 Invoice 733757 8/122020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $844.00 Invoice 7295236 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE CREDIT -$4.50 Invoice 733756 8/122020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $808.50 Refer 895 WINEBOW _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $186.50 Invoice 00082624 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $126.00 Invoice 00082624 8202020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $6.75 Invoice 00082624 8202020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total $319.25 Refer 910 WINEBOW _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $834.00 Invoice 00082792 8252020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT $6.75 Invoice 00082792 8252020 -1724- Transaction Date 9/22020 CITY OF MOUND Payments Current Period: September 2020 Wells Fargo 10100 Refer 925 WRS IMPORTS, LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 2743 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 2743 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/32020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Total Refer 933 Z WINES USA LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 23673 9/22020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 23673 9/22020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Total Refer 882 Z WINES USA LLC _ Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Invoice 23629 8/192020 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight FREIGHT Invoice 23629 8/192020 Transaction Date 9/22020 Wells Fargo 10100 Fund Summary 10100 Wells Fargo 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND $161,137.62 $161,137.62 Pre -Written Checks $0.00 Checks to be Generated bythe Computer $161,137.62 Total $161,137.62 -1725- Total 09/03/20 11:49 AM Page 9 $840.75 $540.00 $7.50 $547.50 $402.00 $10.00 $412.00 $286.00 $7.50 $293.50 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES August 25, 2020 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. in the Westonka Schools Performing Arts Center in Minnetrista. Members present: Mayor Ray Salazar; Council members Phil Velsor, Jeff Bergquist, Paula Larson, and Sherrie Pugh Members absent: None Others present: City Manager Eric Hoversten, Fin Dir/Clerk/Treasurer Catherine Pausche, City Engineer Brian Simmons, Justin Rock, Gretchen Piper Consent agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine in nature by the Council. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event it will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. Open meeting Mayor Salazar called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Pledae of Alleaiance 3. Approve agenda MOTION by Bergquist, seconded by Velsor, to approve the agenda. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 4. Consent agenda MOTION by Velsor, seconded by Pugh, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Upon roll call vote, all voted in favor. Motion carried. A. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $371,702.19. B. Approve minutes: 08-12-20 rescheduled regular meeting. C. RESOLUTION NO. 20-75: RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES D. RESOLUTION NO. 20-76: RESOLUTION APPROVING UN -FORECAST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT EXCEEDING $5,000 FOR CONVERSION OF FLORESCENT LIGHTING TO LED LIGHTING E. RESOLUTION NO 20-77: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR 4730 GALWAY ROAD FOR INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC TO ABUTTING CITY ASSIGNED DOCK AND TO ALLOW LOW VOLTAGE ACCENT LIGHTS MI Wei a Mound City Council Minutes — August 25, 2020 5. Comments and suggestions from citizens present on any item not on the agenda. Gretchen Piper, 4653 Highcroft Road, said she is running for Minnesota Senate District 33 and is introducing herself all around the district to cities, school boards, police and fire. Piper gave her personal background and said her family has been here for generations. Piper said she is running to ensure the values of the community are represented at the capital. Piper said she is a small business owner in Wayzata and gave a list of experience with various organizations, including currently with Goodwill Easter Seals. Piper said her priorities are healthcare and climate, noting she is looking to put all voters in front of partisan gridlock. Piper said she can take questions now or can be reached at gretchenpiper.com. Piper said she is hosting multiple listening sessions each week. Mayor Salazar thanked Piper and upon receiving no further questions from the Council, wished her luck. 6. Orono Police Sergeant Tim Sonnek presenting the Mound activity report for July 2020 Officer Tim Sonnek summarized the number of calls/activity for the month of July, 2020 as shown in the report for the packet. Larson once again noted that the number of calls differs from other information she has been given. Sonnek said not all calls appear on this report, just the ones that create a case number. For instance, traffic stops that did not result in a ticket. 7. City Engineer Brian Simmons requesting action to approve a Resolution accepting bid for 2020 Manhole Rehabilitation Project, City Project PW -20-04 and awarding contract in the amount of $86,980.00 to Thule Specialty Contracting Simmons summarized the project to fight inflow and infiltration in Mound that was on the 2020 capital plan, noting it focuses on leaking in sanitary sewer manholes. Simmons said this contractor did the 2019 project. Larson asked for Simmons to explain what manhole covers are. Simmons said some need to be replaced, but the work focuses more on where the clear water enters the sanitary sewer system on the municipally owned portion vs private property. Simmons clarified there is a complete structure underneath the manhole cover. Bergquist asked if the work includes any other pipes and Simmons said it is limited to leaking manholes that were analyzed and determined to be problematic. Bergquist asked about a sunken cover near his home and Simmons said that relates to the potable water system. Simmons said sometimes the installation is a problem because of the compaction around it and just to let the City Manager know where that particular cover is. MOTION by Bergquist, seconded by Larson, to adopt the following resolution. All voted in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 20-78: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID FOR 2020 MANHOLE REHABILITATION PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. PW -20-04 Mfxm Mound City Council Minutes — August 25, 2020 8. Director of Finance and Administration Catherine Pausche requesting discussion and direction on the updated Capital Improvement Plan and Long Term Financial Plan Pausche said in 2018 there was an extensive analysis of the city's infrastructure with Bolton and Menk using the knowledge and inventory from the last 15 years of projects to come up with a timeline for maintenance and replacement which created the project priorities in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Pausche noted the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) shows how we are going to pay for the CIP. Pausche said the Council will not make any formal decisions tonight and this is just an opportunity to review the project priorities and timing that impact the property tax and utility rates. Pausche said in 2018 the motivation for creating this plan was to reduce and hopefully eliminate the need for special assessments to the abutting property owners and finance future street projects with the levy, reserves, and debt as needed. Pausche said in 2000 when the street projects got started, there were no reserves and between 2003 and 2016, the City issued over $75M in bonds to finance the projects. Pausche summarized those projects by category, including streets, utilities, and redevelopment, noting that $48.5M is still outstanding as of 12-31-19. Pausche said the street project special assessments varied by project based on the density of the area and cost of the project. Pausche detailed the five capital reserve funds that were created in 2018, including Infrastructure Replacement Reserve Fund, Capital Reserve Funds for Vehicles & Equipment and City Buildings, Community Investment Reserve fund for parks and open spaces, and the Road Maintenance Fund. Pausche said the city issued an average of $5.11 M in bonds per year from 2003 — 2016, $2.8M funded by utilities, $1.4M funded by levies, and $909K funded by special assessments. Pausche said the city can assess up to 2/3'' of the assessable street costs which funded a large portion of the street projects. Pausche showed that % of city expenditures are for operating and % are for debt and capital investments. Pausche said Staff tries to maintain the same format for the CIP and LTFP so people can become more familiar with it and can more easily identify the patterns. Pausche said it is a very fluid document as more needs are identified and estimates change and noted that since October of 2019, the project costs increased $4.2M for 2021 — 2029. Pausche noted that the idea is to commit to some level of funding and make it more predictable and stable. Pausche highlighted the assumptions for the CIP which shows the frequency of repairs and replacement. Pausche noted that only about % of the sewer piping infrastructure is municipally owned and some cities are looking at how to assist private property owners in addressing their inflow and infiltration issues. Pausche said the LTFP shows the two scenarios which have not changed since October 2019, a 5% and 3.5% levy increase for the next 10 years with a 3% increase to sewer rates only. Pausche said she always tries to give at least two scenarios so the Council can better understand the trade-offs. Pausche said she could have also given a 10% levy increase scenario, noting that the average levy increase in the 2000's was 11 % per year whereas in the 2010's it was less than 2% when the City tax base went down 40% and many operating cost cutting measures were made. Pausche said it is now time to decide what the 2020's will look like and what kind of burden we will leave for the future. Pausche said the scenario summary shows that with a 5% levy increase through 2030, with the current assumptions in the CIP, $9.6M in bonds will be needed and with a 3.5% levy increase through 2030, $13.8M in bonds will be needed. Pausche also noted the difference in the levy has a minimal impact on the tax rate but results in significantly higher reserve funding. Pausche noted the utility funds are significantly in the red and are subsidized by positive cash balances in the governmental funds. MrN:10 Mound City Council Minutes — August 25, 2020 Bergquist asked about the ongoing street maintenance assumptions and asked that if at the end of the mill and overlay do we basically have a new street. Simmons said the mill and overlay is to seal and up and extend the life because we know when we rebuilt it, good class 5 was put underneath it. Bergquist asked if that is the norm. Simmons said it is based on what he sees and hears from neighboring communities and his peers. Bergquist said he just doesn't see his street lasting 30 years and that a lot is being asked of the first part of the street life. Simmons said that is to be expected as the pavement is new and should have the longest wear. Simmons said there is a rating scale of 0 to 100 to evaluate the condition of pavement that each of these activities adds a certain amount of points. Bergquist wondered if it is realistic. Simmons said part of the goal is to respond to changing conditions including increased use of the road. Bergquist asked if arterial streets had 2 more inches of base and Simmons said the pavement on truck routes is 2 inches thicker and there is 1.5 to 4 additional inches of gravel base. Simmons said Tuxedo Blvd has 4 more inches of base. Pugh noted the prior streets were much older when this round of projects started. Hoversten said when BMI took over in 2003, they took a more holistic approach, which addressed the infrastructure under the streets and much of it was the first time the underlying water and sewer infrastructure had been assessed and repaired/replaced so the streets wouldn't have to be torn up again, noting the underlying utilities should last much longer than the streets. Hoversten noted the plan is the engineering piece but when and how to do it is the legislative piece. Hoversten said it is risk management on how much to delay and/or push costs into the future. Pugh said she thinks Mound has done a great job with infrastructure and has the best streets in the lake area. Pugh agrees that setting aside reserves is the right thing to do. Bergquist asked Pausche to clarify the two scenarios and whether or not special assessments can be avoided. Pausche pointed to the two scenarios in the LTFP, and the amount allocated to the capital project funds. Pausche said with a 5% levy increase per year, there will be $3.419M available for the Infrastructure Replacement Reserve fund and only $2.2M with a 3.5% annual increase by 2030. Pausche also noted the higher deficit/bonding needs of an additional $4.3M if we only levy 3.5%. Salazar asked about the private sewer lines. Hoversten explained the 51 % of sewer pipes are on private property. Hoversten said they changed focus to manhole repair after exhausting the best opportunities for pipe lining (CIPP) on the municipal side along with replacing all of the lift stations. Hoversten said the available funds have been used on the municipal side first and then the decisions will have to be made on how to approach the private side issues since it all impacts our fees to the Met Council for wastewater treatment. Salazar asked Simmons to address domestic water quality and what causes brown water. Simmons said the same topography that requires lift stations does not facilitate looping and some residents are in locations that are basically dead ends, which is why there is a semi- annual flushing program, noting the iron and manganese that causes brown water is safe. Simmons said 2 loops have been added to the island. Hoversten said on the management side, mixers have been added to the water towers because iron increases with the exposure to air and time and mixing keeps water moving. Hoversten said cleaning of storage tanks to cut down on build up has also been stepped up. Hoversten said BMI has created a model based flushing plan using valves to flush segments rather than just moving the water down the system. Hoversten noted there are places that still have challenges were supply zones overlap or areas ErNO-10 Mound City Council Minutes — August 25, 2020 with an imbalance of use. Hoversten said an example is on Lynwood at about Grandview which is the intersection of water from Evergreen tower and Chateau tower and depending which side is using more water, there is a lot of water changing directions and scrubbing in the pipe. Hoversten said he recommends delaying water treatment plants that will $4M at each location as well as create significant new operating expenses, noting that is why they are not even in the CIP at this time. Hoversten said the focus on better management practices is in order to keep costs and rates down. Hoversten encouraged people to continue to report problems so they can be studied. Salazar asked if there were additives that could be added but Hoversten said nothing that he would ever recommend as they are short term solutions that create other problems down the road. Bergquist noted the 5% and 3.5% levy scenarios will be discussed at the next meeting so this is the time to ask questions. Hoversten said the preliminary levy will set the cap for the final levy and this is just an attempt to break down the information in sizable chunks, noting the budget and levy will be discussed at the September 8, 2020 meeting. Salazar said just like personal finance management for households, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure and this is a way to think about our citizens and avoid the need for special assessments, which have been a topic of concern for many in the past. Salazar noted his street had craters prior to being improved, noting this current round of projects was an investment in the future, similar to the new fire station in 2003. Salazar said it is the Council's responsibility to be good stewards and make the tough decisions. Salazar encouraged the Council to reach out with questions and to spend the time with the information over the next two weeks as he has. Salazar asked what are the additional annual taxes due for a $400K house with a 5% compared to a 3.5% and Pausche said approximately $23 per year. 9. Information/Miscellaneous Hoversten said meetings will be held at the PAC through November 10, 2020. Hoversten said it is estimated that the Narrows Bridge will reopen after Labor Day, noting the 15/19 intersection is wrapping up quickly and Hwy 7 eastbound closures will begin Sept 6. Hoversten said there are some issues with the lift station near the Brighton bridge so warranty work will begin that may cause some closures. Hoversten said they will work with the Met Council on a communication strategy. Simmons said Hennepin County may build a temporary bridge next to the Tanager bridge but no timeframe has been set. Hoversten noted links to the county information are available on the City website's construction project tab. A. Comments/reports from Council members/City Manager: B. Reports: Fire — July 2020 C. Minutes: D. Correspondence: 9. Adjourn MOTION by Bergquist, seconded by Pugh, to adjourn at 8:30 p.m. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar MrK11l11 n =J:eer�au� PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Mound City Council's Tuesday, October 20, 2020 special meeting workshop has been cancelled due to anticipated agenda items being covered at regular meetings held on August 25, 2020 and September 9, 2020. Catherine Pausche Cry Clerk Posted 09/0920 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director Rita Trapp, Consulting Planners DATE: September 2, 2020 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Eric Jahnke LOCATION: 5381 Baywood Shores Drive (PID 13-117-24-21-0065) MEETING DATE: September 8, 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential ZONING: R-1 Single- Family Residential Summary The applicant, Eric Jahnke, has submitted an application for variances to the front yard and side yard setbacks to allow for an expansion to the existing house on a shorel and lot on Harrison's Bay. The existing lot of record, totaling 11,335 square feet, is a residential lot located on the south side of Baywood Shores Drive. According to Hennepin County data, the current home was built in 1971. While this shoreland lot is larger than the minimum required for the R-1 zoning district, the property is impacted by a number of existing conditions. The propertvs shape is wider at the road than at the Lakeshore. In the front, the property also slopes more than 6 feet from the east property line to the west property line. The orientation of the home is slightly skewed to the front of the property which results in the side walls of the home being closer to the side property lines at the rear of the home than the front. The existing home is a split-level dwelling that has a lakefacingdeck. The applicant is proposing an addition on the front and west side of the home. The addition will be 30 feet by 30 feet in size, or about 900 square feet in area. The addition will provide a new garage space on the lowest level, living area on the main level, and bedroom/bath space on the upper level. In addition, the applicant is proposing a 8.5 foot by 8 foot foyer over the existing stoop and a new porch in front. As part of the project the applicant will be adding a new roof, maintenance free siding and stonework to replace the existing brick. Due to the lot limitations, the applicant is requesting two variances, one which would be for a reduced front yard setback and one which would be for a reduced side yard setback. 1732- Planning Commission Review and Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the variance request at their September 1st meeting. Draft minutes have been prepared for your review. Two neighbors of the applicant were in attendance and expressed support for the variance. Planning Commission discussion focused on clarifying some aspects of the project including the building cant on the west side which was included in the project to break up the building wall. There was a question about hardcover and runoff. The applicant confirmed that the project is under the 40% hardcover maximum and also noted that the deck was included in the calculations. Therefore, proposed hardcover will be less than as shown. The applicant expressed willingness to work with the landscaper and contractor on the grading/drainage for the project. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the variance with the conditions and findings as proposed by Staff. Notification Property owners abutting the subject site, per Hennepin County tax records, were mailed a letter on September 2 n to inform them of the City Council's consideration of the application at its September 8, 2020 meeting and that the request was being included on the Consent Agenda. Recommendation Given Staff and the Planning Commission recommendation for approval, the attached resolution has been prepared for your consideration. M 191910 RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 5381 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE PLANNING CASE NO. 20-16 PID NO. 13-117-24-21-0065 WHEREAS, the applicant and property owner Eric Jahnke submitted a request for a variance to build an addition to his existing home at 5381 Baywood Shores Drive; and WHEREAS, the shoreland property is located in the R-1 single-family residential zoning district; and WHEREAS, the 11,335 square foot property includes a home that was constructed in 1971; and WHEREAS, the existing home is a split-level dwelling that has a lake -facing deck; and WHEREAS, the property is wider at the road than at the lakeshore and the home is slightly skewed to the front property line; and WHEREAS, the existing home is non -conforming as one of the side yard setbacks and the lakeshore setback does not meet minimum requirements; and WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing an addition on the front and west side of the home that will be 30 feet by 30 feet in size and will provide a new garage space on the lowest level, living area on the main level, and bedroom/bath space on the upper level; and WHEREAS, the proposed addition will result in a front yard setback of 21.8 feet and a side yard setback of 7.85 feet, both of which do not meet minimum setback requirements for the R-1 zoning district; 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, MFitt, E 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 Executive Summary Report for the September 8, 2020 meeting, the Planning Commission report for the September 1, 2020 meeting, 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 request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its September 1, 2020 meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended Council approval of the variance as recommended by Staff; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the variance request at its September 8, 2020 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 variance application was made within the timelines included in Minnesota Statutes 15.99; and MrKRE WHEREAS, in granting approval of the variance, the City Council makes the following findings of fact: 1. The criteria of City Code Section 129-39 (a) are being met. Improvements to the residential use of this property are in keeping with how it is zoned and guided in the comprehensive plan and will not change the existing neighborhood character. 3. It is reasonable for a multiple story expansion on a residential structure, and given the existing location of the house on the property as well as challenging topography on the east side of the property, the property owner is limited on where they can expand. The layout of the parcel, narrowing from the road to the lake, along with the existing building's walls not being parallel with the side lot lines, means that any expansion along existing walls causes reducing the side yard. 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 a variance for the property at 5381 Baywood Shores Drive to allow construction of a second floor expansion that has a setback of 21.8 feet from the front property line and 7.85 feet from the west side property line with the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 2. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action. 3. Applicant shall provide all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. MrKI101 a 7. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has rules including but not limited to, wetlands, floodplain, erosion control, stormwater, and shoreline and streambank alteration. 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. Adopted by the City Council this 8'h of September, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche. Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar MrKYR MINUTE EXCERPTS— DRAFT MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 2020 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Goode called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm ROLL CALL Members Present: Sue Pilling, Kevin Castellano, Jake Saystrom, Vice Chair David Goode, Jason Baker, Sherrie Pugh, Staff Present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Consultant Planner Rita Trapp. Members of the Public Present: Eric and Ashley Jahnke, 5381 Baywood Shores Drive; Kelli Gillespie Coen, 5361 Baywood Shores Drive; and Dara Lifson, 5395 Baywood Shores Drive. BOARD OF APPEALS Planning Case No. 20-16 Variance for house remodel/addition project at 5381 Baywood Shores Drive Applicant: Eric Jahnke on behalf of Jahnke Living Trust Trapp presented the Planning Report and provided an overview of the variance application. The request is for a front yard and side yard variance to allow for a multi -story addition on the lakeshore lot. Trapp noted that the lot is currently nonconforming to the lake and the east side yard setback. This, along with the slope of the lot and the placement of the house on the lot limit options for an addition. Trapp and Smith fielded questions from the commissioners. Applicant, Eric Jahnke, 5381 Baywood Shores Drive, addressed the discussion questions from the commissioners. Mr. Jahnke noted that the proposed cantilever on the west side was intended add architectural interest to that side of the house. The cantilever is located 9 feet, 8 inches in the air so the 3 -inch request should not be too noticeable. He noted that the hardcover calculations submitted included the deck, which has % inch spacing and does not have to be included. Thus, the amount of hardcover on the site will actually be less than noted. He expressed a willingness to work with his landscaper and contractor to explore options to improve drainage and run-off. Kelli Gillespie, 5361 Baywood Shores Drive, is the applicant's neighbor and expressed her support for the project. Ms. Gillespie noted that she had completed a renovation project in 2017 that also resulted in a shortened driveway and it has not been of a concern. Dara Lifson, 5395 Baywood Shores Drive, applicant's neighbor commented that she is okay with the project. MOTION by Baker to approve Planning Case 20-16, including staff recommendations 1-7 and findings of facts 1-4, seconded by Saystrom. MOTION carried unanimously. Mr1911:11 rAL pirvoFmoomn ©a PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Rita Trapp and Laura Chamberlain, Planning Consultants Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: August 26, 2020 PLANNING CASE NO. 20-16 SUBJECT: Variance Application APPUCANT: Eric Jahnke LOCATION: 5381 Baywood Shores Drive (PID 13-117-24-21-0065) MEETING DATE: September 1, 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Low Density Residential ZONING: R-1 SingleFamilyResidential BACKGROUND The applicant, Eric Jahnke, has submitted an application for variances to the front yard and side yard setbacks to allowfor an expansion to the existing house on a shoreland lot on Harrison's Bay. The existing lot of record, totaling 11,335 square feet, is a residential lot located on the south side of Baywood Shores Drive. According to Hennepin County data, the current home was built in 1971. REVIEW PROCEDURE Variance 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. 1739- (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 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. The "Day 1" was determined to be August 4, 2020 NOTIFICATION Property owners abutting the subject site, per Hennepin County tax records, were mailed a letter on August 26, 2020 to inform them of the Planning Commission's review of the application at its September 1, 2020 meeting. SITE INFORMATION While this shoreland lot is larger than the minimum required for the R-1 zoning district, the property is impacted by a number of existing conditions. The property's shape is wider at the road than at the lakeshore. In the front, the property also slopes more than 6 feet from the east property line to the west property line. The orientation of the home is slightly skewed to the front of the property which results in the side walls of the home being closer to the side property lines at the rear of the home than the front. MrL1l11 The existing home is a split-level dwelling that has a lake -facing deck. The applicant is proposing an addition on the front and west side of the home. The addition will be 30 feet by 30 feet in size, or about 900 square feet in area. The addition will provide a new garage space on the lowest level, living area on the main level, and bedroom/bath space on the upper level. In addition, the applicant is proposing a 8.5 foot by 8 foot foyer over the existing stoop and a new porch in front. As part of the project the applicant will be adding a new roof, maintenance free siding and stonework to replace the existing brick. The proposed elevations are included in the applicant's submittals. As shown in the following table, the existing home is non -conforming as one of the side yard setbacks and the lakeshore setback does not meet minimum requirements. It should be noted that because of the lot's width, the required side yard setbacks are 8 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other. Due to the lot limitations, the applicant is requesting two variances, one which would be for a reduced front yard setback and one which would be for a side yard setback. Requirements R-1 Requirements Existing Conditions Proposed Conditions Front Yard (N) 30 feet 46.9 feet 21.8 feet Side Yard (W) 8 feet 9.1 feet 7.85 feet Side Yard (E) 10 feet 9.2 feet 9.2 feet Lakeshore (S) 50 feet 45.5 feet (deck) 45.5 feet (deck) Hardcover 40% (4,534 sq. ft.) 33.3% 3,777 sq. ft.) 37.6% (4,257 sq. ft.) STAFF/CONSULTANT/AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the request and supporting materials were forwarded to involved City Departments and affected public agencies for review and comment. Staff did not receive any concerns to date about the proposed variance. DISCUSSION The addition includes expansions into the west side yard and front yard. Both of these expansions include architectural details of cantilevers, which have been included in the setback measurements, as they exceed the 8 square foot maximum allowed encroachment of "bay windows". The applicant's narrative indicated that cantilevers were used to add architectural interest (rather than flat walls) to the expansion areas, while still maintaining the foundation. The proposed eaves were not included in the determination of setback requirement as eaves up to 2 feet are allowed encroachments. o In the front the closest point on the new addition is 23.1 feet, while the cantilever reduces the setback to 21.8 feet. While this does not meet the front yard setback of 30 feet, it does still leave room in the driveway for the parking of cars. It should also be noted that there is an additional 11.7 feet between the edge of the property and the back of curb. MrLNE o On the west side, the closest point of the foundation is 8.1 feet on the northwest corner. Again, the eaves extend into that area but they are an allowable encroachment. The cantilever proposed is located at the back of the new addition near the existing home. The cantilever is proposed to extend 1.25 feet. Given that the foundation setback in that area is 9.1 feet, Staff estimates that the proposed setback to the cantilever is 7 feet 9 inches. This is only 3 inches short of the required 8 feet. • Information submitted with the application shows the building height at 34 feet, 7 1/8 inches which is under the City's maximum building requirement of 35 feet. Applicant has been requested to verify this information. • The applicant has indicated that the proposed hardcover on the site will be 4,257 square feet, including 763 square feet of deck area. Staff will clarify with the applicant about the deck to confirm whether it should be counted as hardcover. Even with the deck included the proposed expansion will not exceed the lot's 40% maximum hardcover requirement as a lot of record. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the front yard setback variance and the west side yard setback variance for this site subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the land use request. 2. No future approval of any development plans and/or building permits is included as part of this action. 3. Applicant shall provide all required information upon submittal of the building permit application. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. MrLIRE 7. 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 Planning Commission approval of the variance, Staff offers the following findings of fact: 1. The criteria of City Code Section 129-39 (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 and will not change the existing neighborhood character. 3. It is reasonable for a multiple story expansion on a residential structure, and given the location of the lake as well as challenging topography on the east side of the property, the property owner is limited on where they can expand. 4. The layout of the parcel, narrowing from the road to the lake, along with the existing building's walls not being parallel with the side lot lines, means that any expansion along existing walls causes reducing the side yard. 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, the possible meeting date is September 8, 2020. The alternate meeting date would be September 22, 2020. MrLNIE liv nAl VARIANCE "g- APPLICATION 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound MN 55364 Phone A4 -0R-0666 FAXA524720 6 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 5381 RAY`A,OOn AHOPF� OR - MOI JOT AN 55364 PROPERTY LEGAL Lot 414 Block 9Ilfi DESC. Subdivision RFPI AT OF HARRISON SHORES PID# 13-117-94-91-0Bfi5 Zoning:0 PIP P2 P3 B1 B2 B3 (cudaona) PROPERTY Name JAHNKE LIVING TRUST Email EJ� OWNER Address 5381 BAVWOOD SHORES DR - MOUND AN 55364 Phone Home 952-472-9380 —word 7633153214 - _Fax 7634245225 APPLICANT Name ERICJAHNKE Email EJJAHNKEQGMAIL COM (IF OTHER THAN Address 5381 BAYWOOD SHORES DR - MOUND AN 55364 OWNER) Phone Home 952-472-9380 Work 763-315-3214 Fax 7634245225 1. Has an application ever been made for zoning variance, conditional use permit, or otherzoning procedure for this property? Yes ( ) No (X). If yes, list dates) of application, action taken, resolution numbers) and provide copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.)'. 1744- Case No. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( X). If no, specify each non -conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A SETBACKS: ft. REQUIRED ft. REQUESTED ft. 0 ft. (or existing) Front Yard: (ONS E W) —30 _ ft. 22.7 —ft. Side Yard: ( N S E®) 8 ft. 7.9_ ft. Side Yard: ( N SQN) 10 ft. 9.2 ft. Rear Yard: ( NOSE W) —15 _ ft. 35_ ft. Lakeside: ( NOSE W) 50 ft. 45.3 ft. (NSEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: _105.3_ ft. _105.3_ ft. Lot Size: _11.335 sq ft _11.335 sq ft Hardcover: 4,534_sq ft 4_ 257_sq ft VARIANCE 7.3 ft 0.3_ ft. 0 ft. 0_ ft. 0 ft. ft. 0 ft. 0 sq ft 0 sq ft 4. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( X), 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: MrLRE Case No. 6. 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 (X). If yes, explain: 7 Was the practical difficulty created by any other human -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No (X). If yes, explain: 8. Are the conditions of practical difficulty for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ), No (X). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 1920 LAKESIDE LA - MOUND MN 55364 _5361 BAYWOOD SHORES DR - MOUND, MN 55364 9. Comments: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A 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. Date 2� Applicant's Signature Date Variance Information (3/30/2020) Page 6 of 6 -1746- EXHIBIT A 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Our existing house is 60'W x 251 for a total of 3,000 sq/ft. The existing garage is a tuck -under and is —600 sq/ft, so our current livable square footage (including closets, storage and mechanical) is 2,400 sq/ft. This livable square footage is broken down to 1,500 sq/ft on the main level and —900 sq/ft on the lower level. We will be removing the roof and siding, then taking the interior walls down to the exterior studs on the main level. The lower level layout will remain the same with new finishes and the existing garage will be split into a new mudroom and shop. This concept allows us to utilize the existing footprint, leaving the existing deck in place and adding on to the existing framing with minimal disturbance to the landscaping and grading of the lot. On the West half of the house we are adding a 30' x 30' addition going out towards the North and going up one level on just the West half. This will add —900 sq/ft of garage space on the lower level, —900 sq/ft of living space on the main level and a 1,650 sq/ft upper level all while staying under the 35' height restriction. We are also adding an 8.5' x 8' foyer over our existing stoop with the same size porch in front. This will give the house an aesthetically pleasing curb appeal while providing more room at the entry. The final square footage will be 6,520 with 1,420 of that being the garage/shop for a total livable square footage (including closets, storage and mechanical) of 5,100 sq/ft. Finally, we will have a new roof, new maintenance -free siding, and new stonework in -lieu of the existing brick. This will give the renovation/addition the appearance of a brand-new build while maintaining the existing structure of the old house. 3. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? If no, specify each non -conforming use (describe reason for variance request i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): Our existing house was built in 1971 and the zoning ordinance adopted in 1982 requires one Side Yard setback of 10'. The Side Yard East setback at the Southeast corner of the existing house is 9.2' but it more than clears the 10' requirement at all other points of the house including the new addition. Our existing deck protrudes 4.7' into the 50' Lakeside setback from the OHW mark of 929.4. We are not altering the deck and the new Cantilever Deck shown on the Upper Level plan, West Elevation and reflected on the Proposed Survey sits within the footprint of the existing deck. MrLIFR The (2) variances we are asking for are as follows: a) On the North side of the proposed addition, per the R-1 Zoning Requirements there is a 30' Front Yard setback. In lieu of this requirement we are asking to go to 22.7' from the face of the cantilever shown in the Master Bath on the Upper Level plan, North Elevation and reflected on the Proposed Survey. This is an architectural feature that is cantilevered at a height of 18.9' at its lowest point. The Lower Level Front Yard setback is 24.7' on the ground level at its nearest point to the lot line and with the additional driveway space of 11.8' from the Front Yard lot line to the curb at Baywood Shores Drive we would essentially have a driveway that is 36.5' in length and 24' in width. b) On the West side of the proposed addition there is a "Window Seat" shown on the Main Level plan, West Elevation plan and reflected on the Proposed Survey. In lieu of the 8' Side Yard setback per the R-1 Zoning Requirements we are asking to go to 7.9'...only 3 inches. This is still within the requirements for a lot width of up to 79' and we only have —62' at the South end of our lot. Also, this is an architectural feature that is cantilevered at a height of 9.7' at its lowest point. The Lower Level Side Yard setback of 8' is met at 8.1' on the ground level at its nearest point to the lot line in the Northwest corner of the proposed addition. Removing this aesthetically pleasing feature of design would devalue the addition and do a disservice to the appearance of the neighborhood. We have an exceptional circumstance with our lot being irregular and triangular. It gets narrower as it approaches the Lakeside with only —62' Lakeside whereas most of the Baywood Shores neighborhood lots have 80' Lakeside and are uniformly rectangular. We are extremely blessed being able to live on Lake Minnetonka, but it does create an extraordinary Lakeside setback that most other properties do not have to adhere too. The 50' Lakeside vs 15' Rear Yard setback effectively reduces the buildable footprint of a Lakeside lot by 35' making it much shallower than it would otherwise appear. The topography at the Northeast corner of our house really flows nicely with our neighbor to the East and provides natural drainage for both properties. Disturbing this condition would create problems for both of us and would promote a water pooling opportunity next to our house. Expanding the existing house creates a unique circumstance in that the existing orientation is not square with our lot lines. In adding on and following the lines of the house, the existing orientation from 1971 provides a challenge in creating an architecturally pleasing design with depth and variation in lieu of a "boxier" look. We are asking for (2) variances as we have designed every other aspect of the new addition within the R-1 Zoning Requirements for the City of Mound. The new addition meets the requirements of Side Yard setback of 10' on the East side. Rear Yard and Lakeside setbacks are not changing from the existing conditions. Building Height at the mid -point of the new roof is under 35'. With this property being an existing lot of record, hardcover is within the maximum of 40 percent allowed. MrLf:11 9. Comments: My wife, Ashley, and I have two young daughters, Vailynn (4) and Odyssey (3), who both grew up in the ECFE program at Westonka from the age of 6 months and now attend Our Lady of the Lake in the pre- school program. 5381 Baywood Shores Drive has been home since April 2006 and we would like to keep it that way! I have now been here for almost 15 years and Ashley is 3rd generation Mound, born and raised. Her Grandpa was even the former owner of Bob's Bait over by Surfside (currently Bay Rentals). As our family is growing up, we have decided it is time for more space. We have looked at no less than 20 houses since early Spring around Lake Minnetonka, but we have kept coming back to the idea of having our forever -home in our existing location. Living on Baywood Shores for almost 15 years now, we love the location, we love the street and we love our neighbors. We also love Mound as a City and community and our preference is to stay here. This addition/renovation is not a spec home flip ... we are building it for what is best for our family and will be living in it for another 15+ years! We did a lot of research and planning trying to figure out how to get an addition that would work for us on our small, narrow, irregular lot. Adding onto the Lakeside does not make sense as the property lines get narrower, the setback is longer, and we would incur a large cost removing the existing deck and replacing it. We looked at expanding on the East side of the house to the North, but the grading in that area was prohibitive and would disturb the natural topography and drainage. It would also impact our neighbors' lot and landscaping to the East with a large and tall retaining wall ... not to mention create a dangerous situation for someone to fall from. The most logical move was to reuse 3.5 walls of the existing house, expand over the existing driveway (already hardcover) and follow the lines of the existing house. In doing this we need to work with the existing orientation of the house, which we did not self -create. We also have a uniquely irregular lot that does not apply to a substantial portion of Baywood Shores. Most lots along this street have 80' Lakeside and are relatively rectangular. Our property is very triangular with only —62' Lakeside, so it is a challenge from an orientation perspective... especially when following the lines of the existing house. The two variances we are asking for do not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, rather they enhance the hidden gem that is Baywood Shores. The architectural aspects of a house are vital to the curb appeal and for the neighborhood in providing each house with a unique look. We see a huge challenge in realizing a reasonable return without these aesthetically pleasing aspects of the design. We appreciate the opportunity to add value to Baywood Shores Drive, Three Points and Mound and look forward to being part of the community and having our family grow in this wonderful City! Please let us know with any questions and have a great day ... Thank You! MIF50011 JTv ti • 7 � - 1750- MW'' - 1751- I '3 -A wig QBOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. September 3, 2020 Mr. Eric Hoversten, City Manager City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: Project related pay requests 2019 Street & Utility Improvement Project PW -19-01 2019 Retaining Wall Project PW -19-10 Dear Mr. Hoversten: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: 19521448-8838 Fax: 19521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Please find enclosed the following project related pay requests which have been reviewed and are in accordance with approved proposals. I recommend payment of these requests. 1. Cindy Penner 5510 Sherwood Dr Miscellaneous Retaining wall cap block and displaced plantings @ 5510 Sherwood Dr 2019 Street Reconstruction Project— Sherwood Dr, PW -19-01 $147.26 -see attached invoice $84.03 — see attached invoice Total $231.29 2. Norling's Lake Minnetonka Landscapes, Inc. Installing Mulch and Edging @ 5574 Sherwood Dr 2019 Street Reconstruction Project— Sherwood Dr, PW -19-01 $1,590 - see attached invoice Norling's Lake Minnetonka Landscapes, Inc. Installing rock buffer along top of Retaining Wall 2019 Retaining Wall Project C17.119.383 PW -19-10 $2,200 - see attached invoice Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Bolton & Menk is an Name: Date: Page: Brian D. Simmons, P.E. City Engineer Bolton 6 Menk is an 2131 COMMERCE MOUND, MN 55364 952-472-3108 06/17/2020 13:59:29 Total: USD$ 147.26 VISA CR'=DIT Entry Method: Chip CARD #: XXXXXXXXXXXX4293 PURCHAS= - APPROVED AUTH CODE:317195 Mode: Issuer AID: A0000000031010 TVR: 8080008000 IAD; 0601OA03602000 TSI: ARC: 00 TC: 6D254BF4DD98E054 MID: 802649 TID: 001 SEO: 072453 JOHN'S OUTDOOR JW,3 OOTD60R 4 OHN'3 OUTDOOR -175 - 2 4 $26 inuu'ti nIlTnnnR $36.99 T 99 $53.98 T V 2 # $22.99 $45.98 T STATE TA $136.95 TAX$100.3 ATETX JO 1 K13CE DUE N7,26 VISA $147.26 (S] ************4293 Pith Code = 317195 CHANGE $0.00 Total number of items sold = 5 CASHIER NAME: Johnny TOCKEf#:0024REGIST17�U IN2 2007 SH13:59:45 Thng ankyouagain!! check aw munbbcel odiuileeOm -1755- • w�� Tim berwall ��Landscape Masonry 15 ARBORETUM BLVD VICTORIANN 55385 ► .. � PH (952) 443-2808 / FAX (952) 443-2017 of EMAIL infoatimberwall.com Customer Copy ` Sales Order #: +JQO002464 t. Order Date: 06/18/2020 9:46 AM Ship Date: 6/18!2020 Requested Ship: It*S Rep 35 Ashley Jung Acct Rep: 35 Ashley Jung Ad 3'o Chad Penner Ship To: Chad Penner 5510 Sherwood Dr Mound, MN 55364 Txxie: (612) 816-4283 Phone: Customer PO#: us�tomer * 4018 Terrrrinai Lauren Sales 4 ITEM # DESCRIPTION PRICE UOM EXTENSION ORDER SHqL L Anchor hor Brisa 6" Rtg Wall 6/10/16 Heritage 60?,0700 PAL ABW6H 2 se 78.26 0.13 Total Weight: 309.0100 ,,,.. G��GKEagY �{Sa► ,I Ad eg �a�it dr Charges sY Fit ��D P'GkuP Frei,ht Taxable $7$ fi �4 03 Ustcrner Non-taxable 78.26 a = x ��. O'00 VIA Tax # 0-o0 flTq t 0;74,663 4 7c� 5�natu� --� - 175 - Cha, t hang. $.77 $ o w _ _ D4st�.._ 3 4o.00 .00 HORLINWS Lake Minnetonka Landscapes, Inc. P. O. Box 361, Spring Park, MN 55384 Phone: 952-471-0255 FAX:952-471-1181 BILL TO Bolton & Menk ATTN: Brian Simmons 2638 Shadow Lane Chaska, MN 55318 QUANTITY DESCRIPTION Installation/Improvement to Real Property - Non -Taxable LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION Install landscape bed, fabric and dark brown mulch 1.5% finance charge on balances over 30 days. Please write Job Number on check. -1757- INVOICE DATE INVOICE # 7/21/2020 37249 TERMS JOB # NET 30 9264 RATE AMOUNT 1,590.001 1,590.00 Total $1,590.00 4ORLINGIS Lake Minnetonka Landscapes, Inc. P. O. Box 361, Spring Park, MN 55384 Phone: 952-471-0255 FAX: 952-471-1181 BILL TO Bolton & Menk ATTN: Brian Simmons 2638 Shadow Lane Chaska, MN 55318 QUANTITY I DESCRIPTION Installation/Improvement to Real Property - Non -Taxable LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION - Warren Lane & Piper Road, Mound Landscape bed install; grading, fabric, edging and river rock 1.5% finance charge on balances over 30 days. Please write Job Number on check. -1758- INVOICE DATE INVOICE # 8/14/2020 37321 TERMS JOB # NET 30 9269 RATE AMOUNT 2,200.001 2,200.00 Total $25200.00 CITY OF MOUND — CITY MANAGER 2415 Wilshire Blvd Mound, MN 55364 TO: City Council FROM: Eric Hoversten, City Manager and Director of Public Works DATE: September 3, 2020 SUBJECT: 2020 Manhole Inspection Task Order Approval LOCATION: REQUEST: Approve Task Order separate from general engineering services to Bolton and Menk, Inc in the amount not -to -exceed $15,280 for inspection of sewer manholes in the Shirley Hills districts (E-1, 2, 3, and 4) of the Mound sewer system. BACKGROUND: The City has shifted sewer main rehabilitation under its Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) reduction program from a previous focus on main line re -conditioning to assessment and reconditioning of manholes. Two primary conditions that guided this change are the diminishing returns available in identifying and lining additional mains and adjustments to the Met Council Environmental Services (MCES) I&I surcharge workplan credit schedule. After several years of main pipe investigation and lining, the worst condition areas have been resolved. The investigation of main lines continues as part of the overall sewer operation and maintenance program, but progress here has diminished any I&I return on investment. A significantly greater I&I risk prevails within many of our manholes — particularly those with portions at or below lake level and local water tables. And, in 2017, MCES adjusted its credit schedule for city rehab investment to only allow $.50 credit for dollar spent on main lining while it left the credit at $1/$1. For 2018 and 2019 the City used a third -party vendor to complete the manhole assessments in the Three Points and Island park sewer districts. The resulting raw data was then taken by Bolton and Menk for validation of recommended repair actions and methods; and then consolidated into biddable project documents for completion of the actual repairs. In 2019 the cost per structure for this work was approx. $70.00 which did not include the 10-15% soft cost paid to Bolton and Menk to manage tender of contract, workflow, and provide quality oversight for the work. It also does not reflect the Bolton and Menk analysis of delivered data into the biddable project package for completion of work. In 2020, Bolton and Menk has offered to provide manhole inspection services at a not -to - exceed cost of $15,280 or a per manhole cost of $80. As a not -to exceed cost; the actual MIN610-10 of the work may come in lower depending on field contingencies and circumstances. There will be no additive soft cost (10-15%) as were paid when third party vendors were tendered for the work and the translation of data from the evaluation effort into the project to complete the repairs will be significantly streamlined. In addition to the specific deliverable in previous assessments, Bolton and Menk has included a 360 -deg photofile for each full manhole height as part of the condition data delivered for this specific proposal. The proposal represents a significantly streamlined production process, eliminates redundant soft cost and data analysis both during the evaluation and in development of the follow-on repair project. Bolton and Menk is our retained Engineering consultant and these services fall within the general scope of the service agreement; outside of determination of "best value" as outlined above, no separate quoting is required. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the "best value" assessment of the streamlined service delivery described above Staff recommends approval of this separate investigative task order to Bolton and Menk Inc billed at hourly rates, not -to -exceed $15,280 via the included Resolution. MrN61l1E CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT AGREEMENT FOR MANHOLE INSPECTION SERVICES WHEREAS, the City provides services and construction projects that require professional engineering and surveying services; and WHEREAS, the City has contracted with Bolton & Menk, Inc. for professional engineering services since 2006; and WHEREAS, Bolton & Menk is well established with a good reputation and the necessary skills to provide professional engineering services related to manhole inspections; and WHEREAS, The City completes assessment of sewer structures as part of its Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) reduction program within the scope of its annual operations and maintenance work; and WHEREAS, Previous investigations have been completed by third -party vendors resulting in layered soft cost for project development and oversight, data verification, and redundant effort to prepare project documents for completion of identified repairs; and WHEREAS, Making use of Bolton and Menk capabilities Bolton and Menk will streamline this work and increase cost efficiencies over third -party completion which; and WHEREAS, Bolton and Menk has offered a best value, not -to -exceed quote for this work that is lower than the total cost of previous third -party vendor cost and additional project oversight soft costs; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a contract agreement with Bolton & Menk, Inc., for manhole inspection services as shown in Attachment A and made a part herein. Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of September, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk MKOIE Mayor Raymond J. Salazar QBOLTON MENK Real People. Real Solutions. July 8, 2020 City of Mound Attn: Eric Hoversten 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2020 Manhole Inspection Services Dear Mr. Hoversten: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: 19521448-8838 Fax: 19521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the manhole inspection services for the Shirley Hills District (E1, E2, E3 & E4) in the City of Mound. In the past we have facilitated the preparation and bidding of these evaluation projects from other vendors. The last few years of projects the city has competitively bid to a vendor, and then directed Engineering staff to develop plans and specs from those outputs. To eliminate the inefficiencies and extra cost involved in turning those vendor condition assessments into items and quantities to design and bid rehabilitation projects, this year we are presenting a proposal to conduct the manhole inspections. We would like to providing this proposal as an alternative to competitively bidding this portion of the work through vendors. We referenced the last competitively bid assessment performed by Hydro-Klean for the city in 2018. Their price was —$70/manhole for reference. Manhole Inspection Services Bolton & Menk is committed to completing a NASSCO —MRCP Level 1 Compliant Condition Assessment plus interior 360° photos of the manholes within the 191 Shirley Hills sanitary sewer district. The inspections will include notes, descriptions, locations, and sizes of defects in need of rehabilitation. Deliverables 1. 360° interior photography and surface photography will be taken of each manhole to better assess the condition of each manhole in thorough detail. Photos will also be linked to the manhole ID 2. Inspection records and condition assessment for each manhole delivered in a spreadsheet format and linked to the manhole ID 3. Rehabilitation recommendations for manholes as appropriate a. Tabulated and quantified rehabilitation recommendations for the purposes of developing plans and specs immediately following IT \MOONVC17121634\1 CorresVC To Others\2020 Manhole Inspection Services 7-14-20.docx Bolton & Menk is an 2020 Street Improvements Page 2 Fee Estimate Based on the above scope, the fees for this work are proposed at a not -to -exceed total of $15,280 billed on an hourly basis. This proposal is analog to 191 manholes within the specified sanitary sewer district at $80/manhole, and includes interior 360 photos which the previous did not. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. T�-� Brian D Simmons, P.E. City Engineer Enclosures: Modified Level 2Inspection Form IT \MOONVC17121634\1 CorresVC To Others\2020 Manhole Inspection Services 7-14-2O.docx Bolton & Menk is an QBOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. September 8, 2020 Mr. Eric Hoversten, City Manager City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 RE: 2019 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvements — Sherwood Drive City Project No. PW- 19-01 Final Costs and Setting Final Assessment Hearing Dear Mr. Hoversten: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: 19521448-8838 Fax: 19521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Please find enclosed two resolutions for Council consideration, one setting the final costs for the project based on constructed costs and the small amount of work predicted yet to occur, as well as punchlist and warranty items. These final costs also include the administrative and engineering costs to complete the project and project closeout. The second is a resolution setting the Final Assessment Hearing, in keeping with MN Statute 429 that allows us to assess for costs. The Final Assessment Hearing is currently scheduled to be completed at the September 22, 2020 council meeting. I will be present at the meeting to introduce the two resolutions and answer any questions you may have about the project or the 429 Process. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Brian D. Simmons, P.E. City Engineer Bolton & Menk is an FINAL COSTS 2019 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SHERWOOD DRIVE CITY OF MOUND PROJECT NO. 19-01 Proposed Term of Assessment: Fifteen (15) Years at 5.00% Interest 'Does not include cost for: extra section, utilities; Does include cost reduction for utility street trench 'City Assessment Policy specifies: "Unit Method" for residential properties, total units = 12.00; "Combination Method" for commercial properties 'Estimated Assessments based on 12.00 ERU, Final Assessments based on 12.00 ERU 11 Full ERUs and 2 1/2 ERUs MIFL:672 ESTIMATED FINAL (Dec 2018) (Sept. 2020) 1. Total Street Project Cost': $38,866.74 $40,698.96 (Std. 28 -foot City Street) 2. City Cost (1/3 of Street Project Cost): $12,955.58 $13,566.32 3. Total Proposed Assessment Cost' (2/3): $25,911.16 $27,132.64 4. Proposed Commercial Assessment: $0.00 $0.00 5. Proposed Unit Assessment: $2,159.26 $2,261.05 (3.-4.)/12 .003 ERU's Proposed Term of Assessment: Fifteen (15) Years at 5.00% Interest 'Does not include cost for: extra section, utilities; Does include cost reduction for utility street trench 'City Assessment Policy specifies: "Unit Method" for residential properties, total units = 12.00; "Combination Method" for commercial properties 'Estimated Assessments based on 12.00 ERU, Final Assessments based on 12.00 ERU 11 Full ERUs and 2 1/2 ERUs MIFL:672 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION DECLARING COST TO BE ASSESSED, AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT ON 2019 STREET, UTILITY AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — SHERWOOD DRIVE, CITY PROJECT NO. PW -19-01 WHEREAS, contracts have been let for the 2019 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project, and the construction cost for the City portion of such improvement is $330,000 and the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the making of such improvement amount is $146,700 so that the total cost of the improvement will be $476,700. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound: The portion of the cost of such improvement to be paid by the City is hereby declared to be $449,500 and the portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited property owners is declared to be $27,200. 2. Assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments extending over a period of fifteen (15) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2021, and shall bear interest at the rate of five (5) percent per annum from the date of the adoption of the assessment resolution. 3. The City Clerk, with the assistance of the City Engineer, shall forthwith calculate the proper amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land within the district affected, without regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and she shall file a copy of such proposed assessment in her office for public inspection. 4. The Clerk shall upon the completion of such proposed assessment, notify the Council thereof. Adopted by the City Council this 8'h day of September, 2020 Attest: Catherine Pausche, City Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar Mielev CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR 2019 STREET, UTILITY AND RETAINING WALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT — SHERWOOD DRIVE — PW -19-01 WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the Council on September 8, 2020, the City Clerk was directed to prepare a proposed assessment of the cost of the 2019 Street, Utility and Retaining Wall Improvement Project — Sherwood Drive, AND WHEREAS, the Clerk has notified the Council that such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in her office for public inspection, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. A hearing shall be held on the 22"' day of September, 2020, in the interim council chambers, at 7:00 p.m. to pass upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all persons owning property affected by such improvement will be given an opportunity to be heard with reference to such assessment. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in the official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing, and she shall state in the notice the total cost of the improvement. She shall also cause mailed notice to be given to the owner of each parcel described in the assessment roll not less than two weeks prior to the hearing. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City of Mound, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid with 30 days from the adoption of the assessment. The property owner may at any time thereafter, pay to the City of Mound the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 311 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15th or interest will be charged through December 31 It of the succeeding year. Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of September 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, City Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar mrf�m 2415 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD • MOUND, MN 55360-1668 • PH: 952-4]2-0600 • FAX: 952-472-0620 • W W W.CIWOFMOUND.COM DATE: September 3, 2020 TO: Mayor Salazar and Council Members FROM: Catherine Pausche, Director of Finance and Administrative Services SUBJECT: 2021 Cemetery Improvements The City owns and maintains Mound Union Cemetery located at 6410 County Road 110 West. There are four sections: (A) original cemetery with raised monuments, (B) & (C) center sections with flat monuments and (D) open land. All plots in sections A— C have been sold, many before need so internments continue to take place. City Code allows for one casket, two urns, or one casket and one um per plot. With the finite amount of space remaining, instead of surveying Section D for in -ground plots, Staff recommends the City Council consider a Columbarium for ash niches. A Columbarium, typically rectangular, differs from an Ossuarium in that an Ossuarium is round with a hollow center for ashes to be buried together, along with individual niches on the exterior. fi Ossuarium - 1768 - Staff obtained two quotes to give the Council an idea of the investment, the lower quote of which is detailed here: Quote for (4) Northern Gray (as pictured) Windsor 48 niche columbaria delivered and installed: Northem Gray Windsor 48 niche $4,399 (6,100# each) x 4 = $17,592 Freight and Tariff estimated at $9,033 (24,4004) I recommend at least 2 spare niche doors per columbarium @ $30 each x 8 = $240 Premier Installation on customer supplied foundations: Travel $1,500 hxstall $600 Crane $2,000 Materials $250 $4,350 Total for 4 Windsor 48 niche coltunbarni delivered and installed $31,215 or $162 per niche. Each niche is an industry standard 12" x 12" x 12" with all polished interests which can hold 2 standard capacity size cars. The $40K requested in the budget is actually for cemetery improvements for landscaping screening and setting the foundation for the Columbarium to rest on with the Columbarium procurement the following year. Landscape design and engineering costs will be required as well. Further background is provided in the pages that follow which are an excerpt from the Minnesota Association of Cemeteries (MAC) Snorter 2020 Quarterly Newsletter. Staff requests Council discussion on the direction of the next phase of cemetery improvements and expansion. 1769- Working With First Timers By MaryAnne Scbeuble, Cressy Memorial For many people today, dealing with a family death is a `first time' experience In years past, consumers relied solely on professionals. Not so today. Where would you go to get accurate information on causes, symptoms and treatments of diseases, or to learn best features and prices for something you plan to purchase; or to find directions for anything? Studies have shown that we gravitate to two main sources— Friends and The Internet It is a little startling that we do not tend to directly contact experts first Hmmm. That leaves quite a gap in real knowledge With all that in mind, consider the following. Jane, a 72 -year-old divorcee, curious about funeral and burial arrangements, asked if anyone in her book group had done pre -planning. Jane diddt have a preference for a traditional casketed burial or cremation but she did want to be located dose to her parents' graves. A friend who recently made arrangements shared that the cemetery she chose allowed a second right of interment No one knew what that was but they surely wanted to learn more when they heard it was available at a lesser cost than buying a plot The idea especially appealed to those who had financial as well as environmental concerns (a smaller footprint). Jane then contacted her parents' cemetery for the particulars. Based on their regulations, a particular -sized con vault was required. Having that knowledge helped her select the right - size urn. Lesson: The average individual is not aware of interment possibilities or that plots can hold multiple remains. Although it may seem like a smaller sale, keeping the cemetery involved is a win! Depending on a what a cemetery allows, second rights of interment could provide very meaningful options for families who want to be together in death. Even though this information might be stated in printed material at the time of grave purchase, the average individual has no idea what "second right' is. Of course, cemeteries need to sell real estate to survive but fees for second rights can help the bottom line and may be an undeveloped market opportunity. Make sure all visitors— especially last remaining family members, are well-informed of this practical alternative In this way, cemeteries can tap into an old market which is literally alive with new possible business. Older, economically challenged cemeteries as well as progressive ones might "find" new revenue streams by contacting families who have had (continued onpage 4) -1770- T6c MAC Que.ka.Iy working with First Timers (continued from page 3) interments in the past 20 years. Instead of thinking of second right interments as "loss leaders" (to borrow from the retail market), think of them as additional solutions that keep families together in death. With our transient society, a high divorce rate, the portability of cremated remains, and the availability of long-distance travel, the "family cemetery back home" has EVERYTHING to gain. Baby -boomers may feel a greater affinity to be buried in a hometown plot. This could be the influencing factor to use your cemetery and a way to serve out-of-towners or snowbirds to bring them home. How creative is your marketing? This is the Information Age and many want immediate access. Testimonials (maybe through Yelp) and website videos will be meaningful for a younger market. This, of course, assumes there is a cemetery website. NOTE: If there isn't one, set one up ASAP even if it is a static site (not interactive) with a contact name, phone number and email address. Even more mature folks visit websites for information and read the comments. If you are not convinced about the merits of a website, try this easy marketing assignment: Ask your friends _REM_ TION_ _ E S TI N,&TIO._H S - ti ®hlF0.YPROdKIS The MAC Quaxtexly how they research purchases of any kind—vehicle, vacation, pest control, financial advisor, etc. So, how will we bring families back to the cemeteries? Both a cemetery's bottom line and reputation in the community depend on the response. The average consumer just doesn't know much about funerals and burials and they have been leading the way. We are an important source of knowledge and it is reliant upon us to spread the good news. There are so many opportunities to serve! If we don't lead the way by inviting families back and providing meaningful opportunities for burial, memorialization, and cost alternatives, who will? Let's make it our mission to help this generation of first timers navigate through a sea of options. It really is as simple as asking what a family wants (or doesn't want) then educating them on all possibilities so they can make informed choices. We've got this! For more information about getting started with your Cremation Destination, contact us today at: CremationDestinations@matw.com or 844.642.7336 -1771 - Saved from Obscurity — The Story of Pleasant Hill Cemetery byMariah Gregor�s EickbofCola mbaria. Creative Aautant In The Beginning N ertled in the southwest coma of Eden Prairie, MN is a heritage site known as the Pleasant Hill Cemetery. This small patch of landjust off the Pioneer Trail overlooks the valley of Purgatory Creek and forms a natural terrace It was originally purchased in 1885 and shortly thereafter it was platted as a pioneer cemetery with a total of 96 lots. At that time, the Rural Cemetery Movement was gaining popularity across the nation. Isolated family farmstead burials and crowded church graveyards were being cast aside in favor of new, thoughtfully regulated cemeteries with ample walkways, charming nature scenes, and embellished landscapes. While this cultural shift bloomed, Eden Prairie grew. Enduring The Changes As time wore on and methodology evolved, so did Pleasant Hill Cemetery. Like other cemeteries in the area, they faced under -capitalisation. The status and stability of their community would be apparent in how well-appointed and maintained their cemetery was. In the 1920s upkeep suffered due to families dying out or moving away. As the 1930s approached, local cemetery boards took over maintenance of their grounds and set up perpetual care trust funds to cover the Increasing costs. This change to Lawn Cemetery methodology is evident at Pleasant Hill Cemetery. Most older cemeteries will have an old and a new section due to this modern approach. New sections were platted with efficiency and capacity in mind. Meanwhile, the remnants of the Rural Cemetery Movement were discarded. In 1966 the Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church, on the south end of the property, was removed and Section II of the cemetery was added. Five years later, land on the east side of the cemetery was purchased for Section III, yet another expansion. Then in 1987, the administration of the cemetery was handed over to the city of Eden Prairie at the request of the Pleasant Hill Cemetery Association. A Cemetery Revitalized Past forward to the present day. Overcrowding and land scarcity are clouds looming over many cemeteries. The historical Pleasant Hill Cemetery was no exception. In 2018, the threat of dosing it to further burials was imminent for the city of Eden Prairie. Without new revenue to help cover the rising costs of maintenance and operation, the cemetery (continued on page 6) COLDSPRING Helping you take care of the families you serve Coldspring offers a wide variety of products and solutions including: • Rrn nn —H. memn W. • Columbarium structures • Cremation memorials • Glass Front Niches • Community Mausoleums • Private Mausoleums • Online Design System For mare information visit colaspringusa.com or call 800.3285040 -1772- T6a MAC Que.ka.ly Saved from Obscurity — The Story of Pleasant Hill Cemetery (vnnnuedrMcopage 5) was at risk of becoming obs fete With over 125 years of operation, this turn of events would be devastating to the local community. Fortunatdy, a plan was made to carry Pleasant Hill Cemetery through its next memmorphosis To meet the new tradition of cremation and sustain the livelihood of the cemetery, the decision was made to install an Oscuarium® nom Eickhof Columbaria_ Plans were promptly laid for this memorial, a combination of a columbarium and ossuary, on the last large available space Although the existing landscape presented elevation and drainage challenges the team at Eickhofwas not deterred. Chip Cheney, a Sales Pmfsional at Eickhof Columbaria, recommended the cemetery partner with WSB Engineering to prepare Pic Arc and tackle any landscape challenges before their Ossuarium was installed. This proved to be a great pairing thank to their vast experience working with government entities and in-house landscaping division In conjunction with WSB, the stage was sct for an inviting and attractive memorial space to ink shape On June 8th, 20203 the highly anticipated 80michc Winchester Oscuarium arrived. It was set into place by a static at the center of a beautifully curated memorial garden scented with a winding sidewalk path and attractive plantings that radiate outward. The monument icrelf was built in Crookston, MN by the expert fabricators at Eickhof Columbaria and delivered by that installation team. Finished in Mahogany granite quarried in Millbank SD, it is a product of the USA with the craftsmanship and materials to stand the test of time Today the Winchester Ossuarium at Pleasant Hill Cemetery captures the atmeed, pranced, and larger postmced oration mrkem while boosting revenue and modem -day relevancy to an important historical sitz On asection ofland originally destined to hold only 64 traditional burial plo s, Pic installation ofthis memorial created 160 traditional um spaces and appmximatdy 100 ossuary spaces Their new Ossuarium provides four times as many inrermentspaces in the exam samc space, thus ensuring the historic cemetery remains relevant well into the future u- 80 Niche Winchester Ossuarium0 • Located in Eden Prairie, MN • 7' High x 5'4" Diameter • 80 Companion Niches • 100 Ossuary Spaces • 260 Total Urn Spaces • Niche Fronts Finished in Polished Mahogany Granite • Memorial Band Finished in Sandblasted Mahogany Granite • Heavy Base and Thick Capstone Finished in Mahogany Granite • Completed in 2020 The MAC Q,...n..ly -1773- TO: Mayor Ray Salazar Mound City Councilors City Manager Eric Hoversten FROM: Fire Chief Gregory S. Pederson SUBJECT: Engine -Pumper Apparatus Purchase FY -2021 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN 55364 Main: 952.472.3555 Fax: 952.472.3775 www.moundfire.com September 2, 2020 On July 22, 2020 the Mound Fire Commission Board approved the 2021 fire department budget which included a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Included in the CIP is the purchase of a new Engine -Pumper truck which will replace our 25 year old Engine #24. Engine #24 is a 1995 Freightliner 1500 gpm pumper truck and is overdue for replacement. Engine -Pumper trucks are absolutely essential to our fire suppression efforts in all types of fires, primarily in commercial or residential structures. This new truck would become our "1St Out Engine" on fire related callouts which amounts to more than 100 responses per year. These types of trucks are expensive but have a relatively long life span of approximately 15-20 years. Justification and Comments: 1995 Freightliner Engine Pumper 1500GPM 2021 New Engine Pumper 1500 GPM Currently categorized as a ba& -up truck due to age Becomes our primary V out Engine -Pumper Responds only 25 times peryear out the door Will res and often at 100 + times per year Repair costs $36,569.97 over the past 6'/z Years With warranty - repair costs will be minimal Non -Compliant to NFPA 1901 Apparatus Standards 1 100% NFPA Compliant — for Operation s/S afie Truck is old design - not operationally versatile New design concepts greatly improve versatility I This memo is requesting approval to proceed with the bond sale to support the purchase of the new Engine -Pumper in FY 2021. The budgeted cost for a new Engine -Pumper truck is $675,000, with a bond sale amount of $600,000 and remainder for funds to come from fire reserve account. The need to replace the old obsolete truck is easily justified based upon its age, extensive repair history, and non-compliance when it comes to the National Fire Protection 1901 Standards for Automotive Fire Apparatus. -1774- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $248,555 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF AND FOR THE CITY OF MOUND FOR THE YEAR 2021 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the governing body of the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received a resolution from the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of and for the City of Mound, entitled "Resolution Authorizing The Levy of a Special Benefit Levy Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6 and Approval of a Budget for Fiscal Year 2021 "; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that a special tax be levied upon real and personal property within the City of Mound in the amount not to exceed $248,555. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said levy, not to exceed $248,555, is approved by this Council to be used for the operation of the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, and such proposed special levy shall be certified as a tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 30, 2020. The final special levy shall be certified to the County Auditor of Hennepin County by December 15, 2020. Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of September, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Raymond J. Salazar MrrN'E CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CHANGES TO DEBT SERVICE LEVY SCHEDULES AND TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND FOR BOND SERIES 2011B, 2018A & 2020A WHEREAS, the City of Mound has issued General Obligation Improvement Bonds in association with its annual street improvement projects and General Obligation Tax Abatement Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has pledged its full faith, credit and taxing powers to the payment of principle and interest on the Bonds; and WHEREAS, assumptions are made as to the amount of special assessments associated with a bond issue/street project and those assumptions require periodic adjustments to reflect the actual experience; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The revised debt schedules for the bond issues described in Exhibit A replace the original bond service levy schedules for the remaining life of the bonds. 2. The revised debt levy schedules contained in Exhibit A be submitted to the County Auditor to replace the information currently in the County's bond registers for existing issues. 3. The City of Mound will levy special debt levies according to the schedules provided in Exhibit A, and made a part herein. Adopted by the City Council this 8T" day of September, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk MrrZev Mayor Ray Salazar Exhibit A Page 1 of 5 CITY OF MOUND SPECIAL LEVIES/DEBT LEVIES NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE FUTURE BOND ISSUES. SrrrM Improvement & Subsequent Refunding Bonds 2006/07A Ref Tax Increment & Fire Relief 2014A 2014B 2016B REF 2009A -18A 2011A 201113-20A 2020A 2012A 2012B 2012B 2013A 2015A 2016A 2013B 2009D -18A Fire Collect OO Imp, GO Ref. OO Imp. 08B OO Imp. GO Ref. OO Imp. OO Imp OO Imp. Fire City OO Imp. OO Imp/Ref OO Imp GO TIF Dump Relief Special Year Fd311 Ed 368 Ed 362 Fd363 Fd370 Fd364 602 Fd365 Fd371 Fd371 Fd310 Fd312 Fd313 Fd355 Ed 375 Ed 222 Total Change 2012 63,000 235,000 387,190 191,368 - 158,858 198,642 - 45,000 125,048 82,069 1,765,025 10.8% 2013 63,000 215,600 376,923 191,105 113,181 160,000 189,000 - 45,000 214,400 83,782 1,969,666 10.4% 2014 63,000 215,600 367,440 190,685 110,346 160,000 189,000 131,154 45,000 200,000 78,920 2,054,571 4.1% 2015 40,069 85,000 63,000 215,600 362,736 190,108 107,511 160,000 189,000 133,044 45,000 200,000 67,171 2,048,239 -0.3% 2016 37,655 75,000 80,000 215,600 351,774 189,373 50,000 160,000 189,000 100,000 287,700 45,000 200,000 67,063 2,048,165 0.0% 2017 42,065 75,000 46,573 215,600 350,079 193,730 50,000 160,000 189,000 100,000 272,000 117,202 45,000 175,000 68,560 2,099,809 2.5% 2018 41,120 75,000 50,000 215,600 342,015 192,523 50,000 160,000 189,000 100,000 272,000 119,246 - - 68,001 1,904,154 -10.3% 2019 40,175 75,000 50,000 215,600 333,279 191,158 50,000 160,000 189,000 100,000 272,000 118,370 - - 74,601 1,869,183 -1.9% 2020 39,230 75,000 50,000 215,600 205,511 189,353 50,000 160,000 189,000 100,000 272,000 117,495 - 100,000 76,093 1,839,282 -1.6% 38,285 50,000 215,600 200,274 150,0 50,000 160,000 189,000 100,0000 121,869 78,379 1,805,408 -1.91 2022 37,340 50,000 215,600 173,762 150,000 180,000 50,000 160,000 189,000 100,000 210,000 120,889 - - 79,947 1,716,537 -5.2% 2023 41,527 50,000 215,600 179,054 150,000 370,000 50,000 100,000 70,000 119,908 81,546 1,427,635 -20.2% 2024 40,214 215,600 150,000 370,000 50,000 100,000 70,000 118,928 - 83,176 1,197,918 -19.2% 2025 38,639 150,000 370,000 50,000 100,000 70,000 117,947 - 84,840 981,426 -22.1% 2026 42,314 150,000 370,000 50,000 100,000 70,000 122,217 - 86,537 991,067 1.0% 2027 40,582 150,000 370,000 50,000 100,000 70,000 121,131 - 88,267 989,981 -0.1% 2028 38,849 370,000 100,000 70,000 120,046 - 90,033 788,928 -25.5% 2029 37,117 370,000 70,000 118,199 - 91,833 687,149 -14.8% 2030 370,000 70,000 116,885 - 93,670 650,555 -5.6% 2031 370,000 70,000 120,288 - 95,544 655,832 0.8% 2032 370,000 370,000 -77.3% 2033 370,000 370,000 0.0% 2034 370,000 370,000 0.0% 2035 370,000 370,000 0.0% NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE FUTURE BOND ISSUES. SrrrM Exhibit A Page 2 of 5 City of Mound, MN Fund - 602 Bond- Series 2020A, $8,905,000 GO Improvement Bonds ($4.335 GO Portion) Investment Returns - 0% Collection Year January 1 Cash Balance Property Special Taxes Assessments Total Receipts Bond Principal Bond Interest Other Total Ex endituresCash December 31 Balance Bond Balance 2020 - 92,181 92,181 (92,181) 4,335,000 2021 (92,181) 180,000 180,000 44,382 500 44,882 42,937 4,335,000 2022 42,937 180,000 180,000 115,000 55,190 500 170,690 52,247 4,220,000 2023 52,247 360,000 360,000 120,000 54,573 500 175,073 237,174 4,100,000 2024 237,174 360,000 360,000 120,000 53,884 500 174,384 422,790 3,980,000 2025 422,790 360,000 360,000 120,000 53,132 500 173,632 609,158 3,860,000 2026 609,158 360,000 360,000 120,000 52,262 500 172,762 796,396 3,740,000 2027 796,396 360,000 360,000 355,000 50,185 500 405,685 750,711 3,385,000 2028 750,711 360,000 360,000 360,000 46,697 500 407,197 703,514 3,025,000 2029 703,514 360,000 360,000 360,000 42,737 500 403,237 660,277 2,665,000 2030 660,277 360,000 360,000 365,000 38,295 500 403,795 616,482 2,300,000 2031 616,482 360,000 360,000 370,000 33,425 500 403,925 572,557 1,930,000 2032 572,557 360,000 360,000 375,000 28,209 500 403,709 528,848 1,555,000 2033 528,848 360,000 360,000 380,000 22,640 500 403,140 485,708 1,175,000 2034 485,708 360,000 360,000 385,000 16,710 500 402,210 443,498 790,000 2035 443,498 360,000 360,000 390,000 10,315 500 400,815 402,683 400,000 2036 402,683 - 400,000 3,500 403,500 (817) - 2037 - 5,040,000 5,040,000 4,335,000 606,136 99,681 5,040,817 WF/`iIE City of Mound, MN Fund -364 Bond- Series 2020A, was 2011B Investment Returns - 0% Exhibit A Page 3 of 5 Collection Year January 1 Cash Balance Property Taxes Special Assessments Total Receipts Bond Principal Bond Interest Other Total December 31 Cash Balance Bond Balance 2011 - -Expenditures - - 3,475,000 2012 191,368 256,971 448,339 - 141,566 - 141,566 306,773 3,475,000 2013 306,773 191,105 220,391 411,496 205,000 111,194 876 317,070 398,957 3,270,000 2014 398,957 190,685 151,914 342,599 175,000 105,494 1,915 282,409 459,147 3,095,000 2015 459,147 190,108 163,199 353,307 180,000 100,169 423 280,592 533,353 2,915,000 2016 533,353 189,373 150,435 339,808 185,000 94,694 1,098 280,792 592,369 2,730,000 2017 592,369 193,730 145,130 338,860 190,000 89,069 1,139 280,208 651,022 2,540,000 2018 651,022 192,523 119,269 311,792 195,000 83,294 705 278,999 683,815 2,345,000 2019 683,815 191,158 1 93,014 284,172 205,000 1 77,294 447 282,741 684,937 2,140,000 2020 684,937 189,353 72,528 261,881 210,000 71,069 42,270 323,339 623,479 1,930,000 2021 623,479 150,000 65,185 215,185 222,225 11,688 700 234,613 604,051 1,765,575 2022 604,051 150,000 62,771 212,771 227,225 13,457 700 241,382 575,440 1,538,350 2023 575,440 150,000 60,357 210,357 237,225 11,989 700 249,914 535,883 1,301,125 2024 535,883 150,000 57,942 207,942 242,225 10,376 700 253,301 490,525 1,058,900 2025 490,525 150,000 55,528 205,528 252,225 8,601 700 261,526 434,527 806,675 2026 434,527 150,000 53,114 203,114 262,225 6,537 700 269,462 368,179 544,450 2027 368,179 150,000 50,700 200,700 272,225 4,138 700 277,063 291,815 272,225 2028 291,815 - - - 272,225 1,433 700 274,358 17,457 - 2,769,402 1,778,448 4,547,850 3,532,800 942,060 54,473 4,529,333 SIMON City of Mound, MN Fund -222 Bond - Series 2020A, $8,905,000 GO Improvement Bonds ($615,000 GO Portion) Investment Returns - 0% Collection Year January 1 Property Cash Balance Taxes 2020 Total 2021 (13,078) 2022 (17,712) 2023 (88,217) 2024 (158,380) 2025 (228,170) 2026 (302,538) 2027 (376,398) 2028 (449,663) 2029 (522,245) 2030 (594,058) 2031 - 65,000 2032 500 2033 485,000 2034 4,290 2035 69,790 2036 - 70,000 2037 500 Exhibit A Page 4 of 5 Total Bond Bond Total Bond Receipts Principal Interest Other Expenditures Balance - 13,078 13,078 615,000 - 4,134 500 4,634 615,000 - 65,000 5,005 500 70,505 550,000 - 65,000 4,664 500 70,164 485,000 - 65,000 4,290 500 69,790 420,000 - 70,000 3,868 500 74,368 350,000 - 70,000 3,360 500 73,860 280,000 - 70,000 2,765 500 73,265 210,000 - 70,000 2,083 500 72,583 140,000 - 70,000 1,313 500 71,813 70,000 - 70,000 455 500 70,955 - 615,000 31,935 18,078 665,013 SrE:1I1E City of Mound, MN Callable 211/19 and after TIF 1-3 Fund -375 100%m same by 211/31 Decertifies 12/31/31 Exhibit A Page 5 of Bond- (ORG) Series 2009D, $4,020,000 GO Tax Increment Refunding Bonds REFI Series 2018A,$1,920,000 GO Refunding Bonds Revenues Expenditures Lost Late Pay Collection January I Debt Tax Slip Other/ Total Bond Bond Agent Total Dec 31 Bond 2009 - 129,748 - - 129,748 - - - 173,921 4,020,000 2010 - 121,742 (1,250) 120,492 - 108,315 1,333 109,648 184,766 4,020,000 2011 120,349 99,140 (1,900) 217,589 - 154,735 1,199 155,934 246,421 4,020,000 2012 125,048 604 - - 125,652 70,000 153,685 1,247 224,932 150,442 3,950,000 2013 150,442 214,400 39,962 28,407 - 282,769 95,000 151,210 1,202 247,412 185,751 3,855,000 2014 185,751 200,000 37,456 47,853 - 285,309 100,000 148,285 2,769 251,054 220,006 3,755,000 2015 220,006 200,000 36,104 47,403 - 283,507 110,000 145,135 785 255,920 248,597 3,645,000 2016 248,597 200,000 60,667 40,285 - 300,952 155,000 141,160 1,684 297,844 251,705 3,490,000 2017 251,705 175,000 77,314 37,479 - 289,793 165,000 135,948 2,343 303,291 240,894 3,325,000 2018 240,894 650,000 106,419 348,573 2,009,781 3,114,773 170,000 130,085 35,298 335,3833,020,332 3,155,000 2019 3,020,332 130,161 - 130,161 3,155,000 111,970 1,098 3,268,068 (116,539) 1,920,000 2020 (116,539) 100,000 130,161 230,161 105,000 69,513 1,500 176,013 (62,391) 1 1,815,000 2021 (62,391) 130,161 130,161 120,000 65,013 1,500 186,513 (118,742) 1,695,000 2022 (118,742) 130,161 - 130,161 125,000 60,113 1,500 186,613 (175,194) 1,570,000 2023 (175,194) 322,711 - 322,711 130,000 55,013 1,500 186,513 (38,995) 1,440,000 2024 (38,995) 322,711 - 322,711 145,000 49,513 1,500 196,013 87,704 1,295,000 2025 87,704 322,711 - 322,711 165,000 43,313 1,500 209,813 200,602 1,130,000 2026 200,602 322,711 - 322,711 170,000 36,613 1,500 208,113 315,201 960,000 2027 315,201 322,711 - 322,711 180,000 29,613 1,500 211,113 426,799 780,000 2028 426,799 322,711 - 322,711 185,000 22,313 1,500 208,813 540,698 595,000 2029 540,698 322,711 - 322,711 190,000 15,763 1,500 207,263 656,146 405,000 2030 656,146 322,711 - 322,711 200,000 9,788 1,500 211,288 767,570 205,000 2031 767,570 322,711 - 322,711 205,000 3,331 1,500 209,831 880,449 - 1,984,797 4,134,199 550,000 2,006,631 8,675,627 5,940,000 1,840,421 66,958 7,847,379 UPDATED THROUGH 8/5/20 ISUM P&I 2019 - 2031 OLD 4,073,790 Sum P&I 2019 - 2031 NEW 2,480,952 TIF Proceedswill be used in the following order: 1) Repayment of 2009D Bonds 2) Repayment of City Interfund Loan- Debt Levy Portion- will be paid backfirst 3) Repayment of City Interfund Loan- Lost Lake Slip Fees Portion- which will be credited to Lost Lake Maintenance Escrow Should be note d phy sical docks cost $500K, dredge much more .... Sir`ilE CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 20 - RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2021 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,756,287; SETTING THE PRELIMINARY LEVYAT $6,291,072; AND APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY OVERALL BUDGET FOR 2021 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the following preliminary 2021 General Fund Budget appropriation, including capital: TOTAL GENERAL FUND 5,756,287 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following preliminary taxes for collection in 2021: SPECIAL LEVIES Fire Relief 78,379 G.O. Refunding 2018A 215,600 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2011A 200,274 G.O. Improvement X)l I B 2020A 150,000 G.O. Improvement 2012A 50,000 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2012B (PS Building) 349,000 G.O. Improvement 2013A 100,000 G.O. Improvement 2014A 38,285 G.O. Improvement 2015A 272,000 G.O. Improvement 2016A 121,869 G.O. Refunding Bonds 2016B 50,000 G.O. Improvement 2020A 180,000 Total Special Levies 1,805,407 PRELIMINARY REVENUE LEVY 4,485,665 Preliminary Certified Levy 6,291,072 MrE:NE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby adopt the preliminary overall budget for 2021 as follows: GENERAL FUND As per above 5,756,287 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS Capital Replacement Reserve Funds 775,000 Area Fire Service Fund 2,148,064 Dock Fund 138,057 HRA Transit District Maintenance Fund 72.910 TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 2,359,031 Recycling Fund 198,055 Liquor Fund 602,019 Water Fund 1,939,276 Sewer Fund 2,262, 531 Storm Water Utility Fund 407.800 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 5,409,681 SUMMARY General Fund 5,756,287 Capital Projects Funds 775,000 Special Revenue Funds 2,359,031 Enterprise Funds 5.409.681 TOTAL ALL FUNDS 14,299,999 Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of September, 2020. Attest: Catherine Pausche, Clerk Mayor Ray Salazar MrE:NE 2415WILSH IRE BOULEVARD -MOUND, MN 55364-1668- PH: 952472-0600- FM: 952472-0620•WW XITYOFMOUND.00M DATE: September 3, 2020 TO: Mayor Salazar and Council Members FROM: Catherine Pausche, Director of Finance andAdministrative Services SUBJECT: 2020A Bond Issue & Refunding for Interest Rate Savings The last time the City issued bonds for new money was in 2016. As indicated in the Long Term Financial Plan, the City will need approximately $9.6M over the next 10 years based on the current CIP and a 5% annual increase to the levy. The utility funds have significant cash deficits, so in accordance with MSS 115.46, the $4.335M portion of the bonds is being issued to finance the 2017 — 2021 sewer projects but will be repaid with a property tax levy. A separate memo was previously provide for justification of the fire pumper truck. Refunding previous bond issues when they become callable has been an important financing tool to achieve interest rate savings. Since 2011, refundings have resulted in $3.9M in present value interest rate savings. The presale report breaks down the three components of this bond issue as follows: Cur Ref Cur Ref 2011B - Sewer 2011B -Utility Improvement Issue Portion EOumment Rev Bonds Summary Sources Of Funds Ps,AmooalofHos& $4,335,000.00 $615,000.00 34970,000.00 $1,995,000.00 $$,915,000.00 Tonal Sowrea $4,335,000.00 $615,000.00 51970,000.00 $1,995.000.00 50915,000.00 Uses Of Funds TotalUx fa,335,000.00 $615,000.00 $1910,000.00 $13951000.00 $015900.00 Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these matters. Staff recommends approval of the resolution calling for a bond sale. - 1784 - August 25, 2020 Pre -Sale Report for City of Mound, Minnesota $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A Ig'EHLERS N PUBLIC FINANCE ADVISORS Prepared by: Ehlers 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Advisors: Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor Keith Dahl, Financial Specialist BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT'S WHAT WE DO. BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT'S WHAT WE DO. info@ehlers-inc.com I (800) 552-1171 ® www.ehiers-inc.com -1785- Proposed Issue: $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A Purposes: The proposed issue includes financing for the following purposes: • Eauipment Certificate ($615.000): This portion of the Bonds is being issued to finance a Fire Pumper Truck. Debt service will be paid from ad valorem property taxes. • Sewer Improvement Projects ($4.335.000): This portion of the Bonds is being issued to finance the 2017 - 2021 sewer improvement projects within the City. Debt service will be paid from ad valorem property taxes. • Current Refunding of Series 2011B - Improvement Portion of Bonds ($1.995.000): These bonds were previously issued to finance the 2011 Street and Utility Reconstruction Projects. Debt service will continue to be paid from special assessments and ad valorem property taxes. Interest rates on the obligations proposed to be refunded are 3.125% to 4.000%. The refunding is expected to reduce debt service expense by approximately $171,300 over the next 8 years. The Net Present Value Benefit of the refunding is estimated to be $164,300, equal to 8.511% of the refunded principal. This refunding is considered to be a Current Refunding as the obligations being refunded are either callable (pre -payable) now or will be within 90 days of the date of issue of the new Bonds. • Current Refunding of the Series 2011B - Utility Revenue Portion of Bonds ($1.970.000): These bonds were previously issued to finance Sewer Improvement Projects. Debt service will continue to be paid from utility revenues. Interest rates on the obligations proposed to be refunded are 3.125% to 4.125%. The refunding is expected to reduce debt service expense by approximately $289,800 over the next 12 years. The Net Present Value Benefit of the refunding is estimated to be $270,600, equal to 14.167% of the refunded principal. This refunding is considered to be a Current Refunding as the obligations being refunded are either callable (pre -payable) now or will be within 90 days of the date of issue of the new Bonds. MrE:16V Authority: The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters: 115.46 - Sewage Disposal 412.301 - Equipment Certificate 475 - General Bonding Authority Equipment Certificate Portion: The City is authorized to issue debt for the purchase of capital equipment. If the amount of equipment certificates issued is more than .25% of the estimated market value (EMV) of taxable property in the City, a public hearing must be held, and the issue is subject to reverse referendum. The City's EMV for Pay 2020 is $1,424,716,300. Since the amount of the proposed equipment certificate is below the statutory threshold of $3,561,791, the certificate may be issued without public notice and voter approval. In addition, this portion of the Bonds counts against the net debt limit of 3% of the EMV of taxable property in the City. The net debt limit is $42,741,489. As of June 15, 2020, the City had $1,900,000 subject to the legal debt limit. The proposed amount of the equipment certificate, plus the outstanding debt subject to the legal debt limit equals $2,515,000. This figure is well below the net debt limit of the City noted above. Sewer Improvement Portion: Chapter 115.46 allows cities to issue debt without limitation to finance construction, installation, maintenance, or operation of any sewage disposal system. As mentioned above, debt service will be paid from ad valorem property taxes. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which its full faith, credit and taxing powers are pledged. Term/Call Feature: The Bonds are being issued for a term of 16 years (remaining term on the 201113 Bonds is 12 years and remains the same). Principal on the Bonds will be due on February 1 in the years 2021 through 2036. Interest is payable every six months beginning February 1, 2021. The Bonds will be subject to prepayment at the discretion of the City on February 1, 2030 or any date thereafter. Bank Qualification: Because the City is expecting to issue no more than $10,000,000 in tax exempt debt during the calendar year, the City will be able to designate the Bonds as "bank qualified" obligations. Bank qualified status broadens the market for the Bonds, which can result in lower interest rates. Rating: The City's most recent bond issues were rated by Standard & Poor's. The current ratings on those bonds are "AA". The City will request a new rating for the Bonds. If the winning bidder on the Bonds elects to purchase bond insurance, the rating for the issue may be higher than the City's bond rating in the event that the bond rating of the insurer is higher than that of the City. MrE:irm Basis for Recommendation: Based on our knowledge of your situation, your objectives communicated to us, our advisory relationship as well as characteristics of various municipal financing options, we are recommending the issuance of General Obligation Bonds as a suitable financing option because: • This is a viable option available to finance the Bonds under State law. • This is the most overall cost-effective option for interest savings that still maintains future flexibility for the repayment of debt. • This coincides with the City's past practices to finance these types of projects with this type of debt issue • This maintains the security and terms of the original debt issues of the Bonds. Method of Sale/Placement: We will solicit competitive bids for the purchase of the Bonds from underwriters and banks. We will include an allowance for discount bidding in the terms of the issue. The discount is treated as an interest item and provides the underwriter with all or a portion of their compensation in the transaction. If the Bonds are purchased at a price greater than the minimum bid amount (maximum discount), the unused allowance may be used to reduce your borrowing amount. Premium Pricing: In some cases, investors in municipal bonds prefer "premium" pricing structures. A premium is achieved when the coupon for any maturity (the interest rate paid by the issuer) exceeds the yield to the investor, resulting in a price paid that is greater than the face value of the bonds. The sum of the amounts paid in excess of face value is considered "reoffering premium." The underwriter of the bonds will retain a portion of this reoffering premium as their compensation (or "discount") but will pay the remainder of the premium to the City. The amount of the premium varies, but it is not uncommon to see premiums for new issues in the range of 2.00% to 10.00% of the face amount of the issue. This means that an issuer with a $2,000,000 offering may receive bids that result in proceeds of $2,040,000 to $2,200,000. For this issue of Bonds we have been directed to use the net premium to increase the net proceeds for the project. The resulting adjustments may slightly change the true interest cost of the issue, either up or down. The amount of premium can be restricted in the bid specifications. Restrictions on premium may result in fewer bids, but may also eliminate large adjustments on the day of sale and unintended impacts with respect to debt service payment. Ehlers will identify appropriate premium restrictions for the Bonds intended to achieve the City's objectives for this financing. Mr(:1:11 Review of Existing Debt: We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that, other than the obligations proposed to be refunded by the Bonds, there are no other refunding opportunities at this time. We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City's outstanding debt and will alert you to any future refunding opportunities. Continuing Disclosure: Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt (including this issue) and this issue is over $1,000,000, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updated Annual Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually, as well as providing notices of the occurrence of certain reportable events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "MSRB"), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The City is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing bonds and has contracted with Ehlers to prepare and file the reports. Arbitrage Monitoring: Because the Bonds tax-exempt obligations, the City must ensure compliance with certain Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules throughout the life of the issue. These rules apply to all gross proceeds of the issue, including initial bond proceeds and investment earnings in construction, escrow, debt service, and any reserve funds. How issuers spend bond proceeds and how they track interest earnings on funds (arbitrage/yield restriction compliance) are common subjects of IRS inquiries. Your specific responsibilities will be defined in the prepared by your Bond Attorney and provided at closing. We recommend that you regularly monitor compliance with these rules and/or contract with Ehlers to assist you. Investment of Bond Proceeds: To maximize interest earnings, we recommend using an SEC registered investment advisor to assist with the investment of bond proceeds until they are needed to pay project costs. Ehlers is a registered investment advisor and can assist the City in developing an appropriate investment strategy if needed. Risk Factors: Current Refunding: The Bonds are being issued to finance a current refunding of prior City debt obligations. Those prior debt obligations are "callable" on or after February 1, 2020. The new Bonds will not be pre -payable until February 1, 2030. This refunding is being undertaken based in part on an assumption that the City does not expect to pre -pay off this debt prior to the new call date and that market conditions warrant the refunding at this time. MINOOR010 Other Service Providers: This debt issuance will require the engagement of other public finance service providers. This section identifies those other service providers, so Ehlers can coordinate their engagement on your behalf. Where you have previously used a particular firm to provide a service, we have assumed that you will continue that relationship. For services you have not previously required, we have identified a service provider. Fees charged by these service providers will be paid from proceeds of the obligation, unless you notify us that you wish to pay them from other sources. Our pre -sale bond sizing includes a good faith estimate of these fees, but the final fees may vary. If you have any questions pertaining to the identified service providers or their role, or if you would like to use a different service provider for any of the listed services please contact us. Bond Counsel: Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP Paying Agent: Bond Trust Services Corporation Rating Agency: Standard & Poor's Global Ratings (S&P) Summary: The decisions to be made by the City Council are as follows: • Accept or modify the finance assumptions described in this report • Adopt the resolution attached to this report. This presale report summarizes our understanding of the City's objectives for the structure and terms of this financing as of this date. As additional facts become known or capital markets conditions change, we may need to modify the structure and/or terms of this financing to achieve results consistent with the City's objectives. MrN%111E Pre -Sale Review by City Council: September 8, 2020 Due Diligence Call to review Official Statement: Week of September 21, 2020 Distribute Official Statement: September 24, 2020 Conference with Rating Agency: Week of October 5, 2020 City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds: October 13, 2020 Estimated Closing Date: November 4, 2020 Redemption Date for Bonds Being Refunded: November 17, 2020 Attachments Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds Estimated Proposed Debt Service Schedule Estimated Debt Service Comparison Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed with Bonds Sale Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697-8506 Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor (651) 697-8512 Keith Dahl, Financial Specialist (651) 697-8595 Jen Chapman, Senior Public Finance Analyst (651) 697-8566 Alicia Gage, Senior Financial Analyst (651) 697-8551 The Preliminary Official Statement for this financing will be sent to the City Council at their home or email address for review prior to the sale date. MINOSE City of Mound, MN $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Issue Summary Assuming Current GO BQ "AA" Market Rates plus 20bps Total Issue Sources And Uses Dated 11/04/20201 Delivered 11/04/2020 Cur Ref Cur Ref 2011 B - Sewer 2011B -Utility Improvement Issue Portion Equipment Rev Bonds Summary Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $4,335,000.00 $615,000.00 $1,970,000.00 $1,995,000.00 $8,915,000.00 Total Sources $4,335,000.00 $615,000.00 $159705000.00 $159955000.00 $859155000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Uses $4,335,000.00 $615,000.00 $159705000.00 $159955000.00 $859155000.00 Series 2020A GO Bonds OR I Issue Summary 1 8202020 1122PM FREERS MrA%y"M City of Mound, MN $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Issue Summary Assuming Current GO BQ "AX Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/04/2020 - - - - - 02/01/2021 365,000.00 0.500% 21,445.50 386,445.50 386,445.50 08/01/2021 - - 43,457.50 43,457.50 - 02/01/2022 590,000.00 0.500% 43,457.50 633,457.50 676,915.00 08/01/2022 - - 41,982.50 41,982.50 - 02/01/2023 600,000.00 0.550% 41,982.50 641,982.50 683,965.00 08/01/2023 - - 40,332.50 40,332.50 - 02/01/2024 775,000.00 0.600% 40,332.50 815,332.50 855,665.00 08/01/2024 - - 38,007.50 38,007.50 - 02/01/2025 790,000.00 0.650% 38,007.50 828,007.50 866,015.00 08/01/2025 - - 35,440.00 35,440.00 - 02/01/2026 790,000.00 0.800% 35,440.00 825,440.00 860,880.00 08/01/2026 - - 32,280.00 32,280.00 - 02/01/2027 800,000.00 0.900% 32,280.00 832,280.00 864,560.00 08/01/2027 - - 28,680.00 28,680.00 - 02/01/2028 790,000.00 1.050% 28,680.00 818,680.00 847,360.00 08/01/2028 - - 24,532.50 24,532.50 - 02/01/2029 550,000.00 1.150% 24,532.50 574,532.50 599,065.00 08/01/2029 - - 21,370.00 21,370.00 - 02/01/2030 555,000.00 1.300% 21,370.00 576,370.00 597,740.00 08/01/2030 - - 17,762.50 17,762.50 - 02/01/2031 485,000.00 1.350% 17,762.50 502,762.50 520,525.00 08/01/2031 - - 14,488.75 14,488.75 - 02/01/2032 495,000.00 1.450% 14,488.75 509,488.75 523,977.50 08/01/2032 - - 10,900.00 10,900.00 - 02/01/2033 325,000.00 1.500% 10,900.00 335,900.00 346,800.00 08/01/2033 - - 8,462.50 8,462.50 - 02/01/2034 330,000.00 1.600% 8,462.50 338,462.50 346,925.00 08/01/2034 - - 5,822.50 5,822.50 - 02/01/2035 335,000.00 1.700% 5,822.50 340,822.50 346,645.00 08/01/2035 - - 2,975.00 2,975.00 - 02/01/2036 340,000.00 1.750% 2,975.00 342,975.00 345,950.00 Total $8,915,000.00 - $754,433.00 $9,669,433.00 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $61,379.46 Average Life 6.885 Years Average Coupon 1.2291295% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.2291295% Weighted Average Maturity 6.885 Years Sones 2020A GO Bonds CR I Issue Summary 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM ftEHLERS -1793- City of Mound, MN $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Issue Summary Assuming Current GO BQ "AA" Market Rates plus 20bps Detail Costs Of Issuance Dated 11/04/2020 1 Delivered 11/04/2020 COSTS OF ISSUANCE DETAIL Municipal Advisor Bond Counsel Rating Agency Fee Miscellaneous TOTAL Series 2020A GO Bonds CR I Issue Summary 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM jgftEHLERS -1794- $50,500.00 $15,000.00 $16,000.00 $1,000.00 $82,500.00 City of Mound, MN $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Issue Summary Assuming Current GO BQ "AA" Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule 105% Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 02/01/2021 365,000.00 0.500% 21,445.50 386,445.50 405,767.78 02/01/2022 590,000.00 0.500% 86,915.00 676,915.00 710,760.75 02/01/2023 600,000.00 0.550% 83,965.00 683,965.00 718,163.25 02/01/2024 775,000.00 0.600% 80,665.00 855,665.00 898,448.25 02/01/2025 790,000.00 0.650% 76,015.00 866,015.00 909,315.75 02/01/2026 790,000.00 0.800% 70,880.00 860,880.00 903,924.00 02/01/2027 800,000.00 0.900% 64,560.00 864,560.00 907,788.00 02/01/2028 790,000.00 1.050% 57,360.00 847,360.00 889,728.00 02/01/2029 550,000.00 1.150% 49,065.00 599,065.00 629,018.25 02/01/2030 555,000.00 1.300% 42,740.00 597,740.00 627,627.00 02/01/2031 485,000.00 1.350% 35,525.00 520,525.00 546,551.25 02/01/2032 495,000.00 1.450% 28,977.50 523,977.50 550,176.38 02/01/2033 325,000.00 1.500% 21,800.00 346,800.00 364,140.00 02/01/2034 330,000.00 1.600% 16,925.00 346,925.00 364,271.25 02/01/2035 335,000.00 1.700% 11,645.00 346,645.00 363,977.25 02/01/2036 340,000.00 1.750% 5,950.00 345,950.00 363,247.50 Total $8,915,000.00 - $754,433.00 $9,669,433.00 $10,152,904.65 Significant Dates Dated First Coupon Date Yield Statistics 11/04/2020 2/01/2021 Bond Year Dollars $61,379.46 Average Life 6.885 Years Average Coupon 1.2291295% Net Interest Cost Cost 1.4034223% 1.4061625% 1.2208889% 1.5512938% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.2291295% Weighted Average Maturity 6.885 Years Series 2020A GO Bonds CR I Issue Summary 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM EHLERS -1795- a<<r, An<.Ao..ons City of Mound, MN $4,335,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Sewer Portion Assuming Current GO BQ "AX Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/04/2020 - - - - - 02/01/2021 - - 12,489.33 12,489.33 12,489.33 08/01/2021 - - 25,840.00 25,840.00 - 02/01/2022 120,000.00 0.500% 25,840.00 145,840.00 171,680.00 08/01/2022 - - 25,540.00 25,540.00 - 02/01/2023 120,000.00 0.550% 25,540.00 145,540.00 171,080.00 08/01/2023 - - 25,210.00 25,210.00 - 02/01/2024 295,000.00 0.600% 25,210.00 320,210.00 345,420.00 08/01/2024 - - 24,325.00 24,325.00 - 02/01/2025 300,000.00 0.650% 24,325.00 324,325.00 348,650.00 08/01/2025 - - 23,350.00 23,350.00 - 02/01/2026 300,000.00 0.800% 23,350.00 323,350.00 346,700.00 08/01/2026 - - 22,150.00 22,150.00 - 02/01/2027 305,000.00 0.900% 22,150.00 327,150.00 349,300.00 08/01/2027 - - 20,777.50 20,777.50 - 02/01/2028 305,000.00 1.050% 20,777.50 325,777.50 346,555.00 08/01/2028 - - 19,176.25 19,176.25 - 02/01/2029 310,000.00 1.150% 19,176.25 329,176.25 348,352.50 08/01/2029 - - 17,393.75 17,393.75 - 02/01/2030 315,000.00 1.300% 17,393.75 332,393.75 349,787.50 08/01/2030 - - 15,346.25 15,346.25 - 02/01/2031 315,000.00 1.350% 15,346.25 330,346.25 345,692.50 08/01/2031 - - 13,220.00 13,220.00 - 02/01/2032 320,000.00 1.450% 13,220.00 333,220.00 346,440.00 08/01/2032 - - 10,900.00 10,900.00 - 02/01/2033 325,000.00 1.500% 10,900.00 335,900.00 346,800.00 08/01/2033 - - 8,462.50 8,462.50 - 02/01/2034 330,000.00 1.600% 8,462.50 338,462.50 346,925.00 08/01/2034 - - 5,822.50 5,822.50 - 02/01/2035 335,000.00 1.700% 5,822.50 340,822.50 346,645.00 08/01/2035 - - 2,975.00 2,975.00 - 02/01/2036 340,000.00 1.750% 2,975.00 342,975.00 345,950.00 Total $4,335,000.00 - $533,466.83 $4,868,466.83 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $38,922.63 Average Life 8.979 Years Average Coupon 1.3705829% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.3705829% Weighted Average Maturity 8.979 Years Series 2020A GO Bonds CR I Sewer Forbore 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM *EHLERS -1796- City of Mound, MN $4,335,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Sewer Portion Assuming Current GO BQ "AX Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule 105% Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 02/01/2021 - $533,466.83 $4,868,466.83 $5,111,890.17 - - 12,489.33 11/04/2020 2/01/2021 12,489.33 $38,922.63 13,113.80 8.979 Years 02/01/2022 120,000.00 Net Interest Cost (NIC) 0.500% 51,680.00 171,680.00 180,264.00 02/01/2023 120,000.00 0.550% 51,080.00 171,080.00 179,634.00 02/01/2024 295,000.00 0.600% 50,420.00 345,420.00 362,691.00 02/01/2025 300,000.00 0.650% 48,650.00 348,650.00 366,082.50 02/01/2026 300,000.00 0.800% 46,700.00 346,700.00 364,035.00 02/01/2027 305,000.00 0.900% 44,300.00 349,300.00 366,765.00 02/01/2028 305,000.00 1.050% 41,555.00 346,555.00 363,882.75 02/01/2029 310,000.00 1.150% 38,352.50 348,352.50 365,770.13 02/01/2030 315,000.00 1.300% 34,787.50 349,787.50 367,276.88 02/01/2031 315,000.00 1.350% 30,692.50 345,692.50 362,977.13 02/01/2032 320,000.00 1.450% 26,440.00 346,440.00 363,762.00 02/01/2033 325,000.00 1.500% 21,800.00 346,800.00 364,140.00 02/01/2034 330,000.00 1.600% 16,925.00 346,925.00 364,271.25 02/01/2035 335,000.00 1.700% 11,645.00 346,645.00 363,977.25 02/01/2036 340,000.00 1.750% 5,950.00 345,950.00 363,247.50 Total $4,335,000.00 - $533,466.83 $4,868,466.83 $5,111,890.17 Significant Dates Dated First Coupon Date Yield Statistics 11/04/2020 2/01/2021 Bond Year Dollars $38,922.63 Average Life 8.979 Years Average Coupon 1.3705829% Net Interest Cost (NIC) 1.5042326% All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 1.6202253% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.3705829% Weighted Average Maturity 8.979 Years Series 2020A GO Bonds CR I Sewer Portion 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM EHLERS - 1797- City of Mound, MN $615,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Equipment Assuming Current GO BQ "AX Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/04/2020 - - - 0v01/2021 1,248.81 1,248.81 1,248.81 08/01/2021 - - 2,583.75 2,583.75 - 02/01/2022 65,000.00 0.500% 2,583.75 67,583.75 70,167.50 08/01/2022 - - 2,421.25 2,421.25 - 02/01/2023 65,000.00 0.550% 2,421.25 67,421.25 69,842.50 08/01/2023 - - 2,242.50 2,242.50 - 02/01/2024 65,000.00 0.600% 2,242.50 67,242.50 69,485.00 08/01/2024 - - 2,047.50 2,047.50 - 02/01/2025 70,000.00 0.650% 2,047.50 72,047.50 74,095.00 08/01/2025 - - 1,820.00 1,820.00 - 02/01/2026 70,000.00 0.800% 1,820.00 71,820.00 73,640.00 08/01/2026 - - 1,540.00 1,540.00 - 02/01/2027 70,000.00 0.900% 1,540.00 71,540.00 73,080.00 08/01/2027 - - 1,225.00 1,225.00 - 02/01/2028 70,000.00 1.050% 1,225.00 71,225.00 72,450.00 08/01/2028 - - 857.50 857.50 - 02/01/2029 70,000.00 1.150% 857.50 70,857.50 71,715.00 08/01/2029 - - 455.00 455.00 - 02/01/2030 70,000.00 1.300% 455.00 70,455.00 70,910.00 Total $615,000.00 - $31,633.81 $646,633.81 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $3,268.63 Average Life 5.315 Years Average Coupon 0.9678018% Net Interest Cost (NIC) True Interest Cost (TIC) Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 1.1935848% 1.2000057% 1.2208889% 1.3837174% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 0.9678018% Weighted Average Maturity 5.315 Years Se nes 2020A GO Bonds CR I Equipment 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM EHLERS _ 1798- City of Mound, MN $615,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Equipment Assuming Current GO BQ "AX Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule 105% Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I 02/01/2021 - - 1,248.81 1,248.81 1,311.25 02/01/2022 65,000.00 0.500% 5,167.50 70,167.50 73,675.88 02/01/2023 65,000.00 0.550% 4,842.50 69,842.50 73,334.63 02/01/2024 65,000.00 0.600% 4,485.00 69,485.00 72,959.25 02/01/2025 70,000.00 0.650% 4,095.00 74,095.00 77,799.75 02/01/2026 70,000.00 0.800% 3,640.00 73,640.00 77,322.00 02/01/2027 70,000.00 0.900% 3,080.00 73,080.00 76,734.00 02/01/2028 70,000.00 1.050% 2,450.00 72,450.00 76,072.50 02/01/2029 70,000.00 1.150% 1,715.00 71,715.00 75,300.75 02/01/2030 70,000.00 1.300% 910.00 70,910.00 74,455.50 Total $615,000.00 - $31,633.81 $646,633.81 $678,965.50 Significant Dates Dated First Coupon Date Yield Statistics 11/04/2020 2/01/2021 Bond Year Dollars $3,268.63 Average Life Average Coupon Net Interest Cost (NIC) True Interest Cost (TIC) Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes All Inclusive Cost (AIC) 5.315 Years 0.9678018% 1.1935848% 1.2000057% 1.2208889% 1.3837174% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 0.9678018% Weighted Average Maturity 5.315 Years Se nes 2020A GO Bonds CR I Equipment 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM w�-EHLERS -1799- City of Mound, MN $1,970,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Cur Ref 2011 B - Utility Rev Assuming Current GO BQ "AX Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/04/2020 - - - - - 02/01/2021 140,000.00 0.500% 4,345.17 144,345.17 144,345.17 08/01/2021 - - 8,640.00 8,640.00 - 02/01/2022 155,000.00 0.500% 8,640.00 163,640.00 172,280.00 08/01/2022 - - 8,252.50 8,252.50 - 02/01/2023 165,000.00 0.550% 8,252.50 173,252.50 181,505.00 08/01/2023 - - 7,798.75 7,798.75 - 02/01/2024 165,000.00 0.600% 7,798.75 172,798.75 180,597.50 08/01/2024 - - 7,303.75 7,303.75 - 02/01/2025 165,000.00 0.650% 7,303.75 172,303.75 179,607.50 08/01/2025 - - 6,767.50 6,767.50 - 02/01/2026 165,000.00 0.800% 6,767.50 171,767.50 178,535.00 08/01/2026 - - 6,107.50 6,107.50 - 02/01/2027 165,000.00 0.900% 6,107.50 171,107.50 177,215.00 08/01/2027 - - 5,365.00 5,365.00 - 02/01/2028 165,000.00 1.050% 5,365.00 170,365.00 175,730.00 08/01/2028 - - 4,498.75 4,498.75 - 02/01/2029 170,000.00 1.150% 4,498.75 174,498.75 178,997.50 08/01/2029 - - 3,521.25 3,521.25 - 02/01/2030 170,000.00 1.300% 3,521.25 173,521.25 177,042.50 08/01/2030 - - 2,416.25 2,416.25 - 02/01/2031 170,000.00 1.350% 2,416.25 172,416.25 174,832.50 08/01/2031 - - 1,268.75 1,268.75 - 02/01/2032 175,000.00 1.450% 1,268.75 176,268.75 177,537.50 Total $1,970,000.00 - $128,225.17 $2,098,225.17 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $11,601.08 IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 1.1052862% Weighted Average Maturity 5.889 Years Sedes2020A GO Bonds CR I Cur Ref2011B-UtiliryR 1820202011:22PM EHLERS -1800- IRS 1800 - City of Mound, MN $1,970,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Cur Ref 2011 B - Utility Rev Assuming Current GO BQ "AA" Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Comparison Date Total P+I Net New DIS Old Net DIS 02/01/2021 144,345.17 147,194.85 165,625.00 18,430.15 02/01/2022 172,280.00 172,280.00 197,187.50 24,907.50 02/01/2023 181,505.00 181,505.00 202,962.50 21,457.50 02/01/2024 180,597.50 180,597.50 203,237.50 22,640.00 02/01/2025 179,607.50 179,607.50 203,343.76 23,736.26 02/01/2026 178,535.00 178,535.00 203,093.76 24,558.76 02/01/2027 177,215.00 177,215.00 202,475.00 25,260.00 02/01/2028 175,730.00 175,730.00 201,475.00 25,745.00 02/01/2029 178,997.50 178,997.50 204,875.00 25,877.50 02/01/2030 177,042.50 177,042.50 202,875.00 25,832.50 02/01/2031 174,832.50 174,832.50 200,675.00 25,842.50 02/01/2032 177,537.50 177,537.50 203,043.76 25,506.26 Total $2,098,225.17 $2,101,074.85 $2,390,868.78 $289,793.93 PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net) Gross PV Debt Service Savings ..................... 273,439.35 Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.221%(Bond Yield)..... 273,439.35 Contingency or Rounding Amount .................... (2,849.68) Net Present Value Benefit $270,589.67 Net PV Benefit / $2,230,161.00 PV Refunded Debt Service 12.133% NetPV Benefit/ $1,910,000 Refunded Principal... 14.167% Refundinq Bond Information Refunding Dated Date 11/04/2020 Refunding Delivery Date 11/04/2020 Series 2020A GO Bonds CR I Cur Ref 2011 B-UtilityR 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM %EHLERS -1801 - City of Mound, MN $1,995,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Cur Ref 2011 B - Improvement Bonds Assuming Current GO BQ "AA" Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 11/04/2020 - - - - - 02/01/2021 225,000.00 0.500% 3,362.19 228,362.19 228,362.19 08/01/2021 - - 6,393.75 6,393.75 - 02/01/2022 250,000.00 0.500% 6,393.75 256,393.75 262,787.50 08/01/2022 - - 5,768.75 5,768.75 - 02/01/2023 250,000.00 0.550% 5,768.75 255,768.75 261,537.50 08/01/2023 - - 5,081.25 5,081.25 - 02/01/2024 250,000.00 0.600% 5,081.25 255,081.25 260,162.50 08/01/2024 - - 4,331.25 4,331.25 - 02/01/2025 255,000.00 0.650% 4,331.25 259,331.25 263,662.50 08/01/2025 - - 3,502.50 3,502.50 - 02/01/2026 255,000.00 0.800% 3,502.50 258,502.50 262,005.00 08/01/2026 - - 2,482.50 2,482.50 - 02/01/2027 260,000.00 0.900% 2,482.50 262,482.50 264,965.00 08/01/2027 - - 1,312.50 1,312.50 - 02/01/2028 250,000.00 1.050% 1,312.50 251,312.50 252,625.00 Total $1,995,000.00 - $61,107.19 $2,056,107.19 - Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $7,587.13 IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 0.8054064% Weighted Average Maturity 3.803 Years Series 2020A GO Bonds CR I Cur Ref2011B-Improve me 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM jgwEHLERS -1802- IRS 1802 - City of Mound, MN $1,995,000 General Obligation Bonds,Series 2020A Cur Ref 2011 B - Improvement Bonds Assuming Current GO BQ "AA" Market Rates plus 20bps Debt Service Comparison Date Total P+I Net New DIS Old Net DIS 02/01/2021 228,362.19 225,762.35 248,959.38 23,197.03 02/01/2022 262,787.50 262,787.50 281,200.00 18,412.50 02/01/2023 261,537.50 261,537.50 284,050.00 22,512.50 02/01/2024 260,162.50 260,162.50 281,287.50 21,125.00 02/01/2025 263,662.50 263,662.50 283,356.26 19,693.76 02/01/2026 262,005.00 262,005.00 284,781.26 22,776.26 02/01/2027 264,965.00 264,965.00 285,537.50 20,572.50 02/01/2028 252,625.00 252,625.00 275,600.00 22,975.00 Total $2,056,107.19 $2,053,507.35 $2,224,771.90 $171,264.55 PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net) Gross PV Debt Service Savings ..................... 161,658.05 Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 1.221%(Bond Yield)..... 161,658.05 Contingency or Rounding Amount .................... 2,599.84 Net Present Value Benefit $164,257.89 Net PV Benefit / $2,126,057.40 PV Refunded Debt Service 7.726% NetPV Benefit/ $1,930,000 Refunded Principal... 8.511% Refundinq Bond Information Refunding Dated Date 11/04/2020 Refunding Delivery Date 11/04/2020 Series 2020A GO Bonds CR I Cur Ref2011B-Improve me 1 8202020 1 1:22 PM jgwEHLERS - 1803 - Resolution No. 20- Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Resolution Providing for the Sale of $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota has heretofore determined that it is necessary and expedient to issue the City's $8,915,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2020A (the "Bonds"), to finance the acquisition of a fire pumper truck, 2017-2021 sewer improvements and to complete a current refunding of its General Obligation Bonds, Series 201113; and B. WHEREAS, the City has retained Ehlers & Associates, Inc., in Roseville, Minnesota ("Ehlers"), as its independent municipal advisor for the Bonds in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Champlin, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Authorization: Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Ehlers to assist the City for the sale of the Bonds. 2. Meetim Proposal Opp. The City Council shall meet at 7:00 p.m. on October 13, 2020, for the purpose of considering proposals for and awarding the sale of the Bonds. 3. Official Statement. In connection with said sale, the officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Ehlers and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Bonds and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its completion. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by City Council Member and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following City Council Members voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Dated this 8th day of September, 2020. M[:1IjE City Clerk City of Mound Cash Balances Reporting General Fund (101) As of 01-31-20 As of 02-28-20 As of 03-31-20 As of 04-30-20 As of 05-31-20 As of 06-30-20 As of 07-31-20 3,430,598 2,346,412 2,145,352 2,006,013 1,867,885 1,686,379 1,327,819 Area Fire Services (222) 614,380 567,321 603,117 598,004 491,934 607,887 593,077 DockFund(281) 333,173 361,830 377,476 382,067 378,195 379,078 378,770 Harbor District (285) 1,335 9,692 49,352 52,021 51,953 122,325 119,657 Debt Service Funds (3XX) ** 2,543,045 2,397,236 2,425,090 2,455,931 2,483,794 4,047,164 4,842,677 Captial Project Reserve Funds Replacement 2,191,918 2,271,801 2,267,804 2,279,884 2,171,017 2,220,633 2,185,130 403 -Cap Reserve - Vechicles & Equip 60,613 52,472 1,642 1,642 (42,716) 297,284 297,284 404 -Community Investment Fund (44,998) (44,998) (51,567) (65,939) (84,405) (7,704) (17,735) 405 -Cap Reserve City Buildings (1,592) (1,592) (1,592) (1,592) (9,224) 65,775 64,776 427 -Street Maintenance Fund 589,347 629,326 629,288 623,917 620,841 620,463 638,954 454 -TIF 1-1 Harrison Bay 2,578 (685) (685) (685) (685) (685) (685) 475 -TIF 1-3 Mound Harbor District (91,534) (91,534) (110,556) (115,977) (122,542) (126,232) (68,949) Subtotal Capital Fund 2,706,332 2,814,790 2,734,334 2,721,250 2,532,286 3,069,534 3,098,775 Enterprise Funds Liquor (609) 253,326 230,899 206,172 242,617 302,919 406,026 394,515 Water (601) (2,404,193) (2,557,719) (2,467,247) (2,352,149) (2,300,922) (2,571,287) (2,658,985) Sewer (602) (2,318,114) (2,102,100) (2,040,247) (1,988,625) (1,950,490) (2,194,571) (2,230,021) Storm (675) (1,031,914) (1,004,424) (1,001,216) (993,753) (985,456) (976,850) (1,019,503) Recycling (670) 180,668 191,113 189,964 175,282 173,066 171,648 189,081 Subtotal Enterprise Fund (5,320,227) (5,242,231) (5,112,574) (4,916,628) (4,760,883) (5,165,034) (5,324,913) Pooled Investments/CDs (884) - 10,669 13,963 15,050 14,479 13,911 13,288 TOTALALLFUNDS - CASH BALANCE 4,308,636 3,265,719 3,236,110 3,313,708 3,059,643 4,761,244 5,049,150 ** Debt Service Fund Balance - prepaid special assessments S:\FINANCE DEPT\REPORTS\2020\CASH BALANCES - 1805- CITY OF MOUND REVENUE -BUDGET REPORTING JULY 2020 Percentage of Budget 58.33% FUND BUDGET JULY 2020 REVENUE YTD REVENUE VARIANCE PERCENT RECEIVED GENERALFUND 14,166 9,282 - 6,672 218,308 Property Taxes 3,405,431 570,716 570,716 2,834,715 16.76% Business Licenses & Permits 27,750 500 18,425 9,325 66.40% Non -Business Licenses & Permits 208,200 9,282 75,530 132,670 36.28% Intergovernmental 438,768 218,308 239,980 198,788 54.69% Charges for Services 226,476 13,317 115,453 111,023 50.98% City Hall Rent 40,000 1,910 26,536 13,464 66.34% Fines & Forfeitures 35,000 2,572 12,163 22,837 34.75% Special Assessments 20,000 4,123 4,123 15,877 20.62% Street Lighting Fees 30,000 3,254 23,029 6,971 76.76% Franchise Fees 404,000 77,978 227,625 176,375 56.34% Transfers 175,000 - 175,000 - 100.00% Miscellaneous 209,000 280 163,498 45,502 78.23% TOTAL: OTHER FUNDS Area Fire Services Docks Transit District Maintenance Water Utility Sewer Utility Liquor Store Recycling Utility Storm Water Utility Investments MAY JUN JUL 157 18,876 280 5,219,625 902,240 1,652,078 3,567,547 31.65% 58,317 94,821 902,240 1,336,190 - 570,716 - 12,275 500 12,822 14,166 9,282 - 6,672 218,308 17,777 19,200 13,317 1,961 6,841 1,910 807 2,601 2,572 - - 4,123 3,318 3,350 3,254 21,475 10,840 77,978 157 18,876 280 5,219,625 902,240 1,652,078 3,567,547 31.65% 58,317 94,821 902,240 1,336,190 80,293 745,883 590,307 55.82% 37,873 217,535 162,600 1,911 174,886 (12,286) 107.56% 4,578 2,594 151,655 - 150,811 844 99.44% 1,950 75,955 2,030,000 337,527 1,296,966 733,034 63.89% 154,668 176,995 2,404,000 211,572 1,419,609 984,391 59.05% 202,408 208,319 3,090,000 402,289 2,104,035 985,965 68.09% 347,629 360,258 199,510 33,377 125,402 74,108 62.85% 15,514 15,530 149,456 11,555 87,399 62,057 58.48% 11,540 11,618 - 2,176 21,643 (21,643) n/a 503 217 SE!11Z610 80,293 1,911 337,527 211,572 402,289 33,377 11,555 2,176 SAFINANCE DEPT\REPORTS\2020\REVENUES JULY CITY OF MOUND EXPENSES- BUDGET REPORTINC JULY 202( Percentage of Budgel 58.33% JULY 202( YTD PERCENT FUND BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERALFUND Council Promotions City Manager/ City Cler Elections Finance Assessing Legal Centennial Buildin( City Hall - Wilshire Computes Police Emergency Preparednes Planning & Inspection Streets Parks Transfers Cable Tb Contingenc} TOTALS OTHER FUNDS Area Fire Service Docks Transit District Maintenance Capital Projects Capital Replacement - Equipmei Community Investment Resei Capital Replacement - Building Sealcoatinc TIF 1 -1 -Harrison Bay TIF 1-2 - Metroplaim TIF 1-3 - Mound Harbo Water Utility Sewer Utility Liquor Store Recycling Utility Storm Water Utilib 82,15' 6,72: 44,331 37,81, 53.970/ 61,500 - 30,000 31,500 48.78% 186,38: 19,482 96,76£ 89,61, 51.920/ 18,50( 42C 5,74( 12,76( 31.030/ 468,36 52,181 271,44' 196,92( 57.960/ 124,001 - - 124,00( 0.000 100,201 14,20, 30,54£ 69,65' 30.490/ 53,70( 3,72E 19,24: 34,45E 35.830/ 53,30( 6,321 32,35: 20,94E 60.700/ 41,50( 7,24: 21,24: 20,25: 51.190/ 1,838,09 912,32: 1,826,31, 11,78E 99.360/ 46,38( 4,011 27,10£ 19,27' 58.450/ 488,117 41,22E 212,241 275,87( 43.480/ 820,74, 89,64' 442,831 377,90E 53.960/ 485,431 51,24E 210,581 274,84E 43.380/ 623,47! 37,372 436,61: 186,86E 70.030/ 42,30( - 8,41E 33,88, 19.900/ 86,00( 11,32( 15,751 70,24< 18.320/ MAY JUN JUL 658,15E 52.880/ 87,41: 4,30 11,081 6,72: - 30,000 - 12,972 13,27E 19,482 - 16C 42C 36,53: 37,15: 52,18i 32E 74C 14,20, 1,87E 4,961 3,72E 3,08E 4,93E 6,321 - 1,70E 7,24: 187 1,642 912,32: 6,78; 5,392 4,011 25,161 33,61( 41,22E 51,102 56,00: 89,64' 22,031 28,82£ 51,24E 37,372 37,37: 37,372 - 3,317 11,32( 5,620,15, 1,257,44! 3,731,55: 1,888,59' 66.40% 201,741 270,19E 1,257,44! 1,396,79 106,56( 738,63: 658,15E 52.880/ 87,41: 115,18' 106,561 142,887 2,21E 18,181 124,70' 12.730/ 8,445 1,71: 2,21E 51,60( 2,66E 18,93, 32,66E 36.690/ 2,015 5,58: 2,66E - 80,45( 368,66E (368,669 n/a 108,86E 170,38: 80,45( 340,001 - 227,22, 112,77E 66.830/ 50,85E - - 83,00( 10,03: 44,62E 38,37: 53.770/ 18,46E 6,29E 10,03: 75,00( 998 8,631 66,36E 11.510/ 7,632 - 998 - 22,32E 30,81, (30,814, n/a 3,07E - 22,32E - - - - n/a - - - - - - - n/a - - - - 3,86( 22,91( (22,910; n/a 6,56E 3,69( 3,86( 1,950,20 486,00E 1,836,13, 114,061 94.150/ 154,23E 488,20: 486,001 2,247,01 287,46: 1,734,871 512,13: 77.210/ 188,78, 467,16E 287,46: 641,68' 70,32E 577,22' 64,46( 89.950/ 48,22( 59,78( 70,32E 198,05: 15,30E 106,48: 91,57( 53.770/ 15,36' 15,23( 15,30E 414,801 73,691 270,74: 144,05E 65.270/ 21,48E 21,87E 73,691 Sfil1lA HarborAUGUST 2020 VS 2019 DATE SALES CUSTOMERS AVERAGETICKET '20 '19 '20 119 +/- '20 119 +/- '20 '19 +/- Thursday 1 10,085 408 -100% 25 Friday 2 17,094 641 -100% 27 Saturday 1 3 15,241 15,184 0% 506 601 -16% 30 25 19% Sunday 2 4 7,761 7,164 8% 288 312 -8% 27 23 17% Monday 3 5 7,215 5,737 26% 279 273 2% 26 21 23% Tuesday 4 6 9,583 8,553 12% 336 366 -8% 29 23 22% Wednesday 5 7 11,465 8,398 37% 359 348 3% 32 24 32% Thursday 6 8 11,849 8,934 33% 378 377 0% 31 24 32% Friday 7 9 20,719 17,101 21% 575 594 -3% 36 29 25% Saturday 8 10 15,679 10,289 52% 508 435 17% 31 24 30% Sunday 9 11 7,046 6,441 9% 257 307 -16% 27 21 31% Monday 10 12 7,920 5,902 34% 302 265 14% 26 22 18% Tuesday 11 13 10,173 6,426 58% 374 310 21% 27 21 31% Wednesday 12 14 9,057 6,978 30% 318 313 2% 28 22 28% Thursday 13 15 14,731 9,288 59% 421 398 6% 35 23 50% Friday 14 16 18,911 15,587 21% 546 590 -7% 35 26 31% Saturday 15 17 18,484 15,651 18% 565 626 -10% 33 25 31% Sunday 16 18 8,398 6,275 34% 298 304 -2% 28 21 37% Monday 17 19 9,259 7,452 24% 315 344 -8% 29 22 36% Tuesday 18 20 8,256 6,512 27% 306 304 1% 27 21 26% Wednesday 19 21 10,039 7,509 34% 360 343 5% 28 22 27% Thursday 20 22 12,337 8,670 42% 406 357 14% 30 24 25% Friday 21 23 20,733 14,986 38% 618 542 14% 34 28 21% Saturday 22 24 19,381 13,638 42% 584 533 10% 33 26 30% Sunday 23 25 7,843 5,692 38% 283 267 6% 28 21 30% Monday 24 26 7,970 5,657 41% 297 277 7% 27 20 31% Tuesday 25 27 9,888 6,140 61% 353 289 22% 28 21 32% Wednesday 26 28 10,805 7,897 37% 374 351 7% 29 22 28% Thursday 27 29 11,052 9,343 18% 384 368 4% 29 25 13% Friday 28 30 16,709 15,466 8% 534 582 -8% 31 27 18% Saturday 29 31 16,209 10,678 52% 552 398 39% 29 27 9% Sunday 30 7,368 302 24 Monday 31 7,121 279 26 TOTAL - August 369,202 300,727 22.77% 12,257 12,423 -1% 30 24 24% SALES CUSTOMERS AVERAGETICKET_ '20 19 +/- '20 r 19 +/- '20 r 19 +/- FIRSTQTR 709,376 622,008 14% 26,551 27,488 -3% 27 23 19% SECOND QTR 1,020,201 790,911 29% 32,125 33,111 -3% 32 24 33% July 403,672 329,835 22°% 13,158 13,085 1%r 31 r 25 22% August 369,202 300,727 23% 12,257 12,423 -1% 30 24 24% September 0 250,681 -100% 0 10,966 -100%r###It 23 r#### THIRDQTR 772,874 981,242 -12% 25,415 36,474 -30% 30 24 26% TOTAL - Year to Date 2,502,451 2,043,480 22% 84,091 86,107 -2% 30 24 25% MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 7, 2020 Due to COVID 19, the meeting was held by electronic means as allowed by Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pelka called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Members present: Chair Pelka; Commissioners Jon Ciatti, Kevin Castellano, Jake Saystrom, Jason Baker, Drew Heal, Sue Pilling, Sherri Pugh, and David Goode. Staff present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Director of Finance and Administration Catherine Pausche. Members of the public: Tom Walker, 1936 Shorewood Lane. 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Goode to approve the agenda; seconded by Baker. MOTION carried unanimously. 4. REVIEW AND ACTION ON PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Pugh to approve the February 4, 2020 regular meeting and February 18, 2020 special meeting workshop minutes as written; seconded by Ciatti MOTION carried unanimously. 5. BOARD OF APPEALS PC Case No. 20-06 Variance 1936 Shorewood Lane Applicant: Tom Walker Smith introduced an overview of the Planning Case for the variance submitted by Tom Walker, owner of the property, to allow replacement of a lakeside existing deck in the same location due to its deteriorating condition. Staff referenced the added items to the agenda which included a letter from the owners of 1932 Shorewood Lane expressing support for the project. The deck was constructed as part of the new house construction project that took place in 2003 by a previous owner but was not constructed as shown on the file survey for the new house project contained in the property file. Smith mentioned that the original building plans are not available as they are only required to be kept for a certain number of years. The M100110011 Planning Commission Minutes - Draft April 7, 2020 owner/applicant was present at the meeting and explained that the deck is buckling and only a small portion of the deck in the corner is encroaching in the setback. He also commented that the existing width of the deck allows for full enjoyment of the deck. Mr. Walker explained that he had also visited with the neighbor on the other side about the project and that they had received a similar variance many years ago. Ciatti confirmed with Staff that the deck location was shown on the file survey and that the building plans are not available. Staff's recommendation was for approval subject to conditions and findings that are outlined in the Planning Report. MOTION by Goode, second by Castellano to recommend City Council approval of the variance requested for the property at 1936 Shorewood Lane with Staff's recommendations and findings of fact. MOTION carried unanimously. 6. OLD/NEW BUSINESS A. Review/discussion/recommendation — proposed purchase of Hennepin County tax forfeit parcel identified as PID No. 23-117-24-14-0048 and consistency determination with 2040 Comprehensive Plan Smith introduced the item which included review of a proposed acquisition of a tax forfeit parcel from Hennepin County. The parcel is PID No. 23-117-24-14-0048. Smith provided an overview of the parcel's location and conditions and summarized Staff's recommendation and findings as to why the parcel should be acquired by the City. The parcel's location along Commerce Boulevard is referenced in the comprehensive plan as area for enhanced bicycle connections from Bartlett Boulevard to the Dakota Rail Trail near Shoreline Drive. Commissioner Ciatti inquired if the parcel was offered to adjacent owners. Smith responded that Staff requested removal of the parcel from a future Adjacent Owner Sale in 2018 so the City could evaluate the proposed acquisition and benefits to the community. Smith also commented that the parcel is in seasonal use as a snowmobile trail. Commissioner Pugh inquired about a trail in the vicinity of the Beachwood cul-de-sac and whether it was owned by the City. Based on aerial information, Ms. Pausche indicated it was located on the City -owned property. Staff recommended approval of the proposed acquisition of the tax forfeit parcel based on findings included in the staff memorandum regarding its consistency with the approved comprehensive plan. MOTION by Pugh to recommend approval of staff recommendation, for purchase of PID No., 23-117-24-14-0048 to include findings of fact determining that the proposed acquisition is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; seconded by Goode. MOTION carried unanimously. B. Review/discussion/recommendation — proposed purchase of Hennepin County tax forfeit parcel identified as PID No. PID No. 13-117-24-21-0080 and consistency determination with 2040 Comprehensive Plan M[:11[I11 Planning Commission Minutes - Draft April 7, 2020 Smith introduced the item which included review of a proposed acquisition of a tax forfeit parcel from Hennepin County. The parcel is PID No. 13-117-24-21-0080. Smith provided an overview of the parcel's location and conditions and summarized Staff's recommendation and findings as to why the parcel should be acquired by the City. This parcel required legislation from the MnDNR for it to be released and completed a few years ago. The parcel is immediately adjacent to an undeveloped, vacant parcel that the City holds a conditional use deed that was issued in 1997. The property will transfer to full ownership of the City in 2021. Staff recommended approval of the proposed acquisition of the tax forfeit parcel based on findings included in the staff memorandum regarding its consistency with the approved comprehensive plan. MOTION by Goode to recommend approval of staff recommendation, for purchase of PID No. 13-117-24-21-0080 to include findings of fact determining that the proposed acquisition is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carried unanimously. Review/discussion/recommendation on 2020 annual Planning Commission work rules. Staff summarized the staff memorandum included in the agenda and offered its recommendation for approval. MOTION by Goode to approve the 2020 Planning Commission Work Rules; seconded by Castellano. MOTION passed unanimously. D. Review/discussion/recommendation on 2020 Planning Commission work plan and projects list The Planning Commission discussed the proposed work plan and projects list for 2020 that was recently discussed as part of the February concurrent special meeting workshop of the Planning Commission and City Council. Members of the Commission discussed their interest in assisting with the Mound Harbor District and public space programming. MOTION by Castellano to table the work plan and project list to upcoming meeting; seconded by Goode. MOTION carried unanimously. E. City Council Liaison / Staff Report(s) No Council Liaison or Staff updates were given. ME:11`E Planning Commission Minutes - Draft 7. ADJOURNMENT April 7, 2020 MOTION by Saystrom to adjourn at 8:13 p.m.; seconded by Castellano. MOTION carried unanimously. Submitted by Sarah Smith ME:11M MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 7, 2020 Chair Pelka called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the meeting was held electronically by ZOOM. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair David Pelka, David Goode, Sue Pilling, Jon Ciatti, Kevin Castellano, Jake Saystrom, Jason Baker, Drew Heal, and Sherri Pugh. Staff Present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Consultant Planner Rita Trapp, and Finance Director/Clerk/Treasurer Catherine Pausche. Members of the Public Present: Chris Carlson, Pat Buffington, Karen Buffington, John McKinley, Jane Anderson, Randy Lee, Janelle Chapman, Venus Steffensen, Johann Chemin, Jason Arsenol, Craig Rose, John Hubler APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Saystrom to approve the agenda, as amended, to add Staff Memorandum that includes additional comments received for the Commerce Place project; seconded by Baker. MOTION carried unanimously. REVIEW OF APRIL 7. 2020 MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Saystrom to approve the April 7, 2020 meeting minutes as written; seconded by Heal. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS PC Case No. 20-07 Commerce Place Redevelopment Project and Commerce Place 2"d Addition 2200-2238 Commerce Boulevard Applicant: Schafer Richardson Staff Sarah Smith introduced Rita Trapp, the City's planning consultant. Trapp explained the procedures for how the meeting will run in the ZOOM format. Trapp identified the multiple land use and subdivision requests for the Planning Commission to consider. The project is located in downtown Mound at the NE corner of Commerce Boulevard and Shoreline Drive. Trapp noted the parcels on the graphic shown were indicated in red. The project does not include the Wells Fargo site. That will remain as is. ME:11K10 Schafer Richardson is the owner of the property, including the existing shopping center. They are requesting multiple land use and subdivision approvals. The project will include the demolition of the existing shopping center, the construction of a three-story apartment building and Steven Scott Management, an associate of Schafer Richardson, will manage the property. The applicant completed a market study to evaluate whether or not to pursue a project in Mound and that study found that the site could support up to 121 units. The applicant is requesting 102 units. Rents could change, but the initial estimates are a range of $1,200 to $2,175. The City of Mound will not contribute financially to the project development. This would be considered a market rate apartment. Trapp offered history on the site. Commerce Place was built in 1986 and it is currently 32% occupied. Schafer Richardson has owned the property for more than a decade. They have explored several different development plans over the years. Trapp noted that state law requires the City to complete its review of this project by August 28th. The City would need the applicant's permission to extend that deadline. These rules did not change due to the pandemic and that is the reason the Planning Commission is being asked to consider the requests. Trapp outlined the requests. There is a public hearing on the major subdivision -preliminary plat which would create the lots needed to house the apartments. There is also consideration of a zoning text amendment, rezoning, vacation of right of way and drainage and utility easements and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development. Trapp explained that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been adopted and that the comp plan identifies the project area as mixed-use. These uses include commercial, retail, office, multifamily residential and townhomes. Trapp shared a graphic with an example that describes what was intended in the comprehensive plan for this area. Multi -family and townhomes were specifically identified as appropriate uses in this area. The density proposed was supposed to be between 25-30 units per acre. The density of this proposal is 25 units per acre. This fits with what was approved for the Comprehensive Plan. Trapp discussed the rezoning proposal. The site currently has 2 zoning districts, Commerce Place being B-1 Central Business District and the 2 little parcels to the east of Fern Lane are R-3 Multiple Family Residential. The rezoning would be to change the parcels to Destination Planned Unit Development District. This is the same zoning that has been used across the street at Mound Marketplace. This designation would fit in the 2030 and the 2040 Comprehensive Plans. This rezoning in in keeping with what has been discussed for this area for a number of years. EE:SEE Trapp outlined the zoning text amendment that has been requested. When Staff evaluated the Destination Planned Unit Development District language the medium and high density residential, which was previously discussed as part of the comprehensive plans, was never incorporated into the text when the district was drafted. The zoning text amendment would be to modify the district purpose and the permitted uses to add medium and high density residential to that list. Trapp reviewed that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan listed this area as being 50% residential. So the text amendment would clean up an oversight that, if not amended, creates an inconsistency with the approved comprehensive plan. Trapp discussed the vacation of Fern Lane and the drainage and utility easements that are on the property. The vacation of Fern Lane would only include the portion that is bounded on either side by the project. It would not extend to the areas that are not owned by the applicant. The drainage and utility easements are located on the east side of the existing Commerce Place building and to the immediate east of Fern Lane. These are standard easements that have been determined not to be needed as they contain utilities that will be moved because of the proposed project. The requested vacations are the minimum that would be needed to support this redevelopment. It would allow the applicant to move the gas line to another location in order to facilitate where the new building would be located. Trapp outlined the preliminary plat. There are seven different parcels involved plus the vacation of Fern Lane. The intention is to combine the parcels together and create the necessary parcels to support the development. The site is 3.35 acres. There will be two lots created. The first lot is just over 2 acres which would include the apartment and parking in the rear. The second lot would be 1.2 acres and would contain the surface parking located to the west of the new building around Wells Fargo. Trapp explained that the reason for the two lots is that there existing cross access and parking agreements with Wells Fargo that need to be maintained and they need to be referenced to a lot. Lot 2 will have the access points and the parking that are subject to private agreements. There are some small pieces of right of way (ROW) along Commerce Blvd that Hennepin County requested be dedicated ROW and the applicant has shown those pieces to be dedicated. Trapp introduced the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). It is the City's tool to establish a Planned Use Development (PUD). A PUD is used to provide flexibility for areas that are difficult to develop or redevelop. As part of the regulations the appropriate dimension and design standards will be established. Trapp provided an overview of the dimension and design standards. The height of the project is proposed at 42 feet, 4 inches, which is appropriate for this district. Trapp shared a rendering from the applicant that shows the new building in proportion to the area. The proposed impervious surface cover is proposed at 73%, which is less than current conditions which are at 84%. Utilities are already established at this site so there are no concerns. ME:1NE Trapp provided additional detail about the proposed dimensions and design of the units. There will be studio, 1 -bedroom, 1 -bedroom plus den and 2 -bedroom units. Approximately 50% of the units will be 1 -bedroom units. The sizes range from 488 square feet to 1250 square feet, which is similar to other projects in Mound and are appropriate for the project. Trapp outlined the reduction in access points that the proposed project will provide. Some alleys and access points will be eliminated. The two access points that currently serve Wells Fargo on Commerce Blvd. will remain. The accesses on Shoreline and Church road will also remain. The accesses in the rear will be consolidated to one access and there will be no access on Fern Lane. Everything in the rear will be from one access and will serve the underground parking and a small parking area. Trapp discussed the traffic study that was completed by a third party consultant. The study showed that this will not create significant operational impact for the surrounding intersections and roadways. In fact, the study indicates there would be a decrease in the number of total daily trips by 126. A slight increase in the AM peak hour is projected of 18 trips, but it also shows a decrease of 18 trips in the PM peak hour. Trapp points out that if the site were remain a retail site and it were leased to full capaCity, there would be an increase of 1,000 total daily trips projected, including an increase of 5 trips in the AM peak hour and an increase of 108 trips in the PM peak hour. This information was requested by the City due to concerns voiced by residents in preliminary project discussions. The applicant is proposing 244 parking stalls. This includes 84 spots in the garage, 124 surface spaces and 36 for the Wells Fargo location. There are 28 additional parking spaces proposed on the east side of the building. The applicant proposed this as "proof of parking', meaning the parking spaces would not be built during initial construction but would be added if the City deems the additional parking is needed. Per the traffic study, the estimated parking demand is 179 spaces. This takes into consideration the Wells Fargo parking, as well as the unit parking for the development. The applicant has also noted that their typical standard is 1.1 to 1.15 stalls per bedroom, and this proposal would be 1.73 stalls per bedroom. Parking would be actively managed. Trapp also noted that the applicant is proposing designated bicycle parking. Trapp outlined the proposed building materials to be used. She notes the proposal has a peaked roof. The applicant proposed this style of roof after listening to comments at the neighborhood meetings where residents said they preferred a more residential character. Trapp discussed the proposed screening, buffering and landscaping. If the proof of parking is ever constructed, additional landscaping would be needed to ensure proper screening. Landscaping is primarily foundation and perimeter planting, including shrubs and perennials. Trees are proposed in the parking islands and other areas. No trees are proposed in the rear, ME:111611 because of the underground utilities. Outdoor amenities include a grilling area, a pet exercise area. Current fence on the rear will remain. Trapp outlined the agency comments. CenterPoint no longer has issues as the utility easement only serves the current mall. MCES had no comment and MCWD noted the proposal would reduce impervious surface by 10% so the project would be exempt from MCWD storm water requirements. Hennepin County provide a number of comments, including supporting the reduction in access points. The County requested additional right-of-way along Shoreline Drive and requested the dedication of an existing highway easement at the southwest corner of the site. Trapp outlined the public hearing notice and the steps that were taken to keep the public notified. Trapp noted the public comments that were received in advance of the Commission meeting. Commissioners were invited to ask questions of staff. Commissioner Ciatti asked for clarification about the Hennepin County request to grant the dedication of the highway easement. Trapp noted that Staff is not supportive of that request as the edge of the property is already at the edge of the parking area and not far from the building. Commissioner Baker asked how the proof of parking determination is made. Trapp replied that a condition would be in the developer agreement. The condition would provide the City the ability to request the parking to be constructed when it is deemed necessary. Commissioner Goode asked if the owner has a plan for parking boats for the tenants. Trapp suggests to defer the question to the applicant but that in the concept phase the applicant had indicates that boat parking would not be allowed. Chair Pelka asked if the development agreement would mention the "market rate" rents. Trapp explained that the rents will be determined by the applicant. Since the City has no financial stake in the project, there is no input from the City. The applicant noted previously that the rents presented in the Planning Report are preliminary and would be revised as the project evolves through construction. Commissioner Saystrom asked how the CUP will work. Trapp noted that most of the requirements are already met. Saystrom wondered if the existence of a PUD would change the steps the developer would be required to take to make a change. Trapp noted that changes to the PUD would require a public hearing to change the conditional use permit. Saystrom asked what type of change would trigger the public hearing, for example could the applicant change the number of units of one type or another. Trapp says code does not determine how many units a building has to contain only the minimum unit size. ME:11rm Commissioner Castellano sought clarification on if the project is in compliance with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as a letter from the public states that it is not while the City says it is. Trapp said the City's opinion is that this project complies with the 2020, 2030 and 2040 comp plans. Trapp says she cannot speak about how someone would come up with a different conclusion, but for the City's perspective, the use, the building height, the zoning all agree with the last three Comprehensive Plans. Castellano wondered if the developer needs to have a plan in the event the project does not fill up as planned. Trapp says there are devices in place to ensure the developer executes the project as outlined in a development agreement. Trapp deferred Castellano's question regarding subsidized rents to the applicant. Commissioner Pugh asked for clarification on setback requirements. Trapp states setbacks are established for each district and there are limited setback requirements in the Destination District. Pugh noted that if the building were built right to the property line on Shoreline there is concern that it will create a "tunnel -like environment" and she wonders if the developer has discretion to decide how close it is to the road. Trapp showed the rendering provided by the applicant. She explained there is about 100 feet of right of way for Shoreline Drive. Pugh suggested the developer might consider improving the look by adding landscaping. Commissioner Baker wondered if the City has any mechanism to ensure the developer does not change the rents from market rate to subsidized. Trapp noted that from her experience and knowledge to provide "low income", "subsidized" or "affordable" housing is a much tougher process for the financer than to provide market rate and she is not aware of any tool the City can use to dictate this. Commissioner Saystrom asked about the code requirement of one covered parking spot per unit and noted that the application is 20 spots short of that. Trapp explained that there is not the space on the site to meet that requirement. Saystrom interjects that there is a way to do it but that would require the applicant to build fewer units. Trapp says yes, but then the project would most likely not happen because the finances wouldn't line up. Saystrom wondered why this issue keeps getting pushed aside. Castellano pointed out that one concern he has is that parking will spill out to local streets if the parking requirements are not met, as outlined in code. Trapp confirms that parking is always a concern and that she anticipates the site can accommodate the requirements with the Wells Fargo parking that won't be used after business hours. She also noted that not every allotted parking space will be needed at the same time. Accounting for people having different work schedules and different transportation needs, the City believes the proposed parking is sufficient. Castellano asked about the parking agreement with Wells Fargo and Trapp defers the question to the applicant question portion. Saystrom points out that residents could leave an unused car just sitting in a parking space, essentially, as storage for vehicles that don't run in the middle of downtown. Trapp says it's a good question for the applicant. Pelka pointed out ME:11E:10 it's difficult to work with hypotheticals. He says that having a covered parking space for each unit would alleviate a lot of the concern. Ciatti wondered what difference 20 cars will make. Pelka noted that having covered parking for each unit is a different product. It's a nicer product with garage parking. Smith suggest the parking discussion be saved for the applicant. She says the expectation is that the parking supports the project. Trevor Martinez, representative from Schafer Richardson, addressed the parking questions. They cannot include any additional underground parking as the project is designed. There is no room for more parking to the west because it would disturb the access and easements. The parking ratio is based on several other similar projects where residents would rather forego underground parking in order to have nicer interior unit. Each underground parking stall costs $25,000-$30,000 to build, meaning that the rent would need to be approximately $150 more per month in order to provide underground parking. Their experience is that some residents prefer a free surface parking option. In answer to the issue with storing junk vehicles on the lot, Martinez pointed out that the property management is strict on enforcing nuisance vehicles. He does not anticipate there being any issue with spill over parking and he reminds the Commission that the proof of parking is there for that reason. Pelka asked what rents better, flat roof or peaked roof, recognizing that the peaked design on this project was designed as such because of community feedback from Mound Residents. Martinez states that neither option effects rentals all that much, so that is why they decided to design it based on resident feedback. Pelka asked if there are balconies on the units. Martinez states there are balconies on 30-40% of the units and there is a large gilling and pet park area on-site as well. Pugh asked the size of the balconies. Balconies were estimated to be 8' x 4.5'. Martinez noted there is no storage allowed on the balconies. Baker asked for clarification if residents will need to pay separately for the underground parking spaces. Martinez confirmed there would be additional rent for an underground parking stall. Baker pointed out that then there could be even more parking spilling outside if all of the underground parking is not rented. Martinez explained that if they notice a lot of underground parking is not being utilized they would lower the rental rate to entice residents to use the spots. This has not been an issue at their other properties. Goode asked if the parking stalls are available on a first come/first served basis. Martinez confirmed. Baker asked if someone in a two bedroom could rent two stalls. Martinez confirmed that could occur. Saystrom pointed out that the parking could be accommodated, but not with the current design. He wondered if the applicant might be trying to get too much out of the property. Martinez responded that removing 20 units from the building would make the project financially unfeasible. Baker asked if the studios could be replaced with 2 -bedroom units. Martinez says that it is not feasible because the demand for 2 -bedroom units is low. The entire development industry, not just the applicant, has had a hard time leasing 2 -bedroom units because the rents are similar to what residents could pay for a mortgage, making it not price competitive. EE:SLOIS Ciatti wondered if, as other Commissioners have mentioned, the units were adjusted to be smaller or in a different bedroom configuration, it would make an even higher price point for rents. He asked if the applicant has tried those reconfigurations and if so, what the outcome was. Martinez responded that Schafer Richardson has been working to redevelop this site for at least 10 years. He believes from first discussions until today there have been approximately 17 different iterations discussed internally by the applicant, including townhomes, other configurations with apartment buildings and one that had retail on the bottom but that would extend the building to 4 stories in order to make the project financially feasible. Community feedback was that 4 stories was too tall so the applicant went back to the current 3 -story plan. Baker asked for clarification on the traffic study presented in the application. He asks if the study included the current use, with only two commercial spaces rented out vs. 100% occupancy of the current site. Martinez stated that the traffic study took several comparisons in to consideration. He pointed out the study was finalized prior to the Coronavirus outbreak. Pugh noted her biggest concern about the entire project is the traffic. Commissioner Pilling stated she would rather see something on that lot that looks nice even if it creates a little more traffic, because what sites there now is not what we want Mound to look like. Baker asked about bike parking. He wondered if all the bike parking is designated inside. Martinez stated that there is one bike parking slot in front of each underground parking stall. There are 2 additional bike storage rooms included in the design; one on ground level and one at another location in the building. Baker asks how many bike spots are outside the building. Martinez believes it is 10-15 spots outside. The outside spots are intended for daily use, and not for longterm bike storage. Saystrom asked about the impact on the schools. Martinez noted the property management company found in similar projects that 6-7% of renters have school age children, which would add 6-8 children in the school for this project. Saystrom asked if they expect 1 child per family. Martinez confirmed that with 80%of the units being studio and 1 -bedroom, it would be difficult to have more than one child in those units. Saystrom noted that number is much lower than he expected. Martinez pointed out that the typical renter being the "active adult" in their 20s and early 30s, as well as folks in their 50s and 60s just don't tend to have school age children. Pelka opened the public hearing. Chris Carlson, 5950 West Branch Road, Minnetrista (owns property on Tonkawood), wanted to note that the petition he submitted in 2018 was not specific to any details of the building. It specifically asked the City not to rezone the area to high density housing. He believes the petition is still applicable to this application because it speaks against high density housing, not any certain project. He stated that every time he visits his property on Spruce, with the MFOOK11E exception of when parking restrictions are in place, there is parking spillover. Carlson asked if there is a minimum number or percentage of residents that sign a petition required to stop the project. Carlson also noted that, in his experience, developers always say they need to build a certain number of units or it won't be profitable. Pelka stated that the Planning Commission is only a recommending body and the final decision lies with the City Council. Carlson reviewed his comments that he, along with a huge number of members of the public, are opposed to this project because they do not want any more high density residential in Mound, and they for sure don't want it downtown. He suggested the developer make the exterior signs match and pave the parking lot and the building won't be that bad. Pat and Karen Buffington, 4456 Radnor Road, reiterated that putting high density housing in that location would ruin the downtown area. She would like to know what other options there. Why is putting a high rise, low income housing unit downtown the only option. She stated most people in Mound do not want this so she doesn't understand why the Planning Commission is going forward with it. Pelka stated this is the plan that was presented to the Commission for consideration. He explains that this is privately own land. The City does not own the land and therefore can't propose something different. Ms. Buffington asked what happened to the public library option. Pelka reiterated that this is not public land and building a public library was not presented as an option. Mr. Buffington noted that once you rezone a business district into residential, it's gone and it can't come back. John McKinley, 5948 Hillcrest Road, commented that the neighborhood meetings held by the developer showed 99% of the attendees were opposed to this project. He believed the 120 day guideline makes it difficult for the residents to voice their opposition and he believes the City could request that Schafer Richardson postpone the project so they can hear from more people. McKinley noted that Schafer Richardson has stated that they didn't have people who wanted to rent space. There were three realtors who said they had clients trying to rent space but their phone calls were not returned. McKinley does not believe the citizens of Mound need to help Schafer Richardson along in any way because they did this to themselves. Jane Anderson, 5060 Edgewater Drive, shared her belief that the City of Mound could be a mini -Excelsior or a mini -Wayzata if the City marketed itself right. She believed the City could be totally financed by points of interest including small shops, ice cream shops, realtors, all the things that make a beautiful small town or we can be a fourth tier, not on the map kind of suburbia. She believes we need to decide what we are and who we are and make a bigger plan. She suggests we pause and go at this again. Randy Lee, 5034 Tuxedo Blvd, indicated he is supportive of property owner's rights to develop their private land as they see fit. He noted he has issue when the owners are asking for exceptions and changes to zoning or variances that go against code. Lee states that it is not the residents' responsibility to bail out a property owner because they made a bad business decision. He believes the property owner should present a project that conforms to current EERIE code. He is supportive of the applicant doing any project that fits with current code. He struggles with the idea that residents must make concessions and changes so a corporation can see a return on their investment. Janelle Chapman, 1637 Eagle Lane, wondered what will bring the 20 -somethings to Mound vs. other communities that have better amenities. She doesn't believe that the proposed project is going to entice the target demographic that the property owners seek to move to Mound when they could get better amenities elsewhere. Venus Steffensen, 1838 Commerce Blvd, stated that residents believe the Planning Commission will honor the residents' wishes based on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Her concern is that the vision keeps changing and is moving away from the stated goals. Residents rely on the Commission to perform due diligence and to find the best path forward obtain the goals. The 2040 plan identified the three projects as mixed zoning. In three of the areas proposed for mixed-use there is only residential being proposed which does not retain the 30% commercial noted for mixed-use. The developer of Commerce Place purchased the property understanding that there are and will be grants that will benefit from the transit center across the street and the property being worn down. For 8 years, Schafer Richardson has been in a position of decision making for the property. They have knowingly let the property get dilapidated and have not reinvested in the property, positioning themselves as victims and reported that no one is interested in putting in retail in that space, when they have not aggressively tried. Steffensen believes this is a well -orchestrated development strategy they have conducted across Hennepin County and the surrounding area. She stated that Trevor Martinez of Schafer Richardson comes from a background of promoting affordable housing with Dominium and prior to that he worked with affordable housing projects for the Met Council. Steffenson stated that Schafer Richardson positions market rate housing up front with the default safety mechanism for affordable housing or life cycle housing then converts that housing to housing choice vouchers, formerly known as Section 8. The market rates they propose are high for Mound residents and for the venue. She believes Schafer Richardson is covered because Hennepin County conforms to the law that restricts landlords from discriminating on accepting low income housing vouchers. It is Steffensen's opinion that Martinez's team and Steven Scott Management will coordinate with the housing authority to start reaching out to the hundreds of people waiting on their list. These housing vouchers covers most, if not all, of the rent. She says the residents of Mound will need to pay the full rents but others from other communities will pay next to nothing, as seen with Balsam Hill townhomes. Those residents are not from Mound, or nearby. So to assume that this project is going to be utilized by Mound and the surrounding neighbors is highly unlikely. Steffenson outlined how other proposals in the area would be eligible for the same grants as Commerce Place. Steffenson says 91% of 250 people polled want restaurants and shops in this area. She also noted an online petition that has 600 signatures. She noted the petition mentioned by Carlson earlier in public comments. She stated that residents want to protect previous investments at Mound Harbor District and maintain the green space to enhance quality of life and attract more ME:RNa commerce to the City. She requests that the Commission go back to the developers and require a plan that honors this request, including retail space in the plan. Steffanson wants to know who owns Commerce Place LLC and where is it located. Steffanson outlines that on other projects Schafer Richardson takes on a short term, 2 -year mortgage on a property and walks away immediately with 5 million dollars in equity due to grants and recovered developer fees. She wants to know if the Commission has research to understand their long-term strategy. Steffenson wonders why we would accept a plan from the developers that does not protect our investment in regards to green space, lake access and commercial/retail interest. Johann Chemin, 6039 Beachwood Road, agreed with earlier speakers. Chemin said that he attended the meeting in February and Schafer Richardson did not take any of those points into consideration. He wondered what demographics they are trying to attract with such high rents and ugly design. He believes that for the proposed rent amount, he would prefer living down town for cheaper and with more amenities. He thinks the project is trying to brainwash people with a grill and bike parking. For his taste, who cares about bike parking, if he had a bike he would put it in a garage. And if he were going to grill out, he would not want to do that looking at a parking lot. He would want some privacy in the back of the building, which would require the project being redesigned. Chemin stated that Trapp shut down any question asked by the Planning Commission with any dissent for the project. He also questioned her presenting the project saying "we". He wonders if it's "we" the citizens of Mound or "we" Schafer Richardson. Chemin believes that Trapp, as a representative of Mound, should be representing the interest of the citizens and the City. He believes she is biased in favor of the project and is not representing the City in a fair light. Chemin disputed Schafer Richardson's claim that they did due diligence to bring business to the existing building. The parking lot has never been resurfaced, the building fagade has never been changed and he knows from attending the meeting in February that there are some structural issues with the building. So he doesn't believe they tried to attract new business to this location. He requested that the Commission deny the project. He believes Schafer Richardson needs to present something that appeals to the citizens. Jason Arsenol, 2126 Fern Lane, opposed the apartments because he lives right near the project site. He recently moved to Mound and if the apartments had existed when he purchased he would not have wanted to buy it. He outlined the amenities from his previous apartment, prior to moving to Mound. He moved to Mound to enjoy the good school district and start a family and this project will have a negative impact on him. One of his concerns is that the proposal has gone through 17 versions and it's failed every time. He wonders why we keep re -addressing it. He asked about the Library proposal that was discussed at the December, January or February meeting. He believed a lot of people knew of a plan to move the library to where this building is and move this building where the library is. He believes a library with statues and picnic tables would be make this a Town Square. He requests that everyone step back and look into this more. EE:RACIE Craig Rose, 5100 Edgewater Drive, noted that there are some things bothering him. He's hearing "affordable housing', "section 8" "high density housing' and "vouchers". This is his home, his family's home, his kid's attend school here and these things affect those. A developer is going to come in here and stuff that thing full of ... residents, strip the equity out and be gone and we'll be here to deal with it. John Hubler, 5448 Breezy Road, noted that approximately 10 or 15 years ago they rezoned Anthony Floral. He did a study where he took a map of the City of Mound and found that there was over 75% of high density rental units were located on a % mile radius from Grandview Blvd and Commerce a''/: mile radius contained the other 20%. He is not against rentals but he believes there was discrimination against residential R-1 property owners with all the high density rentals within % mile of one point and now we are discussing the facts of additional high density housing. Hubler commends the developer in exploring alternatives but he agrees with several of the previous speakers. He wonders if there have been impact statements from the police, fire department or the school. He asks if Met Council has any direction in this dictating what percentages of rental units that the City of Mound has to put through. Trapp responds to the public comments made. Trapp presented a graphic from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. She points out the major corridors through Mound and says these areas are made to handle more traffic. If the City were to look at other areas of the City for high density residential, we would be looking at taking out single family homes. The density intensification is located along the corridors is where the City determined to focus those efforts. The City is fully developed so there is no open land where these projects can occur. There are limited options for the 20 -something resident who grew up in Mound and wishes to stay in Mound. This project would help provide that. Similarly, at the other end of the age spectrum there aren't a lot of options. Trapp corrected earlier statements indicating that while there have been previous iterations for this land, those were all either internal applicant discussions or concept plans presented to the City. This is the first formal application to the City. Trapp noted that the police and fire departments are on the distribution list for comment and no comments were received. Trapp says relative to the Met Council, the City needs to create a comprehensive plan to meet their requirements. The implementation of the comp plan is at the discretion of the City. The Met Council does not specifically comment on development projects with the exception of sanitary sewer services. The City decides how we move forward and if this is appropriate for the community. Trapp invited Martinez to address any questions he heard. Martinez clarifies about the amenities as compared to other properties in surrounding communities. He stated that the price points in those properties are comparatively higher and that often the amenities like a pool would require a much larger complex. Speaking on the amenities for this project, they offer high end interior finishes including stainless appliances, stone countertops, oversized tubs ME:RzE and showers in the bathrooms. They offer bike wash and pet wash stations, game rooms, yoga rooms and fitness/club rooms and community rooms and exterior amenities like the grilling area, pet exercise areas and lawns can be included as they refine the design. Martinez responded to the concerns about density. As proposed, this project provides 25 units per acre and the comp plan allows up to 30 units per acre. He also clarified about the transition to subsidized housing. There are 2 ways that a project can become subsidized. The government subsidizes construction costs and the developer agrees not to lower rents. This is not happening here. Schafer Richardson does not have any tax-exempt bonds or tax credits. This can be confirmed because if they had those bonds or credits they would have had to come to the City. The other way to become subsidized is an operational subsidy which is the project based section 8 vouchers. The Metro HRA payment standards for the studios and the 1 -bedrooms are $720 and $860. This is $500-$700 per month short of projected revenues. The applicant's lenders would never consent to the applicant cutting their rents by that amount. That would put the building in foreclosure and the applicant would lose 100% of the money they invested in the property. He explains that they cannot strip the equity out of the building. This is not a subsidized project. Martinez clarifies the discrimination laws others have spoke of. You can't discriminate against the use of Section 8 vouchers if that is the rents you are charging. However, if your rents are substantially above those payment standards, you do not have to accept those vouchers. Pelka asked how this project compares to The Mist as far as amenities, cost perspective and unit size. Martinez stated that the Mist was a condo project that was converted to rentals, making it unique. He believes that property went through a negotiated bankruptcy in order to make that transition occur. He stated that in terms of other properties similar to the proposed project, the units are slightly larger. Ciatti asked about the comments that Schafer Richardson intentionally not filling the commercial vacancies. He requested that the people who made the comments offer concrete evidence that it happened and that the applicant dispute it, if not true. Martinez denied the accusations. He says that he spoke to two of the three brokers who attended the February meeting. Martinez is only aware of one inquiry since 2018. That potential tenant was looking for temporary space while they remodeled their existing space. Trapp says that Ciatti is correct in that perhaps all questions can't be answered tonight and she suggests Staff create a list of follow up questions that can be answered and provided to the City Council to assist their decision. Ciatti also pointed out that the comments about what will happen if this is not what they say it is cannot be used in his decision. Goode asked if there has been any discussion between the applicant and Hennepin County about relocating the library to this site. Martinez indicated that he believes that was suggested at a previous Council or Planning Commission meeting as part of the concept review process, but Martinez is not aware of any such conversation between Shafer Richardson and Hennepin County. EE:R&E Pilling noted that previously it was discussed that there would be no boat parking and she wants to add RVs to the list. Pilling recognizes that people are saying they don't want high density housing but the retail space that is available is not being used. She explained that Schafer Richardson has few options. Pilling believes houses equal business. In her opinion the Library point is a distraction and we should move on. Chair Pelka asked if there are any more questions for the applicant. Staff noted that three members of the public who have spoken previously have put their hands up. Staff asked that the commenters only offer new information and requests the comments be brief. Chris Carlson stated with Balsam Place he attended the Council meeting and was told by a Council member that the neighborhood meeting was his chance to voice his opinion. So he wants to know when the right time to voice his concerns. He asked if the Commissioners report to the City Council will include an "outswelling of community opposition" for this project. He also clarifies that the library option was just talk, and is not an option. He knows the library is slated to be demolished and rebuilt. Although, he believes this site would be perfect for the library, creating the perfect town square. Because of that possibility he opposes this project. Venus Steffensen asked Martinez for clarification on the voucher use program. She says if someone comes to them with a voucher, it is the law that they must accept it. The voucher choice program provides those dollars in the amounts he mentions but then allows the voucher holder to pay the difference. She provides an example that if rent is $1000 and someone has $700 voucher, they would pay $300 for rent. Then the federal subsidy would come from the state and go to the landlord. She asks for confirmation. She believes it would be a shame for people from outside the community to be able to live here for $300 but legacy Mound residents can't afford to have their children or their parents live in these apartments. Pausche noted that these comments will be forwarded to the council. Johann Chemin responded to the claim that the applicant did not try to rent the vacant space because the parking lot is not resurfaced, the facade is ugly and from the 80s. Staff pointed out that these points have been made and clarified that Ciatti requested earlier specific cases where the applicant did not rent to interested parties. Chemin responded to Martinez's comment that he is not aware of the Library discussion. He pointed out it was discussed at length in February. He wondered if Martinez is untruthful about this, what else is he hiding and misrepresenting. Pausche clarified that Martinez is aware of the conversation among the public but that his comment was that he is not aware of any discussion between the county and the landowner. Pat and Karen Buffington noted that they worked with the City to set up a Level III Sex Offender zoning. She wondered how that will be affected if this area is rezoned as part of this project. Pausche noted it will be public record. ME:NOV Pelka commented that the library is a public building. This applicant is a private owner. The City cannot mandate any sort of land swap unless the City buys the property. Public opinion and suggestions are great, but if we don't own the land, we can only deal with the project presented. Pelka wondered about the mixed-use element that would be lost with this project. He stated that is within the Commission's control. But commercial real estate is just not as valuable as residential. He pointed out that there has been no development in a long time and the questions he is hearing, in regards to allowing parking variances, how does that effect future development. Pelka closed the public hearing. Saystrom had a question for Pelka asking if the mixed-use is, in reference to the whole City or just this property. Pelka replies both. We are speaking specifically about this project, but if the City doesn't require that mix, will developers choose to only build residential? Saystrom believes the language being mixed-use includes residential only. Baker noted the two zoning questions around changing the zoning to Destination PUD to match the comprehensive plan and the text amendment to allow medium and high density, in that district, as a whole. Some of the other questions are relating to the specific CUP for this project. Pilling noted that she believes the residents would be happier if there were some space for Anytime Fitness and a restaurant in this project. Baker agrees. He remembers discussion of at least a little mixed-use, or the entire first floor. Ciatti agrees with Pilling that retail with apartments on top is desired in the community. Personally he would prefer that. However they must consider the current proposal. He wondered if it is a gamble to deny this project and forgo the tax revenues and the new residents for something that may or may not be proposed. He noted that Schafer Richardson had a concept plan that had retail on the bottom but that would have required a 4 -story building and the residents didn't like that either. He acknowledged the public opinion, however he recognizes the trends in commercial and retail space prior to the pandemic and now it's worse. He believes the risk of waiting for something that might not ever happen is too high. Saystrom agreed with the assessment for filling retail space in Mound. We don't have a good track record. Saystrom's concern with the PUD using it as a tool to get flexibility on the design. This includes parking. He asked if there are other concessions we will be giving away by approving that. Pelka agreed with the opinions on how retail is changing. He noted that people want retail but they go elsewhere. He wondered if we approve residential only are we taking out that unknown. He recognized that several people are voicing opinion against this project, but believes there are silent voices who would rather see anything other than what is there. EFOOMM Pelka goes back to the underground parking. He wondered why we are conceding to less than one underground stall per unit, as is code. Pilling interjected that the parking is the least of the worries. She believed if we want to keep the businesses that are already in town, we need to support them with more people that will frequent the existing businesses. Baker countered, if people equal business, then why wouldn't a mixed-use proposal be more appropriate. Pilling stated no restaurant wants to be here right now. Pugh agreed with Pilling. She pointed to mixed-use projects in Excelsior and Wayzata which have empty retail space with residential space on the top. Pugh noted there is a well maintained center across the street from this project that is finally nearly full after many years of struggling to find commercial tenants. She believes we need to look at the bigger picture. She pointed out that there is still a lot of space in town that can be commercial or mixed-use. In her opinion, moving forward with this would not take away opportunities for retail space. Pugh stated that we need to consider the quality of what happens at Commerce Place and how it can add to the community. Going back to parking, she noted that even if every unit had a spot, some residents wouldn't use it so there would still be parking outside. She doesn't think the parking debate should be a determining factor for approval or denial. Pelka disagreed. He believes the parking mandates the scale and if we give this exception, the next person to come along will want an exception and another. He doesn't think we should cave in on the rules that exist because they must exist for a reason. The rules create a certain quality of what will be built and a certain density. He doesn't think it's a non -issue. A lot of times the new stuff that gets built doesn't have enough parking. Pugh noted we do it all the time. She uses vehicle storage as an example. She said if we want to be consistent all the time, fine, but we haven't in the past. Pilling agrees that these things aren't enforced. Pelka pointed out those issues are not new construction. He believes it's an important issue that should not be ignored. Pilling stated the current building is an eye -sore. Pelka clarified that he is not suggesting we don't allow the construction; he just questions whether we should allow the parking exception. If not waiving the parking requirements makes the project smaller, it's not our problem. Pilling indicated that this is a small issue and we should work toward bringing more people into the City to help our existing businesses. Ciatti asked if there is data that supports the parking requirements that were written 20 years ago. Pelka wondered if 100 people coming here will make that much of a difference. He doesn't think that alone will transform anything. He does wonder that if we ask the developer to comply with the parking requirements, maybe that makes the building smaller and allows more green space, is that possible? MF:3►P4:1a Pilling reiterated that building this project will be better than the embarrassing existing building and she doesn't think we should question how investors want to spend their money. Ciatti noted that he understands Pelka's concern on bending the rules. He notes that the discussion would be different if they took an existing successful business and tore it down. This discussion is surrounding a run down retail area. Trapp interjected regarding the "bending the rules" comment as with a Planned Unit Development area you establish what is appropriate for that area and those elements are starting points, not set rules. She wants to clarify that we aren't "giving" them something that is against the rules. Trapp believes we need to focus on the entire project rather than the parking deficit of 20 spots. Pelka stated parking is not the only issues. There are still questions about traffic, the scale of the project and the green space included in the plan. We can say "we don't want it to be that big" and if it doesn't work out economically, someone else has to figure that out. Smith pointed out that the traffic and parking studies are based on current conditions, which is much different than it was 20 years ago. She stated the parking code is dated. The evaluation is that the parking, as proposed, meets the needs of the property. Smith points out there is still opportunity for mixed-use on the site, within the area and within the district. In regards to traffic, Smith says the current issues have been ongoing. The 2040 Comp Plan outlines that we will work with the county to improve those conditions. The developers aren't creating that issue because it already exists. The City Manager is working with Hennepin County to find options and alternatives. Smith suggested the residents who are concerned reach out to the County officials. The matters will only be resolved with the County's help. Smith notes that the rezoning amendments are consistent with the 2030 and 2040 plans. Baker asked for clarification from Smith on the opportunity for mixed-use on this site. He asked if she is referring to Wells Fargo. Smith confirms. Trapp says the intention is area -wide, not based on every single site. Baker clarifies that if Wells Fargo moved and something new came in we would still have a parking issue. Trapp confirms that parking would need to be addressed as part of any new project. Castellano said this proposal feels like a lot of building for that site. The outdoor amenities facing the parking lot feel crammed on the site. He doesn't think we need to make any concessions there. He believes the building could be profitable with fewer units. Trapp noted that if the recreational amenities were on the other side, she believes the neighboring residents would not like having that facing them. Pugh noted the feedback from the neighborhood meeting was why was the building situated with the rear facing the street. Pilling agrees that the front or back may make a difference for future development. Castellano says he's not opposed to the project but he thinks it could be better. Pilling says this is better. Castellano says he would like to see other options. Pilling asked how many times they have tried to redevelop it. Baker says this is the first proposal to the City. M1034:10 Ciatti suggested the Commission move to voting on the project. Pugh asked whether the PUD Destination Planned Unit Development can include both multi -family and retail commercial. Trapp states that if the rezoning is approved, yes. She says the zoning text amendment and the rezoning of this district are interconnected. She says this has always been the intention for the parcel but that this type of change historically has not been made until it occurs along with a development project. Pugh asked if this project doesn't go through, will the zoning still change. Trapp stated you need a project in place to make the change for the rezoning. MOTION by Pugh for approval of the zoning text amendment to modify City Code Section 129- 140, DEST-PUD destination planned unit development; seconded by Ciatti. Motion Roll Call: Goode -yes, Heal -no, Saystrom-yes, Costalano-yes, Pilling -yes, Ciatti, yes, Pelka-yes, Pugh -Yes, Baker -yes. MOTION carried 8-1. Heal did not want to comment on the no vote. MOTION by Goode to extend the Planning Commission meeting end time until 11:15 pm; seconded by Pelka. Motion Roll call: Ciatti-yes; Goode -yes; Heal -yes; Saystrom-yes; Pugh -yes; Pilling -yes; Castellano -yes; Baker -yes; Pelka-yes. MOTION carried unanimously. MOTION by Baker to recommend City Council approval of the rezoning of the parcels involved in the Commerce Place 2na Addition plat to DEST-PUD destination planned unit development district; seconded by Heal. Motion Roll call: Pelka-yes; Ciatti-yes; Goode -yes; Heal -no; Saystrom-no; Pugh -yes; Pilling -yes; Castellano -yes; Baker -yes. MOTION carried 7-2. Saystrom's no vote is because it is linked to a project he's not in favor of. Heal indicated that he will make a statement at the City Council meeting. MOTION by Baker to approve recommendation to City Council to approve the vacation of Fern Lane and the two drainage and utility easement encumbering this property as proposed in the Commerce Place 2na Addition; seconded by Heal. Roll Call, Pelka-yes, Ciatti-yes, Goode -yes, Heal -no, Saystrom-yes, Pugh -yes, Pilling -yes, Castellano -no, Baker -yes. MOTION carried 7-2. No comment by the dissenters. MOTION by Pugh to table the recommendation to approve of the Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development (PUD) for further discussion by the Planning Commission to special meeting on July 21, 2020. Seconded by Heal. Roll Call: Pelka-yes; Ciatti-no; Goode -yes; Heal - yes; Saystrom-yes; Pugh -yes; Pilling -yes; Castellano -yes; Baker -yes. MOTION carried 8-1. The tabling is to provide an opportunity for the Planning Commission to respond to the public feedback regarding design and use, along with the issues discussed in regards to density, parking and traffic. MOTION by Baker to table the approval of the major subdivision preliminary plat for further discussion by the Planning Commission to special meeting on July 21, 2020; seconded by Goode. Roll Call: Pelka-yes; Ciatti-no; Goode -yes; Heal -no; Saystrom- yes; Pugh yes; Pilling- no; Castellano -yes; Baker yes. MOTION carried 7-2. EFOORIIE OLD/NEW BUSINESS MOTION by Goode to approve a special meeting to be held on Tuesday, July 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. at Westonka PAC. Seconded by Heal. MOTION approved unanimously. MOTION by Goode to reset previously cancelled August 4, 2020 regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. at Westonka PAC. Seconded by Ciatti. MOTION approved unanimously. MOTION by Baker to cancel the October 6, 2020 regular meeting due to Nite to Unite and to schedule a special meeting on Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. at Westonka PAC. Seconded by Heal. MOTION approved unanimously. MOTION by Castellano to table the discussion of the Planning Commission Work Plan and Staff Project List until July 21, 2020. Seconded by Heal. MOTION approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Castellano to adjourn at 11:15 pm; seconded by Goode. MOTION carried unanimously. Submitted by Jen Holmquist EE:NSE MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21, 2020 Chair Pelka called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Westonka Performing Arts Center (PAC), 5905 Sunnyfield Road in Minnetrista. Due to the COVID 19 pandemic, the Planning Commission meeting was held in the Westonka PAC to allow for in-person public participation while providing for required social distancing. ROLL CALL Members Present: Chair David Pelka, Vice Chair David Goode, Jon Ciatti, Sue Pilling, Kevin Castellano, Jake Saystrom, Jason Baker and Sherrie Pugh. Commissioner Drew Heal arrived approximately at 7:20 p.m. Staff Present: Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Consultant Planner Rita Trapp and City Hall Administrative Assistant Jen Holmquist. Members of the Public Present: Mitch Gooley, Pat Berg, Don and Betsy Kohls, Jerry and Diana Kukk, Jason O'Brien, Kim Loew, Jane Anderson, Elizabeth Hulstad, Katie Anthony, Kevin Johansen, Matt Knutson, Brad Schafer, Michelle Herrick, Johnele Chapman, Trevor Martinez, Dale Mueller, Travis Arnds, Josh Peterson, Jeff Corning, Jeff Steadman, Michael Maslowski, Kristyn Mils, Jason Arseneau, Nene Pounder, Sandi Manson, Ashlee Corning, and Chris Carlson. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA MOTION by Baker to approve the agenda with an amendment to add Staff Memorandum that includes additional comments received for the Commerce Place project; seconded by Saystrom. MOTION carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS PC Case No. 20-07 Commerce Place Redevelopment Project and Commerce Place 2nd Addition (major subdivision -preliminary plat and conditional use permit tabled from July 7, 2020 meeting) 2200-2238 Commerce Boulevard Applicant: Schafer Richardson Smith introduced the case noting that preliminary plat and conditional use permit for the Commerce Place redevelopment project were tabled at the July 7th meeting. Smith noted that while the public hearing portion is closed, the Commission can choose to allow those in attendance to provide comment. Smith introduced Rita Trapp, the City's planning consultant. Trapp reviewed the role of the Planning Commission noting that the Commission will recommend and the City Council will approve or deny items. Trapp presented an overview from the previous meeting. Schafer Richardson is the landowner. They propose to demolish the shopping center and build a new apartment building. Trapp noted the proposed the rents and reiterated that the City will not use any public funds for the project. mE:lcym Trapp summarized that the Planning Commission made recommendations at the last meeting for three items but tabled consideration of the Major Subdivision Preliminary Plat for the Commerce Place 2na Addition and CUP for the Planned Unit Development for the project to this meeting. The preliminary plat combines lots to conform to City requirements. The site is 3.35 acres with 7 separate parcels being combined. This plan creates lots that can be used for development. Trapp outlined that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is the tool the City uses to approve a planned unit development. Trapp summarized the public comments that the City received prior to the preparation of the packet. She noted that the additional Staff Memo contains additional comments that were received. Supplemental information presented is from the applicant in response to questions from the previous meeting. The target renter is the young professional or those over 50. Unit and community amenities were reviewed, which include higher end finishes, in -unit washer and dryer, community and activity rooms, outside grill area, and pet areas. Trapp noted that the parking analysis was a 3d party study. The demand for parking is 179 and the applicant is proposing 244. The parking as proposed is 1.73 stall per bedroom. The covered parking in not provided for each unit, residents would pay extra for those premium -sparking spaces. The applicant has concerns about providing covered parking for studios as the stall and the drive aisles is equivalent to the size of a studio. Trapp then presented supplemental information from Staff. It was noted that this site is guided for mixed-use in the comprehensive plan. Mixed-use is evaluated across the district, not for an individual site. It is not required that each site in this district have both residential and commercial. If the Wells Fargo were to move, commercial may be a future use. A market study was completed a few years ago and retail continues to change. Household growth is needed, in order to support more retail. Trapp noted that, not including parks, right of ways and open public space, over 85% of the land in Mound is guided for single family residential. Trapp stated that Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat and the CUP. Staff requested the Commission consider the two items sequentially. Due to there being no concerns from other agencies, Staff would like to consider the preliminary plat first and then move to the CUP where all of the questions and comments have been focused. Trapp stated that the preliminary plat, as proposed, would allow for other projects as it has been platted into only two lots, one which includes the shared parking and access areas and the other with the site's development. Trapp explained that while the public hearing is closed, Staff recommends the Commission allowing those who would like to speak to be able to provide comment. Trapp suggested limiting public comments to 3 minutes and recommended that individuals who have previously submitted written or verbal comments to focus on new information. Trapp asked for Commission input on how to move forward. Castellano asked if the applicant will be answering public questions. Pelka asked if they can discuss it prior to moving forward. Saystrom indicated he is in favor of covering preliminary plat first then moving to the CUP, Ciatti agreed. Pelka stated he wanted to hear public comments. Ciatti asked if a different project would be platted differently. Staff reminded the Commission that there are seven separate lots and the preliminlrgs�t will create two lots. The configuration would most likely be the same, if a different development is proposed. Goode asks if the plat issue is linked to this specific project. Trapp confirms this is cleaning up the lot. Any development will be easier, having the two lots versus seven. Pelka worries that if approved, the project would not come back to the Commission. Goode stated that he thinks the public should speak first. Pelka agreed. Heal believed the recommendations should be considered at once, not one at a time. The Commission indicated that they want to consider the plat and CUP after hearing public comment. Chris Carlson 5950, West Branch Road, stated that a group met with a previous CEO of the Ridgeview Clinic. They received detailed information that Schafer Richardson was not responding to communications. The owner let the property go into disrepair. He has concerns regarding previous discussions as he heard someone say they didn't that there was much opposition. He indicated at the farmers' market they got 70 signatures of people who did not like the proposal. He thinks there has been a lot of community disapproval. He also referenced the Mound Harbor District. He is concerned about the statement that there was no need put mixed-use in the site and wondered where else in the City mixed-use could occur. Jane Anderson, 5060 Edgewater Drive, thanked the Commission for their time. She recognized that this feels last minute. She believes that, years ago, when the project was initially proposed, it was residential with commercial underneath. She noted that the proposals changed from the original proposal. She knows that the community stopped paying attention when they saw what they liked initially. She acknowledged that this rezoning has been approved but would like to look at other options. She says that commercial uses are needed. The scope of the community has changed. Michelle Herrick, 2630 Westedge Blvd, noted that she had many discussions with residents at the farmers' market and was surprised that only one person was in support of this project. Folks from Minnetrista wanted to sign the petition but they did not let them. Not one person had anything positive to say about the project. She believes we should not just accept a proposal. The residents would not be able to afford the 2 -bedroom units. She is concerned about the market rate rents. She asked the audience to show hands for who is against the project. She said the people who live here are not in favor of this project. She requested the Commission deny approval of this project. Jason Arseneau, 2126 Fern Lane, asked whether there is a way to allow residents to vote for or against the project. He believed many people do not know when the meetings are. He learned about the project from Next Door. Goode responded to the resident noting that information is in the City's newsletters and on the website. Goode encouraged residents to check out the agenda that is posted prior to each meeting. Ashlee Corning, 2190 Langdon Lane, noted that she moved here because it was small and quaint. She is very concerned with increased traffic. She believes the timing is not right for this project. She hopes to keep Mound unique and not cookie cutter. After seeing no additional attendees who wanted to speak, Pelka noted that the Commission would stop taking public comment and turned to the Commission for discussion. In response to the earlier public comment, Trapp noted that the mayor reached out to the clinic and clarified that the clinic has no plans to move back to Mound. Similarly, the library is not seeking a new site in Mound. ME:M,E Ciatti asked if there was information about the previous business dealings prior to the clinic moving. Trapp stated that the City did not have information about private business dealings. Baker noted that Mr. Carlson had asked about other mixed-use opportunities and Baker wondered what other options there are in the City for mixed-use to be incorporated. Trapp explained that mixed-use districts are designated throughout the City along the major roadway corridors. She noted that the mixed-use districts were intended to provide flexibility for property owners in determining the best use of their property. Trapp noted that each mixed-use area is different depending on the location in the City. Pilling asks if there is data on the percent of vacant commercial property. Trevor Martinez, representative from Schafer Richardson, explained that when the concept plan was presented he had analyzed the market data for commercial space and vacancy was 30-35% in Mound. He noted that typical vacancy rates are 7-10%. Saystrom asked for clarification about the 85% Staff discussed earlier. Trapp noted that the figure was calculated by using the future land use table from the comprehensive plan and focusing on private lands —which are those not including water, wetlands, open space, right-of-way, public, or institutional. Saystrom noted that benchmarks would be helpful for future discussions. Pilling asks Trapp how much would go to park dedication fund. She says she hears that there is strong support in the community to dedicate parks lands and the additional tax revenue. While the exact figure is currently unknown, Smith noted that the applicant will be required to pay 10% of the taxable value of the land for park dedication. Pilling wants to reiterate that the project would bring dedicated money to the City. Saystrom asked how in the traffic study, it says there will be fewer cars if this project moves forward given that there will be 102 apartment units. Martinez explained that the consultants studied the current users in the space as well as what would occur if the current space was fully occupied with commercial. Martinez noted that given customers commercial always generates more traffic than residential. Saystrom says he does not believe the information. Pugh stated she lives in the neighborhood. She has two options to leave her neighborhood. One is impossible during busy times. Pugh believes it is unsafe. Heal questioned the traffic study. Castellano also expressed concerns. Baker questioned how 102 can count the trips to Wells Fargo. Pilling noted that there are trips are from the other tenants in the space. It was noted that the Wells Fargo part of the traffic study doesn't change from today to the future. Pelka outlined the major concerns, density, the lack of mixed-use, parking, and traffic. Aesthetics is another concern. Pelka wondered if the applicant could manage the density and the quality of the unit. He wondered why the City would grant an exception for the density and for the parking. Saystrom agreed. He has trouble with the traffic study. In a previous discussion, he heard 6 children were anticipated. He doesn't believe that 18 , 2 -bedroom units would only bring in 6 children. EE:NNE Pelka wondered if the aesthetics could be better. He recognizes there is an issue with maintaining commercial. Perhaps the community faces this problem with business that would be here. It's difficult to fill commercial space. Is this the right project at this time? Is this exactly what we want? If not, now would be the time to set it up for what the community wants. Ciatti and Pilling asked what the discussion should be. Pelka believes the CUP is central to all other proposals. Ciatti notes a resident comment that the project has changed. The community is sad to lose that vision. He feels the community is losing hope of having the initial vision. Now the town is saying they want that initial proposal, but when the proposal was brought before residents as a concept plan, the residents thought it was too tall. He notes that this proposal is not the ideal use of the land, as is. Ciatti believes that the CUP and the project should move forward. He reminds that retail space is changing. Saystrom agreed. He says the reality is Mound is not Excelsior or Wayzata. He doesn't believe retail can survive on the site. He was in favor of adding the residential to the initial commercial use. He referenced a comment from a previous meeting that one of the problems with Mound is we aren't holding to its standards. He doesn't believe we should dismiss the standards. Castellano reiterated that the previous versions were better. The traffic will not only be affected at that intersection. He knows retail will be tough to fill but he thinks the number of the units is too much. Baker said he believes the standards are there for a reason and he believes it's too much. Goode asked if there are two items to be considered on the table. Trapp confirms. Trapp introduced a note from a previous speaker from the public who wishes to clarify his earlier comments. Pelka said that is okay. Chris Carlson indicated that the comments earlier about Ridgeview leaving was not to suggest that the clinic would come back, but about the property management and that if it was better, the commercial property may not be empty. Pugh thanked the residents. She appreciates their passion and ability to come together and present good information to the committee. Pelka noted that the tax base increase will be helpful. The commercial business we do have will benefit from more residents in the City. It would also look better than what is there. He says he understands the need for this type of housing for 20 -something residents. Katie Anthony, from Schafer Richardson, spoke in response to Saystrom's question. She summarized their findings of development in suburban communities. This proposal works for people who wish to be in the community but can't or don't want to maintain a property. Young professionals will enjoy the transit station to commute and return to the small town attraction. Heal asked how we went from mixed-use to 102 units. Anthony explained that in order for the financials to work for a building to have commercial the building would need to be taller. This taller building was not supported when presented as a concept to the community so a new concept with only residential was proposed. Anthony indicaL@��F?at she believes there will be equal amounts of young professionals as well as empty nesters. Saystrom expressed disbelief that empty nesters will want a studio. Anthony explained that in their other developments, empty nesters do live in the studios. Pelka asked how much common space is included. Martinez estimated about 7,000 square feet. Pelka asked how many of the units would have a deck. Martinez indicated that approximately 40%. Pelka asked about the grilling area. Martinez stated that there will be 3 or 4 full size grills for residents to use. Martinez returned to the unit mix and noted that downsizers prefer one bedroom. That is why so many are included in this project. Pugh wondered if service industries were considered, rather than traditional retail space. Martinez indicated that it is challenging for those types of spaces to be maintained and still allow rents to be affordable. Martinez noted that rents would need to be double what the market is today to do new construction. Pelka noted that if retail is currently not working today it is hard to see how it could work at the higher rents required of new construction. Pelka asked if Anytime Fitness has secured another location. Martinez stated that they cannot comment on existing tenants. Pelka sought clarification on what could happen if the west side of the site could be redeveloped. Trapp noted options could be considered but that the utility easement along Shoreline would limit would building could occur in vicinity of the corner. Pelka asked if the Commissioners had other questions. Hearing none, he asked the Commissioners if they would like to discuss further or move to motions. MOTION by Baker to close discussion, seconded by Saystrom. MOTION carried unanimously. Goode asked for clarification on what the recommendations are. Smith explained that Staff recommends the Commission recommended approval of both the preliminary plat and CUP with the conditions and findings of fact as outlined. She reiterated that Staff is working cooperatively with Hennepin County and Three Rivers District, to make improvements to a complicated road system that already exists. Saystrom sought clarification about whether the finding of fact in the plat is under the wrong section. He believes that should be under the CUP. Trapp agrees that the #2 may not be appropriate for the plat. MOTION by Heal to recommend denial of the major subdivision -primary plat and site redevelopment plans for Commerce Place 2na Addition; seconded by Castallano. Goode requested a roll call vote. Roll Call: Ciatti-no; Pilling -no; Castellano -yes; Saystrom-no; Goode -yes; Baker -yes; Heal -yes; Pugh -yes; Pelka-yes. MOTION carried 6-3. Smith asked for findings of fact to bring to the City Council to hear why this was denied. Baker indicated size, traffic, parking and design is too large are the reasons. Pelka stated that for better or worse the plat is in conjunction with the CUP. Goode noted that the plat proposal goes along with the CUP so he voted to deny recommendation because the two go together. Castellano believes approving the plat would limit other spaces frprp,g developed in any other form MOTION by Baker to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit; seconded by Castellano. Roll Call: Ciatti-no; Pilling -no; Castellano -yes; Saystrom- yes; Goode -yes; Baker -yes; Heal -yes; Pugh - yes; Pelka-yes. MOTION carried 7-2. Heal noted that in the future he would like to have addressed all the requests at once. Heal noted he will comment to the Council in the future. He does not want to chip away at the project. He wants to have mixed-use. Castellano indicated that he does not want unforeseen side effects. Trapp asked for other comments related findings of fact. Pelka noted the space is not going to survive as strictly retail. He believes we can do better. Heal noted that we are an advisory committee. He thinks it is important to listen to the residents. Planning Case No. 20-10 / 20-11 2 -Lot Minor Subdivision and Variance 5190 Lynwood Blvd. Applicant: Joshua Peterson Trapp presented the Planning Report and provided an overview of the 2 -lot minor subdivision and variance request. Applicant's representative was present and available to answer questions. The site is located at the corner of Lynwood Boulevard and Apple Lane. The existing home was built in 1900 and is non -conforming because it is too close to Lynnwood Blvd. A variance was initially requested but withdrawn because it was determined the non -conformity is an existing condition and is not caused by the minor subdivision. The comprehensive plan guides this area as low density residential. The addition of one lot in this area still maintains the land use density of 1-6 units per acre. The lot would no longer be considered a lot of record due to the minor subdivision. Parcel 1 will be along Lynwood Blvd, while Parcel 2 will be to the north and will be the lakeshore lot. The shed the gazebo and the hot tub will be removed. There is an existing detached garage that will remain and the new lot line will not create any new non -conformity. Municipal services will need to be extended for parcel 2. MCWD noted erosion control permit may be required for and anything within the 100 -year flood elevation and anything on the shoreline may require a permit as well. Water and sewer connection fees and park dedication fees will apply for one lot and will be paid by applicant. Staff's recommendation is that the minor subdivision be approved. The conditions and findings of fact are that the subject lots are fronted on a public street, municipal utilities are available, the proposed lot arrangement can accommodate the construction of a new single family home and the minor subdivision will not change the essential nature of the neighborhood or have any effect on surrounding properties. Trapp and Smith fielded questions from the commission and neighbor Kristy Mills, 2151 Apple Lane, regarding the platted road which is partially improved, the plan for construction of the new home on lot 2 and leaving the non -conforming existing home on lot 1, utilities and snow storage. MOTION by Goode that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the minor subdivision, as recommended by Staff to include conditions and findings of facts; seconded by Ciatti. MOTION carried unanimously. EE:N11:10 OLD/NEW BUSINESS Review/Discussion Action of 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan and Projects List Items Smith outlined discussion/action of 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan and Projects List Items that were tabled from July 7, 2020 regular meeting. Smith fielded questions and comments from the commission and confirms that the work plan can be amended at a later date, if needed. MOTION by Baker to approve the 2020 Planning Commission Work Plan and Projects List outlined by staff, seconded by Goode. MOTION carried unanimously. ADJOURN MOTION by Goode to adjourn at 9:42 p.m., Seconded by Pugh. MOTION carried unanimously. Submitted by: Administrative Assistant Jen Holmquist Mi1:ic10.1a