The URL can be used to link to this page

2002-02-12PLEASE ~ OFF ALL CELL PHONES& PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 - 7:30 I'M MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Item_s listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate a~scussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests. In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS *CONSENT .AGENDA *A. APPROVE ~TES: JAN 22, 2002 REGULAR MEETING JAN 29, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING FEB 6, 2002 SPECIAL MEETING *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CL~S *C. APPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL GRANT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR LOST LAKE SITE *D. APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2002 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND E~CUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT *E. APPROVE GARBAGE COLLECTORS LICENSE RENEWALS *F. APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION - AMERLE/PARTNERS *G. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISE PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE ~W POST #5113 - MOUND *H. APPROVE RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISE PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 398 *I. APPROVE SOUTHWEST SNO~OBILE ASSOC - SUPPORT FEDERAL GRANT APPLICATION *J. APPROVE RESOLUTION TO AWARD BID FOR ONE (1) 1500 GPM PUMPER TRUCK FOR USE BY THE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT *K. APPROVE ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 700 OF ~ CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO ~FIC REGULATIONS 473 -476 477 478-479 480-509 510-539 540 541 542-559 560 561 562 563-566 567 PLEASE ~ OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 10. 11. 12. 13. *L. APPRO $OLUTION P CO dENDINO F ING OF SENIOR PROGRAMS THROUGH ~ COMMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT *M. APPROVE ~SOLUTION ~COMMENDING CONTINUATION OF CDBG FUND~G OF ~STONKA CO~TY ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ~ ITEM NOT ON ~ AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 ~S PER SPEAKER.) PUBLIC HEAR~GS A. AMERLE CMC CO~ B. ZONING/CITY CODE AMENDMENTS ALLEY VACATION SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN ACTION ON WAIVER OF PLATTING - EDEN ROAD ACTION ON REQUEST FOR LETTER OF CREDIT REDUCTION - LANGDON BAY RESOLUTION RELATING TO AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (MOUND ~SIONS 2lqI>) 2002, O~ERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION ACTION AMENDING FEE SCHEDULE A. PARK DEDICATION FEE B. TREE TRIMMER LICENSE FEE CITY ATTORNEY RESPONSE ON COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE ~QUIREMENT FOR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONS IN THE CITY OF MOUND ACTION ON LIQUOR STORE SUBLEASE WITH WESTONKA SCHOOL DIS~CT DISCUSSION/ACTION ON SUMMER HOURS FOR CITY HALL INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ao B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. Article: When you throw dirt, all you do is lose ground ~ Fax News and Friday Fax Correspondence: LMCD Correspondence: Westonka School District Lett~: re Pete's Sleep Out Minutes: Planning Commission: Jan 7 Minutes: Park and Open Space: Jan 10 Minutes: Docks and Commons Commission: Jan 17 A~icle: Understanding City Fund Balances Memo: City Fund Balances and State Aid Cuts 568-570 571-596 597-625 626-661 662-687 688-689 690-692 693-704 705 706-708 709-743 744-746 747-751 752-757 758-765 766-781 782 783-786 787-794 795-802 803 804-808 PLEASE ~ OFF ALL CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. K. Report: Preliminary Financial for year end 2001 809-810 L. Report: Mound Police Department: Dec, 2001 and Jan, 2002. 811-815 M. Gillespie Center newsletter 816 N. F~: Documents regarding cable provider and communications commission 817-971 14. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. citvofmound, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING February 12, 2002 No HRA meeting, due to lack of an agenda. Upcoming Events Schedule: Don't Forget!! Feb 11 - 8:00 PM: School board meeting with levy decision Feb 12 - 7:30 PM: Regular CC Feb 13 - 7:00 PM: Workshop - Downtown Redevelopment Feb 26 - 6:30 PM: Regular HRA Feb 26 - 7:30 PM: Regular CC Mar 2 - Chamber of Commerce Mid-Winter Ball City Hall Closed Feb 18 President's Day City Manager Absence I will be absent Feb 8. Gino will be Acting Manager in my absence. #12. Liquor Store Sublease Our lease at the Liquor Store expires the end of February. Through a collaboration with the landlord, the School District and the City, the City will be able to extend it stay up through April 2003. Due to the expanding needs of the Early Childhood Program, they are taking over as leaseholders of our space as of March 1. The will then sublease to the City until we can move into the new liquor store. The goal is to move by Nov [, 2002. Should that not occur, we will move after the first of the year. This convenience does not come without a cost. Rent is going from $8.00 to $15.00, the rate the landlord claims our rent would go to under a new lease. #13. Summer Hours Many city halls adjust their hours to the changing schedules of their customers in the summer months. The enclosed list supports that as being the case. No action is being requested on this matter at this time, just input regarding the concept. The other departments, due to the nature of their operations, will not change their hours. Tonight I am looking for your level of support for this concept in general. With your support, the concept will be presented to the employees for their input. This must work for everyone as it relates to their home life, daycare and any part-time jobs they may hold. There is no plan to flex employee's hours across longer days. It would be "all hands on deck" during open hours so that we may be assured of helping all of our customers upon their first visit. #14.A. Throwing Dirt A common theme carried out in my former cities has been the notion of "not airing dirty laundry publicly." My Kasson City Attorney, especially, reinforced the need for saving the "discussions of a sensitive nature" for behind closed doors, and between individuals, due to the potential for the backlash that can result. The greater pitfall, however, is the erosion of public confidence that can result when people move from "respecting diversity." With this little reminder, I would also like to apologize for a very inappropriate statement made by one individual at the Feb 6 meeting, and let you know that it will be dealt with appropriately. ~14.N. Cable & Communications Commission data is in from our informal survey in the winter City Contact! These are the comments received about Mediacom and LMCC. Please take your time getting through this ream of data. Representatives from both companies will be present at an upcoming meeting, yet to be determined. You will be able to personally address your concerns with them. Those guests will be provided these same documents, in preparation for the meeting. ~, once in a lifetime opportunity has presented itself and I've decided to get involved. The countries of Sweden and Denmark are doing an exchange program with Minnesota city managers. In May, 15 Minnesota managers will go there for a week, with a return visit by the Scandinavians in Sept. we will be viewing city operations their to glean ideas for improving our operations. The trip is scheduled for May 25 through June 1, although I may return a day earlier to work at the fish fry on June 1. I wil.1 be using my accumulated vacation time and funding my air fair. I qualify for about a $200 scholarship to be credited toward my costs by my providing a host home for one of their delegation in Sept. Lenny and Mary Harrell have agreed to be my host family. I am excited about the trip and what I may be able to app.ly to operations at Mound! I will keep you posted. Human Resources Update A public works maintenance worker was hired in January. Work is nearly complete on job descriptions for the Fire Chief and Building Official. Advertising for the building official will begin within about a week. Included in this process is a great deal of research regarding job responsibilities, pay equity and rates of pay. I am uncertain as to the market for fire chiefs. Clearly, from the research, cities are having difficult times hiring qualified building officials. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 7:30 p,m. in the ~ncil chambers at 5341 Maywood Road in said. City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City AttOrney, John Dean; City Clerk, Bonnie Ri{ter; Acting City Manager, Gino Businaro; Parks Director, Jim Faclder; Ken Penbix, Gene Hostetler, Sandy Rauschenderfer, Leah Weycker, Doug Rood, Karl & Julie WeiSenhoral, Bruce McKeeman, Ed Waldroff, Jim Hestad, Robert & Elsie Brassand, Dan & Erin Wombacher, todd landon, Rick GeodfellOW, Bob En ConSent Agenda: Ail items listed under the Consent:iiA~nda ~ii~nsidered to be routine in nature by th® Council and wi//be enacte~:ii~y a roll carl ~e,::~:. There wi//be no separate discussion on these items unless a ~cilme~ber or citi~bn so requests, in which event the item will be removed.from the C&~:Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN ;MEETING Mayor Melsel called, the meeting t~.prder ~:iii~;~3~!i?~i~i!ii!!ii~nd the Pledge of Allegiance was 2. APPROVE ..AGENDA Mayor Meisel requested' rem~a[~::i&~i~em MOTION by Hah in favor. to approve the agenda as amended. All voted Meyer A and F. MOTION by Hanus, se~nded by Meyer to approve the Consent Agenda with the exce'ption of items A and F. Upon re'Il call taken, all voted in fro/er. MOtion carried. A. (removed) B. Approve Payment of Claims in the amount of $2~,42Z78. C. RESOEUTION NO, 02,14: RESOLUTION' ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON WESTEDGE BOULEVARD D. RESOLUTION NO. 02-15: RESOLUTION ORDERING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS :FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WESTEDGE BOULEVARD E. RESOLUTION NO, 02,16: RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT ON CSAH 15, FROM CYPRESS LANE TO -473- APPROXJMATELY 600 FEET WEST OF C*SAH 1~ti0, PLUS RE~TED IMPRQ~EM:E'N,TS OF GSAH 1110, NORTH ,AND. SOUTH OF GSAH 1:$ AND CERTAIN PUBBC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE METROP~INS DEYE,LOPMEN:T KNOWN AS "IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (~MOUND VISIONS G. RESgLU;ION NO. 02,~7: RESOLUTION ~PROVING AN EXTENSION OF THE UCENSE AGREEMENT (AI.4569) WI~H HENNEPIN COUN~ RE~RD, I~; ELECTRONIC PROPRIETAR~ GEOG~PHtOAL DIGIT;ED DATA .~SE (EPDB).AND AUTHORING THE Cl~ MANAGER TO SIGN THE ~TEN~ON A~EEMENT H. RE~LU;~N NO, OODE~ THE O1~ ~ MOUN~ I. RE$OLUTDN NO. 0~,1~.: RE$O~U~iON B,ECKER. TO EXTEND DE~ISION DETERMINATION AND/OR EXEMPTION 3A. MOTION 'by Osmek, seCOnded· by 2002 meeting as amended. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST OF TIM LOSS" the minutes of the Janua~ 8, carried; 3F. Meyer expreSSed co. ncem distri~ 1-1 for to ali~ tl~e Council to fund, back to the ~iF funds would be used from that the subject resolution is purposes only, from the general MOTION by in favor, i ~rried, to adopt the following resolution. All voted RESOLUTION FIN~CING RE~TING TO' TAX INCREMENT 4. COMMENTS &~SUGGESTIONSFR(;)M.ClTIZENS pRESENT ON ANY ITEM.NOT ON TH~..'A~ENDA' Ken P~nbJ~ al~peamd ;before the Cou~i:l to.thank ~m for net signing ~he development agree~t with Gramercy Ce~p. He expmss~ gratitude for the Coun~:l looking out for the interest of ~e ~basi-~ess ow~m i~ the d~e~: ama. Bruce McKeeman of' Dmamwood Addition presented to the Council, Petitions for Continuance of the Dreamwood 0ommons Dock Program. He stated that he has 63 signatures te date, and receiving more. Petitioners am asking the City to continue to operate the docks program in their area, as is. 2 -474- Mound City ¢ounOilMInutes - January 22, 2002 Peter Meyer' gave the Ceun'dl an update en his fund miser and presented a check for $1,000 te go towards the Lifeguard Program and Sr. Citizens. ,5. SKATE pARK COM MI~EE REPORT Sandy Raus .~enderf~r, Gene HOStetier and Leah Weycker updated the Council on the status of the skate :park. They are in the process ~ oroani~ng fund misers for the project. 6. CO.OPE~TIVE AGREEMENT WITH GILLESPIE CENTER MOTION by Brown, seconded by osmek te enter into a cooperative agreement with the Westonka Senior Foundation te furnish various services as s~!!ed out in said agreement, Ail voted ~in favor. M~en ~,. 7. (REMOVED) 8, COMMERCIAL DOC.K.LICENS:E REq. UIREME FOR C MINIUM ASSOC. Councilmember Brown steppeddewn.during th~:~i~SCuss~n becau~6: he is a property owner at SeaHorse Condominiums. by Meyer, seconded by Os:meE!iiBii?:~bl~,thi'~i~?;ili~':'~::~' :~' until the next' meeting to MOTION al~low for the City A~erney to do further i~e'~l~. ~ii:.i~Oted in favor. Motion carried. 9. ON,SALE LIQUOR LICENSEi~iEEES MOTION by Hanus, second~i!i~Y Br~n to ~i::::a PUblic hearing for March 12, 2002, at 7:30 p,m, to consider raisin~iiiiii~quor Ij~fe~ii::for 0n.sale liquor licenses. All voted in MOTION bY Bra;: Secendedi~y HE, Us to set the following special meeting workshops: Facilities Study U~e workshop for Februa~ 19, 2.002, at 7:00 p~m.; and Joint meeting ~th ~e H~ii~,~ Re~2~elopment Recap for February 13, 2002, at 6:00 p.m. All voted in'favor. M~ion 11. I,N FORMATION/MISCE:LLANEOUS A. ~M 'F~. news B, Friday Fax C, Correspondence · LMCD D, FYI: peter Meyer fUndraiser clearance E, Meme;.Minnehaha.¢mekWatershed District F, FYI: Excerpts from the Delano Eagle on utility fees G, Contact info for LMCD respreser~tative H, Correspondence: Westenka Healthy Community Collaborative I, Save the Lake Recognition banquet registration J, Correspondence: S¢~eoi District' K, Metropolitan Council: newsle~er 3 -475- Meund~¢~y Coum~ilMinute~ - January 22. 2002 L. Hennepin Ceu~y Conservation District Rewsletter M. Re. po~ BUilding activity N. Mediac~m notice on .rates: Ceune. J.Im.ember Brown brought to the CoUncJrs attention .thathe has meeive~l comments from citizens regarding Media~m's increase in fees, b,u.,t no ina'ease in service. Mayor Meisel request~i~l that a copy ef the current.cable contract, be put in the next Council packet so they can become aware of the provisions. Hanus also requested copies of the past minutes where representatives of the .cable company came to the council making claims about sewic~, etc. O. Memo: LMC 12. ADJOURN ..... ,~i::ii:,::~:: MOT~ONI rbY ~B~ow~, sle ,~l~ded by Osmek to adjourn at. 8:45~:~!ii~'i AI;I voted in favor. Motion carried.:~::ii i~, ~ Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk 4 -476- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 29f 2002 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, metin special session at 6:30 p.m. in the council chambers of said. City. Members Present: Mayor Pa( Meisel, Counciimembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, David Osmek and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Han~; Finance Director, Gino Businaro; Parks Director, J~ Fa~ler; Public Works Superi~endent~ Grog Skinner; Community Development Director, Sarah Smith; Fire Chief~ Grog Pederson; Pam Myers, Lorrie Ham, Tim Palm, Sid Inman, Jeff Anderson, Sc. et Alden, Greg Ealm, Miles Britz, Nancy Schultz, Sam Bontrager, Bill Morris .... The meeting was celled to order at 6:50 p.m. by 2, COMMUN!W SURVEY RESULTS; DEClSI~i~RES~URCES Bill Morris of Decision Resources presented the':: phone survey of 400 randomly selected residents of Mound. regarding these survey results. 3. SPACE ~ Nancy S~al~, Miles Bri~......... ef SEH Presented the options that the Facility Space Needs Com~ .The advantages and disadvantages of each were discussed. ~'~==::~iiiii!iiiii~:...~ '~'~i===='' 4. FIN. ANCINGOp=e~?'~S & ..ASSOCIATES Sid Inma" of Ehl~ ASS~ps *~;sen{ed'~the Council with different finan~ options that are availa.bl~?:~r the pmp~.~ed p~blic f~iifies. B~inging ~e issue to the voters in the form of mfem~a~:, as we?~s lease/p~r~se Were discussed. LengthY~dis~s.sien felloW~d regarding opinions and suggestions for the public facility spa~ needs and ~ fiR~eing epfiens~ Father dis~ssien regarding ~e fadli~ options and the finaRcing options ~ll'take ~a~ at a later meeting. 6. ADJOURN MOTION bY. Brown, sounded by Hanas te adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. All voted in favor. Metion~cerried. Attest; City Manager Mayor Pat Meisel -477- MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 6, 2002 The City Counoil of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 7:00' p.m.. in the council chambers at 534'1 Maywood Read in said' City, Councilmembers Present: Mayor Pat Mei~!; Councilmembers Bob Browni Mark Hanus, David Osmek, and Peter Meyer. Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Han~en; City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter, Community Development Director, Sarah Smith; Parks Di.¥ecter, Jim Fa~kler; Fire Chief, Grog Pederson; Finance Director, Gino Businare; ~iice Chief, Len Bar]ell; Tim Palm, Grog Palm, Jeff Andersen, Jim Presser of Ehlers & Associates; M~ippel of Briggs & Morgan; Nancy Schui,tz of SEH; Kevin Flaig~ Scott Alden. ::~iiiiiii~ill The meeting Was called to oFder at 7:05 p.m. by Meisel. 2. INTRODUCTIONS People in attendance introduced themselves and' their affiliation with the City. 3. ~SES TO Mary Ippel of Briggs & Morgan reviewed referendum proposal and on multiple questions in a Jim presser of &, bond thro.ugh questions regarding the two building. These options are a lease revenue I, end a general obligation voted bond. Lengthy dis~ssiOn ' 'ens about a referendum versus the lease/pumhase proposed public safety facility. The time factor, plus need Mr ~blic was also dis6ussed, al~g with the financial feasibility of building a fa~iity now versusneA year (with construction costs down where they are now). Mayer Meisel asked the Council what direction they would go, should they have to decide now. Hanus and Osmek e)~pressed that they think the issue should go to the voters, in fem~ of a referendum, if :th® project con be reduced from $6.6 million to $5 million, Brown and Meisel would agree with the lease/PurchaSe option~ Meyer is in favor of the lease/purchase option. -478- M=und.(~.:¢=unoilM#tin~ - Februtr~ 6, 2002. City Manager Hanson was asked te meet wi{h the appropriate people to: ratine numbers to determine if it's feasible to get a "20-year" building for $5 million, and to report back to the Counci~l at their Februa~ 26th meeting. 6. ADJOURN MOTION by Brown, seconded by Osmek to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. Motion c~ed. All voted in favor. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk 2 -479- CITY OF MOUND Payments 01/24/02 3:02 PM Page 1 Current Period: January 2002 Batch Name Refer 12402 Cash Payment Invoice 012402 Cash Payment Invoice 012402 Cash Payment Invoice 012402 Cash Payment Invoice 012402 Transaction Date 012402sue User Dollar Amt $35,802.08 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $35,802.08 $0.00 In Balance THURK BROTHERS CHEVROLET 1/24/2002 E 101-43100-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA TRUCK 3/4 TON W/PLOW PO 17024 E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA TRUCK 3/4 TON W/PLOW PO 17024 E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA TRUCK 3/4 TON W/PLOW PO 17024 E 101-45200-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA TRUCK 3/4 TON W/PLOW PO 17024 112412002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $10,000.00 $802.08 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $35,802.08 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $25,000.00 $802.08 $10,000.00 $35,802.08 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $35,802.08 $35,802.08 -480- CITY OF MOUND Payments 01/30/02 11:00 AM Page 1 Current Period: January 2002 Batch Name 013002SUE User Dollar Amt $17,621.82 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $17,621.82 $0.00 In Balance Refer 13002 BUSINARO, GINO 1/30/2002 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE Invoice 012502 Transaction Date 1/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $293.33 $293,33 Refer 13002 GRADY, DANIEL Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical Invoice 012902 Transaction Date 1/30/2002 1/30/2002 REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $156.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $156.00 Refer 13002 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 1/30/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow 2033 COMMERCE BLVD. MORTGAGE Invoice 013002 Transaction Date 1/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 13002 LAKE MINNETONKA CONVERSATI .1/30/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-331 Travel Expenses 02-07-02 BANQUET HANSON, KANDIS Invoice 013002 nsaction Date 1/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $14,130.00 $14,130.00 $35.OO $35.00 Refer 13002 SCOTT COUNTY COURTHOUSE 1/30/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow RELEASE RECEIPT $44.00 Invoice 013002 Transaction Date 1/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $44.00 Refer 13002 SHORELINE PLAZA Cash.. Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals .Invoice 013002 Transaction Date 1/30/2002 Refer 13002 SPORTING BREED KENNELS Cash Payment Invoice 013002 Transaction Date E 101-42110-445 Dog Kennel Fees 1/30/2002 1/30/2002 02-02 LIQUOR STORE RENTAL SPACE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $2,638.49 Total $2,638.49 1/30/2002 02~02 DOG KENNEL FEE $325.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $325.00 -481 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 01/30/02 11:00 AM Page 2 Current Period: January 2002 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 10100 Ma~ueEe Bank Mound $14,983.33 $2,638.49 $17,621.82 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $17,621.82 $17,621.82 -482- CITY OF MOUND Payments 01/31/02 2:18 PM Page 1 Current Period: January 2002 Batch Name 013102SUE Payments Refer 13102 ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPAR G 101-22801 Deposits/Escrow 1/31/2002 Cash Payment Invoice 013102 Transaction Date User Dollar Amt $3,874.80 Computer Dollar Amt $3,874.80 $0.00 In Balance 1/31/2002 HEIDERBERG, CASH BAIL $435.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $435.00 Refer 13102 GRAND, DEB 1/31/2002 Cash Payment G 101-21715 Flex Plan Medical REIMBURSE MEDICAL EXPENSE $638.00 Invoice 013102 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $638.00 Refer 13102 MCFOA 1/31/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-208 Training and Instruction MARCH 20-22 MCFOA CONFERENCE $200.00 Invoice 013102 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $200.00 Refer 13102 MINNESOTA, STATE TREASURER 1/31/2002 Cash Payment G 101-20800 Due to Other Governments 4TH QTR BLDG/GEN PERMITS $2,601.80 Invoice 013102 1/31/2002 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,601.80 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $3,874.8O $3,874.8O Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $3,874.80 $3,874.80 -483- CITY OF MOUND payments 02/06/02 12:19 PM Page 1 Current Period: January 2002 Batch Name 020602SUE User Dollar Amt $150.00 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $150.00 $0.00 In Balance Refer 20602 MINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH 2/6/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs WESTEDGE WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENT PERMIT Invoice 020602 Transaction Date 2/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $150.00 $150.00 Fund Summary 601 WATER FUND 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $150.00 $150.00 Pre-Written Check $0.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $150.00 Total $150.00 -484- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02~06~02 2:36 PM Page 1 Current Period: January 2002 Batch Name 012302SUE User Doltar Amt $252,775.51 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $252,775.51 Refer 21202 AL'S MASTER PLUMBING 2/12/2002 $0.00 In Balance Cash Payment E 609-49750-409 Other Equipment Repair K $224.25 Invoice 3145 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $224.25 Refer 21202 AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 2112/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41110~430 Miscellaneous 01-31-02 COMMISSIONS ERCOGNITION $267.30 invoice 013102 Transaction Date 2/5/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $267.30 Refer 12302 ARCTIC GLACIER PREMIUM ICE 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R ICE $90.60 Invoice 552002308 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $90.60 Refer 21202 ASPEN EMBROIDERY AND DESIG 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-218 Clothing and Uniforms CLOTHING ALLOWANCE HAWKS $43.28 Invoice 122801-A PO 17147 ~ct!on Date. 1/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $43.28 Refer 21202 AT&T 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-321 Telephone 01-02 (952) 250-0429 $33.61 Invoice 012602 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $33.61 Refer 12302 BELLBOY CORPORATION 2/12/2022 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 23047100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 23088400 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR Invoice 23047100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS Invoice 35180000 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R MISCELLANEOUS Invoice 35180100 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $6,609.38 $2,445.40 $1,633.65 $2,111.10 $48.63 $370.60 Refer 12302 BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHE 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 4TH QTR CJDN $630.00 Invoice P07MN02713002F Transaction Date 1/18/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $630.00 Refer 21202 BUSINESS FORMS AND ACCOUNT 2/12/2002. Cash Payment E 101-41920-210 Operating Supplies ENVELOPES $123.18 nvoice 028941 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $123.18 Refer 21202 CARGIL SALTDIVISION 2/12/2002 -485- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 2 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials BULK ICE Invoice 22883607 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 21202 CENTRAL PARTS WAREHOUSE 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply 1 1/2 x 10 MISCELLANEOUS Invoice 31750A Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $1,037.96 Total $1,037,96 $140.23 Total $140.23 Refer 21202 CHAMPION AUTO 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts PARTS FOR TRUCK #21 Invoice D128198 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts ROCKER SWITCH, ETC Invoice D128201 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair STROBE LIGHT Invoice D126292 Cash Payment E 101-45200-220 Repair/Maint Supply JACK STANDS Invoice D126401 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery STEP SHIELD DOORS Invoice D126529 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery AIR FILTER, ETC. Invoice D126721 Cash Payment E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery PRO FIT Invoice D128061 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair TRAILER LIGHTING KIT Invoice D128178 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts BLADES Invoice D128671 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts BLADES Invoice D128672 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Refer 21202 CHIEFS OF POLICE INTERNATION Cash Payment Invoice 021202 Transaction Date $26.61 $5.62 $74.54 $60.68 $25.38 $32.54 $63.88 $25.55 $21.28 $21.28 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $357.36 2/12/2002 E 101-42110-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES PO 17171 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $100.00 Total $100.00 Refer 12302 CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS Cash Payment E 101-45200-321 Telephone Invoice 011002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone Invoice 013002-A Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone Invoice 013002-B Cash Payment E 601-49400-321 Telephone Invoice 013002-B Cash Payment E 602-49450-321 Telephone Invoice 013002-B Cash Payment E 101-42110-321 Telephone Invoice 013002-C Transaction Date 1/18/2002 2/12/2002 01-02 (952) 472-0646 01-02 472-0600 01-02 472-1251 01-02 472-1251 01-02 472-1251 01-02 472-3711 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $18.02 $921.80 $334.64 $334.64 $334.63 $791.27 Total $2,735.00 Refer 21202 COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST 2/12/2002 -486- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 3 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 63497100 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MiX invoice 61399232 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $254.38 $238.06 Total $492.44 Refer 12302 CORPRO COMPANIES, INCORPOR 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 06-01-01 THRU 05-31-02 REPORT invoice SI058249 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $600.00 Total $600.00 Refer 21202 Cash Payment Invoice 164349 Cash Payment invoice 165052 Cash Payment Invoice 165913 Cash Payment invoice 165914 DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 2/12/2002 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 21202 DEPARTMENT NATURAL RESOUR 2/12/2002 sh Payment E 601-49400-455 Permits 2002 DNR PERMIT VOLUME FEE Invoice 013002 PO 17048 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $924.3O $1,390.10 $942.55 $52.20 Total $3,309.15 $1,085.00 Total $1,085.00 Refer 21202 E-Z RECYCLING 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 670-49500-440 Other Contractual Servic 01-02 CURBSIDE RECYCLING invoice 3330 Transaction Date 2/5/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $7,700.00 Total $7,700.00 Refer 21202 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 193829 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 196617 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 198233 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 199860 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 101O0 $1,560.40 $2,760.70 $312.00 $1,056.30 Total $5,689.40 Refer 21202 EQUIPMENT SUPPL Y, INCORPOR 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings ADJUSTED DAMPERS, ETC Invoice 181721 Cash Payment E 101-41910-401 Repairs/Maint Buildings REPAIRED STRAINER Invoice 182299 'ransaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $379.42 $633.78 Total $1,013.20 :~efer 21202 EXEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-305 Medical and Dental Fees 01-14-02 DRUG TEST Invoice 696537 $38.00 -487- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 4 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment Invoice 689229 Cash Payment Invoice 692852 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 21202 FACKLER, JAMES 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-218 Clothing and Uniforms REIMBURSE CLOTHING ALLOWANCE Invoice 020402 Transaction Date 21512002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total E 602-49450-305 Medical and Dental Fees 08-03-01 DRUG TEST E 602-49450-305 Medical and Dental Fees 10-18-01 DRUG TEST $38.00 $38.00 $114.00 $54.05 $54.05 Refer 21202 FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYME COMP 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 10231 Cash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX Invoice 11711 Transaction Date 2/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $190.20 $40.80 $231.00 Refer 21202 G & K SERVICES Cash Payment Invoice 898938 Cash Payment Invoice 891873 Cash Payment Invoice 891873 Cash Payment Invoice 891873 Cash Payment Invoice 898935 Cash Payment Invoice 898934 Cash Payment invoice 898934 Cash Payment Invoice 898934 Cash Payment Invoice 898934 Cash Payment Invoice 898934 Cash Payment Invoice 898934 Cash Payment Invoice 891873 Cash Payment Invoice 891873 Cash Payment Invoice 891873 Cash Payment Invoice 898936 Transaction Date E 609-49750-460 Janitorial Services E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms 2/12/2002 01-22-02 MATS 01-15-02 UNIFORMS 01-15-02 UNIFORMS 01-15-02 UNIFORMS E 101-45200-223 Building Repair Supplies 01-22-02 MATS E 101-43100-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 601-49400-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 602-49450-218 Clothing and Uniforms E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 1/28/2002 01-22-02 UNIFORMS 01-22-02 UNIFORMS 01-22-02 UNIFORMS 01-22-02 MATS 01-22-02 MATS 01-22-02 MATS 01-15-02 MATS 01-15-02 MATS 01-15-02 01-22-02 MATS Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $32.15 $26.82 $26.82 $26.82 $49.O8 $26.82 $26.82 $26.81 $17.88 $17.88 $17.88 $17.05 $17.05 $17.05 $121.94 $468.87 Refer 21202 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD 2/12/2002 -488- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 5 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 101-41110-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 013102-A Cash Payment E 101-42110-430 Miscellaneous Invoice 013102-A Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 013102-B Cash Payment E 101-43100-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 013102-C Cash Payment E 601-49400-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 013102-C Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies Invoice 013102-C Transaction Date 2/5/2002 01-02 WATER #5158500 $31.77 01-02 WATER #5158500 $31.77 01-02 WATER #5158501 $40.36 01-02 WATER #5158502 $4.20 01-02 WATER #5158502 $4.20 01-02 WATER #5158502 $4.20 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $116.50 Rear 21202 GREENE'S CUSTOM CENTER 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA REMOTE START SYSTEM $106.15 Invoice 3021 PO 17042 Cash Payment E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA REMOTE START SYSTEM $106,15 Invoice 3021 PO 17042 Cash Payment E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA REMOTE START SYSTEM $106.14 Invoice 3021 PO 17042 rransaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $318.44 Refer 21202 GRIGGS COOPER AND COMPANY 2/1212002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,654,06 Invoice 491848 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253Wine For Resale WINE $504.92 Invoice 491849 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $551.99 Invoice 494553 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $706.78 Invoice 495209 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR $1,228.12 Invoice 497384 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE $233.77 Invoice 397446 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$3.30 Invoice 579583 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale CREDIT-WINE -$27.47 Invoice 579692 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $4,848.87 Refer 21202 HANSON, KANDIS 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-331 Travel Expenses REIMBURSE MILEAGE $38.33 invoice 020402 Cash Payment Invoice 020402 !ransaction Date Rear 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 3108 E 101-41310-321 Telephone REIMBURSE DSL LINE $83.25 2/5/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $121,58 HATCH, JIM SALES COMPA Y 2/12/2002 E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply POWER SUPPLY $591.91 -489- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 6 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 Current Period: January 2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $591.91 Refer 12302 HAWKINS, INCORPORATED Cash Payment E 601-49400-227 Chemicals Invoice DM68838 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 2/12/2002 CHARGE FOR 8 CONTAINER $40.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $40.00 Refer 12302 HENNEPIN COUNTYINFORMATIO 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41920-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 12-01 NETWORK SERVICES Invoice 21127029 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 Refer 21202 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC REC Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 20011206 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 $41.12 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $41.12 2/12/2002 FILING FEE $35.50 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $35.50 Refer 21202 HENNEPINCOUNTYSHERIFF'SA 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners 12-01 BOOKING FEE Invoice 011102 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 21202 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR (R 2/12/2002. Cash Payment E 101-41600-450 Board of Prisoners 12-01 ROOM AND BOARD invoice 000368 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $191.63 Total $191.63 $1,714.50 Total $1,714.50 Refer 21202 Cash Payment Invoice 041001 Cash Payment E 354-43140-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 020402 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 020402 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 2/12/2002 G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi WESTEDGE MAILING LIST 2001 TIF EXPENSES 2001 TIF EXPENSES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Rear 21202 Cash Payment E 401-46540-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 011002-A Cash Payment G Invoice 011002-B1 Cash Payment E invoice 011002-B2 Cash Payment G Invoice 011002-B3 Cash Payment G Invoice 011002-B4 Cash Payment G Invoice 011002-B5 Cash Payment E Invoice 011002-C Cash Payment E Invoice 011002-D 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs HO/SING TON KOEGLER GROUP, I 2/12/2002 12-01 LOST LAKE GREENWAY 12-01 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 12-01 PLANNING MISCELLANEOUS 101-22889 3033 Brighton Blvd 01-43 Va 12-01 MILTON VAQRIANCE RESOLUTION 101-22878 Voicestream Antenna 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs 12-01 VERIZON PERMIT 12-01 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT 12-01 CTY RD 15 STREETSC^PE 12-01 MUELLER-LANSING AGREEMENT $267.50 $401.95 $572.55 Total $1,242.00 $11,717.04 $205.32 $1,437.23 $205.32 $410.64 $410.64 $11,453.35 $308.43 -490- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02~06~02 2:36 PM Page 7 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 011002-E1 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 Invoice 011002-E2 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 12-01 TIF RELATED WORK 12-01': METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $369.83 $739.67 $27,257.47 Refer Cash Payment E 101-43100-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23111708 Cash Payment E 601-49400-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23111706 Cash Payment E 602-49450-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23111706 Cash Payment E 101-41910-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 01-24-02 REPAIR COPIER Invoice 23075539 Cash Payment E 101-43100-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23075830 Cash Payment E 601-49400-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23075830 Cash Payment E 602-49450-202 Duplicating and copying Invoice 23075830 ~ash Payment E 101-42110-202 Duplicating and copying nvoice 23117883 Transaction Date 1/18/2002 12302 IKON OFFICE MACHINES 2/12/2002 01-12-02 THRU 04-12-02 MAINTENANCE 01-12-02 THRU 04-12-02 MAINTENANCE 01-12-02 THRU 04-12-02 MAINTENANCE REPAIR FAX REPAIR FAX REPAIR FAX 01-24-02 THRU 02-24-02 MAINTENANCE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 To~l $33.10 $33.10 $33,10 $125OO $43.78 $43,78 $43,78 $111.76 $467.40 Refer 21202 /NE7-/ INTERNET SERVICES,/NCO Cash Payment E 101-41910-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 9105 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 2/12/2002 12-01 INTERNET SERVICES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $29.95 $29.95 Refer 21202 ISLAND PARK SKELLY Cash Payment Invoice 9407 Cash Payment Invoice Transaction Date E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply 2/1/2002 2/12/2002 INSTALL HEATER CONTROL BATTERY Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $109.10 $151.02 $260.12 Refer 21202 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR Cash Payment Invoice 1355017 Cash Payment Invoice 1355018 Cash Payment Invoice 1355019 Cash Payment Invoice 1357752 Cash Payment nvoice 1357753 Payment Invoice 1357754 Cash Payment Invoice 1358347 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 2/12/2002 WINE WINE LIQUOR LIQUOR WINE WINE LIQUOR $2,233.95 $488.22 $305.74 $82.90 $683.00 $1,911.50 $3,092.80 -491 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 8 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 1358348 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 1358349 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 183527 Cash Payment E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale Invoice 1360579 Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 1360580 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 WINE FREIGHT CREDIT--WINE LIQUOR WINE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $60.20 $3.45 -$15.68 $5,168.65 $358,83 Total $14,373.56 Refer 21202 KENNEDY AND GRAVEN Cash Payment Invoice 50095-A Cash Payment Invoice 50095-B Cash Payment Invoice 50095-0 Cash Payment Invoice 50095-D Cash Payment Invoice 50095-E Cash Payment Invoice 50095-G Cash Payment Invoice 50096-A Cash Payment Invoice 50096-B E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46379-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 G 101-22851 Langdon Deveop, Gramercy E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-C1 Cash Payment G 101-22878 Voicestream Antenna Invoice 50096-C2 Cash Payment E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-D1 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-D2 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 Invoice 50096-D3 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-E Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-F1 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-F2 Cash Payment E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-G1 a Cash Payment E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-Gb Cash Payment E 602-49450-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-Gc 2/12/2002 12-01 HRA MEETING/MISCELLANEOUS 12-01 TIF DISTRICT RE-INSPECTIONS 12-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 12-01 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 12-01 GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT 12-01 MUELLER-LANSING PROJECT 12-01 ACT II LOAN DEFAULT 12-01 POLSTON LAW SUIT 12-01 DEDICATED COMMONS 12-01 EXCEL ANTENNA AGREEMENT 12-01 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMSENT 12-01 XCEL ENERGY UNDERGROUND 12-01 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 12-01 ACT II LOAN DEFAULT 12-01 EXECUTIVE 12-01 GILLESPIE AGREEMENT 12-01 UTILITY FEES 12-01 UTILITY FEES 12-01 UTILITY FEES -492- $27.50 $1,254.00 $3850 $291.50 $583.00 $225.50 $391~00 $48.00 $385.29 $211.29 $306.14 $538.19 $39.17 $420.00 $786.00 $90.00 $87,63 $87.63 $87.63 CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/00/02 2:36 PM Page 9 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-G2 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-G3 Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs invoice 50096-G4 Cash Payment E 101-42110-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-H Cash Payment E 101-41600-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-1 Cash Payment G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 Invoice 50096-J1 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs invoice 50096-J2 Cash Payment G 101-22869 Landgon Woods, 00-35 Invoice 50096-J3 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs I~voice 50096-J4 Cash Payment E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs Invoice 50096-JSa 12-01 ADMINISTRATIVE 12-01 GILLESPIE AGREEMENT 12-01 MUELLER-LANSING AGREEMENT 12-01 PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES 12-01 RETAINING WALL SKAALERUD 12-01 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 12-01 P/Z LEGAL MISCELLAENOUS 12-01 LANGDON WOODS 12-01 AQUILINA ISSUES 12-01 KELLS LANE VACATION ;ash Payment G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 12-01 KELLS LANE VACATION 50096-J5b ;ash Payment G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 12-01 KELLS LANE VACATION Invoice 50096-J5c Cash Payment G 101-22883 2361 Wilshire BIvd 01-39 12-01 2361 WILSHIRE ALLEY VACATION Invoice 50096-K Cash Payment Invoice 50096-L Cash Payment Invoice 50096-M Cash Payment Invoice 50096-N Cash Payment Invoice 50096-0 Transaction Date G 101-22875 4646 Islandview Brenshell S 12-01 BECKER PROPERTY ISSUES E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 12-01 5200 EDEN ROAD G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi 12-01 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT E 281-45210-300 Professional Srvs 12-01 DOCK ORDINANCE 1/30/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $190.88 $568.87 $124.87 $623.61 $180.00 $1,961.79 $327.81 $320.79 $211.79 $36.09 $36.10 $36.10 $72.29 $40.79 $79.79 $115.00 $96.00 Total $10,920.54 Refer 21202 Cash Payment Invoice 875 Cash Payment Invoice 875 Cash Payment Invoice 875 Cash Payment Invoice 894 Cash Payment ~voice 895 Payment Invoice 897 Cash Payment Invoice 902 LAKER NEWSPAPER 2/12/2002 E 101-42400-351 Legal Notices Publishing 12-22-01 KELLS LANE VACATION G 101-22691 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 12-22-01 KELLS LANE VACATION G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 12-22-01 KELLS LANE VACATION E 601-49400-351 Legal Notices Publishing 01-19-02 WATER ORDINANCE E 602-49450-351 Legal Notices Publishing 01-19-02 SEWER ORDINANCE E 101-41110-351 Legal Notices Publishing 01-19-02 BUDGET INFO E 401-43100-351 Legal Notices Publishing 01-26-02 WESTEDGE IMRPOVEMENTS $14.17 $14,17 $14.18 $99.50 $173.13 $98.00 $67.66 -493- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 10 Cash Payment Invoice 903 Transaction Date Current Period: January 2002 E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA 01-26-02 WESTEDGE IMPROVEMENTS 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $65.67 Total $546.48 Refer 12302 LAWSON PRODUCTS, /NC Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials Invoice 8818795 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials Invoice 8818795 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials invoice 8818795 Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials Invoice 8850916 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials Invoice 8850916 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials Invoice 8850916 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 2/12/2002 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $5.24 $5,24 $5.23 $140,39 $140.39 $140.40 Total $436.89 Refer 21202 LOFQUIST, THOMAS Cash Payment Invoice 012302 Transaction Date E 101-49840-300 Professional Srvs 2/1/2002 2/12/2002 01-22-02 TAPE HRA MEETING Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $20,00 Total $20.00 Rear 12392 Cash Payment Invoice 939789 Cash Payment Invoice 030024 Cash Payment Invoice 030302 Cash Payment Invoice 030592 Cash Payment Invoice 030593 Transaction Date LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT 2/12/2002 E 101-43100-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA PRUNER PO 17040 E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply PO 17025 E 101-43100-220 RepaidMaint Supply PO 17025 E 101-43100-220 RepaidMaint Supply PO 17025 E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply PO 17025 1/22/2002 THROTTLE LEVEL HANDLING MOLDING, ETC. AIR FILTER, REPAIR KiT, ETC. REPLACED SPRING, ETC. Marquette Bank Mou 10100 2/12/2002 REFUND WATER/SEWER Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 21202 LOVE, JASON Cash Payment Invoice 020102 Transaction Date R 601-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues 2/1/2002 $542.09 $9.48 $61.29 $107,38 $76.15 Total $796,39 $8.23 Total $8.23 Refer 12302 LOWELL'S AUTOMOTIVE Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 5-333697 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 2/12/2002 BLOWER MOTOR $40.97 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $40.97 Refer 21202 MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR Cash Payment Invoice 370519 Cash Payment Invoice 000901 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale 2/12/2002 BEER BEER $2,509.05 -$32.00 -494- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 11 Cash Payment Invoice 372901 Cash Payment Invoice 000969 Transaction Date Current Period: January 2002 E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale 1/28/2002 BEER BEER MarqueEeBank Mou 10100 ,645.45 $0.85 Total $4,123.35 Refer 21202 MARLIN'S TRUCKING DELIVERY Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10354 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10362 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10382 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10392 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10339 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10354 Cash Payment E 609-49750-285 Freight Invoice 10362 Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight 10383 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10392 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10413 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10424 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10446 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10456 Cash Payment E 609-49750-265 Freight Invoice 10478 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Refer 12302 MASYS CORPORATION 2/12/2002 01-04-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-07-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-10-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-14-02 12-31-01 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-04-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-07-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-10-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-14-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-17-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-21-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-24-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-28-02 DELIVERY CHARGE 01-31-02 DELIVERY CHARGE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 2/12/2002 E 101-42110-400 Repairs & Maint Contract 2002 MAINTENANCE Cash Payment Invoice 9524 Transaction Date 1/18/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Total $147.20 $18.40 $94.40 $18.40 $26.40 $147.20 $18.40 $94.40 $18.40 $128.80 $19.20 $120.80 $15.20 $117.60 $984.80 $6,800.03 $6,800.03 Refer 21202 MCCOMBSFRANKROOSASSOCI Cash Payment Invoice 38632 Cash Payment Invoice 38633 Payment 38634 Cash Payment Invoice 38635 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs E 101-43100-300 Professional Srvs E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs 2/12/2002 12-01 P/I ENGINEERING SERVICES 12-01 P/Z ENGINEERING SERVICES 12-01 STREETS ENGINEERING SERVICES 12~01 WATER ENGINEERING SERVICES $1,805.00 $665.00 $142.50 $475.00 -495- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 12 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment Invoice 38636 Cash Payment Invoice 38637 Cash Payment Invoice 38638 Cash Payment Invoice 38639 Cash Payment Invoice 38640 Cash Payment Invoice 38641 Cash Payment Invoice 38642 Cash Payment Invoice 38643 Cash Payment Invoice 38644 Cash Payment Invoice 38745 Cash Payment Invoice 38745A Cash Payment Invoice 38745B Cash Payment Invoice 38745C Cash Payment Invoice 38647 Cash Payment Invoice 38648 Cash Payment Invoice 38749A Cash Payment Invoice 39849B Cash Payment Invoice 38650 Cash Payment Invoice 38651 Cash Payment Invoice 38652 Cash Payment Invoice 38653 Cash Payment Invoice 38654 Transaction Date E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46382-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22837 Seton Bluff DDA G 101-22838 Maple Manors G 101-22855 MetroPlains Develop 00-64 E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46380-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22894 Antenna 2355 Chauteau Lan G 101-22854 Langdon Bay Major Sub-Divi G 101-22869 Landgon Woods, 00-35 E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22891 Kells Lane Vacation, J. Paul 12-01 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 12-01 LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION 12-01 SETON BLUFF PLAT 12-01 LYNMORE ENGINERING 12-01 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 12-01 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT 12-01 TIF DISTRICT ENGINEERING 12-01 ANTENNA CHATEAU WATERTOWER 12-01 LANGDON BAY ENGINEERING 12-01 LANGDON WOODS ENGINEERING 12-01 KELLS ROAD STREET VACATION 12-01 KELLS ROAD STREET VACATION G 101-22895 Kells Lane Vacation Jeff Paul 12-01 KELLS ROAD STREET VACATION E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22850 Hasbro, Inc. E 101-42400-300 Professional Srvs 12-01 1733 GULL LANE MODIFICATION 12-01 HASBRO WATER QUALITY 12-01 2957 CAMBRIDGE SKAALERUD G 101-22890 2957 Cambridge Retain Wall 12-01 2957 CAMBRIDGE SKAALERUD E 455-46377-300 Professional Srvs E 455-46383-300 Professional Srvs E 675-49425-300 Professional Srvs E 101-45200-300 Professional Srvs G 101-22887 Legion Post 01-44, 01-45 2/1/2002 12-01 CSAH 15 STREETSCAPE 12-01 AUDITORS ROAD GREENWAY 12-01 STORM WATER SERVICES 12-01 HOCKEY RINK SHIRLEY HILLS 12-01 AMERICAN LEGION Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $315.50 $47.50 $47.50 $142.50 $665.00 $1,233.00 $142.50 $190.00 $237.50 $190.00 $47,50 $47.50 $47.50 $285.00 $198.00 $47.50 $47.50 $285.00 $4,071.47 $445.50 $237.50 $95.OO $12,153.47 Refer 21202 MCKINLEY, JOHN 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-208 Training and Instruction REIMBURSE FOOD EXPENSE Invoice 012301 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $43.66 $43.66 -496- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02~06~02 2:36 PM Page 13 Current Period: January 2002 Refer 21202 MDg MATR~ MEDICAL, INC. Cash Payment Invoice 764560 Transaction Date E 101-42110-219 Safety supplies PO 17143 1/29/2002 2/12/2002 MEDICAL SUPPLIES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $167.26 Total $167.26 Refer 21202 MINNESOTA DEPT OF COMMERC 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-409 Other Equipment Repair CALIBRATE SCALES Invoice 60620-30638 PO 17168 Transaction Date 1/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 12302 MINNESOTA PLAYGROUND, INCO 2/12/2002 Cash Payment G 101-22806 Park Dedication Fee PLAYSTRUCTURE Invoice 2002015 PO 17231 Cash Payment G 101-22806 Park Dedication Fee Invoice 2002016 PO 17231 Transaction Date 1/18/2002 PLAY COMPONENTS Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $400.00 Total $400.00 $33,263.31 $2,412.14 Total $35,675.45 Refer 21202 MINNESOTA RECREATION AND P 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES Invoice 020102 PO 17232 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $20.00 Total $20.00 12302 MINNESOTA RURAL WA TER ASSO 2/12/2002 Payment E 601-49400-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 MEMBERSHIP Invoice 122701 PO 17031 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou $175.00 10100 Total $175.00 Refer 12302 MINNESOTA VALLEY TESTING LA Cash Payment invoice 107574 Transaction Date E 601-49400-470 Water Samples 1/22/2002 2/12/2002 COLIFORM, MF WATER (10) Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $72.50 $72.50 Rear 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 011402 Cash Payment Invoice 011402 Cash Payment Invoice 011402 Transaction Date MINNETONKA REFRIGERATION 2/12/2002 E 101-43100-223 Building Repair Supplies REPAIR HEATER WASH BAY E 601-49400-223 Building Repair Supplies REPAIR HEATER WASH BAY E 602-49450-223 Building Repair Supplies REPAIR HEATER WASH BAY 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $126.33 $126.33 $126.34 $379.00 Refer 21202 MOUND FIRE RELIEF ASSOCIATIO 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 895-49990-124 Fire Pension Contributio 02-02 FIRE RELIEF Invoice 021202 Transaction Date 2/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $9,088.00 $9,088.00 Refer 21202 MOUND POST OFFICE Cash Payment Invoice 021502 Cash Payment Invoice 021502 Transaction Date E 101-41910-322 Postage E 101-41910-322 Postage 2/1/2002 2/12/2002 2002 FIRST CLASS PRES. 2002 STANDARD BULK (A) Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $125.00 $125.00 $250.00 Refer 21202 MOUND, CITY OF 2/12/2002 -497- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/O6/02 2:36 PM Page 14 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment invoice 010702 Transaction Date Refer 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 52999 Cash Payment invoice 53115 Cash Payment Invoice 53294 Cash Payment Invoice 53461 Cash Payment Invoice 54037 Cash Payment Invoice 53593 Cash Payment Invoice 53674 E 609-49750-382 Water Utilities 1/28/2002 MUELLER, WILLIAM AND SONS WATER/SEWER $36.14 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $36.14 E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials 2/12/2002 12-04-01 BANKFILL 12-06-01 BANKFILL 12-10-01 BANKFILL 12-12-01 UPM 12-26-01 CONCRETE 12-14-01 BANKFILL 12-17-01 BANKFILL Transaction Date 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou Refer 12302 NAVARRE CITGO Cash Payment E 222-42260-212 Motor Fuels Invoice 102901 Transaction Date 1/18/2002 Refer 21202 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (PA/V) Cash Payment E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 10100 $78.40 $259.22 $136.61 $162.86 $928.42 $132.03 $199.40 Total $1,896.94 2/12/2002 10-29-01 GAS CHARGE $15.00 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $15.00 1/12/2002 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #16 JOHNSON, TIM 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #17 POUNDER, CHRIS 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #18 HARDINA, DAMON 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #19 KIVISTO, SCOTT 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #20 GRADY, DAN 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #21 HEITZ, FRANK 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #22 HEITZ, DON 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #23 KESTNER, AL 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #07 SKINNER, GREG 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #07 SKINNER, GREG 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #07 SKINNER, GREG $39,15 $39.15 $39.15 $39.15 $39.15 $39.15 $39.15 $39.15 $27.22 $27.22 $27.21 -498- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 15 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment nvoice 011802 E 101-45200-321 Telephone E 281-45210-321 Telephone E 101-41310-321 Telephone E 101-43100-321 Telephone E 601-49400-321 Telephone E 602-49450-321 Telephone E 101-45200-321 Telephone E 101-42400-321 Telephone E 101-42400-321 Telephone E 101-42400-321 Telephone 12-1g-01 THRU 01-18-02 #15 FACKLER, JIM 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #16 HOFF, KATIE 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #03 RAHN, JODI 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #02 NELSON, JOYCE 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #02 NELSON, JOYCE 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #02 NELSON, JOYCE 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #13 SWARTZER, BRIAN 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #14 GEISE, LEE 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #15 SUTHERLAND, JON 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 NORLANDER, JILL $86.73 $85.01 $39.15 $13.05 $13.05 $13.05 $39.15 $39.15 -$6,53 $61.52 ransaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $778.18 Refer 21202 NEXTEL COMMUN/CAT/ONS (POLl 2/12/2002 E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 OFFICE 292-6400 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 CHIEF 292-6401 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 SERGEANT 292-6402 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 SRO 292-6403 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 INVESTIGATORS 292-6404 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #840 292-6405 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #842 292-6406 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 DARE 292-6407 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #844 292-6408 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 #845 292-6409 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 CSO 292-6410 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6400 OFFICE $39.75 $39.75 $39,75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment 011802 sh Payment Invoice 011802 -499- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 16 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 Cash Payment Invoice 011802 E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone E 101-42110-321 Telephone Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Refer 21202 OFFICE DEPOT Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 609-49750~200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 149533978 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6401 CHIEF 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6402 SERGEANT 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6403 SRO 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6404 INVESTIGATORS 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6405 #840 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6406 #842 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6407 DARE 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6408 #844 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6409 #845 12-19-01 THRU 01-18-02 292-6410 CSO Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total 2/12/2002 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 12302 ONE CALL CONCEPTS, INCORPO 2/12/2002 E 601-49400-395 Gopher One-Call 12-01 LOCATES E 602-49450-395 Gopher One-Call $39,75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39.75 $39,75 $39.75 $39,75 $39.75 $39,75 $874.50 PAPER $11.39 PAPER $11.39 PAPER $11.39 PAPER $11.39 PAPER $11.39 PAPER $3.80 PAPER $3.80 PAPER $5.70 PAPER $5.70 Total $75.95 $68.98 12-01 LOCATES $68.97 Cash Payment Invoice 1120525 Cash Payment Invoice 1120525 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $137,95 Refer21202 OSTMAN, JAMES 2/12/2002 -500- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 17 Cash Payment Invoice 012902 Cash Payment Invoice 012902 Transaction Date R 281-34725 Dock Permits R 281-34725 Dock Permits 2/1/2002 Current Period: January 2002 REFUND DOCK FEE REFUND LMCD FEE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $80.00 $7.50 Total $87.50 Refer 21202 PAUSTIS AND SONS WINE COMPA Cash Payment E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale Invoice 0181156-1N Transaction Date 2/6/2002 2/12/2002 WINE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $1,023.0O Total $1,023.00 Refer 21202 PEDERSON, GREG Cash Payment Invoice 012502 Cash Payment Invoice 012502 Cash Payment Invoice 012502 Transaction Date E 222-42260-200 Office Supplies E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 1/28/2002 2/12/2002 REIMBURSE OFFICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSE CAMERA REIMBURSE PHOTO PROCESSING Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $17.32 $51,12 $19.15 Total $87.59 Refer 21202 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 2/12/2002 ash Payment E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX nvoice 20284752 ransaction Date 2/6/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $58.59 Total $58.59 Refer 21202 PHILLIPS WINE AND SPIRITS,/NC 2/12/2002 E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE E 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE Cash Payment Invoice 797467 Cash Payment Invoice 797468 Cash Payment Invoice 797469 Cash Payment Invoice 799513 Cash Payment Invoice 799514 Cash Payment Invoice 801732 Cash Payment Invoice 801733 Transaction Date E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $74.45 $1,134.43 $121.00 $106.60 $244.70 $209.85 $62.00 Total $1,953.03 Refer 21202 PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES Invoice 52490 Cash Payment E 609-49750-255 Misc Merchandise For R CIGARETTES Invoice 52753 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $935.55 $786.95 Total $1,722.50 21202 PIONEER RIM AND WHEEL COMP 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair AXLES, U-BOLTS, SPRINGS, ETC. Invoice 1.419557 PO 17230 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $787.99 Total $787.99 -501 - CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 18 Current Period: January 2002 Refer 21202 PROTECTION ONE Cash Payment Invoice 020902 Cash Payment Invoice 020902 Cash Payment Invoice 020902 Transaction Date E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 2/1/2002 2/12/2002 02-01-02 THRU 04-30-02 MONITORING FIRE 02-01-02 THRU 04-30-02 MONITORING FIRE 02-01-02 THRU 04-30-02 MONITORING FIRE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $47.60 $47.60 $47.60 $142.80 Refer 21202 Cash Payment Invoice 079438-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 079441-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 080403-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 080411-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 080998-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 082953-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 082961-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 083630-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 078745-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 084213-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 085376-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 085395-00 Cash Payment E Invoice 086006-00 QUALITY WINE AND SPIRITS 2/12/2002 E 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa CREDIT--MIX 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa CREDIT--MIX 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale LIQUOR 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale WINE 609-49750-254 Soft Drinks/Mix For Resa MIX 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-251 Liquor For Resale 609-49750-253 Wine For Resale LIQUOR WINE CREDIT--LIQUOR CREDIT--LIQUOR LIQUOR LIQUOR WINE Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 21202 RANDY'S SANITATATION 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-384 Refuse/Garbage Dispos 01-02 GARBAGE SERVICE Invoice 1620 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 12302 ROTARYCLUB OFMOUND 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-331 Travel Expenses 3RD QTR JAN FEB MARCH 2002 Invoice 012302 Transaction Date 1/18/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total -$5.96 -$3.84 $45.49 $1,932.21 $1,489.42 $83.30 $2,707.84 $378.30 -$12.46 -$12.69 $1,389.82 $2,301.29 $129.83 $10,422,55 $114.54 $114.54 $205.00 $205.00 Refer 21202 SERVICE MASTER CLEAN 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 02-01 CLEANING Invoice 9951 $1,096.95 -502- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 19 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-01 CLEANING $39.05 Invoice 9951 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-01 CLEANING $39.05 invoice 9951 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-01 CLEANING $39.05 Invoice 9951 Cash Payment E 101-41910-460 Janitorial Services 02-02 CLEANING $1,096.95 Invoice 9696 Cash Payment E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-02 CLEANING $39.05 Invoice 9696 Cash Payment E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-02 CLEANING $39.05 Invoice 9696 Cash Payment E 602-49450-440 Other Contractual Servic 02-02 CLEANING $39.05 invoice 9696 Transaction Date 1/31/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $2,428.20 Refer 12302 SHORELINE PLAZA Cash Payment E 609-49750-412 Building Rentals Invoice 022802 Transaction Date 1/18/2002 2/12/2002 02-02 LIQUOR STORE RENTAL SPACE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 21202 SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE Iash Payment nvoice 3791 Cash Payment Invoice 3792 Cash Payment Invoice 3803 Transaction Date E 281-45210-533 Tree Removal E 281-45210-533 Tree Removal E 101-45200-533 Tree Removal 2/1/2002 2/12/2002 3005 BRIGHTON BLVD 4725 ISLANDVIEW DRIVE RIDGEWOOD PARK COMMONS Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total Refer 12302 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, I Cash Payment Invoice 0083265 Cash Payment Invoice 0083419 Transaction Date E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs E 401-46580-300 Professional Srvs 1/18/2002 2/12/2002 12-01 FIRE STATION BOND 12-01 FACILITIES STUDY Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total 2/12/2002 BUSINESS CARDS, EACH OFFICER Refer 21202 SOS PRINTING Cash Payment E 101-42110-350 Printing Invoice 63480 PO 17133 Transaction Date 1/29/2002 Refer 21202 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (PA4/ Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment nvoice 012202 Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total .2/12/2002 THRU 01-22-02 #02 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #08 VEHICLEJ THRU 01-22-02 #10 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #22 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #23 VEHICLE $2,638.49 $2,638.49 $640.33 $640.33 $1,118.25 $2,398.91 $9,908.91 $4,981.81 $14,890,72 $822.45 $822.45 $8.20 $41.81 $140.49 $24,59 $30.33 -503- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 20 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels Invoice 012202 Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels Invoice 012202 Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels Invoice 012202 Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels invoice 012202 Cash Payment E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Cash Payment Invoice 012202 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 THRU 01-22-02 #25 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #27 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #07 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #03 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #16 VEHICLE E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels E 101-43100-212 Motor Fuels E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels E 601-49400-212 Motor Fuels E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels E 602-49450-212 Motor Fuels Refer 21202 SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA (POL E 101-42110-212 Motor Fuels 2/1/2002 Cash Payment Invoice 021902 Transaction Date THRU 01-22-02 #01 VEHILCE THRU 01-22-02 #04 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #21 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #20 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #34 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #09 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #11 VEHICLE THRU 01-22-02 #32 VEHICLE Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total 2/12/2002 THRU 01-27-02 GAS CHARGES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $45.64 $22.62 $41.39 $87.69 $61.48 $159.81 $38.53 $68.98 $83.60 $19.55 '$69.70 $108.74 $45.48 $1,098.63 $965.63 $965.63 Refer 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 268759.1 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 267819.1 PO 17036 Cash Payment E 602-49450-220 RepaidMaint Supply Invoice 267819.1 PO 17036 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 RepaidMaint Supply Invoice 270476.1 Cash Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply Invoice 270476.1 Cash Payment E 602-49450-221 Equipment Parts Invoice PO 250375 Transaction Date 1/18~2002 STREICHER'S 2/12/2002 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery SQUAD #844 ISNTALL BULB SWITCH FLASHLIGHT FLASHLIGHT RAM MOUNT ASSESSORY RAM MOUNT ASSESSORY DECK BLASTER WITH FLASHSER Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $59.53 $85.15 $85.14 $103.69 $103.68 $266.14 $703.33 Refer 12302 SUBURBAN TIRE COMPANY Cash Payment E 101-43100-221 Equipment Parts Invoice 158116 2/12/2002 TIRE $60.53 -504- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02106102 2:36 P~ Page 21 Cash Payment Invoice 160001 Transaction Date Current Period: January 2002 E 101-45200-409 Other Equipment Repair TIRES (5) PO 17045 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $199.74 Total $260.27 Refer 21202 SWANSON, DAN 2/12/2002 Cash Payment R 281-34725 Dock Permits REFUND DOCK FEE Invoice 012902 Cash Payment R 281-34725 Dock Permits REFUND LMCD FEE Invoice 012902 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 $80.00 $7.50 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $87.50 Refer 21202 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPAN 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER invoice 213257 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 250837 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 251050 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 251051 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 213725 ,~ash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 214194 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER invoice 251670 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 251671 Cash Payment E 609-49750-252 Beer For Resale BEER Invoice 251813 Transaction Date 1/28/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $270.00 $647.50 $25.30 $4,22O.85 $38.OO $29.00 $56.70 $9,721.00 $927.50 Total $15.935.85 Refer 21202 THYSSENLAGERQUISTELEVATO 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-41910-440 Other Contractual Serv[c 02-02 ELEVATOR SERVICE Invoice 305284 Transaction Date 2/5/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $158.60 Total $158.60 Refer 21202 TRAINING OF OFFICERS, ASSOCI 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-42110-208 Training and Instruction FTO CERTIFICATION, CHASKA TRAUX, TODD $375.00 Invoice 3228 Transaction Date 1/29/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $375.00 Refer 21202 TRUE VALUE, MOUND 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEIS $43.63 Invoice 013102 Cash Payment E 602-49450-210 Operating Supplies 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $38.19 Invoice 013102 Cash Payment E 101-43100-220 RepaidMaint Supply 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $97.44 nvoice 013102 Payment E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $35.07 invoice 013102 Cash Payment E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES $1.28 invoice 013102 -505- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 22 Cash Payment Invoice 013102 Cash Payment Invoice 013102 Cash Payment Invoice 013102 Cash Payment Invoice 013102 Transaction Date Current Period: January 2002 E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials E 222-42260-210 Operating Supplies 2/5/2002 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-02 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $26.77 $26.77 $26.77 $101.65 Total $397.57 Refer 21202 TRUE VALUE, NAVAARRE Cash Payment Invoice 094662 Transaction Date E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies 2/1/2002 2/12/2002 SHELF UNIT $42.59 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $42.59 Rear 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 17136 Transaction Date TRUXSTOR CUSTOM TRUCK ACC 2/12/2002 E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA PARTS FOR 1999C EXT CAB PO 17037 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total 2/12/2002 Refer 21202 TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 328530-0 PO 17152 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329314-0 PO 17164 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329720-0 PO 17165 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329720-1 PO 17165 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330831-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 331365-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329955-0 INKET CARTRIDGES, FOLDERS ROLODEX, BATTERIES ORGANIZER REFILL, BINDER ORGANIZER HANGING FOLDERS FOLDERS MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $200.22 $200.22 $117.37 $62.80 $34.23 $70.52 $13.82 $11.18 $15.74 $15.74 $15.74 $15.74 $15.74 $5.25 $5.25 $7.88 $7,88 -506- CiTY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 23 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 101-41500-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 101-42110-200 Office Supplies invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 101-45200-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 101-43100-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 609-49750-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 601-49400-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 602-49450-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330122-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 329962-0 ;ash Payment E 101-42400-200 Office Supplies nvoice 330149-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330287-0 Cash Payment E 101-41310-200 Office Supplies Invoice 330374-0 Transaction Date 1/29/2002 Rear 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 313039 Cash Payment Invoice 315135 Transaction Date MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES BOOK THINGS TO DO MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES $3.30 $3,30 $3.30 $3.3O $3.30 $1.10 $1.10 $1.64 $1 $26.45 $26.21 $13.93 $4.55 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $507.99 UNITED RENTALS 2/12/2002 E 601-49400-440 Other Contractual Servic BARREL, ETC. E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply BULBS $132.59 $14.65 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $147.24 Rear 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 8029709 Cash Payment Invoice 8029709 Cash Payment Invoice 8029717 Cash Payment Invoice 8209717 Cash Payment Invoice 8029709 ~ment Invoice 8029709 Cash Payment invoice 8507278 US FILTER 2/12/2002 E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA HHD UPGRADE E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA HHD UPGRADE E 601-49400-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA TRANSClEVSER UNIT E 602-49450-500 Capital Outlay (GENERA TRANSCIEVER UNIT E 601-49400-220 RepaidMaint Supply E 602-49450-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 601-49400-220 RepaidMaint Supply CONNECTOR TOOL CONNECTOR TOOL PLUGS $2,638.16 $2,638.16 $3,328.13 $3,328.13 $71.89 $71.88 $281.74 -507- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 24 Cash Payment Invoice 8058572 Cash Payment Invoice 8066476 Transaction Date Current Period: January 2002 E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply E 601-49400-220 RepaidMaint Supply PO 17038 1/22/2002 PLUGS CLAMPS Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $336.40 $261.99 Total $12,956.48 Rear 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 011502 Cash Payment Invoice 011502 Cash Payment Invoice 011502 Cash Payment Invoice 011502 Cash Payment Invoice 011502 Transaction Date Rear 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 4986 Cash Payment Invoice 4986 Cash Payment Invoice 4944 Transaction Date WAYZATA, CITY OF E 101-43100-438 Licenses and Taxes PO 17041 E 601-49400-438 Licenses and Taxes PO 17041 E 602-49450-438 Licenses and Taxes PO 17041 E 101-45200-438 Licenses and Taxes PO 17041 E 101-42400-438 Licenses and Taxes PO 17041 1/18/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 WIDMER, INCORPORA TED 2/12/2002 E 101-43100-440 Other Contractual Servic 12-01 SNOW PLOWING 2/12/2002 2002 LICENSE TABS 2002 LICENSE TABS 2002 LICENSE TABS 2002 LICENSE TABS 2002 LICENSE TABS E 440-43140-440 Other Contractual Servic 12-01 SNOW PLOWING E 601-49400-400 Repairs & Maint Contract WILSHIRE/TUXEDO REPAIR 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total To~l Total Refer 21202 WINE SPSECTATOR 2/12/2002 Cash Payment E 609-49750-433 Dues and Subscriptions 2002 MEMBERSHIP DUES Invoice 020102 Transaction Date 2/1/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 $159.50 $29.00 $72.50 $147.00 $14.50 $422.50 $1,623.75 $541.25 $332.5O $2,497.50 $45.00 $45.00 Refer 12302 Cash Payment Invoice 112801 Cash Payment Invoice 112901 Cash Payment Invoice 121701 Cash Payment Invoice 121701 Cash Payment Invoice 011602 Transaction Date WINKLER, BOB 2/12/2002 11-28-01 CONCRETE 11-29-01 CONCRETE 12-17-01 BANKFILL E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials E 601-49400-224 Street Maint Materials E 602-49450-224 Street Maint Materials E 101-43100-224 Street Maint Materials 1/22/2002 12-17-01 BANKFILL 01-16-02 SALT Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Refer 12302 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY Cash Payment E 101-43100-230 Shop Materials Invoice 57929781 Cash Payment E 601-49400-230 Shop Materials Invoice 57929781 Cash Payment E 602-49450-230 Shop Materials Invoice 57929781 2/12/2002 CLEANER AND DISPENSER CLEANER AND DISPENSER CLEANER AND DISPENSER $1,221.41 $1,235.18 $414.42 $414.42 $386.27 Total $3,671.70 $135.61 $135.61 $135.61 -508- CITY OF MOUND Payments 02/06/02 2:36 PM Page 25 Current Period: January 2002 Cash Payment E 101-45200-210 Operating Supplies CLEANER AND DISPENSER Invoice 57932157 Transaction Date 1/22/2002 Marquette Bank Mou 10100 Total $394.73 $801.56 Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 222 AREA FIRE SERVICES 281 COMMONS DOCKS FUND 354 Commerce Place Tif 1-1 401 GENERAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 440 CBD FUND 455 TIF 1-2 601 WATER FUND 602 SEWER FUND 609 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR FUND 670 RECYCLING FUND 675 STORM WATER UTILITY FUND 895 FIRE RELIEF FUND 10100 Marquette Bank Mound $89,242.88 $204.24 $1,636.67 $401.95 $26,675.42 $541.25 $18,828.27 $13,401.23 $9,440.35 $74,854.25 $7,700.00 $761.00 $9,068.00 $252,775.51 Pre-Written Check Checks to be Generated by the Compute Total $0.00 $252,775.51 $252,775.51 012302SIJ'~ '= $252,775.51 012402SUE: = $ 35,802.08 013002SUE = $ 17,621.82 013102SUE = $ 020502SUE = $ 020602SUE =-$ 3,874.80 932.00 150.00 $311,156.24 ~OTAL -509- Hennepin County Recycled Paper Department of Environmental Services 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397 Phone: 612-348-6 Facility INFO Line: 612-348-65,~,~ Fax: 612-348-8532 www. co.hennepin.mn.us/environmental/envhome.html January 9, 2002 Sarah Smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound,MN 55364 Dear Sarah Smith: Congratulations on your recent Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grant award. You will see your project described in the attached Funding Recommendations document approved by the Hennepin County Board on December 11, 2001. Also accompanying this letter is a draft of the Grant Agreement. Please review the draft Grant Agreement carefully. You will be contacted in the next week or so, to set up an administration meeting where the Grant Agreement can be finalized and any questions you may have regarding the administration of the grant will be answered. For effective administration of your grant you will be required to fill out a payment request form and a project report form on a periodic basis. Copies of these forms will be provided at the administration meeting. Other items that you will be required to provide to Hennepin County department of Environmental services are listed in Attachment A to the draft Grant Agreement. We look forward to working with you to ensure the successful completion of your project. If you have any questions, please contact me at 612 348-5714. Sincerely Supervising Environmentalist Hennepin County Contaminated Lands Unit Attachments -510- Hennepin Count-v Contract No. A06321 ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TfiiS Agreement is made on ' date by and between the COunty of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ("County" or "Grantor" at A2300 Government Center, Mpls, MN 55487) by and through its Department of Environmental Services ("Department") and the City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364 ("Grantee"). Grantee has made ~.pplication t°' the County' fo~ a grant to be used for assessment and/or clean-up of a potentially contaminated site at 5377 Shoreline Drive, which application is incorporated into this Agreement by reference. In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the parties agree as follows: The County shall grant to the Grantee a sum not to exceed sixty thousand dollars ($ 60,000.00) which funds shall be only for expenses incurred in performing activities specified in the Application and as may be further described in Exhibit A to this Agreement. Approved assessment and/or clean-up activities as may be described in the application and Exhibit A are referred to herein as the "Project". Administrative costs incurred by the Grantee are not eligible for reimbursement via this Agreement. Grantee agrees to complete the Project within one (1) year (s) of execution of this Agreement and within the terms stated herein. Any material change in the scope of the Project, including time schedule and budget, must be approved in writing by the County. Funds made available pursuant to this Agreement shall be used only for expenses incurred in performing such purposes and activities described in the Application and this Agreement. ACCOUNTING AND RECORD KEEPING For all expenditures of funds made pursuant to this Agreement, the Grantee shall keep financial records including properly executed contracts, invoices, and other documents sufficient to evidence in proper detail the nature and propriety of the expenditures. Accounting methods shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Grantee agrees that the County, the State Auditor, or any of their duly authorized representatives at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of the Grantee and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such materials shall be maintained and such access and rights shall be in force and effect during the period of the Agreement and for six (6) years after its termination or cancellation. -511 - pAYMENT/DISBURSMENT SCHEDULE Grantor will disburse funds to Grantee pursuant to this Agreement, based on a payment request form provided by the Grantor, submitted by the Grantee and approved by the Grantor. Payment requests can be submitted once per month and must be accompanied by supporting invoices that relate.to activities in. the appro.~edProjectbudget, S~ject.to verification ofadequac~_:o£a .................... n disburse the requested amount to the Grantee within four (4) weeks after receipt of a written disbursement request. Grantee shall submit to the Grantor a report on the distribution of funds and the progress of the Project covered from the date of the grant award through June 30 of each year. The reports must be received by the County. no later than July 25..of each year. The report shall identify specific goals listed in the application and quantitatively and qualitatively measure the progress of such goals. Reporting forms will be provided by the Grantor. In addition, the required documentation listed in Attachment A should be supplied as it becomes available. CONTRACTS Grantee shall include in any contract, provisions that require contractors to comply with all applicable state and federal laws and regulations regarding employment and workplace safety. In accordance with Hennepin County's policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service, or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules, or regulations against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. Public Grantees and any contractors or subcontractors performing services as part of this Agreement shall follow that public Grantee's Affirmative Action policy against discrimination. TERMINATION, CANCELLATION AND ASSIGNMENT This Agreement may be canceled by the County upon sixty (60) days written notice to the Grantee without cause. In the event of such cancellation, Grantee shall be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for work or services satisfactorily performed up to the effective date of such cancellfition. If the County finds that there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement, that reasonable progress has not been made toward commencement or completion of the assessment and/or clean-up activities specified in the Application and this Agreement, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary and after written notice and reasonable opportunity to cure, the County may refuse to disburse additional funds and/or 2 -512- require the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed, to the extent such funds were used for purposes other than activities contemplated by this Agreement. This Agreement may not be assigned without the prior written consent of the County. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR The Grantee shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the activities herein. Nothing is intended or should be construed in any manner.as creating or establishing the relationship of co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the Grantee as the agent, representative, or employee of the County for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The Grantee is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services and activities performed under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the Grantee or other persons while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the Grantee under this Agreement shall have no contractual relationship with the County, and shall not be considered employees of the County. Any and all claims that may or might arise under the Minnesota Economic Security Law or the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel, arising out of employment or alleged employment including without limitation, claims of discrimination against the Grantee, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the County. The Grantee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers, agents, and employees from any and all such claims irrespective of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission, or court. Such personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the County, including, without limitation, tenure fights, medical and hospital care, sick leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. LIABILITY The Grantee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless, the County, its officials, officers, agents and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the Grantee, its contractors or subcontractors or anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the activities specified in this Agreement and against all loss by reason of the failure of the Grantee to perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. MERGER AND MODIFICATION It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supercedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement. 3 -513- Any alterations} variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties hereto. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretatiOns ConCerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the parties and performance under it. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. Both Grantor and Grantee Signature blocks to be inserted into Final Draft 4 -514- Attachment A City of Mound Proiect Summary: The City of Mound requests ERF funds for acquiring and assessing and developing a Response -Actio_~P4an-(?~2-).~for-the~Max-well-s/-te~ The-Max~ell~ite,l~ated-atS$7:L~orelineDr-i~-'ve.in .~ Mound, is the former location of a filling station. A portion of the site may also have been used as a dump by Tonka Toys Manufacturing, a former owner. An ERF grant of $60,000 is awarded to the City of Mound for a Phase II assessment of the Maxwell property and the development of a RAP. The following costs are based on a budget submitted by the Grantee. Modifications must be approved in writing by the Grantor. Approved Budget for the Maxwell Site: Phase II MPCA Work Plan Preparation MPCA VIC Program Phase II Implementation RAP Development Total: $ 5,000 45,000 10,000 $ 60,000 Required Documentation to be Submitted to Hennepin County: Consultant/Contractor/MPCA Invoices MPCA Phase II Work Plan Approval letter Phase II Report Response Action Plan MPCA Response Action Plan Approval Letter Annual Project Progress/Summary Report(s) -515- HENNEPIN COUN. TY ENVIRONMENTAl, RESPONSE FUND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Fall 2001 Prepared by Contaminated Lands Unit Department of Environmental Services November, 2001 -516- TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 2 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A SITE LOCATION MAP AND SUMMARY TABLE OF PROPOSED GRANT AWARDS (FALL 2001) ........................................................ 3-4 ATTACI:IMENT B GRANT AWARD CRITERIA ................................................................................... 6 ATTACHMENT C ERF GRANT APPLICATION SUMMARIES ............................................................... 7-22 -517- INTRODUCTION The Department of Environmental Services recommends awarding the following Environmental Response Fund (ERF) grants: P '-me-Cliff-~a~mem ts, Former Lenox Apartments, Minneapolis St. Barnabas, Minneapolis Gateway Real Estate, LLC, Minneapolis Minneapolis Stone Arch Apartments, Minneapohs PPL Rental Properties, Minneapolis Near Northside Redevelopment, North-8outh Blvd, Minneapolis SEMI Phase 7 (Former Wineo Warehouse), MinneaPolis Brooklyn Park Dump, Brooklyn Park Bennett, Wiley and Ryan Properties, Osseo City Bella, Richfield Klaers Oil Company & Railway Street, Loretto Maxwell Site, Mound Total: $ 80,0OO $ 25,000 $ 25,0O0 $228,000 $ 90,0o0 $ 35,340 $150,000 $ 15,000 $683,400 $ 43,200 $ 92,665 $ 12,000 $ 60,0o0 $1,539,605 A site location map and detailed summary table of proposed awards is included in Attachment A. A resolution to approve these recommendations will be considered by the General Government Committee on December 4, 200t. BACKGROUND On September 17, 2001 the HennePin County Board of Commissioners authorized the use of the ERF. A Hennepin County mortgage registry and deed tax authorized in 1997 under Minnesota Statute 383B.80 funds the ERF. The purpose of the ERF is to fund environmental-related assessment and cleanup of sites where such activities have been hampered because there is no other source of funding, a public non-tax-generating end use is intended, and/or affordable housing is being created or preserved. Projects targeted by the ERF typically rank low in terms of funding priority when using the criteria applied by the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development and Metropolitan Council environmental assessment and cleanup grant programs. A summary of the criteria used in the consideration of the ERF grant applications is included as Attachment B. After the ERF was authorized, Hennepin County Environmental Services held several public meetings describing the ERF and the application process. Copies of the ERF policy and application were mailed to all city managers and economic development directors in Hennepin County in order to promote the use and equi .ruble 'distribution of the ERF. ERF policy documents and applications also were mailed to organizations that are active in the assessment, cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated sites and Brownfields. Hennepin County Environmental Services staff contacted municipal representatives by telephone to ensure that the mailings were received, to answer questions regarding the ERF and to encourage project applications. Hennepin County Environmental Services also met with several municipalities to discuss specific projects and their potential eligibility for funding from the ERF. -518- . SUMMARY OF AWARD RECOMMENDATIONS Fifteen applications requesting funding fi.om the ERF were received by the October 24, 2001 deadline. Funding requests totaled $3,053,215. Two of the fifteen projects, the Madison -C omplex-In¢,-P-mper~-and-tho4~.~ no c, al~on:ner~Gophor~Oil-C crop any-lh-~pe~-5,,~ ot-h-m Minneapolis, were determined to be ineligible or a low priority for ERF funding, respectively. Municipal resolutions supporting the applications for ERF funding were attached or pending for 14 of the 15 applications that were received. Summaries of each project are included as Attachment C. A committee comprised of Environmental Services and Taxpayer Services staff and the Brownfield Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund (BCRLF) administrator reviewed the applications. Based on the review, the committee recommends that $1,539,605 be awarded in the form of grants to the 13 projects listed above. The applications, for which grants are recommended, request funding for asbestos and lead-based paint assessment and abatement, soil and ground water evaluation, contaminated soil cleanup and cleanup-related building demolition. With the award of the proposed grants, the ERF will assist with the renovation and/or creation of approximately 450 affordable housing units. The ERF funding will improve the livability of additional 290 affordable housing units in the Near Northside Development by assisting in the creation of the new north-south boulevard serving the project. Seven of the projects requesting funding will result in the creation or improvement of public roadways, greenspace and other public amenities. In awarding grants for projects requir/ng assessment-related funding, Hennepin County Environmental Services staff are aware that these projects may require funding for cleanup-related activities after the 'assessments are complete. Funding for these potential future cleanup activities likely will be requested, at least in part, from the ERF. ERF loans were not'available for award in the fall 2001-grant cycle. However, HennePin County Environmental Services will consider the use of loans if the January 1, 2003 sunset of the ERF is extended. Hennepin County Environmental Services will encourage applicants whose projects either were not funded or received only partial funding to apply for low-interest loans from Hennepin County's BCRLF program. ERF emergency grants are available to cover environmental issues not identified by reasonable due diligence that could potentially halt otherwise viable projects in between the biannual ERF grant cycles. At this time, no emergency grant applications have been received. Environmental Services staff request that the Assistant Hennepin County Administrator be authorized to approve emergency grant awards of up to $25,000 per project with a total amount of $100,000 available for emergency funding until the next grant cycle. -519- Attachment A Site Location Map and Detailed Summary Table of Proposed Grant Awards FaR 2001 -520- Envlronmental Response Fund Applications ~r~. -",, Fall 2001 ~.~_~ ...... ~_,~ .__~ ~ j____%, ~.~ L_ ~ App~czi~ U U~Former ~p~r ~ Pro~ App~afion Den~d · Br~ P~k Dump 14 Sims ~ For~ ~ Apmn~ 2 ~ ~ ~me~ W~y, & R~ Pr~- 3 Si~ ~ St. Bm~, O O~ Be~ ~ G~my g~ Esm~ ~G 2 Sims ~ ~rs O1 ~mp~ & ~ St ~ St~ ~ch Ap~m- 3 Sims ~ ~R Si~- 2 Sites ~ PPL ~ffi Proxies- 33 Si~s ~ ~on ~x ~- App~afion Den~d ~ N~ ~ide/No~-Sm& BNd- 21 Sm, -521 - -522- Attachment B Grant Award Criteria Applications for ERF grants will be evaluated by considering at least the following objective criteria. Grants will be made in accordance with the statutory authority and stated policy of the County Board. The applications for ERF grants will be evaluated by the following: 8, 9. 10. There is a knoTM threat to human health and/or the environment that would be reduced or eliminated by completion of the response action plan There is a potential threat to human health and/or the environment that will be quantified by completion of the assessment The community will derive social value from the proposed/potential clean up. To assess the social value, the application requires that you indicate the removal ofbhghting influences and describe the benefit of your project to the community The likelihood that the site will not be investigated and/or cleaned-up without the use of ERF money There are local or other funds that will be committed to the project The applicant is a municipality, economic development agency, housing and redevelopment authority, or public non-profit organization The project will create affordable housing The site has previously received an ERF grant for assessment and now needs to implement a RAP or conduct additional assessment The project requires no funding for acquisition-related costs (projects that do not require acquisition funds will score higher) There is a public or residential end-use planned for the property In addition to the above criteria, consideration will be given to the equitable distribution of the ERF between urban, suburban, and rural areas of the county. -523- Attachment C ERF Grant Applications Summaries -524- Pine Cliff Apartments, Minneapolis Amount Requested: $80,000 Recommended Award: $80,000 for asbestos abatement Project Summary: The Pine Cliff Apartments property is located at 501 19~ Street East in Minneapolis. The Central Community Housing Trust (CCI-IT) intends to refurbish all 30 units in the aparUnent building for continued use as affordable rental housing. CCHT owns the property and will remain the owner after rehabilitation of the building. The project is Part of the CCHT's Children's Village community project in the northwest comer of the Ventura Village neighborhood. Other funding panners associated with the rehabilitation of the property include HUD, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, MCDA and the Family Housing Fund. The CCHT submitted an application requesting $80,000 from the ERF for asbestos abatement costs associated with the rehabilitation of the referenced apartment building. Award Recommendation: The asbestos abatement costs for which funding is requested is eligible under ERF policy. An asbestos survey of the building was completed as a required precursor to building renovation activities. The survey identified asbestos-containing textured ceiling finish and floor tiles that will be disturbed during renovation activities and, therefore, should be removed to prevent asbestos fiber releases. An ERF grant for asbestos abatement costs will contribute to the preservation of affordable housing and will result in the elimination of potential human health risk associated with the building. We recommend that a grant be awarded for the $80 uested. -525- Former Lenox Apartments, Minneapolis Amount Requested: Recommended Award: $100,000 $25,000 for a hazardous building materials survey and environmental screening activities during the completion of geotechnical borings Project Summary_: The Former Lenox Apartments and adjoining parking lot property is located at 521 9t~ Street South and 903 5th Avenue South in Minneapolis. The Central Commun. ity I-Iousing Trust (CCHT) currently owns the, property, in partnership with West Real Estate. CCHT proposes to renovate the vacant building into 30 owner-occupied condominiums (6 units classified as affordable) and construct 56 units of rental housing (45 units classified as affordable) with underground parking on the existing parking lot. Upon completion of the project, CCHT will remain the property owner. CCHT submitted an application seeking $100,000 from the EP,.F for the completion of a Phase I environmental site assessment (Phase I ESA) and a Phase II ESA, development of a Kesponse Action Plan, and completion of geotechnical borings Award Recommendation: While some of the activities included in the application for the Former Lenox Apartments project are eligible, several of the activities for which funding is requested appear to be ineligible costs under the ERF policy. ERF policy prohibits funding already completed activities; in this case the Phase I ESA ($1,800) has been completed. The majority of the costs included in the Phase H ESA, Response Action Plan and geotechnical borings ($98,200) appear to relate to the completion of a subsurface environmental and geotechnical investigation, presumably in preparation for the proposed new development on the parking lot portion of the property. The Phase I ESA provided with the application states that no recognized environmental conditions were identified in connection with the site. Given the lack of environmental concerns, funding for the subsurface environmental- and geotechnical-related activities is not recommended beyond providing $5,000 for environmental screening during the completion of the geoteehnical borings. However, the Phase H ESA cost estimate appears to include costs for the completion of an asbestos, lead paint and hazardous building material survey at the existing vacant apartment building. This survey is necessary in order to develop a scope of work for the hazardous building material abatement activities that will result in the elimination of human health risks identified by the Phase I ESA. An ERF grant for the hazardous building materials survey will assist in the creation of affordable housing and in-fill redevelopment· Based on our experience with similar activities at Hennepin County properties, $20,000 should be adequate for a hazardous building materials survey of the property. As such, we recommend a total grant of $25,000 be awarded for the hazardous building material survey and environmental sereeningof the geotechnical borinfls. - n, ' -526- St. Barnabas, Minneapolis Amount Requested: Recommended Award: $25,000 $25,000 for an asbestos and lead-based paint building survey and additional environmental evaluation Proiect Summary_: The St. Barnabas property is located at 620 10~ Avenue South in Minneapolis. The property consists ora vacant, 5-story wing of the former St. Barnabas Itospital and a parking lot. The Central Community Housing Trust (CCHT) intends to refurbish the building into 39 to 52 affordable apartments for homeless youth and "youth at-risk for homelessness." The present property owner, Allina, plans to donate the property to CCHT who will remain the property owner once rehabilitation is completed. CCHT has submitted an application requesting $25,000 from the ERF for the completion of an asbestos and lead-based paint building survey and further evaluation of"pipes and below grade structures" identified adjacent to the building during the completion of a phase I environmental site assessment. Award Recommendation: The costs for which funding is being sought are eligible under ERF policy. Evaluation of suspect asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint is a necessary precursor to refurbishment activities. Additional evaluation is appropriate to assess whether contamination may have occurred in connection with the piping and below grade structures identified at the property. The completion of the activities for which funding is requested will contribute to the evaluation of potential human health risks at the property and will assist in the development of new affordable housing at a currently vacant city property. We recommend that a be awarded for the $25 uested, -527- Gateway Real Estate LLC, Minneapolis Amount Requested: Recommended Award: $245,000 $228,000 for implementing a Development Response Action Plan (DRAP), including transportation and disposal of impacted soil, and the design and installation of a vapor barrier. Proiect Summary_: The Gateway Real Estate LLC project will be located at 4610 to 4630 East Lake Street at the intersection with West River Parkway in Minneapolis. The MCDA-sponsored development will be a residential/commercial building development with underground parldng. The residential component of the development will include 53 rental units, of which 11 will be affordable. The development site is occupied by a former gas station building that is now used by the Easter Seals to train auto repair workers, and the Twin Cities Deliverance Temple and parking lot. The parking lot is the former location of a gas station. Soil and groundwater beneath the site is contaminated with petroleum from the gas station. Gateway Real Estate LLC is requesting $245,000 principally for transportation and disposal of impacted soil and the design and installation of a vapor barrier system to prevent residual contamination from impacting the new development and also for an asbestos and hazardous materials survey of the buildings to be demolished. Award Recommendation: The request is for the additional costs that will be incurred because of the soil and groundwater contamination and $17,000 for an asbestos survey. The site is still active in the Iv[PCA Leaking Underground Tank program and is currently undergoing groundwater monitoring. Removal of the contaminated soil will speed up the remediation of the site. The developer is making efforts to obtain additional funding for the project from sources outside of the ERF, including Fannie Mae and commercial loans. Based upon our experience, the mount of ERF money requested is reasonable for the demolition of the former gas station and the soil and vapor barrier work to. be performed. The demolition of the Deliverance Temple is not necessary for implementation of the DRAP because there is no identified contamination beneath this building. Therefore the $17,000 requested for the asbestos survey is not eligible for ERF ~. We recommend that $228 000 be awarded to the Real Estate LLC project. -528- ' Minneapolis Stone Arch Apartments, Minneapolis Amount Requested: Recommended Award: $600,000 $90,000 to cover the required local match for DTED and Met Council funds. Project Summary: The proposed Minneapolis Stone Arch Apartments property is located at 106 6th Ave Southeast and 600-625 Main Street Southeast in Minneapolis. The MCDA-sponsored project is 3.15 acres in size and is primarily undeveloped, consisting of gravel-covered surface parking, a carpentry shop, an abandoned quonset-style storage shed, and a cellular phone tower. The site is contaminated with petroleum compounds and other contaminants as a result of the past uses of the site as a coal yard and for light industry. The site will be developed as a 273-unit apartment complex and approximately 1-acre of greenspace parkland. Forty percent of the new apartment units (109 units) will be affordable. Minneapolis Stone Arch Apartments estimates that the investigation and cleanup cost will be $750,000 and is requesting $600,000 from the ERF. The specific portions of the investigation and cleanup that the ERF request is intended for are not detailed in the application. Award Recommendation: The total estimated cost of investigation and clean up is $750,000 of which $50,000 has akeady been incurred and is not eligible for ERF funding. This project has also reapplied to the Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) for $562,500 in clean-up funds and the Metropolitan Council for $97,500 in clean-up funds. Project funding was rejected by DTED in Spring 2001, in part because a zoning change was not in place. The zoning change has now gone through and it appears that the DTED and Metropolitan Council applications may be favorably received for this round of funding. Because this site is eligible for DTED and Metropolitan Council funding, and seems to have a good chance of being funded by those entities, we do not recommend a full ERF award at this time. If the project is once again rejected by DTED and Metropolitan Council, it would receive favorable review at a later round of ERF awards. We recommend that $90,000 be awarded to cover the local :he ~. -529- Project for Pride in Living Rental Properties, Minneapolis Amount RequeSted: $37,700 Recommended Award: $35,340 for lead-in-paint screening Proiect Summary: The Project for Pride in Living (PPL) rental properties consist of 30 existing multi-family residential buildings containing over 200 affordable housing units, all of which are located in Minneapolis. Approximately one-half of the rental units are subsidized. The use of 27 of the 30 properties will remain unchanged and PPL will continue to own the properties. The buildings at the remaining three adjacent properties will be demolished and converted into a new building that will be .used for "supportive housing for chronically-homeless families" and 2,000 square feet of commercial space (the Collaborative Village Initiative). PPL has received funding commitments from HUD and the MCDA for this redevelopment project. PPL has submitted an application requesting $37,700 from the ERF for lead-in-paint screening at all 30 properties and for testing of suspect asbestos-containing materials at the three buildings that are to be demolished. Award Recommendation: The costs for which funding is being sought are eligible under ERF policy. Evaluation of lead concentrations in paint in existing rental units will provide for the quantification of the potential human health risks and contributes to the preservation of affordable housing. However, while the evaluation of suspect asbestos-containing materials and damaged lead-based paint is a necessary precursor to the demolition of the three buildings, ERF funding is not available for demolition-related costs that are unrelated to soil or ground water cleanup, We recommend that a $35.340 of the $37,700 ~uested. -530- Near Northside Redevelopment, North-South Boulevard site, Minneapolis Amount Requested: $150,000 Recommended Award: '$! 50,000 for environmental assessments Of 21 properties proiect' surnrnary: The Nehr Northside NOi-th':South Boulevard will pass through the Bassett Cr~k Valley ar~ and oonn~0~ to Dunwoody t}oulevard m the Parade Stadium- Walker Ar~ Center area. It will be a greenway-style boulevard linking the mixed income, mixed densi~g community being constructed in the Near NOrthside project area to north and soUth'Minneapolis. The North-South Boulevard project area of 27.4 acres includes 21 separate properties. The MCDA is requesting.$150;000 to conduct environmental assessments of these properties. Award Recommendation: When this project is completed the properties will be publicly owned land. While no affordable housing will be built on these properties, the greenway will prov/de a valuable amenity to approximately 2'90 affordable rental units. The project fits well with the ERF policy. Therefore; we recommerid that $150,000 be awarded to the MCDA t'Or environmental assessment of the Near Northside BOulevard Site. new boulevard, wa/om0ur~ and ~ ia N~ N~i~ R~Vetop~nt 'IdPL$ pAP~ BOARD ........ Right-Of-wly -531 - SEMI Phase 7 (Former Winco Warehouse Property), Minneapolis Amount Kequested: Recommended Award: $50,000 $15,000 for additional assessment and preparation of a response action plan Proiect Summary_: The Former Winco Warehouse property is located at 670 25t~ Avenue Southeast in Minneapolis and is part of the SEMI (South East Minneapolis Industrial area) Phase 7 redevelopment project, which includes two other properties. The 2.93-acre property is former tax-forfeited land that was purchased and is currently owned by the MCDA. The MCDA intends to redevelop the property as a stormwater retention pond and greenspace associated with the planned commercial redevelopment of the adjacent two properties. Past subsurface evaluations of the property have identified low levels of soil Contamination. The MCDA has submitted an application requesting $50,000 from the ERF for costs relating to the completion of additional site assessment and preparation of a response action plan. Award Recommendation:While the property will be converted into a stormwater retention pond and greenspaee as part of a three-property commercial development, the property appears unlikely to receive much public use apart from those persons working at the development property. Based on the information provided, the amount of additional assessment required at this property appears to be minimal. The additional assessment needed in the vicinity of the storm water retention pond and the preparation of a response action plan could reasonably be completed at a cost of approximately $15,000. We recommend that $15,000 of the $50,000 uested be to this 'eet. -532- Brooklyn Park Dump Amount Requested: $683,400 Recommended Award: $683,400 for assessment, preparation of a Response Action Plan and the placement of a soil cover on a portion of the dump Project Summary_: The Brooklyn Park Dump project site consists of 14 parcels located at thc southeastern and southwestern corners of the County Road 109 and Noble Avenue North intersection. The project site is 113 acres in size, approximately two-thirds of which is owned by the City of Brooklyn Park. The city-owned parcels are used as a park, a golf course and an operations and maintenance facility. The remaining properties are privately owned and most are developed. The City considers the commercial properties to be under-utilized and blighted and has sought to redevelop this portion of the project site. However, according to the City, redevelopment has been stalled due to concerns regarding the dump-related contamination on the adjacent city-owned parcels. A.portion of the park is fenced-off to prevent unauthorized access to an area where near-surface, PCB-contaminated soil and waste are known to be present. The City of Brooldyn Park has submitted an application requesting $312,900 from the ERF to evaluate the extent and magnitude of contamination/dump materials and prepare a Response Action Plan. The application requests an additional $370,500 to place a protective soil cover over the portion of the park where the near-surface contamination and waste exists. The total ERF grant request is $683,400. Award Recommendation: The costs for which funding is being sought are eligible under ERF policy. The completion of contamination and buried waste evaluation activities will quantify the potential human health hazards posed by the dump and will allow for the development of a Response Action Plan to mitigate these hazards. The area of near-surface PCB-contaminated soil and waste was identified during a U.S. EPA removal action in the early-1990's. The U.S. EPA action resulted in the removal of the most-highly-contaminated material, but left remaining contaminated soil and waste exposed. The placement of soil cover over the area of known contamination and waste will eliminate the risk of park users coming into direct contact with these materials and will enable the use of the entire park parcel. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Superfund program has conceptually approved the placement of a soil cap in this area as a suitable mnse action. We recommend that a be awarded for the $683,400 requested. -533- Bennett, Wiley and Ryan Properties, Osseo. Amount Requested: Recommended Award: $43,200 $43,200 for completion of assessment activities, MPCA technical assistance fees and preparation of a Response Action Plan Proiect Summa_: The Bennett, Wiley and Ryan properties are located at the southwestern comer of County Road 81 and Broadway Street in Osseo. At present, the three properties are privately owned. The City of Osseo wishes to acquire the three properties to create a new roadway and eliminate a railroad crossing near the Broadway and County Road 81 intersection. The purpose of the new roadway will be to replace the existing Broadway and County Road 81 intersection with an intersection that improves traffic flow and safety. Excess portions of the three properties may be available for redevelopment once the road project is complete. According to the application, the revision of the Broadway and County Road 81 intersection is identified as a priority by the Northwest Corridor Improvement Project. The City of Osseo submitted an application seeldng $43,200 from the ERF for the completion of a Phase I environmental site assessment (Phase I ESA), a Phase H ESA, preparation of a Response Act/on Plan and associated Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) technical assistance fees. Award Recommendation: 'The activities for which the City of Osseo requests funding are eligible under ERF policy. The available historical information regarding the properties support the need for environmental assessment and completion of a Phase I ESA is standard business practice for all commercial property transactions. According to the application, the City of Osseo cannot pay for the environmental assessment activities because it has expended its available funds on the cleanup and redevelopment of an adjacent property. The cost estimates provided for the environmental assessment activities appear to be appropriate. We recommend that a grant be awarded for the $43 uested. Bennett, Wiley, & Ryan Properties Ma leGrove -534- City Bella, Richfield Amount Requested: $100,915 Recommended Award: $92,665 for implementing an approved Development Response Action Plan (DRAP), including transportation and disposal of impacted soil, environmental oversight, and laboratory analyses. Project Summary_: The City Bella development is located at 6616 Lyndale Avenue South in Richfield. The project will be a 19-story housing cooperative (125 units) and a two-story retail/commercial building. The building site is contaminated by petroleum from a gas station that was located there from the 1950s through the 1970s. The Leak file on the site has been closed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency although approximately 2,000 cubic yards contaminated soil remain at the site. The construction of the City Bella development will require the removal and disposal of approximately 1,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil. The responsibility for site clean up rests with the City of Richfield Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), which is the applicant for this award. The HRA has requested $100,915 for engineering reports, contaminated soil removal, and administrative costs. Award Recommendation: The request consists of $7,250 for an engineering report and driller, $92,665 for costs related to implementation of the DRAP, and $1,000 for HRA staff administration time. The engineering report and driller costs are not related to the contamination at the site and are not eligible for reimbursement, in addition the HRA administrative staff time is not recommended for funding. Although the project is residential it does not have an affordable housing component. City Bella is a component of the "Visions for Lakes at Lyndale" plan, and will provide much needed housing options and additional retail/commercial space on the most important retail comer in Richfield. We recommend that $92,665 be awarded to the City of Richfield HRA for the of the DRAP. -535- Klaers Oil Company & Railway Street, Loretto Amount Requested: Recommended A~ard: $12,000 $12,000 for completion of Phase I and II environmental site assessments (Phase I and II ESAs) Proiect Summary: The Klaers Oil Company & Railway Street west from County Road 19 to Lorenz Street property is located in the Loretto business district. The property is owned by CP Rail and includes a small office building and a warehouse building. The City of Loretto wishes to purchase the property and demolish the on-site buildings in order to widen Railway Street. The remaining portion of the property may be developed as a municipal parking lot or sold for commercial redevelopment. The City of Loretto has submitted an application requesting $12,000 from the ERF for the completion of Phase I and II ESAs. Award Recommendation: The costs for which funding is being sought are eligible under ERF policy. The Phase I ESA and Phase II ESA will provide for the evaluation of potential environmental contamination at the property, which formerly was occupied by a bulk oil storage company. An underground storage tank also is present at the property. We recommend that a awarded for the $12,000 requested. .9 Klaers Oil Company & Railway Street Works M d ' -536- Maxwell Site, Mound Amount Requested: $560,000 Recommended Award: $60,000 for a phase II environmental site assessment and response action plan preparation Project Summary: The Maxwell Site is located at 5341 Maywood Road (County Road 15) in Mound. The prop.erty consists of 1.43 acres of vacant land that formerly was occupied by a gas station and, possibly, by a dump. The City of Mound is interested in acquiring the property as part of a larger redevelopment project that would include a farmer's market facility, a park & ride, a hotel/restaurant and a public "centrum" building. Previous limited environmental investigations have identified contamination at the property. The City of Mound has submitted an application requesting $60,000 from the ERF for the completion of site assessment and preparation of a response action plan and $500,000 for property acquisition costs. Award Recommendation: The site assessment costs are eligible under ERF policy. The completion of the assessment will help to quantify potential human health concerns posed by the contamination at the property. While site acquisition costs are potentially eligible for funding from the ER.F, providing funding for such costs is not an ERF priority in comparison with assessment and cleanup costs. Consideration of providing some funding for site acquisition may be more appropriate when better estimates of the potential cleanup costs necessary to accomplish the planned redevelopment of the property are available. We recommend that at this time a grant be awarded for the 'estimated $60;000 in site assessment and response action plan preparation costs. -537- Unocal/Former Gopher Oil Property, Minneapolis Amount Requested: $216,000 Recommended Award: $0 Project Summary: The Unocal/Former Gopher Oil property is located at 825 Thornton Street in Minneapolis. The 4.93-acre property presently is vacant but formerly was the site of petroleum and solvent storage, processing and packaging for many years. Unocal, as the responsible party, has installed and operates remediation systems that are addressing the .soil and ground water contamination that has resulted from the prior use of the property. Brighton Development Corporation intends to purchase the property from Unocal for the purpose of developing 51 market-rate, owner-occupied housing units. In compliance with the Minneapolis Affordable Housing Policy, Brighton Development Corporation will contribute approximately $800,000 to the Minneapolis Affordable Housing Fund. However, no affordable housing will be created on- site. The Minneapolis Community Development Agency, on behalf of Brighton Development Corporation, has submitted an application requesting $216,000 from the ERF for costs relating to the cleanup and disposal of contaminated soil and ground water that will be encountered during development activities. Award Recommendation: Based on the information provided, the project has been assigned a low priority for funding. While funding the project would assist in the elimination of potential human health risks associated with the site, the contamination akeady is being addressed by the responsible party. The project will assist in the creation of affordable housing; however, none will be created at the property. Brighton Development Corporation has submitted requests for funding to the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) and the Metropolitan Council totaling $1,584,000, or 88 % of the estimated environmental-related costs. In general, the ERF is intended to provide funding to projects that are unlikely to receive significant funding from the DTED and Metropolitan Council programs. Because the property ultimately will be cleaned up by the responsible party and the developer is seeking substantial funding from the DTED and Metropolitan Council programs, we recommend that no ERF funds be awarded to this 'eot at this time. Unocal/Former Gopher Oil Proped -538- Madison Complex Inc., Minneapolis Amount Requested: $ 75,000 Recommended Award: Site is not eligible. Proiect Summary: The Madison Complex is the former Western Minerals/W.R. Grace facility at 1720 Madison St. Northeast, Minneapolis. The request is for funding to demolish two concrete silos that were formerly used to store vermiculite ore. Award Recommendation: Although the silos were used to store vermiculite ore, there is no sampling evidence to show that the silos themselves are contaminated with asbestos. Thus there is no environmental barrier to the demolition of the silos. The application did not include a resolution of support from the governing body of the local municipality, and therefore, the site is not eligible for an ERF award. -539- CI~ OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2002 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 115A. 552, counties shall ensure that residents have an oppo~unity to recycJe; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each City implement and maintain a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has in 1994 passed a funding policy entitling each City to receive SCORE funds, proportional to the number of eligible residential units in its curbside collection program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound wishes to receive these funds; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 2002 grant application and fu~her authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute such grant agreement with the County. The foregoing resolution was moved by Counciimember Councilmember. and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -540- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com February 5, 2002 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER GARBAGE COLLECTORS LICENSE RENEWALS The following garbage collectors have applied to have their licenses renewed. license goes from March 1, 2002 through February 28, 2003. This approval is contingent upon all forms, fees and proof of insurance being received. Waste Management, Inc. 124 Union Street, Box 119 Norwood, MN 55368 BFI of North America 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Blackowiak & Son 1195 Sunnyfield Road Mound, MN 55364 Randy's Sanitation PO Box 169 Delano, MN 55328 This 5341 Mayxvood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Boundary adjustment / minor subdivision to subdivide north (1) foot of Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F and combine with Lot 37, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F as building on Lot 37 encroaches upon Lot 36 APPLICANT: Amefle Civic Corporation and WWT Partners PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-44 LOCATION: 2337 Wilshire Blvd and 2361 Wilshire Blvd ZONING: Business 03-1 ) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial SUMMARY The City Council will review a request from American Legion Civic Corporation and WWT Partners, applicants and property owners at 2337 and 2361Wilshire Boulevard respectively to subdivide the north (1) foot of Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F and combine it with Lot 37, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F in order to correct an existing building encroachment. As the City Council may be aware, the Amerle Civic Corporation recently purchased Lot 37, which includes the former Green-T Accounting / Sun Rays building. PROJECT DETAILS Details regarding the minor subdivision / boundary adjustment request from Amerle Civic Corp. are contained in Planning Report No. 01-44 which has been included as an attachment. SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 330.20 Subd. 1 (B) defines a minor boundary adjustment as follows: The relocation of a boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such relocation not causing the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance. City Code Chapter 330:20 Subd. 1 states that minor boundary adjustments are considered to be minor Subdivisions and therefore subject to the general procedures set forth in City Code Chapter 330:15. -542- PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW City Code Section 330 requires that any request for a minor subdivision reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposed request for a minor subdivision / boundary adjustment was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 7, 2002 meeting. A copy of the January 7, 2002 meeting minutes has been included as an attachment. RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the minor subdivision / boundary adjustment subject to the following list of conditions. 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or private utility companies that are received on or before February 12, 2002. 2. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the minor subdivision. ATTACHMENTS Resolution (draft) · January 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes · Planning Report No. 01-44 -543- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 02- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A REQUEST FROM THE AMERLE CIVIC CORPORATION AND WWT PARTNERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS AT 2337 AND 2361 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO SUBDIVIDE THE NORTH ONE (1) FOOT OF LOT 36, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F AND COMBINE IT WITH LOT 37, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F PLANNING AND ZONING CASE # 01-44 WHEREAS, the applicants, Amerle Civic Corporation and WWT Parmers, have submitted a minor subdivision application for a boundary adjustment to subdivide the north one (1) foot of Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F and combine with Lot 37, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F; and WHEREAS, the proposal; as submitted, does not involve any construction activities and will correct an existing building encroachment problem on Lot 36; and WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 330:20 Subd. 1 (B) defines a minor boundary adjustment as the relocation of a boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property not causing the creation of a new parcels or parcels and such relocation does not violate the zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City Code Chapter 330:20 Subd. 1, boundary adjustments are considered to be minor subdivisions and therefore subject to the general procedures as set forth City Code Section 330:15; and WHEREAS, applications for minor subdivisions do not require a public hearing but require review by the Plamfing Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the minor subdivision at its January 7, 2002 meeting and unanimously recommended approval of the minor subdivision. -544- NOW, THlgREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the minor subdivision with the following conditions: a. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the minor subdivision. 2. This minor subdivision is approved for the following described property: Lots 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Lots 37, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F 3. The proposed new legal descriptions will be as follows: Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F except the north (1) foot thereof. Lot 37, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F and the north (1) foot of Lot 36. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted February 12, 2002 and Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -545- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2002 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Planner LOren Gordon and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: John Zambori Duane Leisinger Fran Clark-Leisinger Margo Hopkins Dennis Hopkins Mary Ann Thurk Pam Paul Jonathon 4681 Wilshire Boulevard 7020 Maple Plain 26, Maple Plain Boulevard Boulevard ard P:.~. Box 443iiiiiSpring Park .... ~.i~i~3 MerdamR°ad, Minnetonka Wilshire Boulevard Chairman Michael welcomed the public 1. to order at 7:34 p.m. MOTION by 2001 Planning to approve the minutes of the November 19, carried unanimously. t CASE 2333 Wilshire Boulevard American Legion Civic Corporation and WWT Partners Proposed alley vacation vacate the alley between Lots 8 & 9 and Lots 38'& 39, completing the vacation approved in November, 2001. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation with an easement retained for the in-place utilities. Mueller inquired about the extent of the invitation to respond. He felt there should be a time limitation. Open public hearing. Close public hearing. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to accept staff recommendation to approve the vacation with a limitation on staff comments once the vacation is approved by City Council. MOTION carried unanimously -546- Planning Comm/ssion Minutes .h:nuary 7, 2002 CASE #01-44 MINOR SUBDIVSION 2337 and 2361 Wilshire Boulevard American Legion Civic Corporation and W-WT Partners The Planning Commission is asked to consider a one-foot boundary adjustment that would resolve an existing building encroachment problem. Staff would also like to encourage the property owners to consider combining the lots in some configuration. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve staff recommendation with a limitation on staff comments Once the subdivision is approved by City Council. MOTION carried unanimously. CASE #01- 46 STREET VACATION Kells Lane .~,~ii:~i,~'~i'~i!ii!ii::~'~ .... Jon Paul/~[e~ii~d earn Paul Planning Commission reviewed this request on sever~lli~Casions?i~ Parks and Open Space and Dock and Commons Commissions have revieWS:it. Staff conta~,Jeff and Pam Paul and the 2 owners to the west of Jon Paul to see i~i~y w~i~d to partitas'ate in the vacation request. The westerly property owners did not ~i:~:$o:~icipate. Jon and Jeff are co- applicants. If the city sells a portion of Lot 6, City wanted staff to get an appraisal. The estimate came back at about $3,000! found similar estimates and decided not County was consulted about an extra as favorable by Hennepin would want to secure recommends the of lot 6 to Jeff and Para o: af~:::'i~?~ii~eW other comparable parcels and because of cost. Hennepin that was looked upon (14-22 feet) would be appropriate. City for roadway and sidewalk. Staff portion of lot 6 to Jon paul and a portion would then be done to formalize the property division. :&?~[p°:i::~iiii~S~located in the proposed driveway area for Jeff Paul which would be their r~i¢'i'~ii~o r~'~ate. .... ~iiiiii::!:.iii!~ :::::::::::::::::::::::: If we move fo~:~ith this.~e would need to condition this on securing the land prices and settlement fees. ":::~iiii!iii!?~i~iiilii~ ....... ~iiiil}iiii~'i:::~:: Mueller asked if staff had::"looked at the road right-of-way regarding the 33 feet fi:om the centerline on the north side. Does the city get something back on the south side? Clapsaddle thought that the unvacated portion along the lake could be vacated and attached to the south portion. Mueller stated that the Kells Lane portion must go to the parcels on the north because it was platted with that land and not the Wychwood parcel to the south. Burma did not feel that the lines should be drawn to preserve the gravel drive constructed by Jori Paul, on city property, without permission. He feels that the property line should be drawn through the drive in a more logical manner. Weiland wants it noted that we are "not on the clock" as regards this project. -547- Planning Commission Minutes Jamuary 7, 2002 Open public hearing. Pam Paul (owner of Lots 26, 27 & 28) - She would like to encourage the city to vacate the entire length of Kells Lane, then they would give back the portion of lake shore in exchange for their share of Lot 6. Dennis Hopkins (3609 Wilshire Blvd) - He sees no reason to vacate Kells Lane for a landlocked parcel that has no access now. Neighbors have wanted the area to be cleaned up so it's usable and the city wouldn't do that. John Zambori (4681 Wilshire Blvd) - Consider leasing instead of vacating. City would retain ownership and control and gain lease monies that could be used ~::.improve the park area to the east. Mueller- Kells Lane hasn't been used. Leasing doesn't~"'~?~ii~h~ conformance issue. Jon Paul has been maintaining it for the benefit of us all. Mary Ann Thurk (4601 Wilshire Blvd)- She ide~ii:~bf a lease. ":~::~:~the place were marked more people would use it. Need to lo~ as a whole. Jon Paul (4679 Wilshire Blvd) - The meeting certain needs he is open to other Kells Lane vacation because of the' with him. If this proposal isn't is concerned with the Parn Paul - She is as much property. Close public else and deserves to have access to the Clapsaddle thou~{~geller.:~iii~ggestion made sense. Where do we stand in the process? Can we direct the pl~!!~e:::,~ged to be presented to City Council9 Gordon thought the~ could. City Council w~d Planning Commission input. We can either retain Kells Lane to develop it for useby residents or get rid of it. MOTION by Mueller and seconded by Clapsaddle to approve recommendation to vacate Kells Lane west of a line as drawn by staff at a diagonal across Kells Lane on the exhibit. Continuing on the same line to the Wilshire Boulevard platted right of way, another line running parallel northwest of it to delineate Jeff Paul property and remainder of Lot 6 to the west to Jori Paul. Any profit from the current city property should be used to improve the usability of the park area, including fishing access. Vacation of Kells Lane is subject to the agreeable disposition of the land described. Easements shall be maintained for utilities. -548- Planning Commission Minutes Jamdry 7, 2002 Burma said we all have to give a little bit. Motion by Mueller is a good middle ground. It allows for an increase in Jori Paul's property, access for Jeff Paul and addresses the concerns about access to the lake. Hasse felt that, if we give anything away we'd never get it back. Weiland added that we are supposed to see that it's for the good of the community. MOTION carried. Voting against - Hasse, Weiland, Michael; Voting for - Clapsaddle, Ayaz, Glister, Burma, Mueller Chairman Michael called for a short recess at 9:07. Back in session at 9:12. 3. NEW BUSINESS ::~ii!!i?: A. Q & Awith CityAttorneyJohn Dean ::~i!i?'~' '::~'~ililiiiiiiiii}i!i!i!i~:~ B. Adoption of Planning Commission Work Rulegi~or 2002 -pd~i~ged to the next C. Review of Planning Commission Schedule fo?i~!~ - First and third Mondays will remain the schedule. Second meeting~}i~g~ganuarY::~:~ebruary will be as needed. Mueller stated that he was totally opposed to :i~ Pa~i~ii~artment delivering the packets. MOTION by Glister, second;~iii~::~:e, tc~:~j~'urn the meeting at 10:26 P.M. MOTION carried un~~!y. "::'~:~::iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~:.. ......... :i~i~i:!~i~i~: .... ~ili:iiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiii?iiiiiii!? ChairGeoffMichael Attest: Planning Secretary -549- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: January 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Boundary adjustment / minor subdivision to subdivide north (1) foot of Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F and combine with Lot 37, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F as building on Lot 37 encroaches upon Lot 36 APPLICANT: Amerle Civic Corporation and WWT Partners PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-44 LOCATION: 2337 Wilshire Blvd and 2361 Wilshire Blvd ZONING: Business (B- 1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial REQUEST American Legion Civic Corporation and WWT Partners, applicants and property owners at 2337 and 2361Wilshire Boulevard respectively, have submitted a request for a minor subdivision to subdivide the north (1) foot of Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F and combine it with Lot 37, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F in order to correct an existing building encroachment. As the Planning Commission is aware, the Amerle Civic Corporation recently purchased Lot 37, which includes the former Green-T Accounting / Sun Rays building. A copy of the unexecuted Quit Claim Deed between the Amerle Civic Corporation and WWT Partners has been included as Exhibit C. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that it is City staff's understanding that the proposal, as submitted, does not involve any pending construction activities or the creation of any additional lots. SUBDIVISION PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 330.20 Subd. 1 (B) defines a minor boundary adjustment as follows: The relocation of a boundary line between two abutting, existing parcels of property, such relocation not causing the creation of a new parcel or parcels and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance. City Code Chapter 330:20 Subd. I states that minor boundary adjustments are considered to be minor subdivisions and therefore subject to the general procedures set forth in City Code Chapter .~30.15. -550- CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: Fire ChiefPederson Police Chief Harrell Public Works Director Skinner City Engineer Cameron Parks Director Fackler No objections No objections There are no public utilities in the subject area No objections No comments needed from Parks Department ZONING CLASSIFICATION The subject properties are zoned B-1 and subject to the regulations as set forth in City Code Chapter 350.650. The lot area, height, lot width and yard requirements are included below: Height: Area: Side / Rear Setbacks: 35 feet. Maximum height is 45 feet by CUR 7500 square feet. Same as B-2, EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject lot owned by the American Legion is approximately 3000 square feet and includes a 24.3 foot by 42 foot commercial building which fronts Wilshire Boulevard. A portion of the building is rented out and is also used for supplemental storage space by the American Legion. The subject property is presently non-conforming due to deficient lot size and excessive hardcOver. Both conditions are pre-existing and are not affected by the proposed action. NOTIFICATION While City Code Section 330 does not require public notification, current City policy indicates that adjacent property owners are notified as a courtesy. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that notification regarding the request was forwarded to the adjacent property owners on January 4, 2002. GENERAL COMMENTS The non-conforming issues associated with Lot 37 including lot width less than 7500 SF and hardcover exceeding 75 percent pre-date the Mound Zoning Ordinance. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that the existing conditions are not affected by the proposed boundary adjustment. 2. The request will correct an existing building encroachment issue. -551 - The updated survey dated December 12, 2001 from Coffin & Gronberg includes all of the properties owned by the Amerle Civic Corp. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss with the applicant whether or not the subject properties should be combined. 4. The Contract for Deed regarding the purchase of Lot 37 by the Amerle Civic Corporation was satisfied during the past 1-2 years. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the proposed boundary adjustment. At a minimum, City staff recommends that the following list of minimum conditions be included: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is received, the request will be forwarded to an upcoming City Council meeting. At this time, possible date(s) are not known. EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Application from Amerle Civic Corp. and WWT Partners Survey from Coffin & Gronberg dated December 12, 2001 of properties owned by American Legion Post 398 (copy) Quit Claim deed dated October 2000 between Amerle Civic Corp. and WWT Partners (unexecuted) Site map - Hennepin County ½ section map Zoning sheet - 2337 Wilshire Blvd Zoning sheet - 2361 Wilshire Blvd -552- 'lanning Commission Date: Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 534~ Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 City Council Date: City Planner DNR -Pubtic Works ~__ Parks City Engineer Other A Application Fee: $250.00 ./ · Escrow Deposit: ,~'~. ?~~'(''j Deficient Unit Charges?_ / Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED?_ INFORMATION EXISTING Lot Block Plat # LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID# ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ..__owner X othen Gra~ under ai~bached de~d '~3 NoT"d't ~ foot of ~.ot 36 Name Amerle Civic Corporation Address 2333 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound MN 55364 Phone (H) 952/472-9582 (vv) (M) OWNER Name WWT Partners, Grantors under said deed to the North one foot of Lot 36 (if other than applicant) Address P.O. BOX 159, Mound MN 55364 Phone(H) 952/472-1122 (w) (M) Name Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Address 482 Tamarack Avenue, Uong L'ake, MN 55356 Phone (H) 763/473-4141 (vv) (M) apl ever zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zomng procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. ~ photocopy of de~d. dated'.~ 3, 2000, for the North one foot of Uot 36. The applicant desires tn_ subdivide ~h~s ~-e toot i~, Lot 36 and c~rbine it with Lot 37 because the building on Lot 37 em-roaches slightly up~ ~ot 36. This application must be signed b_y all~ewners of the subject property, or an explanation given whY this is not the case. ~wner's Signature /~ ~ ~ ~ ~: , -- Date Owners Signature ~ ~ ~ Date Revised ~01 ~ [ ~ ~ -553- AMERICAN CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR LEGION POST NO. IN BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 598 -7 N 89040, 45" E 260.00 EXISTING .J BUILDING ~ BBLDINo "-' '| ................ S 8904,3, 00" W 130.00 ..... / .~ (~2.o) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL SURVEYED : (NOTE: For purposes of this description, the adjoining vacated alleys have been added to the five parcels surveyed) Lots 8, 9, 37, .38 and 39, Block .3, Shirley Hills Unit F, ALSO the North 1.00 foot of Lot 36 sa d B ack 3, ALSO that port of the southerly half of the adjacent vacated alley lying northerly'of Lot 8 and 39; and lying between the northerly extensions of the West line of said Lot 8 and the East ne of said Lot 39; ALSO oil that port of the adjacent vacated . alley ly ng between Lots 8 and 9, and Lots 39 and .38, and also the easterly half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between the westerly extensions of the North line of reaid Lot 37, end the SoUth line of the North 1,00 foot of said Lot 36. o: denotes iron marker m : denotes "PK" nail set Bearings shown, are based upon an assumed datum. -554- This survey intends to show the boundaries of the ~bove describ-d properly, Form No. $1-M C~UIT CLAIM DEED - (~ORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP TO CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. ,2O County Auditor by Deputy State Deed Tax Due: Dated: u4"¢ %' _¢ ., 2000 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, VVVVT Partners,-a partnership under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Amerle Civic Corporation, Grantee, a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: The North one foot of Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F; together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the described property,i -1- -555- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~'~-C-Jday of ¢'L.- 7'¢¢'z¢~, 2000, by John D. Wilsey, Charles A. Wilsey and Gerald T. Tasa, Partners of WWT Partnership on behalf of said partnership. ~j~.~.]~ NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1-31-2005 Notary Public This instrument was drafted by REED & POND, LTD., 5424 Shoreline Drive, P.O. Box 9, Mound, MN 55364-0009. Tax statements for the real property described in this instrument should be sent to: -2- -556- . Exhibit D "REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10 ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK" L YNWOOD BL VD KOT~-RA~4NG ' SYLVAN pART OF LOT ~ L YNWOOD 4 UNIT ~ EDENRD HILLS 2 (59) UN~T (4) (~2) SURVEY ON FILE? YES CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET LoT'OFRECORD? FRONT FRONT, NO Exhibit E ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: Ri 10,000/60 ~,500/0 R~A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 &,O00/40 ~3 ~0,000/60 R2 ~4,000/80 R3 ~ ORD. ]~ 30,000/~00 EXISTING/PROPOSED DIRECTION { REQUIRED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: SIDE BLUFF: GARAGE, SHED ..... FRONT FRONT REAR N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 15' N S E W 50' 10' OR 30' DETACHED BUILDINGS N S E w NS E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR6' 4' . ' N S E W 50' \TOP OF BLUFF.. 10' OR 30' :DC:OVER · 30% OR 40% lNG? YES / NO ? [ BY: C2 WILSHIRE DATED: '' -"i:!~ :~'rhis Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of thc requirements outlinc'd in d~e City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information; contact thc City of Mound 472-0600. : o ---r' ..... .... .... 300 543.3{ , ,. ? · S .-'91.U _..~ CYPRESS LA :,';Q. Y64, .... 125~VAC RSL T0-325125 flYS ~_ J25~ ~ : 125 ~ ~ 125 · ~ ,~ ..... .... ~.~ ? 2~3, 3 718 8 558':,: L. IL¥ Ut" MUUblU' - Z, UblIblU IHI"UK'MAIIUbi ~.t'I. EET Exhibit F SURVEY ON FILE? YES / NO ~TOF RECORD? YF~ / NO ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE~WIDTH: Ri 10,000/~0~?,~00/0 RiA 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 YARD ' ] DIRECTION ] REQUIRED [ EXIS'I~NG/PROPOSED ItOUSE ......... EXISTING LOT SIZE: J'OT %VIDTH: VARIANCE FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR N S E W 15' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR6' . , REAR N S E W 4' .:. ,,~; ;.. :~ LAKE N S E w 50' lO' OR 30' 30% OR 40~ JBY: { DATED: 'FOP OF BLUFF CONFORMING? 'YES / NO This 7..oning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of die requirements outlined in die City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planaing_l~arunent at 472-0600. ,'" ~ ............... ¢"- ~ ID : ' -I ..... ~--' ' - ~ ~ ~ ~ c U- rO ~ ..... ~ ~.~ ~.~ % I~ ~;~t~,~ CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE VFW POST #$113 - MOUND WHEREAS, VFW Post #5113 is submitting a Premises Permit Renewal Application to the State of Minnesota Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, this application is for a two yoar renewal, effective 5/1/2002, to expire 4/30/2004; and WHEREAS, this application calls for a resol~n from the City approving this said application; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby approves a Premises Permit Renewal Application by VFW Post #5513, 2544 Commerce Blvd., Mound, MN ~364. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -560- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 398 WHEREAS, the American Legion Post 398 is submitting a Premises Permit Renewal Application to the State of Minnesota Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, this application is for a two year renewal, effective 5/1/2002, to expire 4/30/2004; and WHEREAS, this application calls for a resolution from the City approving this said application; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby approves a Premises Permit Renewal Application by the American Legion Post 398, 2333 Wilshire Blvd., Mound, MN 55364. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2002. and seconded by Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -561 - CI~ OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING GRANT APPLICATION OF SOUTHWEST TRAIL ASSOCiATON WHEREAS, Southwest Trail Association will be applying for a grant through the National Recreation Trail Program; and WHEREAS, said grant would be used to purchase showmobile trail grooming equipment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has supported Southwest Trail Association's activities in the past; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does support a grant application being applied for by the Southwest Trail Association, for the purchase of trail grooming equipment. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -562- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID FOR ONE (1) 1500 GPM PUMPER TRUCK FOR USE BY THE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, the City of Mound prepared plans and specifications for a 1500 GPM Pumper Truck for the Mound Fire Department; and WHEREAS, the advertisement for bid was duly published in The Laker; and WHEREAS, plans and specifications were mailed to eight different companies, inviting them to bid on said Pumper Truck; and WHEREAS, one bid was received from Saulsbury Fire Rescue, Inc. in the amount of $260,000.00; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby award the bid for the 1500 GPM Pumper Truck to Saulsbury Fire Rescue, Inc., in the amount of $260,000.00. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of 2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -563- TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Mayor Pat Meisel Mound Council Members Rick Williams - Apparatus Committee Chair Greg Pederson - Fire Chief New Fire Pumper January 15, 2002 On December 28, 2001 the City of Mound on behalf of the Mound Fire Department advertised requesting bids for (1) one 1500 GPM Fire Pumper as per the ad attached. Specification packages were sent directly to seven different apparatus manufacturers requesting bids for this fire pumper. Bid proposal(s) were opened and reviewed on Monday January 14, 2002. Only one manufacturer provided a bid proposal. Based upon the result of the bid process, the MFD Apparatus Committee would like the approval of the Mound City Council to award the contract for the manufacture of (1) one 1500 gallon per minute pumper truck to Salisbury Fire Apparatus Company. Salisbury Fire Apparatus has submitted an acceptable bid of $260,000 that meets all of the written truck specifications. The MFD Apparatus Committee also recommends one additional option of air conditioning at a cost of $4,100 which increases the total purchase price to $264,100. A copy of the bid proposal and specifications are available for review. Members of MFD Apparatus Committee will be present at the City Council Meeting on' Tuesday February 12, 2002 to answer questions. Mound City Attorney John Dean has reviewed the contract provided by Salisbury Fire Apparatus Company. c.c. Kandis Hanson - City Manager Gino Businaro - Finance Director Attachment Respectfully, / Capt. Rick Williams Apparatus Committee Chair Fire Chief -564- ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS PROVIDE ONE (1) 1500 GPM PUMPER CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Sealed bids will bc publicly opened and read aloud on Monday, January 14, 2002, at 4:00 p.m., by thc City of Mound, Minnesota, at the city hall office, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN. Bids must be submitted by 4:00 p.m. on January 14, 2001, for the furnishing of One (1) 1500 GPM pumper as per published specifications. Each bid shall be accompanied by a ten percem (10%) bidder's bond of total bid amount payable to the City of Mound. This bid bond shall be forfeited to the city in the event that the bidder fails to enter into contract Successful bidder must provide a 100% performance bond at time of contact. Bond must be provided by manufacture and not sales representative. Thc City Council reserves thc right to retain the deposits of the bidders for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days after the date and time set for the opening of the bids. Payments to be on a basis of cash or check made in accordance with terms shown on Proposal Forms. Proposal Forms are provided by the City of Mound and included with the bid specifications and must be used by bidders. The outside of the sealed envelopes must be properly marked "Bid on Fire Equipment." Completed forms and specifications are on file at the city hall were they may be obtained for the bidder's individual use. The City Council reserves the fight to reject any and ali bids, to waive irregularities and informalities therein and further reserves the right to award the contract to the best interests of the City. -565- Pro.posal Form. Nme and address of biddy:. Saul~bury Fire Rescue, Inc. 7209 Route 281 Preb~e, NY 13141 TeL No. 315-238-8909 CiW,. of.M,°~nd. Minnesota Proposal for furnishing a Pumper fire truck To: City Council. Mound. Minnesota The undersigned hereby agrees to furnish the equipment listed below in accordance with the published speCifications.* (available from the city~ Base ,Bid One (1) new Pumper fire truck as per the City of Mound published specifications, ToO. i' Proposal PriCe: $ ~gt~, (.,'~O.,D ~ DeliverT Ofeomp!eted appara~s tO. be made.on.or.befOre ~ov. 14// ,20 02 . Iunderstan. the city .will deducts 100 per c~lendar day as. liquidated dam~/for~~e completed apparatus is not. delivered after, the ~i.'~ivery ~iate. ide.~tiom i , ders that deviate, frem published specifications, must include a separate sheet(s) with the details of such devlatiom, explaining non. compliance to specffied requirements. l~y sillning this proposal. I under, md the ~ules. regnin~ions and intent of these specifications and nm aware that the citT rose.es the dght ~/reject. or accept any proposal. . Date: Januar? 14, 2%~02/ ///~, Ma.n.ufaeture: Saulsbury Fire Rescue, Inc. .~dd,ess... 7209Route ~1 //,. 7/C. ity&State: ~reble, NY~314_1__ Notarized By: . . _ S4~: CH£R¥~_ ~.. ~ ilo 496~62 Notary P~c, .~ 5f ,~ew ¥~,'k -566- '- .... ~ CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. __-2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 700 OF THE CiTY CODE AS IT RELATES TO TRAFFIC REGULATIONS The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 700.25 is hereby amended to read as follows: 700.25 Seasonal Wei.qht Restrictions. The City Engineer or desi.qnee may prohibit the operation of vehicles upon any street under his/her jurisdiction or impose weight restrictions on vehicles to be operated on such street whenever the street, by reason of deterioration, rain, snow, or other climatic conditions, will be seriously damaged or deStroyed unless the use of vehicles on the street is prohibited or the permissible weights thereof reduced. He Or she shall erect and maintain signs plainly indicating the prohibition or restriction ~ ,,~,.r, ,,,.,,~ ,,~ ~,,,~ ,.,,.,~;,..,, ,,,,~,, ,,,,,,~ =ff~ct~d in the manner required by law. This prohibition or restriction shall be effective from March 15 throu,qh May 15 of every year, and for such other periods as the City Engineer or desi,qnee shall determine necessary and appm.priate. No person shall operate a vehicle on a posted street in violation of the prohibition or restriction. See Minnesota Statutes 169.832, Subd. 15, for reference to City trucks exemption. Passed by the City Council this Published in The Laker the Effective the day of day of day of ,2002. ,2002. ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -567- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING FUNDING OF SENIOR PROGRAMS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT WHEREAS, the City of Mound has supported services for its elderly and disabled residents via Senior Community Services' Gillespie Senior Center with the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDEV) funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound feels that ~ J:)rovision of s~ices for its eldedy and disable residents is of great importan~ and ~uid be continued, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound recommends to the Consolidated Pool Selection Committee that CBDG funding of Senior Community Services' Gillespie Senior Center is a high priority public service activity and should be continued. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of and seconded by Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -568- BOARD OF DIRECTORS Dr, Chinyere (Ike) Njaka President Francis Hagen 1st Vice President Mary Henning 2nd Vice President Scoff Brandt Treasurer Bob Bean Secretary Laurie LaFontaine Past President John C. Boeder Member-at-Large Gordon Hughes Member-at-Large Senator Rudy Boschwitz Coyle Guritz guchi Dwight Johnson Gloria Johnson Kevin Krueger Rep. Ann Lenczewski Dotty O'Brien Senator Gen Olson Curtis A. Pearson Mary Tambornino Leonard J. Thlel Thomas Thorfinnson Tom Ticen Benjamin F. Withhart Executive Director & C. E. O. PROGRAMS · Multi-Purpose Senior Centers · Senior Outreach · H.O.M.E. · Transportation unding Member of dercare Partners A United Way Agency SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 111, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Phone: (952) 541-1019 FAX: (952) 541-0841 Janua~ 17,2002 Mayor Pat Meisel and Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members: As before, Senior Community Services is requesting that the City of Mound pass, and send back to us, a resolution favoring a continuation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for senior programs. A sample resolution is attached for your consideration. We would like to include the resolution in our application to the Consolidated Pool for the next CDBG year which must be submitted by March 8, 2002. CDBG funding to help support the sevices for seniors provided by Senior Community Services has declined. We would like an opportunity to discuss the possibility of funding with the City Council as part of your 2003 budget deliberations. The contact person for our request is our Gillespie Senior Center Director, Cathy Bailey (472-6502). On behalf of the area seniors who are the direct beneficiaries of the services, our thanks for your continued support of the senior programs. We look forward to continuing cooperation between the City of Mound and Senior Community Services. Again, many thanks for your support. Sincerely, Ron Bloch Program Administrator cc:.Kandis Hanson, City Manager~ -569- Sample Resolution Whereas the City of Mound has supported services for its elderly and disabled residents via Senior Community Services' Gillespie Senior Center with the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Whereas the City of Mound feels that the provision of services for its elderly and disabled residents is of great importance and should be continued, Therefore Be It Resolved that the City of Mound recommends to the Consolidated Pool Selection Committee that CDBG funding of Senior Community Services' Westonka Senior Center is a high priority public service activity and should be continued. Signed for the City of Mound Date -570- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 02- RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CONTINUATION OF CDBG FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) WHEREAS, the City of Mound has supported services for its residents via WeCAN as a community-based human service organization dedicated t° helping PeoPle achieVe greater self-sufficiency and family stabilitY; and WHEREAS, these services include emergency housing and utility assistance, job counseling, food and nutrition education, family support services, public assistance intake services, and family mental health counseling; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound recommends to the Consolidated Pool Selection Committee that Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding of Westonka Community Action Network (WeCAN) be continued. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel -571 - Weston. ka Community ACtion Network · Family Support Services · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 1155 County Road 19 Minnetrista, MN 55364 (952) 472- 0742 (952) 472-5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independence Rockford Loretto St. Bonifacius Maple Plain Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetdsta Western Orono OFFICERS Mark Winter President V.P. Crow River Bank Bob Tomalka Vice President Community Volunteer Susan Meyers Secretary Community Volunteer Marvin Johnson Treasurer Mayor of Independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Anderson Minnetrista Police Chief Sharon Cook Communiiy Volunteer Mary DeVinne}' Westonka Food Shelf Len Harrell Mound Police Chief Helmar Heckel Pastor, Baywind Christian Church Uz Jensen Associate Pastor, Fairview Covenant Church Dorothy McQueen Community Volunteer Marlys Nelson Personal Banker Sandy Olstad Parish Nurse Charles Pugh Community Volunteer David Sutton Community Volunteer ADMINISTRATION Laurie Fltz Executive Director KrlsUn K. Perry Family Advocate Volunteer Coordinator Audrey Ogland Administrative Assistant Meals on Wheels Coordinator Shirley Tulberg Career Counselor/Job Developer Al~liated Agency February 6, 2002 Mayor Pat Meisel And City Council Members City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members: On behalf of the WeCAN Board of Directors, I am again asking the city of Mound to support our request for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. WeCAN is a community-based human service organization, dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and family stability. We provide a variety of services to Iow income residents in western Hennepin County, and in most cases WeCAN is the only provider of these services in this area. Our services include emergency housing and utility assistance, job counseling, food and nutrition education, family support services, public assistance intake services, and family and individual mental health counseling. In 2001, we served close to 900 families; over a third of whom are residents of Mound. Specifically, WeCAN served 310 Mound families. Ninety-nine adults were given referrals, our Family Services supported forty five families with fifty-six adults and one hundred twelve children, forty-four adults received Meals on Wheels on a regular basis - with 4,018 meals served in 2001 to those residents, forty adults utilized our Jobs Program and thirty-eight families with a total of forty-two adults and forty- six children were given Emergency Assistance (zero interest loans). In addition, through our partnerships with Hennepin County Economic Assistance and Pyramid Counseling, twenty-six families with thirty-seven adults and twenty-eight children were enrolled in Economic Assistance Programs and three families received mental health counseling. Over ninety percent (90%) of those families we serve have a total household income considered Iow or very Iow. As you know, it has been a very tough year for our economy. Our country has been dealing with the long recession, corporate cut backs and the many challenges created in the wake of the September 11th attacks. During this difficult time, WeCAN -572- Weston. ka Community Action Network I Family Support Services · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 1155 County Road 19 Minnetrista, MN 55364 (952) 472- 0742 (952) 472-5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independence Rockford Loretto St. Bonifacius Maple Plain Spdng Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetdsta Western Orono OFFICERS Mark Winter President V.P Crow River Bank Bob Tomalka Vice President Community Volunteer Susan Meyers ecretary ommunity Volunteer Marvin Johnson Treasurer Mayor of Independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Anderson Minnetrista Police Chief ~wer~ Don Cook un~ Volunteer eVinney stonka Food Shelf Len Harrell Mound Po/ice Chief Helmar Heckel Pastor, Baywind Christian Church Liz Jensen Associate Pastor, Fairview Covenant Church Dorothy McQueen Community Volunteer Marlys Nelson Personal Banker Sandy Olstad Parish Nurse Charles ?ugh Community Volunteer David Sutton Community Volunteer ADMINISTRATION Laurie Fitz Executive Director Kristin K. Perry Family Advocate Volunteer Coordinator Audrey Ogland Administrative Assistant Meals on Wheels Coordinator Shirley Tulberg Career Counselor/Job Developer has witnessed the increased burden of families in financial and emotional crisis. Many of our clients are the working poor who barely make enough to get by, and any financial setback is devastating for them. We have seen an increase of over 25% from 2000 in the number of individuals for whom we provided support. Enclosed is additional information about area residents WeCAN served in 2001. It is important to keep in mind that the Westonka Community Action Network is a nonprofit service agency. Through specific program staff, important services are coordinated and delivered to individuals and families in need. Through our Family Support Program our staff coordinates the School Supply donations, Birthday Shelf donations and Adopt a Family Holiday Program. We estimate that $3,750 worth of school supplies have been donated to Mound children, about $1,000 worth of Birthday presents and $12,725 worth of presents for families during the holidays were distributed. In addition, our Family Advocate coordinates zero interest loan distribution to individuals and families. Last year, over $20,749 was provided in loans to Mound families and individuals. Through the WeCAN Jobs Program, clients are provided with personal staff support in their job search, resume building and skill enhancement. Our Meals on Wheels Coordinator organizes hundreds of volunteers who regularly deliver meals for homebound individuals. Our Coordinator oversees billing, client registration, and Meals on Wheels promotion efforts. The staff also spends a significant amount of time in helping families with referrals to services they may need offered by other agencies. I am enclosing a copy of our most recently audited financial statement, which was for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2001. You will note that our total program costs are 86.8% of WeCAN's total expenses. Our Management and Fundraising costs were kept at 13.2%. The Minnesota Charities Review Council's Standard 3A recommends that at least 70% of an organization's expenses go toward it's mission and programs and no more than 30% go towards Management and Fundraising. WeCAN is very proud that it well exceeds this standard, with less than half of the recommended Minnesota Charity Review Council's percentage standards for Management and Fundraising and a full 16.8% more going towards direct programming than the Charity Review Council's Program standard recommends. The Minnesota Charities Review Council also states that, "Every good organization needs strong administration. It needs an experienced executive director to lead the staff and the governing board; a competent -573- Weston. ka Community Acuon Network · Family Support Services · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 1155 County Road 19 Minnetrista, MN 55364 (952) 472- 0742 (952) 472-5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independence Rockford Lorett0 St 8onifacius Maple Plan Spring Park Minnet0nka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetrista Western Orono OFFICERS Mark Winter President V.P. Crow River Bank Bob Tomalka Vice President Community Volunteer Susan Meyers Secretary Community Volunteer Marvin Johnson Treasurer Mayor of Independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Anderson Minnetdsta Police Chief Sharon Cook Communlfy Volunteer Mary DeVinney Westonka Food Shelf Len Harrell Mound Po/ice Chief Helmar Heckel Pastor, Baywind Christian Church LIz Jensen Associate Pastor, Fairview Covenant Church Dorothy McOueen Community Volunteer Marlys Nelson Personal Banker Sandy Olstad Parish Nurse Charles Pugh Community Volunteer David Sutton Community Volunteer ADMINISTRATION Laurie Fitz Executive Director Kristin K. Perry Family Advocate Volunteer Coordinator Audrey Ogland Administrative Assistant Meals on Wheels Coordinator Shirley Tulberg Career Counselor/Job Developer person to look after the charity's finances and accounting; and someone to manage the telephones, computer systems, and payroll. All of these are legitimate activities, and certain organizations may require extra administrative care, depending on circumstances. Every good organization must also raise funds support its mission. It is necessary to write grant proposals and talk with foundation representatives, to conduct direct mail and/or telephone solicitations, and to thank donors and keep them informed of accomplishments." As a Mound resident, I am very proud to serve as WeCAN's Executive Director. Prior to coming to WeCAN I served for fifteen years as an Administrator for the American Cancer Society. While working for the American Cancer Society I learned many important skills as a Manager and Fundraiser. I feel well prepared, challenged and motivated to serve our Mound community. I am deep believer in our WeCAN mission of neighbor helping neighbor. Our priorities in serving families in need and devoting our programs to building family stability and self-sufficiency is critical to the long term economic health of Mound. In considering your endorsement for WeCAN, I ask you to consider what Mound would be like without WeCAN. Without the services of WeCAN many Mound residents may have been evicted from their apartments, many may have put their home in jeopardy by not paying the mortgage, many would have had their utilities shut off, lost their car, not been able to receive the prescriptions they needed, and many would have lost their insurance. Without WeCAN forty-four homes would not receive Meals on Wheels. Without WeCAN forty individuals may not have been able to find jobs or get support in their job search. Without WeCAN many families would not be able to provide Christmas or even birthdays for their children. And without WeCAN many children would have to do without for much of their school supplies. Mound is a better place because of WeCAN. Families in need are supported in important ways. The care and concern community members have for each other is celebrated through our WeCAN efforts. The long and selfless hours that volunteers devote themselves to serving families in crisis is very inspiring. Volunteer efforts are priceless, there are countless costs saved by these volunteers who give of their time and kindness to our communities most needy members. I believe each of our volunteers would tell you to be confident of the important work that is being accomplished by WeCAN in Mound. -574- eston. ka Community Acuon Network · Family Support Services · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 1155 County Road 19 Minnetrista, MN 55364 (952) 472- 0742 (952) 472-5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independence Rockford Loretto St. Bonifacius Maple Plain Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Minnetrista Western Orono OFFICERS Mark Winter President V.P. Crow River Bank Bob Tomalka Vice President Community Volunteer Susan Meyers Secretary Community Volunteer Marvin Johnson Treasurer Mayor of Independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Anderson Minnetrista Police Chief ~We ~°nDC°°k unity Volunteer eVinney stonka Food Shelf Len Harrell Mound Police Chief Helmar Heckel Pastoc Baywind Christian Church Liz Jensen Associate Pastor, Fairview Covenant Church Dorothy McQueen Community Volunteer Marlys Nelson Persona/Banker Sandy Olstad Parish Nurse Charles Pugh Community Volunteer David Sutton Community Volunteer ADMINISTRATION Laurie Fitz Executive Director Krislin K, Perry Family Advocate Volunteer Coordinator Audrey Ogland Administrative Assistant Meals on Wheels Coordinator Shirley Tulberg Career Counselor/Job Developer United Way Affiliated Agency As you well know, your city's CDBG allocation is now part of a pool of funds from communities receiving less than $75,000 annually in CDBG funding. Mound has a long history of supporting WeCAN operations, and your on-going support is essential to us. This year WeCAN is requesting $15,000 from Consolidated CDBG funds. if you continue to support WeCAN's mission of helping families achieve greater self-sufficiency, we would appreciate a letter of support or resolution from the City of Mound, which affirms that support by March 1, 2002. We will then submit your letter along with our application for CDBG funds to Hennepin County, which is due March 8, 2002. if you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me. I would be honored to present WeCAN's mission and accomplishments at a future city council meeting. And thank you for your continued support! Enclosure -575- ~ 0 13.. 1:: -576- -577- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~~o~o~ ~oo~moo > ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~oooooooo 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -578- -581 - -582- -583- 585- BrESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDING INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT MAY 31, 2001 AND 2000 -586- CONTENTS INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Statements of financial position Statements of activities Statements of functional expenses Statements of cash flows Notes to financial statements Page 2 3 4-5 6 7-9 -587- Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP Certified Public Accountants & Consultants INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT Board of Directors Westonka Community Action Network, Inc. Minnetrista, Minnesota We have audited the accompanying statements of financial position of Westonka Community Action Network, Inc. as of May 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related statements of activities, functional expenses and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Organization's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examlniu§, on a test bash, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Westonka Community Action Network as of May 31, 2001 and 2000, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Minneapolis, Minnesota September 14, 2001 -588- WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, INC. STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION May 31, 2001 and 2000 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS: Cash Certificates of deposit Pledges receivable Other receivables Prepaid expenses Total current assets FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT: Furniture and fixtures Leasehold improvements Less accumulated depreciation TOTAL ASSETS 2001 2OOO $ 77,835 $ 56,054 28,972 28,407 30,583 24,579 4,512 7,956 879 815 142,781 38,605 2,373 40,978 35,294 5,684 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Accounts payable Accrued payroll taxes Accrued wages and vacation Total current liabilities NET ASSETS: Unrestricted: Undesignated Designated Total unrestricted Temporarily restricted net assets Total net assets TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 148,465 117,811 38,605 2,373 40,978 28,274 12,704 $ 130,515 $ 2,030 $ 4,617 459 1,112 6,525 8,531 See Notes to Financial Statements. -589- 9,014 86,293 22,575 108,868 30,583 139,451 $ 148,465 14,260 69,101 22,575 91,676 24,579 116,255 $ 130,515 SUPPORT AND REVENUE: Contributions and support United Way allocation Government grants and contracts Program services Special events Interest income Miscellaneous income Net assets released from restrictions Total public support and revenue EXPENSES: Program services Management, general and fundraising Total expenses Change in net assets Net assets at beginning of year Net assets at end of year See Notes to Financial Statements. WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, INC. STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES Years Ended May 31, 2001 and 2000 2001 Temporarily Unrestricted Restricted Total 2000 Temporarily Unrestricted Restricted Total $ 79,035 $ $ 79,035 21,013 30,583 51,596 58,736 58,736 42,909 42,909 9,195 9,195 1,321 1,321 1,050 1,050 213,259 30,583 243,842 24,579 , (24,579) 237,838 6,004 243,842 $ 59,639 $ - $ 591639 34,359 24,579 58,938 58,290 - 58,290 41,464 - 41,464 9,560 - 9,560 883 - 883 643 - 643 204,838 24,579 204,838 24,579 229,417 229,417 191,481 29,165 220,646 I7,192 6,004 91,676 24,579 $ 108,868 $ 30,583 $ 191,481 182,837 - 182,837 29,165 27,698 - 27,698 220,646 ,,, 210,535 - 210,535 23,196 (5,697) 24,579 18,882 116,255 97,373 - 97,373 139,451 $ 91,676 $ 24,57.__~9 $ 116,255 -590-~ d ,I -591 - d -592- WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, INC. STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS Years Ended May 31, 2001 and 2000 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES: Change in net assets Adjustments to reconcile change in net assets to net cash flows from operating activities: Depreciation Reinvested interest income (Increase) decrease in assets: Pledges receivable Other receivables Prepaid expenses Increase (decrease) in liabilities: Accounts payable Accrued wages, vacation and payroll taxes Net cash flows from operating activities CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES: Purchases of furniture and equipment Purchase of certificates of deposit Net cash flows from investing activities Net increase (decrease) in cash Cash: Beginning of year End of year 2001 2OOO $ 23,196 $ 18,882 7,020 (565) (6,00~) 3,~.~~. (64) (2,587) (2,659) 21,781 21,781 7,096 (363) (9,993) (509) (131) (3,683) 3,503 14,802 (1,277) 05,0O0) 06,277) (1,475) 56,054 57,529 $ 77,835 $ 56,054 See Notes to Financial Statements. -593- 0 Note 1. WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Years Ended May 31, 2001 and 2000 Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies: Nature of operations: Westonka Community Action Network, Inc. (WeCAN) is a commtmity based human service organization dedicated to enabling people with low incomes to achieve greater self-sufficiency. The Organization provides emergency assistance to families, Meals on Wheels to seniors and the homebound, community planning for affordable homing, food and nutrition classes, a job development and placement program and budget and financial Counseling. The OrganiTation also operates a human services center providing public assistance intake services and family and individual eotmseling. The Organization provides these services to twelve communities in western Hennepin County. Over the past several years, the Organization has developed many programs to fulfill their mission. These programs include: Family support- The Organization provides various forms of assistance to families in need. Examples of the assistance provided include emergency assistance with rent, utilities or other essential exposure; connections with health care coverage, birthday supplies and gifts, school supplies and quilts. Jobs program - The WeCAN Job Development and Placement Program, established in November 1994 through the support of the McKrfight and Norwest Foundation, provides unemployed people with employment counseling, career development planning, testing, referrals, job and training placement and retention follow up. The Jobs Program also provides area employers free listing of their open positions with the program, links those openings electronically with 15 other community-based jobs programs and provides referrals of qualified applicants to them. Meals on Wheels - WeCAN operates a program of delivering hot dinners to homebound seniors and people with disabilities to enable them to live longer in the comfort of their own homes. New program development - Became we need to be responsive to the community and its changing needs, WeCAN works to develop new programs that help low-income people adapt to changing times. A snmmary of the Organization's significant accounting policies follows: Financial statement presentation: Net assets of the Organization and changes therein are classified and reported as follows: Unrestricted net assets: Unrestricted net assets consist of those resources over which the Board of Directors has discretionary control. Designated amounts represent those revenues which the Board has set aside for a particular purpose. Temporarily restricted net assets: Temporarily restricted net assets consist of resources which are limited as to use by donor imposed stipulations. When a donor restriction expires, that is, when a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished, temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the statement of activities as net assets released from restrictions. -594- i i i i I i i I i i ! Note 1. WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) Years Ended May 31, 2001 and 2000 Nature of Operations and gignificant Accounting Policies (Continued): Permanently restricted net assets: The Organization currently has no permanently restricted net assets. Contributions: Contributions, including unconditional promises to give (pledges), are recorded as receivables and recognized as either unrestricted, temporarily restricted or permanently restricted revenue in the period of the pledge regardless of when the cash is received or spent. Donor-restricted contributions whose restrictions are met in the same reporting period are reported as .unrestricted support. Pledges receivable have been recorded at net realizable value and are all designated for operating purposes. No provision for uncollectible pledges is considered necessary. Cash: Cash includes checking and savings deposits. Cash on deposit in excess of FDIC and similar insurance coverages is subject to the usual banking risks of funds in excess of those limits. Certificates of deposit: The Organization invests in certificates of deposit which are stated at fair market value. Maturities are greater than three months. Expense allocation: Certain expenses are allocated between the program services and supporting services categories. Salaries and related benefits are allocated based on estimates of time spent on each function. Other expenses are allocated on the bases of actual usage or management estimates. Furniture and equipment: Furniture and equipment is valued at cost, or in the case of donated equipment, at estimated market value on the date of the gift. Depreciation is charged 'as an expense agsin.~t operations using the straight-line method over the useful lives of the equipment, generally three to seven years. Income taxes: The Internal Revenue Service has determined that the Organization is exempt from income taxes under Section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code. However, any related business income may be subject to taxation. It has been classified as an organization trust that is not a private foundation under Section 509(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code and charitable contributions by donors are tax deductible. Government grants and contracts: WeCAN recognizes contracts and government grant revenue when earned as an exchange transaction. Revenue is earned when eligible expenditures, as defined in each grant or contract, are made. Funds received, but not yet earned, are shown as grant advances. WeCAN may retain unexpended funds for use in future periods provided expenses incurred are in compliance with the specified terms of the grant. -595- Note 1. Note 2. Note 3. Note 4. WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK, INC. NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (CONTINUED) Years Ended May 31, 2001 and 2000 Nature of Operations and Significant Accounting Policies (Continued): WeCAN's activities are subject to audit examination and review by Hennepin County and other governmental agencies to determine compliance with contract requirements. To the extent that any expenditures are disallowed or surplus funds are not spent, a liability to Henaepin County and other government agencies could result. Estimates and assumptions: The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Significant estimates include allocations to the various functional expense categories. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Operating Lease: The Organization leases its office space under a noncancelable lease agreement. The lease requires monthly payments of $1,000. The lease expires April 30, 2002 and is renewable each year for up to five years. Major Support Concentrations: The Organization has depended significantly on fees and contributions to carry out its program activity as follows: United Way Hennepin County Northwest Hemaepin Human Services Council 2001 2000 21% 16% 11% 12% 8% 8% The Organization provides services within the State of Minnesota. The amounts due for services provided are from local governments, institutions and individuals. Net Assets: The Organization had net assets which were designated as follows as of May 31, 2001 and 2000: Amount designated for operating reserve - emergency uses only Amount designated for capital improvements 2001 2000 $ 15,016 $ 15,016 7,559 7,559 $ 22,575 $ 22,575 Temporarily restricted net assets represent the remainder of the United Way award through December 31, 2001 and 2000, respectively. -596- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Partial Alley / Right-of-Way Vacation APPLICANT: Amerle Civic Corporation PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-45 LOCATION: Portion of 20' foot alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F located between the north line of Lot 8 and Lot 39 and the south line of Lot 9 and Lot 38 PID NO: 13-117-24-34-0043 (west parcel which includes parking lot) 13-117-24-34-0060 (east parcel which includes existing building) ZONING: Business (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial PUBLIC HEARING The City Council will hold a public hearing to review a request from Amerle Civic Corporation, applicants and property owners at 2333 Wilshire Boulevard to vacate a portion of the alley / right- of-way located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F at its February 12, 2002 meeting. Presently, this portion of the 20 ft. alley serves as a parking lot for the neighboring buildings and also includes a number of private utilities. A copy of the legal description for the area to be vacated has been included as an attachment. PROJECT SUMMARY Details regarding the vacation request from Amerle Civic Corp. are contained in Planning Report No. 01-45 which has been included as an attachment. PROCEDURE Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358 states that a statutory city may abandon ownership or control over all or any part of the land they have set aside, dedicated or used as streets or alleys and further states that a City Council may initiate the action by resolution or by the submission of a petition by a majority of the landowners and the owners of at least 50 percent of the land area Procedurally, state statute requires that the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposal following two weeks of published and posted notice. The City must also provide written notice to each affected owner at least (10) days before the public hearing. -597- NOTIFICATION The Notice of Public Heating was published in the Laker on January 22, 2002 and February 2, 2002. The Notice of Public Hearing was posted on January 29, 2002. The Notice of Public hearing was mailed to affected property owners on January 31, 2002. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW City policy also requires that any proposed street vacation request is also reviewed by the Planning Commission at an informal public hearing. The proposed vacation request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 7, 2002 meeting. A copy of the January 7, 2002 meeting minutes has been included as an attachment. RECOMMENDATION As there appears to be no public benefit to retaining this portion of the alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed vacation request subject to the following list of conditions. 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or private utility companies that are received on or before February 12, 2002. 2. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. 3. Any and/or all drainage and/or utility easements should be retained and/or reserved. ATTACHMENTS Resolution (draft) · Legal description from Coffin & Gronberg dated January 11, 2002 · January 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes · Notice of Public Heating · Affidavit of Mailing · Affidavit of Posting · Planning Report No. 01-45 -598- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 02- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE TWENTY (20) FOOT ALLEY AND/OR RIGHT-OF-WAY IN BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY SHILLS UNIT F LOCATED BETWEEN THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 8 AND LOT 39 AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SOUTH LINE OF LOT 9 AND LOT 39 PLANNING AND ZONING CASE # 01-45 WHEREAS, the applicant, 2Mxterle Civic Corporation, has submitted an application to vacate a portion of the alley and/or public right-of-way legally described on the attached Exhibit A ;and WHEREAS, the applicants would like to use that portion of the (20) foot alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F to provide additional parking for their business; m~d WHEREAS, the alley is unmaintained and unimproved and is not serving as a public access in the subject area; and WHEREAS, there are currently no public utilities located in the alley and/or public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, there are a number of private utilities located in the alley and/or public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, when the City vacates a street and/or right of way, the involved portion of the public right-of-way is split 50-50 and is attached to the abutting properties; and WHEREAS, the City can specify the extem to which a street and/or right-of-way affects easements including the right to maintain and continue existing utility easements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 7, 2002 regarding the vacation request and indicated that there was no public benefit of retaining the involved portion of the alley located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F as there are currently no municipal utilities in the alley nor is it being used as a public access. WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 462.358, the City Council of Mound held a public hearing on the vacation request on February 12, 2002 and provided proper notice thereof pursuant to state law. -599- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the alley vacation request with the following conditions: a. The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. b. The City of Mound shall maintain a (20) foot drainage mad utility easement over the vacated portion of the alley. This vacation request is approved for that portion of the north/south alley adjacent to the following described property: Lots 8 and 9 and north ½ vacated alley, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Lots 38 and 39 mad north ½ vacated alley, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted February 12, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -600- EXHIBIT A THAT PART OF THE SOUTHERLY HALF OF THE ADJACENT VACATED ALLEY LYING NORTHERLY OF LOT 8 AND 39, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F, AND LYING BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY EXTENSIONS OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 8 AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 39; ALSO ALL THAT PART OF THE ADJACENT VACATED ALLEY LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE ABOVE SAID SOUTHERLY HALF AND LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE DRAWN FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 38, SAID BLOCK 3, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 9, SAID BLOCK 3; ALSO THE EASTERLY HALF OF THE ADJOINING VACATED ALLEY LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE DRAWN FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 38, SAID BLOCK 3, TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 9, SAID BLOCK 3, AND NORTHERLY OF THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1.00 FOOT OF SAID LOT 36 -601 - January 11, 2002 Proposed alley vacation description for American Legion Post No. 398 In Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F Hennepin County, Minnesota That part of the southerly half of the adjacent vacated alley lying northerly of Lot 8 and 39, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F, and lying between the northerly extensions of the West line of said Lot 8 and the East line of said Lot 39; ALSO all that part of the adjacent vacated alley lying southerly of the above said southerly half and lying northerly of a line drawn from the Southwest corner of Lot 38, said Block 3, to the Southeast corner of Lot 9, said Block 3; ALSO the easterly half of the adjoining vacated alley lying southerly of a line drawn from the Southwest corner of Lot 38, said Block 3, to the Southeast corner of Lot 9, said Block 3, and northerly of the westerly extension of the South line of the North 1.00 foot of said Lot 36. RFCFIVFr JAN 1 Z002 IVIUUNIJ rl.,~NNIl~b (~ I~$~-: -602- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2002 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Planner Loren Gordon and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: John Zambori Duane Leisinger Fran Clark-Leisinger Margo Hopkins 4681 Wilshire Boulevard 7020 C~:26, Maple Plain 7020 CR 26, Maple Plain 4609 Wilshire Boulevard Dennis Hopkins 4609 Wilshire Boulevard Mary Ann Thurk .. owner 460t ~ilshire Boulevard :.::' P.O. Box 443}: Spring Park Pam Paul:~;..~:::':i~ ::: 4213 Merriam Road, Minnetonka Jonathon Paul :' 4677 Wilshire Boulevard Chairman Michael welcomed the public and fialled the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland, secofided by Clgpsaddie, to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2001 Planning CommissiOh meeting~ "MOTION carded unanimously. 2. BOARD OF APPE~S :~ CASE #01-45ii!ii~TREET VXCATiON 2333 Wilshire Boulevard American Legion Civic Corporation and W'C~T Partners Proposed alley vacation is to vacate the alley between Lots 8 & 9 and Lots 38 & 39, completing the vacation appro, ved in November, 2001. Staff is recommending/tpproval of the vacation with an easement retained for the in-place utilities. Mueller inquired about the extent of the invitation to respond. He felt there should be a time limitation. Open public hearing. Close public hearing. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to accept staff recommendation to approve the vacation with a limitation on staff comments once the vacation is approved by City Council. MOTION carried unanimously -603- Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2002 CASE #01-44 MINOR SUBDIVSION 2337 and 2361 Wilshire Boulevard American Legion Civic Corporation and WWT Partners The Planning Commission is asked to consider a one-foot boundary adjustment that would resolve an existing building encroachment problem. Staffwould also like to encourage the property owners to consider combining the lots in some configuration. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve staff recommendation with a limitation on staff comments once the subdivision is approved by City Council. MOTION carried unanimously. CASE #01- 46 STREET VACATION Kells Lane Jon Paul/Jeff m~d Pam Paul Planning Commission reviewed this request on severaloccasions. The Parks and Open Space and Dock and Commons Commissions have reviewed it. Staff contacted. Jeff and Pam Paul and the 2 owners to the west of Jon Paul to see if they wanted to particiPate in the vacation request. The westerly property owners did not wantto participate. Jon and Jeff are co- applicants. If the city sells a portion of Lot 6, City Council wanted staffto get an appraisal. The estimate came back at about $3,000.:..:..We looked ai a :few other comparable parcels and found similar estimates and decided not to order the :appraiSal because of cost. Hennepin County was consulted about an extra accesSalong Wilshire Boulevard that was looked upon as favorable by Hennepin Countyi Driveway'widths (14-22 feet) would be appropriate. City would want to secure easemefiis behifid the cUrb for roadway and sidewalk. Staff recommends the vacation Of Kells Lane,' selling.of a portion of lot 6 to Jon Paul and a portion of lot 6 to Jeff and Pam Pauli 5Waiver of platting would then be done to formalize the property division. &:power pol~'is located in the proposed driveway area for Jeff Paul which would be their re~P6nsibilitY.to relocate. If we move forward with this we would need to condition this on securing the land prices and settlement fees. Mueller asked if staff had looked at the road right-of-way regarding the 33 feet from the centerline on the north side. D. oes the city get something back on the south side.'? Clapsaddle thought that the unvacated portion along the lake could be vacated and attached to the south portion. Mueller stated that the Kells Lane portion must go to the parcels on the north because it was platted with that land and not the Wychwood parcel to the south. Burma did not feel that the lines should be drawn to preserve the gravel drive constructed by Jon Paul, on city property, without permission. He feels that the property line should be drawn through the drive in a more logical manner. Weiland wants it noted that we are "not on the clock" as regards this project. -604- Planning Commission Mhlutes January 7, 2002 Open public hearing. Pam Paul (owner of Lots 26, 27 & 28) - She would like to encourage the city to vacate the entire length of Kells Lane, then they would give back the portion of lake shore in exchange for their share of Lot 6. Dennis Hopkins (3609 Wilshire Blvd) - He sees no reason to vacate Kells Lane for a landlocked parcel that has no access now. Neighbors have wanted the area to be cleaned up so it's usable and the city wouldn't do that. John Zarnbori (4681 Wilshire Blvd) - Consider leasing instead of vacating. City would retain ownership and control and gain lease monies that could be used to improve the park area to the east. Mueller - Kells Lane hasn't been used. Leasing doesn't help in the conformance issue. Jon Paul has been maintaining it for the benefit of us all. Mary Ann Thurk (4601 Wilshire Blvd) - She likes the idea of a lease. If the place were marked more people would use it. Need to look at the community as a whole. Jon Paul (4679 Wilshire Blvd) - The proposal by staffis o.k. with him. If this proposal isn't meeting certain needs he is open to other suggestions. Primarily he is concerned with the Kells Lane vacation because of the proximity tohis home. Para Paul - She is as much a property owner as anyone else and deserves to have access to the property. Close public hearing. Discussion ,,i:::i - Clapsaddle thought Mueller's suggestion made sense. Where do we stand in the process? Can we direct the plan be changed to be presented to City Council? Gordon thought they could. City Council wanted Planning Commission input. We can either retain Kells Lane to develop it for use by residents., or get rid of it. ' MOTION by Mueller and seconded by Clapsaddle to approve recommendation to vacate Kells Lane west of a line as drawn by staff at a diagonal across Kells Lane on the exhibit. Continuing on the same line to the Wilshire Boulevard platted right of way, another line running parallel northwest of it to delineate Jeff Paul property and remainder of Lot 6 to the west to Jon Paul. Any profit from the current city property should be used to improve the usability of the park area, including fishing access. Vacation of Kells Lane is subject to the agreeable disposition of the land described. Easements shall be maintained for utilities. -605- Pla~iog Commission Minutes January 7, 2002 Burma said we all have to give a little bit. Motion by Mueller is a good middle ground. It allows for an increase in Jon Paul's property, access for Jeff Paul and addresses the concerns about access to the lake. Hasse felt that, if we give anything away we'd never get it back. Weiland added that we are supposed to see that it's for the good of the community. MOTION carried. Voting against - Hasse, Weiland, Michael; Voting for - Clapsaddle, Ayaz, Glister, Burma, Mueller Chairman Michael called for a short recess at 9:07. Back in session at 9:12. A. Q & A with City Attorney John Dean ~:. B. Adoption of Planning Commission Work RuleS;if0r 2002 - p°'~i~i0ned to the next C. Review of Planning Commission Schedule for'2002 -First and third Mondays will remain the schedule. Secondmeeting~!iiiin~January ~d:~February will be as needed. Mueller stated that he was totally opposed to t~ l~:9!i~:6:'DePartment delivering the packets. MOTION by Glister, sec0nd;~:iii~::g~;:;, t°~djo~rn the meeting at 10:26 P.M. MOTIONcardedun~m~ly."::~iiiiii!iiiiii!i!iii:ii~ .... Attest: Planning Secretary -606- 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 CITY OF MOUND PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE # 01-45 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www, cityolmound.com NOTICE OF A PUBLIC ItEARING TO CONSIDER TIlE VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY / PUBLIC RIGIlT-OF-WAY IN BLOCK 3, SlliRLEY HILLS UNIT F LOCATED BE'I'WEEN Ttl E FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: PID No. 13-117-24-34-0043 PID No. 13-117-24-34-0060 PI,ANNING AND ZONING CASE NO. 01-45 NOTICE IS HEREBV GIVEN that the City Council ofthe City of Mound, will meet on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 7:30 PM to hold a public hearing to consider a request from the American Legion Civic Corporation for vacation ora portion of the twenty (20) foot alley and/or public right-of-way in Block 3, ShMey Hills Unit F located between the north line of Lot 8 and Lot 39 and the south line of Lot 9 and Lot 38 as identified below: Jil~/Norlander, Planning and Inspections Secretary Copies of the plans are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Notice of public hearing to be publ~ in The Laker on January 26, 2002 and February 2, 2002. ~ ~,,,,.,,,o,,,o~.r~,od,~,~ " -607- Case No. ~/-~ AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING HEARING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) )SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Jill Nodander, being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am a United States Citizen, over twenty-one (21) years of age, and the Secretary. for Planning and Inspections Department of the City of Mound, Minnesota. On E~?.,/~J_E.~' ~ / ~ ,20 4~,~ acting on behalf of the City ~' ! · , I deposited in the United States Post Office at Mound, Minnesota, copies of the attached notice of a hearing on proposed improvement, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses appearing opposite their respective names. NAME *See attached list. There is delivery service by the United States mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. J~ Norlander Subscribed and sworn to before me this, ~t ~'' day of ~,~ 20 Notary Public -608- AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTICE Case No. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS. COUN'FY OF HENNEPIN) being duly sworn, on oath says that on the ~:~' day of/L~/.~~ ,20U.~,', he/she personally posted the attached notice in three public places in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: 1) One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota. 2) One true copy thereof on the front door of the Public Works Facility at 5468 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. 3) One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at the Westonka Community Library at 2079 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. Subscribed and sworn to before me, thisr-~"3 200¢'. Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission expires 0 -609- 5341 ~a~e~ood Roed Mound, ~N 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: .lanuary 2, 2002 SUBJECT: Partial Alley / Right-of-Way Vacation APPLICANT: Amerle Civic Corporation PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 01-45 LOCATION: Portion of 20' foot alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F located between the north line of Lot 8 and Lot 39 and the south line of Lot 9 and Lot 38 PID NO: 13-117-24-34-0043 (west parcel which includes parking lot) 13-117-24-34-0060 (east parcel which includes existing building) · ZONING: Business' (B- l ) COMPREE[ENSIVE PLAN: Commercial REQUEST Amerle Civic Corporation, applicants and property owners at ,2333 Wilshire Boulevard,· have submitted a request to vacate a portion of the alley / right-of-way located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F. Presently, this portion of the 20 rE' alley serves as a parking lot for the neighboring buildings and also includes a number of private utilities. BACKGROUND As the Planning Commission is aware, the City Council recently approved the request from Dave Willette and WWT Panners to vacate a portion of the (20) foot alley located in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F which includes the area in and around the former bowling alley located at 2346 Cypress Lane. During the City's review process, a diSCrepancy regarding the status of the "northern" portion of the alley located between the two properties owned by the American Legion was found. Specifically, a recent survey dated July 2000 of the American Legion property indicated that the area(s) was vacated. However, no information was found to support the documentation. Subsequently, the American Legion now desires to pursue vacation of the "northern" portion of the (20) foot public alley. Members of the Planning Commission are advised that details regarding the Willette / WWT - Partners vacation request can be found in Planning Report No. 01-39. -6~'0- PROCEDURE Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.358 states that a statutory city may abandon ownership or control over all or any part of the land they have set aside, dedicated or used as streets or alleys and further states that a City Council may initiate the action by resolution or bY the submission of a petition by a majority of the landowners and the owners of at least 50 percent, of the land area Procedurally, state statute requires that the City Council must hold a public hearing on the proposal roi!owing two weeks of published and posted notice. The City must also provide written notice.to each affected owner at least(10) days before the public hearing. As the Planning Commission is aware, City policy also requires that any proposed street vacation request is also reviewed by the Planning Commission at an informal public hearing. Therefore, the Planning. Commission is advised that the NotiCe of Public Hearing was published in the Lake__._.~r December 22, 2001. Additionally, the Notice of Public Hearing was also mailed to all affected property owners located within (350) feet on December 27, 2001. VACATION ACTION When a city vacates a street, the involved portion of the public right-of-way is splitS0,50, (presumably-to the centerline) and is usually free of easements either in favor of the public or owners of other property abutting the street. However, the Planning CommiSsion is advised that the City may specify the extent to which a proposed vacation affects existing utility easements, including the right to maintain and continue existing utility easements (LMC Handbook, page 390.) CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forWarded tO all City departments for review and comment. All written Comments received to date have been summarized below: Fire ChiefPederson Police ChiefHarrell Public Works Director Skinner City Engineer Cameron Parks Director Fackler No objections No objections There are no public utilities in the proposed vacation area Refer to Exhibit E No comments needed from Parks Department -611- HENNEPIN COUNTY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting were forwarded to Hennepin County for review. Dave Zetterstrom of Hennepin County contacted the City of Mound on or around December. 20, 2001 and indicated that Hennepin County has no comment regarding the vacation request ... UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting were forwarded to. all involved utility companies for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized beloW: Reliant Energy / Minnegasco No objections During the City's review of the vacation request from Dave Willette / WWT Partners, Citizens Communications and Excel Energy indicated in letters dated September 7, 2001 and September 25, 2002 that they had private utilities located in the alley area therefore a utilities easement would need to be maintained. No correspondence was received from either Citizens Communications or Excel Energy regarding the current request from the American Legion Civic Corp. GENERAL COMMENTS In the event the proposed vacation request is approved, the west (10) feet of the existing alley would become part of the "American Legion parking lot" proPerty (Lots 8 and 9) and the east (10) feet would become part of the "American Legion building" property (Lots 38 and 39). It appears there is little public benefit to retaining ownership of the proposed alley in this area. If the proposed vacation request is approved, any and/or .all existing private utility easements should be retained and/or reserved pursuant to the comments received from the various private utility, companies. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss with the applicant the possibility of combining the three (3) involVed properties including LOts 8 and 9 (American Legion parking lot parcel), Lots 38 and 39 (the American Legion building parcel) and Lot 37 (the former Green-T Accounting parcel.) The eastern portion of the alley abutting Lot 37 (former Crreen-T Accounting parcel) was vacated as part of the recent Willette / WWT Partners vacation request. It is City staff's understanding that the American Legion is working with the adjacent property owner(s) to formalize the existing parking arrangements. -6~'2- The "southern portion" of the alley located between Lot 45 (Royal Apartments), Lot 50 (Munitech) and Lot 71 (Mediacom) rcmah~s open. RECOMMENDATION As there appears to be no public benefit to retaining this portion of the alley in Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F, City staff recommends approval of the proposed vacation request. At a minimum, City staff recommends that the following list of minimum conditions be included in any recommendation for approval: 1. The request shall be made subject to any forthcoming comments from City staff or private utility companies. 2, The applicants shall be responsible for payment of all costs associated with the vacation request. 3. Any and/or all drainage and/or utility easements should be retained and/or reserved. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW In the event a recommendation from the Planning Commission is received, a :public hearing will be scheduled at an upcoming City Council meeting pursuant to M.S.S. At this time, date(s) are not known. ' EXHIBITS Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application for street / easement vacation dated October 31, 2001 Affidavits of Publication, Posting and Mailing - Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing Survey for American Legion Post No. 3 98 from Coffin & Gronberg dated December 12, 2001 ' Hardcover calculation sheet prepared by Coffin & Gronberg on December 12, 2001 for proPerties owned by Amerle Civic Corp. Memorandum from City Engineer dated January 3, 2002 Site map - Hennepin County ~,4 section map Zoning sheet - 2333 Wilshire Blvd 4 -6i3- Application for STREET I EASEMENT VACATION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 952-472-0607, Fax: 952-472-0620 Planning Commission Date: ~'~-'~'~ / ...~_O(-j~,_ . Case ~N~. City Council Date: Applicat~ Escrow:_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_~~ ~ ~ City Planner __ ~" Minnegasco '~' City Engineer , ~?, Police Dept. Please type or =rint the following Information: Phone (H) ~' S~) - H 1'~ - II 72_ (W). , tM),. Adjacent Address ADJACENT - __ PROPERTY Name of Business (APPLICAN'PS PROPERTY) Lot Block Plat Subdivision PiD~' ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA' R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 ~" DISTRICT TO BE VACATED FOR REQUEST IS THERE A- PUBLIC NEED FORTHIS LAND? Print AppliCant's Name Applicant's Signature Print APplicant s Name/ APplicant's Signature Date 'Date Revised 10/03/01 -6~4- · CITY OF MOUND -'- " · "NOTICE OF A PUELI~. HEARING ..- ..' TO CONSIDER THE VACATION ~)F A , PORTION OF AN ALLEY/PUBLIC RIGHT- : OF;WAY IN BLOCK 3, BHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F LO~ATED BETWEEN,THE ' FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: ', PlD No. 13-117-24-34-0045 PID No. 13-117-24-34.0060 ' PLANNING AND ZONING CASE NO. 01-45 NOTICE I$ HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the Cty of Mound;' will meet on Monday, Janus,/7, 2002 at 7:80 ,PM to hold a public hearing to constdar s request from the American Legion Civic Corporation for vacation bi' a portion, of ~he [ twenty (20) foot alley and/or public right.of. way in Block 3, Shirle)~ Hills Unit F located between the north line of IJst 8 and Lot sg and the south line of Lot g.and Lot 38 as identified below: ','. ~--~... Jill Norlarider, Planning and IdaPecticns $e~etary copies cf the plans are .avaJlab e .to the 13Ubllc upon request a~ City Hali. All per~olsa appearing' at said hearing with' referedca to the aboW will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting..' '-~, (Publlihed'n Y~e'L~k~r I~c. 22:2~(~1i Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County ol Hennepin. Bill HOlm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he iS an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known aS THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has compi'ied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Planning & Zonin~ C~se ~012~'5 ~ which is 'attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 1 .successive weeks. It was first published Saturday the .22nd day of De~ember 2001, and was thereafter printed and published every Saturday, to and including Saturday, the. day of 2001; '~" ' ~'u~l¥orized Agent Suscribed and sworn to me on this 22nd da of Decembe ~ y r ,2001. t .... Notary Public !~l ~~AR~ P~LIC- MINNesoTA Rate Information (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.00 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $15.00. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.73 per inch, Each additional successive week: $5.62. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTJCE STATE OF MINNESOTA ' COUNTY OF :HENNEPIN) Jill ~t~l-~ . , being duly sworn, on oath says that on the ~7 ~ day of ~~-~- ~-fP~ ,200 I , he/she personally p'osted the attached notice in three public places in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: 1) One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota. 2) One true copy thereof on the front door of the Public Works Facility at 5468 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. 3) One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at the Westonka Community Library at 2079 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this ,C~? ~'day of · Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota My Commission expires ~O I-;.3j,O~ Exhibit B CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR AMERICAN LEGION POSTNO. ,398 IN BLOCK 5, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I I I(g45,?) ........ ..,I .......... .._.1 ...... ~,. ..... J L, ........ ,J ......... ,I. ......... I.. ......... · ~ ................. N 89°40, 45" E 260.00 ................... ~ '""' ~ EXISTING "' .......................... S 890-39 BUILDING ~ ,~ EXISTINO ,~ 7" BUILDING 7, ,,.. I ............ S 89°43' 00" W 130.00 ..................... LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL SURVEYED : (NOTE: For purposes of this description, the od.joining vacated alleys hove been added to the five parcels surveyed) Lots 8, 9, 37, .38 and ,39, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F, ALSO the North 1.00 foot of Lot 36, said Block `3, ALSO that port of the southerly half of the adjacent vacated alley lying northerly 'of Lot 8 and .39 and lying between the norther y extensions of the West line of said Lot 8 and the East line of said Lot 39; ALSO oil that port of the adjacent vacated . alley lying between Lots 8 and 9, end Lots .:39 and .38, and a so the ec~sterly half of the adjoining vacated olle~, lying between the westerly extensions of the North line of 'said Lot 37, and the South line o{ the North 1..00 foot of said Lot 36. o: denotes iron marker ~ : denotes "PK" nail set Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum. -618- Form No. 31.M .QUIT CLAIM DEED - CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHIP TO CORPORATION OR PARTNERSHI~ No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required Certificate of Real Estate Value No. _, 20 by County Auditor Deputy State Deed Tax Due: .. ,/~ 7~ Dated: ~'~ %. jz ,2000 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, WWT Partners,.a partnership under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Grantor, hereby conveys and quitclaims to Amede Civic Corporation, Grantee, a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: The North one foot of Lot 36, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit F; together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. Seller certifies that the Seller does not know, of any wells on the described property, i -1 - -619- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -620- 00t--~0 I 'sluatuqoooJoua Jo sluotuo^oJduJ{ J~qlo Auu ~Aoqs o1 l~od~nd 1gu 6oop 11 'uoo~ql s§u!pl{nq 5u!is{xe ggJq~J JO UO{.{I)OO{ oql pug '~{Jado,d paq{Josep e^oqo ~ql Jo sa{~opunoq gq1 ~oqs Ol spUalU{ Xe^Jns s{qI 'tun]up pgtunsso uo uodn posoq o Jo u~oqs s§ul~oo8 {os Uou ,,>{d,, s~lou~p : ~ g~ jo JID~ XIJe~goe oq~ OSlD'puD 'g~ pUD 6~ S~O~ pUD '6 pUD g SlO~ uee~leq 6U~Xl ~el~O ' pOIDODA )UeDO[po gq~ JO ~JOd )gq1 ID OS~ :6~ )O~ pigs JO gUll ISO3 eq~ pUD g ~O~ pigs Jo guiI ~seM eq~ jo euolsuelxe XIJeqIJou oqi ueo~loq 5~XI pug [6~ pUD g to~ Jo XlJeqlJou {o3 lo lool 00't qlJoN gq10S3V '~ {{uR S{l{H Ae{J{qS '~ ]3Ol8 '6~ pug g~ 'L~ '6 'g s3o3 (pgAeAJnS s{~3Jod gA}) ~ql o] p~ppo u~8q eAoq g~Ho p~IDOOA 6UiU{O[pO eq] 'uo{]dIJusep s~q{ {o sesodJnd Jo~ :3~ON) : Q3~3A~RS ]33~Vd ~O NOlidl~3S30 3V033 Z - ................ ,., 0 ~ c [ · O'Ok'i. IA , 6['068 S ..................... ...... . _, .................................. ]--i }1o ................ ~ ;- . ~ . ONI~SIX] . ~ .,~., ~ o '-,.~ ,,~., ' ~w ~ 'M ........ ......... · ' ,-,'3 , k4~3~V/, ': , ~, ,,- '-'~ .~ ~ ~, .,., ~0'09~ ~ ,,~V ,Oto6~ N ~ · __.~___=::=:'~J'_ -- , ~ ~ = , ...-,, , . , VIOSHNNIIAI 'A_LNnO0 NId:INN3H -I IlNFI S-I'-IIH A=I'-IHIHS 'C :>tO0'-l~] NI ~~' 'ON ISOd NOLO3-1 ~OJ A3A~FIS JO :I/VOI:IIIH:IO CITY OF MOUND HARDCDVER CALCULATION~ [IMPERVIOUS SU[:{FA¢~ ¢OVERAGEi (for all lots) (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA.. SQ. FT. X 30% = LOT AREA ~/,?/ ~ 742 SO.. FT. X 40% = · LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . I I · Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that .techniques are utilized, as oUflided in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted ahd approved by the Building Official. o DETACHED BLDGS GARAGE/SHED) LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT X = X = TOTAL D~ACHED BLDGS ................. X = DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. //? X TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ,/',,~/ ¢ ~ 0 X = X X ~ TOTALDECK X TOTAL OTHER 0 DECKS Open deoks {1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted, as hardcover oTHER TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS suRFAcE /~indicate difference) - ME M O-R A ND UM DATE: JANUARY 3, 2002 TO: SARAH SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: ALLEY VACATION REQUEST ~BLOCK 3 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B CASE NO. 01- 45 IvlFRA File No. 13592 I have reviewed subject vacation request and see no reason for the City to retain this portion of the alley as public'right-of-way. The City does not have'any public utilities in this area; however since there are other private utilities, I would agree that drainage and utility easements need to be retained over the area proposed for vacation 15050 23"v AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 -623- JCAM ERON(~MFRA.COM (763)'476-0010 FAX (763) 476-8532 .VD f~2,4 I L YNWOOD BL VD RD HILLS 'CITY OF MOUND - ZONINC llOUSg ......... LAKE' TOP OF BLUFF O~AO~ ~ ..... OR OTtIER D~ACHB~ BUILDiNO~ 6,000/40 B3 10,000/6D ,1,4,0~0/80 $1~g ORD. ZI 30,000/100 ~"~'~G/I~RoPosi?.D Exhib , INFORMATION SH~A'T · , ........ 6~'000/40 n2 20,000/80 LOT' WU)TN.: EDEN -625- ~ 5341 Ma)wood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TOg Mound City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Review of Text Amendments to City Code - Implementation of Mound Surface Water Management Plan APPLICANT: City of Mound PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-03 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING AMENDMENTS The City Council will hold a public hearing for review of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance that are associated with the Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) at its Tuesday, February 12, 2002 meeting. CITY CODE AMENDMENTS In addition to the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, there are other amendments to the City Code which are necessary for proper implementation of the SWMP. With the exception of City Code Section 350, amendments to the City Code do not require a public hearing or review by the Planning Commission. However, the proposed amendments to the City Code will be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed zoning ordinance amendments as they are associated with the implementation of the SWMP. BACKGROUND As the City Council is aware, the MCWD approved the SWMP on May 10, 2001 subject to a number of conditions including the execution of a cooperative agreement between the MCWD and the City of Mound within six-months following the Plan's approval. The cooperative agreement was approved by the City Council at its October 23,2001 meeting. Subsequently, the MCWD Board of Managers approved the cooperative agreement at its December 6, 2001 meeting subject to a number of conditions including the requirement that certain amendments and/or revisions are made to various sections of the Mound City Code within six (6) months. PROJECT SUMMARY Details regarding the proposed amendments to the City Code are contained in Planning Report No. 02-03 which has been included as an attachment. -626- REVIEW PROCEDURE Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states that no zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted until a public hearing is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, the notice of the public hearing must also be published at least (10) days prior to the hearing date. The Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Laker on February 2, 2002. The Notice of Public Hearing was also posted on or around January 29, 2002. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS DNR Area Hydrologist Travis Germondson contacted City staff via telephone on February 4, 2002. It is anticipated that comments from the DNR with regard to the proposed revisions to the shoreland management ordinance may be forthcoming. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW City Code Section 350:520 also requires that any proposed text amendment which is not initiated by the Planning Commission must be referred to the Planning Commission for review and must not be acted upon until it has received the Planning Commission's recommendation. Members of the City Council are advised that the proposed ordinance amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its February 4, 2002 meeting. A copy of the minutes from the February 4, 2002 meeting has been included as an attachment. RECOMMENDATION Based on its review, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the City Code as recommended by City staff on the following condition: The corrections and/or revisions suggested by the Planning Commission at its February 4, 2002 meeting are incorporated into the ordinance amendments. ATTACHMENTS · Ordinance No. __-2002 [City Code Section 350 - zoning] · Ordinance No. __-2002 [City Code Section 300 - floodplain] · Ordinance No. -2002 [City Code Section 375 - grading, soil erosion, sedimentation control, and stormwater management] · February 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes -627- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 350 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 350.1121 -Wetland Buffers is hereby added to read as follows: 350.1121 Wetland Buffers. When a site is proposed to develop or redevelop in a manner that requires a Major Subdivision, as defined by City Code Section 330, a natural wetland buffer shall be provided. The minimum buffer width along a wetland or replacement wetland within each lot may range from 50 to 150 percent of the requirement in order to provide flexibility and encourage a natural appearance. Subd. 1. Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Size (Ac) Buffer Width (ft) 0- 1.0 16.5 1 - 2.5 20 2.5 - 5.0 25 > 5.0 35 Subd. 2. Setbacks. All structures, roadways, driveways and parking areas must be located outside of the required buffer. Exceptions to the setback include stairways, walkways and trails. Subd. 3. Protection of Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers can be established by preserving existing nature vegetation, supplementing existing vegetation, or replanting the buffer with native vegetation. The wetland buffer shall be left un-maintained, except when burning to promote its continued health. A delineation of both wetland and buffer edges shall be established through the use of monument markers as approved by the City. Subsection 350.1200 - Shoreline Manaqement is hereby amended as follows: Subsection 350.1225, Subd. 6 (B)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows: ~ .... a 75 ...... * ~**~ ,~+o] ~+~,~ Impervious surface coverage for business, industrial, public, and mixed uses shall not exceed 75% 1 -628- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -2002 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 300 OF THE CITY CODE AS IT RELATES TO THE BUILDING CODE The City of Mound does ordain: Subsection 300.15, Subd. 4, b, is hereby amended to read as follows: bo Flood Frin.qe Structures. The placement of new structures and land uses as permitted by the underlying zoning district, may be permitted within the flood fringe subject to the standards of this section. Fill placed within the flood fringe portion of the flood plain shall be properly compacted and the slopes protected with riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable methods. Activities such as the construction of structures and placement of fill within the flood frinqe shall result in a no net decrease in 100-year flood storage. Passed by the City Council this day of Published in The Laker the day of Effective on ,2002. ,2002. ,2002. Mayor Pat Meisel Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -629- CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. -Z00Z AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 375 - GRADING, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION CONTROL AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO THE CITY CODE The City of Mound does ordain: Section 375 - GRADING, SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION CONTROL, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT is hereby added as follows: 375.10 Gradinq, Soil ErosiOn, and Sedimentation Control. Subd. 1. Purpose. The City requires the preparation and implementation of erosion control plans for land disturbing activities, in order to limit erosion from wind and water; reduce flow volumes and velocities of stormwater moving off- site; reduce sedimentation into water bodies; and protect soil stability during and after site disturbance. These measures should reflect the following principles: A. Minimize, in area and duration, exposed soil and unstable soil conditions. B. Minimize disturbance of natural soil cover and vegetation. C. Protect receiving water bodies, wetlands and storm sewer inlets. D. Retain sediments from disturbed properties on site. E. Minimize off-site sediment transport on trucks and equipment. F. Minimize work in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands. G. Maintain stable slopes. H. Avoid steep slopes and the need for high cuts and fills. I. Minimize disturbance to the surrounding soils, root systems and trunks of trees adjacent to site activity that are intended to be left standing. J. Minimize the compaction of site soils. 1 -630- Ordinance No. -2002 Subd. 2. Permit Requirement. Unless specifically excepted by this section, land-disturbing activity shall require a permit incorporating an erosion control plan approved by the City and shall be conducted in accordance with that plan. Subd. 3. Exceptions. The following land-disturbing activity shall not be subject to the requirements of this section: Activity that: (1) disturbs an area of less than 5,000 square feet; and (2) involves the grading, excavating, filling, or storing on site of less than 50 cubic yards of soil or earth material. B. Routine agricultural activity. C. Emergency activity immediately necessary to protect life or prevent substantial physical harm to person or property. Subd. 4. Gradinq and Erosion Control Plan A satisfactory erosion control and grading plan consistent with the City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan (Appendix J and other sections as applicable) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management practices handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," (March 2000 as amended) must be approved by the City before a building permit is issued for construction, if the construction will result in disturbing the soil. To guarantee compliance with the plan, a five hundred dollar cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the City, shall be furnished to the City before a building permit is issued. The maximum escrow required of an individual builder or subdivider, regardless of the number of building permits that have been issued t° the builder or subdivider, is five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The City may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the City for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the City draws on the escrow funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The City shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the City. B. For subdivisions, the grading and erosion control plan must be consistent with the approved grading plan for the plat. The finished slope shall be no 2 -631 - Ordinance No. -2002 steeper than three (3) units horizontal to one (1) vertical unless specifically approved. Aisc, location of erosion control devices shall be clearly labeled. Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No grading or filling shall be permitted within forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a water body unless specifically approved by the City. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of ground cover shall be provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading operation. Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to determine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the City may require additional controls to correct specific site related problems as normal inspections are performed. All erosion control noted on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the initiation of any site grading. Noncompliance with the grading and erosion control plan shall constitute grounds for an order from the City to halt all construction. All construction activity that results in disturbance of the ground shall comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices Handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended. 375.20 Requirement for Stormwater Manaqement. Subd. 1. Purpose. A. Require stormwater facilities to be included in land development projects where practicable and effective. B. Manage stormwater and snowmelt runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis throughout the City to: Promote effective water quality treatment, where feasible, prior to discharge to surface waterbodies and wetlands; Limit developed peak rates of runoff into major surface water bodies to less than or equal to existing peak rates; and 3. Promote infiltration of both precipitation and runoff. 3 -632- Ordinance No. -2002 Subd. 2. Applicability of Stormwater Manaqement Permit Requirements. As provided herein, before creating any impervious surface or changing the contours of a parcel of land in a way that affects the direction, peak rate or water quality of storm flows from the parcel, a developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway, sidewalk or trail uses shall submit a stormwater management plan and secure a permit. The plan shall incorporate provisions of the City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan and the Best Management Practices (BMP's) as found in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices Handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended, rate control and water quality control, as applicable. The applicability of the stormwater management requirements set forth in this section to a given development or redevelopment is set forth in paragraphs A through E. A. Single Family Homes. A permit is not required for the construction or reconstruction of a single-family home or its residential appurtenances. B. Single-Family, Developed or Redeveloped Subdivision. A permit is not required from the City for construction on less than two (2) acres with a density of two (2) units or less per acre. A permit is required for residential development or redevelopment of subdivisions with a density of two (2) units or less per acre on sites of two (2) acres or more, as follows: For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of two (2) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 of this section are required. For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of eight (8) acres or more but less than twenty (20) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. o For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of twenty (20) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. C. Medium Density Residential Land Development. A permit is not required for the development or redevelopment on a site of less than two (2) acres of residential subdivisions with single-family units at a density of more than two (2) units per acre or a multi-unit residential development or redevelopment, at a density of less than eight (8) units per acre. A permit is required for development or redevelopment on a site of two (2) acres or more of 4 -633- Ordinance No. -2002 residential subdivisions with a density of more than two (2) units per acre or multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a density of less then eight (8) units per acre, as follows: For development or redevelopment of two (2) acres or more but less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 of this section are required. o For development or redevelopment of five (5) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. For development or redevelopment of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. D. Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Development or Redevelopment; Mixed use; High Density Residential Development or Redevelopment. A permit is required for commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed use development or redevelopment, or for multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a density greater than or equal to eight (8) units per acre, as follows: 1. For all development or redevelopment, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 of this section are required. For development or redevelopment activities on sites of one-half (1/2) acre or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. o For development or redevelopment activities on sites of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this section are required. Roads, Streets, Highways, Sidewalks and Trails. A permit is not required for the maintenance or improvement of a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way not otherwise regulated under paragraphs (a) through (d), if the project does not result in a net increase in impervious 5 -634- Fo Ordinance No. -2002 surface. A permit is required for a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way that results in a net increase in impervious surface area, as follows: For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of less than one (1) acre, the best management practices in Subd. 3 of this Section will be required; 2. For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or more, but the total project area is less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4 are required to treat the increase; 3. For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or more and the total project area is five (5) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in Subd. 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in Subd. 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in Subd. 4 of this Section are required to treat the increase; 4. Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed ten (10) feet in width and are bordered by a pervious buffer of at least five feet on each side do not require a permit and are not included in any calculation of net increase in impervious surface when part of a road or street project. The interruption of pervious buffer by streets, driveways or other impervious surfaces crossing a sidewalk or trail does not invalidate this exception provided that these impervious surfaces do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the required pervious buffer. Additional Requirements. In the event that the stormwater management requirements in the preceding paragraphs A through E are not adequate to address development impacts relating to BMP's, water quality or water quantity controls on development or redevelopment sites or special conditions exist, the City may require, at is discretion, additional measures in order to further the intent of the Mound Surface Water Management Plan. Surety. A performance bond or other surety in a form satisfactory to the City is required for all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of land. Common Scheme of Development. In determining stormwater management requirements under this section, development or redevelopment on adjacent sites under common or related ownership shall be considered in the aggregate. The requirements applicable to a development or redevelopment 6 -635- Ordinance No. -2002 under this section shall be determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site, or on adjacent sites under common or related ownership, since the date this Section took effect. Additional Development or Redevelopment on Developed Sites. When the impervious area on a site is increased by 50 percent or more, the requirements imposed by this Section will be determined with respect to the site in a pre-development condition. When the impervious area on a site is increased by less than 50 percent, the requirements imposed by this Section will be determined with respect to only the additional impervious surface and site alteration proposed. Subd. 3. Best Manaqement Practice Requirements. BMPs consist of site design, structural and non-structural practices. BMPs must be incorporated in all projects requiring a permit under this section to limit creation of impervious surface, maintain or enhance on-site infiltration and peak flow control and limit pollutant generation on and discharge from the site. BMP's must be consistent with specifications of the MPCA manual "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas dated March 2000 and its future revisions. The City, in its discretion, may allow a BMP not addressed in the MPCA manual on a demonstration of its effectiveness or if its application will generate new and useful data or information regarding its effectiveness. All applications for which compliance only with BMP's is required shall delineate buildings and structures showing that door and window openings are a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water elevation. Subd. 4. Stormwater Manaqement and Erosion Control Plan Standard-~ Stormwater management plans shall incorporate provisions of the City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan (Appendix J and other sections as applicable) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices Handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended. Passed by the City Council this Published in The Laker the day of Effective on ,2002. day of ,2002 ,2002. Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 7 -636- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2002 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Jori Ayaz, Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Frank Weiland and Council Liaison Bob Brown. Staffpresent: City Planner Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Bill Schlatzlein Construction-70 Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. Bob Brown was acknowledged and welcomed heartily as the new City Council representative. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse, to approve the minutes of the January 7, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. e ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2002 Glister nominated GeoffMichael as Chairman. Weiland seconded and closed the nominations. Brown moved to white ballet. Nomination was approved unanimously. Mueller nominated Orv Burma as Vice-Chairman. Weiland seconded and closed the nominations. Brown moved to white ballet. Nomination was approved unanimously. 3. ADOPTION OF PC WORK RULES FOR 2002 The following changes were suggested: Page 2 - Section B. 1 - "second and fourth" should be changed to "first and third". Page 2 - Section B.3 - "first meeting in January" should be changed to "second meeting of the year. Page 2 - Section B.3 - "shall" should be changed to "will MOTION by Michael, seconded by Weiland, to postpone action on this item until next meeting. MOTION carded unanimously. -637- Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2002 4. PRESENTATION FROM CONSTRUCTION-70. INC. (ANTHONY'S FLORAL SITE) Construction 70 received general input and comments from Planning Commission in June regarding the reuse of Anthony's Floral site. They are to be commended for their willingness to come before us once again for input. Present were Bill Schlatzlein, representing Construction 70 and Aaron Bamhardt representing the buyers. The wetlands will remain. The eastern half of the parcel is substantially higher than the western half. Plan is for continued senior living from independent to assisted living. Most of the parking will be underground. Units include independent living, assisted living and memory care. Also proposed are Villa homes (cottages) on the northwest side; probably slab on grade. Clapsaddle asked if there was any sense of community reception to this concept. Bill said they hadn't done any surveying yet but it's something that we are looking to pursue. Mueller felt that the utility building near the county road was visually unattractive both as an aesthetic and market standpoint. Because this proposal is considered high density, they would need a comp plan amendment and PUD. There are 148 living units planned. Many would be multiple (1 and 2 bedrooms). Are 142 parking spaces adequate? The Masonic housing in Bloomington is similar but larger. Planning Commission would like the address so they can take a look at it. Are we looking at setting ourselves up to non-profit, non-tax? Bill said they would expect it to be tax paying. Brown asked if there would be dedicated park land of 10%? Bill indicated a definite willingness to accommodate that - either payment in lieu of land dedication or land itself. Weiland asked if there had been consideration of what was dumped into that area? Aaron said it was mostly road surface material; gravel. Weiland wondered if all the units on east side 4 story? Bill indicated some are 3 and some 4. Clapsaddle asked if the parking garages fully below grade? Bill said they basically were. Michael observed that Commerce Boulevard is extremely busy. He felt that rezoning for high density would be difficult to get through. 5. REVIEW OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MOUND CITY CODE Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approved the Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) in 2001 subject to a number of conditions including execution of a cooperative agreement between the MCWD and the City. This agreement was approved in December 2001 subject to a number of conditions including the requirement that certain amendments and/or revisions are made to various sections of the Mound City Code within six (6) months. -638- Plarming Commission Minutes February 4, 2002 Discussion Weiland noted that on Page 14, Subd 3 it should be changed to read "The wetland buffer shall be left." He also wanted to know what was the advantage of taking this over? Smith said that local control is best and, we get to interpret the rules for what is best for us. We can look fight in the plan and know what it means for us. We also don't have to shimmy things to someone else for review. One set of rules for everything isn't specific enough to deal with issues. Our plan has been written for Mound and should work well for us. Mueller wanted to know if there were any changes from what we talked about in July. Gordon said it was the same. We are really adopting what the watershed is doing today. Weiland wanted to know what the markers were that are referenced on Page 15, Subd 3. Gordon referred to the Langdon Bay area where, along the wetland buffer areas, markers are required so people know where they can and cannot mow. Each property would have regulations as to what the property can do. Weiland asked if there have been any comments from lakeshore property owners about not mowing along the lake? Gordon said no. They've had a public heating and we have heard nothing. Smith indicated that the first permits adjacent to the wetlands have just come in. The Engineer has addressed the need to be sure the markers are placed appropriately. The key to this whole project is public information. Mueller said that conversations with Dan Parks indicated that Minnetonka is not a wetland area. Gordon previously it applied to just wetlands. Most properties along Minnetonka do not have wetland edges. Brown wanted to know if we have spoken to the City Attomey about non-elected officials making laws/policy. Is this legal? Smith replied that it was a question for John Dean. Mueller asked how it would affect om' parks and the greenway? Gordon replied that the new rule adds stream and lake buffers to the previous wetland edge regulations. We are going to adopt this before the new rule comes and our plan will be grandfathered in. The Watershed currently says if more than 50 cubic yards of fill is involved the rule kicks in. Our SWMP plan says it only applies only under major subdivisions. Mueller asked if we are going to have to survey/categorize every half acre of wetland? Gordon replied that it's already been done. Mueller asked about the wetlands the Construction 70 concept addresses. Gordon said that if they are considered wetlands they will fall under Page 17.2. Mueller asked if Lost Lake is a 35 foot buffer area? Smith indicated that it is but a variance has already be acquired to put a trail in the middle of it. -639- Planning Commission Minutes February 4, 2002 Brown said he'd been against the buffer zone from day 1. Two years ago he said this was their way of getting their toe in the door and they would make it stricter down the road. Burma sees if from the viewpoint that the City is regaining some control over these things. Maybe the Watershed District will come back at some point and regain control but we will have a period of time to develop as we see fit. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend adoption of this amendment. MOTION carried unanimously 6. OLD AND NEW BUSINESS Smith asked the Commission if it they were open to a second meeting in February. There are a couple of applications in addition to several discussion items staff would like input on. We could use February 25th as a workshop only and then March 4th for cases. Consensus of the Commissioner's was to meet on February 25th. Smith indicated that staff was updating the application forms for complete and clear directions. We are raising the bar as the Commission indicated was desired. Because of the higher expectations there might be complaints. We have also changed the submittal due date to the first business day of the month. Brown mentioned that there is a special city council workshop on February 13th. Because Gramercy pulled out, the City Council will meet to plan the next move. Does Planning Commission want to be invited? Mueller indicated he has always maintained that Planning Commission should be in on redevelopment planning. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 9:16 PM. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair Geoff Michael Attest: Planning Secretary -040- 5341 Mayw0od Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound City Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: January 30, 2002 SUBJECT: Review of Text Amendments to City Code - Implementation of Mound Surface Water Management Plan APPLICANT: City of Mound PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-03 PROJECT SUMMARY As the City Council and Planning Commission are aware, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approved the Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) on May 10, 2001 subject to a number of conditions including the execution of a cooperative agreement between the MCWD and the City of Mound. The cooperative agreement was approved by the City Council on October 23, 2001. Subsequently, the MCWD Board of Managers approved the cooperative agreement at its December 6, 2001 meeting subject to a number of conditions including the requirement that certain amendments and/or revisions are made to various sections of the Mound City Code within six (6) months. REVIEW PROCEDURE Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. 3 states that no zoning ordinance or amendment can be adopted until a public hearing is held by the planning agency or by the governing body. Additionally, the notice of the public hearing must also be published at least (10) days prior to the hearing date. ~, City Code Section 350:520 also requires that any proposed text amendment which is not initiated by the Planning Commission must be referred to the Planning Commission for review and must not be acted upon until it has received the Planning Commission's recommendation PUBLIC HEARING DATE The public hearing for formal review of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance will be held by the City Council at its Tuesday, February 12, 2002 meeting. The notice of public hearing was published in the Laker on February 2, 2002. -641 - REVISIONS TO MOUND CITY CODE In addition to the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance, there are other amendments to the City Code which are necessary/'or proper implementation of the SWlVIP. With the exception of City Code Section 350, amendments to the City Code do not require a public hearing or review by the Planning Commission. However, the proposed amendments to the City Code will be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed zoning ordinance amendments as they are associated with the implementation of the Surface Water Management Ordinance. PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS Members of the City Council and Planning Commission are advised that the proposed amendments to the City Code which are associated with the SWMP were reviewed preliminarily by the Planning Commission at is July 16, 2001 meeting. Copies of the minutes from the July 16, 2001 Planning Commission have been included as an attachment. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting were forwarded to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the MCWD for review and comment. Members of the Planning Commission and City Council are advised that the proposed amendments were reviewed by the MCWD prior to the approval of the SWMP and were favorably received. STAFF COMMENTS Members of the City Council and Planning Commission are advised that the proposal to increase and expand the buffer standards (Rule M) has once again resurfaced and will be formally reviewed as part of a public hearing to be held by the MCWD on February 14, 2001. In the event the City's ordinance amendments are not in place prior to the 180- deadline for the execution of the implementation phase, the possibility exists that Mound's Plan could be subject to the proposed new rules effective immediately in the event they are approved. Conversely, if the ordinance amendments are already formally approved by the City, it is likely we would be "grandfathered in" until such time as the Generation III Plan would be approved by the MCWD. It is City staff's understanding that copies of the Mound Surface Water Management Plan were provided previously to members of the City Council and Planning Commission and therefore have not been included as part of this report. Additional copies can be obtained from City staff upon request. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the City Code. 2 -642- ATTACHMENTS · Affadavit of Posting of Public Hearing Notice · Notice of Public Hearing dated February 2, 2002 · Proposed text amendments dated February 2002 for implementation of Surface Water Management Ordinance · Cooperative Agreement dated October 23, 2001 between the City of Mound and the MCWD · City Code Section 350:520 Text Amendments · Minutes from July 16, 2001 Planning Commission meeting -643- STATE O F M I N N ESOTA ) )ss. i: :COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING HEARING NOTICE~ Case No. ~ ~/~/C~?~ being duly sworni on oath says day of ~O,~_~~, ,20 O~, he/she personally'[ the attached notice in three public places in the County of Hennepin, Minnesota, to wit: One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at City Hall, 5341 Ma, Mound, Minnesota. One true copy thereof on the front door of the Public Works Facility' Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. One true copy thereof on the bulletin board at the Westonka Commu~' Library at 2079 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this/-).¢i'~'' day of SUE SCHWALBE NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA Notary Public, Hennepir My Commission ex: -644- PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 350:1J 00 - WETLANDS AND SECTION 350:1200 -SHORELAND MANAGEMENT OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m..on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 to consider amendments to Zoning Code Section 350:1100 0Netlands) and Zoning Code Section 350:1200. (Shoreland Management.) Amendment Summary - City Code Section 350:1100 Section 350:1121 Wetland Buffers. When a site is proposed to develop or redevelop in a manner that requires a Major Subdivision, as defined by City Code Section 330, a natural wetland buffer shall be provided. The minimum buffer width along a wetland or replacement wetland within each lot may range from 50 to 150 percent of the requirement in order to provide flexibility and encourage a natural appearance. Subd. 1. Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Size (Ac) Buffer Width (ft) 0- 1.0 16.5 1 - 2.5 2O 2.5 - 5.0 25 > 5.0 35 Subd. 2. Setbacks. All structures, roadways, driveways, and parking areas must be located outside of the required buffer. Exceptions to the setback include stairways, walkways, and trails. Subd. 3. Protection of Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers can be established by preserving existing native vegetation, supplementing existing vegetation, or replanting the buffer with native vegetation. The wetland buffer shall left unmaintained, except when burned to promote its continued health. A delineation of both wetland and buffer edges shall be established through the use of monument markers as approved by the City. Amendment Summary - City Code Section 350:1200 Shoreland Management- 350:1200 (revisions to existing ordinance) Section 350:1225, Subd. 6(B)(2). Impervious surface coverage for business, industrial, public, and mixed uses shall not exceed 75%. Mixed use projects cannot be exclusively residential to qualify for this impervious surface standard. Copies of the ordinance amendments are available to the public upon request at City Hall. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. ,~1 I~orlander, Planning and Inspections Secretary Published in the Laker on February 2, 2002. -645- Draft Ordinance Provisions for Surface Water Management Plan Implementation CiTY OF MOUND Shoreland Management - 350:1200 (Revisions to existing ordinance) Section 350:1225, Subd. 6(B)(2) Impervious surface coverage for business, industrial, public, and mixed uses shall not exceed 75%. Mixed use projects cannot be exclusively residential to qualify for this impervious surface standard. Wetlands - Section 350:1100 (New language to existing ordinance) Section 350:1121 Wetland Buffers. When a site is proposed to develop or redevelop in a manner that requires a Major Subdivision, as defined by City Code Section 330, a natural wetland buffer shall be provided. The minimum buffer width along a wetland or replacement wetland within each lot may range from 50 to 150 percent of the requirement in order to provide flexibility and encourage a natural appearance. Subd. 1. Wetland Buffer Widths Wetland Size (Ac) Buffer Width (ft) 0- 1.0 16.5 1 - 2.5 20 2.5 -5.0 25 > 5.0 35 Subd. 2. Setbacks. All structures, roadways, driveways, and parking areas must be located outside of the required buffer. Exceptions to the setback include stairways, walkways, and trails. Subd. 3. Protection of Wetland Buffers. Wetland buffers can be established by preserving existing native vegetation, supplementing existing vegetation, or replanting the buffer with native vegetation. The wetland buffer shall left unmaintained, except when burned to promote its continued health. A delineation of both wetland and buffer edges shall be established through the use of monument markers as approved by the City. ?roposed Amendments for Surface ~Vater Management ?lan Jml21ementation February 2002 ! of 6pages -646- Floodplain Overlay Regulations - Section 300:15 (New language to existing ordinance) Subd. 4 Development Standards a. Activities such as the construction of structures and placemen of fill within the flood fringe shall result in a no net decrease in 100-year flood storage. Section 375 - Gradinga Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control A satisfactory erosion control and grading plan consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency' s Best Management Practices handbook, "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas," as amended, must be approved by the city engineer before a building permit is issued for construction, if the construction will result in disturbing the soil. To guarantee compliance with the plan, a five hundred-dollar cash escrow or letter of credit, satisfactory to the city, shall be furnished the city before a building permit is issued. The maximum escrow required of an individual builder or subdivider, regardless of the number of building permits that have been issued to the builder or subdivider, is five thousand dollars ($5,000.00). The city may use the escrow or draw upon the letter of credit to reimburse the city for any labor or material costs it incurs in securing compliance with the plan or in implementing the plan. If the city draws on the escrowed funds, no additional building permits shall be issued until the pre-draw escrow balance has been restored. The city shall endeavor to give notice to the owner or developer before proceeding, but such notice shall not be required in an emergency as determined by the city. b) The grading and erosion control plan must be consistent with the approved grading plan for the plat in which the property is located, if any. Areas where the finished slope will be steeper than three (3) units horizontal to one (1) vertical shall be specifically noted. Also, location of erosion control devices shall be clearly labeled. c) Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No grading or filling shall be permitted within forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a water body unless specifically approved by the city. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of ground cover shall be provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading operation. d) Every effort shall be made during the building permit application process to determine the full extent of erosion control required. However, the city engineer may require additional controls to correct specific site related problems as normal inspections are performed. Proposed Amendments for Surface Water Management Plan Implementation February 2002 2 of 6 pages -647- e) All erosion control noted on the approved plan shall be installed prior to the initiation of any site grading. Noncompliance with the grading and erosion control plan shall constitute grounds for an order from the city engineer to halt all construction. All contraction activity that results in disturbance of the ground shall comply with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management Practices handbook, as amended. Requirements for Stormwater Management - (MCWD Rule N language) As provided herein, before creating any impervious surface or changing the contours of a parcel of land in a way that affects the direction, peak rate or water quality of storm flows from the parcel, a developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public roadway, sidewalk or trail uses shall submit a stormwater management plan and secure a permit. The plan shall incorporate BMP's, rate control and water quality control, as applicable. The applicability of the stormwater management requirements set forth in this section to a given development or redevelopment is set forth at paragraphs (a) through (e). (a) Single-Family Homes. A permit is not required for the construction or reconstruction of a single-family home or its residential appurtenances. (b) Single-Family, Developed or Redeveloped Subdivisions. A permit is not required from the MCWD for construction on less than two (2) acres with a density of two (2) units or less per acre. A permit is required for residential development or redevelopment of subdivisions with a density of two (2) units or less per acre on sites of two (2) acres or more, as follows: (1) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of two (2) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required; (2) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of eight (8) acres or more but less than twenty (20) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required; (3) For development or redevelopment of subdiviSions of twenty (20) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required. Proposed Amendments for Smface Water Management Plan ]mplementation February 2002 3 of 6 pages -648- (c) Medium Density Residential Land Development. A permit is not required for the development or redevelopment on a site of less than two (2) acres of residential subdivisions with single-family units at a density of more than two (2) units per acre or multi-unit residential development or redevelopment, at a density of less than eight (8) units per acre. A permit is required for development or redevelopment on a site of two (2) acres or more of residential subdivisions with a density of more than two (2) units per acre or multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a density of less than eight (8) units per acre, as follows: (1) For development or redevelopment of two (2) acres or more but less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required; (2) For development or redevelopment of five (5) acres or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required; (3) For development or redevelopment of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required. (d) Commercial, Industrial, or Institutional Development or Redevelopment; Mixed Use; High Density Residential Development or Redevelopment. A permit is required for commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed use development or redevelopment, or for multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a density greater than or equal to eight (8) units per acre, as follows: (1) For all development or redevelopment, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required; (2) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of one- half (1/2) acre or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of this rule are required; (3) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of eight (8) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required. Proposed Amendments for Surface Water Management Plan Implementation February 2002 4 of 6 pages -649- (e) Roads, Streets, Highways, Sidewalks, and Trails. A permit is not required for the maintenance or improvement of a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way not otherwise regulated under paragraphs (a) through (d), if the project does not result in a net increase in impervious surface. A permit is required for a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or other linear way that results in a net increase in impervious surface area, as follows: (1) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of less than one (1) acre, the best management practices in section 3 of this rule will be required; (2) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre or more, but the total project area is less than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 are required to treat the increase; (3) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one (1) acre ore more and the total project area is five (5) acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required to treat the increase; (4) Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed ten (10) feet in width and are bordered by a pervious buffer of at least five feet on each side do not require a permit and are not included in any calculation of net increase in impervious surface when part of a road or street project. The interruption of pervious buffer by streets, driveways or other impervious surfaces crossing a sidewalk or trail does not invalidate this exception provided that these impervious surfaces do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the required pervious buffer. (t) Surety. A performance bond or other surety in a form satisfactory to the District is required for all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres of land. The District will not require a performance bond or other type of surety from cities, townships, municipal corporations, counties, the state or federal government, or agencies of any of the aforementioned. (g) Common Scheme of Development. In determining stormwater management requirements under this section, development or redevelopment on adjacent sites under common or related ownership shall be considered in the aggregate. The requirements applicable to a Proposed Amendments for Surface 14/ater Management Plan Implementation February 2002 -650- 5 of 6 pages development or redevelopment under this section shall be determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site, or on adjacent sites under common or related ownership, since the date this rule took effect. (h) Additional Development or Redevelopment on Developed Sites. When the impervious area on a site is increased by 50 percent or more, the requirements imposed by this rule will be determined with respect to the site in a pre-development condition. When the impervious area on a site is increased by less than 50 percent, the requirements imposed by this rule will be determined with respect to only the additional impervious surface and site alteration proposed. Proposed Amendments for Surface ~Vater Management Plan Implementation February 2002 6 of 6 pages -651 - COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Between the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City of Mound for Local Water Planning and Regulation This C0o0erative A reement is made this _ 2ay 2001'by md tween the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a watershed district with purposes and powers as set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D CMCWD"), and the City of Mound, a body corporate and politic and a [home rule charter/statutory] city in the State of Minnesota ("City"). Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS in 1997, the MCWD revised its comprehensive watershed management plan under Minnesota Statues § 103B.23 l, which details the existing physical environment, land use and development in the watershed and establishes a plan to regulate water resource use and management to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; WHEREAS the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan incorporates the Rules adopted by the MCWD to protect water resources, improve water quality, prevent flooding and otherwise achieve the goals of Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; WHEREAS the City has developed a local water management plan under Minnesota Statutes § 103B.235 that describes the existing and proposed physical environment and land use within the City and sets forth an implementation plan for bringing local water management into conformance with the MCWD's comprehensive watershed management plan; WHEREAS on May 1~ 2001, the MCWD Board of Managers conditionally approved the City's local water management plan by adoption of Resolution 06-2001, which resolution is attached and incorporated herein; WHEREAS the May 1~ 2001 local plan approval was condition on fulfillment of the terms set forth in Resolution 06-2001; WHEREAS the City within 120 days of execution of this Cooperative Agreement will adopt and implement its local water management plan and within 180 days will adopt all ordinances identified in Resolution 06-2001 as necessary for the Board of Managers' finding that the City's official controls are as protective of the water resource as the MCWD's; WttEREAS, the MCWD and City desire to memorialize their respective roles in implementing water resource protection and management within the City; NOW THEREFORE it is mutually agreed by and between the parties that they enter into this Cooperative Agreement in order to document the understanding of the parties as to the roles and responsibilities of each party.. -652- 1.0 Re _sponsibilities 0flh~ (~i~y 1.1 The City may exercise ail present and future authority it otherwise may possess to issue permits for and regulate activities affecting water resources within the City. 1.2 The City is solely responsible for erosion control, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development within the City. The City will regulate these activities in accordance with the City's approved locai water management Plan and the terms of this Agreement. The MCWD will continue to exercise its regulatory authority with respect to all other subjects of regulation under its Rules. 1.3 On written confirmation to the MCWD that the City has adopted erosion control, flood plain aiteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development ordinances as required by Resolution 06-2001 and said ordinances are in force, the City shall become solely responsible for erosion control, flood plain aiteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development within the City. The City will implement the ordinances in accordance with the City's approved local water management plan and the terms of this Agreement. 1.4 Within 120 days of its receipt of the MCWD's wetland inventory and function & value assessment for the City, the City shall review its locai water management plan, submit to the MCWD such revisions as the City believes warranted by the new information. 1.5 The City will not issue a variance for an activity that does not comply with an above= referenced ordinance until the MCWD has approved the variance and proposed conditions. On receipt of a request for a variance, the City promptly will transmit a copy of the variance request and supporting documentation to the MCWD for review. 1.6 The City will maintain a log of permits it grants pursuant to this Agreement, will provide the log to the MCWD annually and will meet at least annually with the MCWD to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan. 2.0 Responsibilities 0f,h, MCWD 2.1 The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce MCWD Rules E, F, and G "dredging, shoreland and streambauk improvements, and stream and lake crossings," within the City, as applicable. 2.2. The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce MCWD Rules B, C, D and N, "erosion control, flood plain alteration, wetland protection and stormwater management for land development," within the City until the conditions in Paragraph 1.3 have been met. 2.3 The MCWD will continue to apply and enforce Rule I, "Variances," when considering a variance from an above-referenced City ordinance. The MCWD will act on a variance request Ixu'suant to Paragraph 1.5 within 30 days of its receipt of the request. 2.4 The MCWD will perform a wetland inventory and a function & vaiue assessment for the City and will provide the results to the City. -653- 2.5 2.6 The MCWD will exercise good faith in its review and approval of any revision submitted by the City in accordance with paragraph 1.4, above. The MCWD will meet with the City at least annually to review the implementation of the City's local water management plan. . ~ The MCWD retains the right to enforce any and all of its roles in the event that the City is unable or unwilling to carry out its obligations listed in Section 1.0 of this Agreement. 2.8 The MCWD retains all authority that it may possess under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D or any other provision of law, except as explicitly reposed in the City under this Agreement, including but not limited to authority set forth in Minnesota Statutes §§ 103B.211, subd. l(a); 103D.335 and 103D.341. 3.0 Conditions The City's local water management plan shall be deemed finally approved by the MCWD on the City's fulfillment of paragraph 1.3 above. 4.0 Amendment This Agreement may be amended only by a writing signed by both of the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Cooperative Agreement. C1TY OF Mayor Cify Manager ~ CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT By: ~¢L~ ~~ President, Board df Managers APPROVED AS TO F~O~ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM AND EXECUTION By: Its Attorney CLL-199360v2 MU2204 -654- Mouna~ City Code 350.515 350.$~ ~ Planning Comml~ion. The Planning Commission established pursuant to Section ~5 of the City Code shall provide assistance to the City Council and Administrator in the admini~n of this Ordinance and at the recommendation of the Planning Commission sl~ll review, ~ld public hearings, and make recommendations to the City Council on all applic~or~ for zoning amendments and conditional use permits using the criteria in Sub~ectior~ 350.520 and 350.525. 3~0.~20 Zoning Amendments. Sub& 1. Criteria for Granting Zoning Amendments. The City Council may adopt amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and zoning map in relation both to land uses within a particular district or to the location of the district lines. Such amendments shall not he issued indiscriminately, but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in the goals and policies of the community as reflected in the Plan or changes in conditions in the City. Sub& 2. Procedure - Zoning Amendments, Ae An amendment to the text of the Ordinance or zoning map may 'be initiated by the City Council, the Planning Commission or by application of a property owner. Individuals wishing to initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Shall fill out a zoning amendment application form and submit it to the Zoning Administrator. The property owner.applying for a zoning amendment shall fill out and submit to the Administrator a rezoning application form. A site plan must be attached or drawn below at a scale large enough for clarity showing the following information: Location and dimensions of; lot, building, driveways, and off- street parking. Distance I~veen: building and front, side, and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 39 2151O0 -655- Mound City C~o 350.520, Subfl. 2, B. 3 3. Location of: signs, easements,~ underground utilities, etc. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the Administrator and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator shall maintain records of amendments to the text and zoning map of the Ordinance. The City Council may-not act until it has received the advice from the planner or 60 days has passed from referral. City Clerk shall mall the same notice to the owners of property located within three hundred and fifty (350) feet of the outer boundaries of the land proposed to be rezoned. The notice shall include the de~ription of the l~d ~d the proposed changes in~ning. The ~6~nd Pi~ing co~SSiOn muS~ take action on the apPliCation within sixty days following referral. The person making the application shall be notified of the action taken. The Planning Commission shall make its report to the Mound City Council at its next regular meeting following its action recommending approval, disapproval or modified approval of the proposed amendment. No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the Ordinance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning Commission within the one-year period following a denial of such request, except the Planning Commission may permit a new application, if in the opinion of the Planning Commission, new evidence or a change of circumstances warrant it. 40 2/5/00 -656- MOUND ADVISORY PIJANNING COMMISSION MONDAY JULY 16, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent and excused: Cklair Hasse. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the minutes of the July 2, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. 2. DISCUSSION ITEMS REVIEW OF ORDINANCE ELEMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Planner Gordon introduced the discussion topic by saying that a review is needed of some of the elements that are needed to implement the surface water management plan. The Surface Water Management Plan enables us to take the review and approval authority from the watershed district. Gordon indicated there are 4 steps to the process: 1) we already have the plan approved by resolution; 2) there is a resolution that acknowledges the transfer of authority. Council decided to wait until the Community Development Director comes on board; 3) we need to approve the elements and adopt them into our ordinances; 4) once the areas are identified by the MCWD we will have to adopt their assessment of the wetland areas within the city. Ordinance provisions were highlighted by Planner Gordon. (See attachment - Draft Ordinance Provisions for Surface Water management Plan Implementation) Discussion is as follows: Wetland buffers are the old standard and we can stay with these or go with the current standard, which is slightly more. We would like to average the buffer distance but the Watershed district is not really flexible in this area. We're going to push for 50-150% of the required, depending on the area. -657- Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2001 We also would like to be more lenient with stairways and trails than the current standards. We would like a delineation of both wetland buffer edges and are doing that now in the Langdon Bay addition by requiring monuments in various locations. Mueller asked what kind of vegetation growth determines a wetland. Gordon said it depended on the analysis of the area. Mueller inquired what the triggering effect would be of an area? Gordon replied that the application to install things like trails and roadways within an established buffer area would trigger the process. Every effort should be made to minimize disturbance of these areas. Sutherland added that there are some properties throughout the city i.e. out on Three Points and property on Lynwood that doesn't restrict someone from mowing without a problem. Mueller wanted to know why it was necessary to mark the buffer and the wetlands both. Sutherland felt that the buffer delineation was necessary so that when land changes hands the demarcation has to survive. The wetlands need to be delineated in order to know where the buffer is. They could be on the property line and at grade. Sutherland felt that any time approval by the City Engineer is mentioned it should read City Engineer/Building Official because the Building Official issues all grading permits. Clapsaddle wondered how restoration could be made in 5 days. Sutherland said it meant preparation for restoration. Mueller stated that references to fees should be made "as determined by the City Council. The reference to measurement bom the ordinary high water is a perpendicular measurement. Mueller wanted the references to permits be specific as to the type of permit so there is no question. Also, in the Surety section it should be stated "as required by the City" not the District as currently stated. Sutherland feels that review by City Attorney should be part of the review process, especially in the area of surety requirements. It could be covered in the definition section of the provisions. The common ownership issue (g) should be part of the application and make it the applicant's responsibility to tell the city of their interest in adjoining properties. Clapsaddle inquired about a residential site that is 1 to 1 V2 acres and had a major drainage area through the site, where the impact is very heavy. How would that be handled? Gordon said it would still come under City Engineer review. Mueller observed that there are two sections (Drainage, Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control) that say the same thing, but two different sections of our code. Why? Gordon said we are establishing Best Management Practices. It is in the zoning ordinance for when we aren't subdividing land and the other section when we are developing land. We are covering all the bases. -658- Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2001 Mueller thought that Mound codes are more restrictive than the 50 cubic yard rule, correct? Ours is' 30 cubic yards? Gordon replied that we deal with the 50 cubic yard limit already. I'll check on the 30 cubic yard limit. Mueller wanted to know how we deal with those that bring in a little each year to stay under the 50 cubic yard limit? Gordon - Good point. Mueller asked if we are under the Cooperative Agreement yet. Gordon said we weren't. That's what went to the Council last meeting and they tabled. Mueller's opinion was that MFRA's responses to the watershed were well written. We should argue in favor of the standards we have written in. Provides flexibility and does what it's suppose to do. Gordon confirmed that we'll keep working with the watershed district and make the changes as discussed here. Glister was concerned with the additional work it creates for our staff?. Gordon said there are not a lot of properties that come up that meet these criteria. It fits in our process better if we have the ability to oversee all the elements and not have to farm out one of the issues. John Cameron will have to have some of his people working on storm water facility design. There is a rate structure in place to handle the additional. Developers pay for staff time. Sutherland felt it definitely increases demand on staff time. Mueller wanted to be sure that the new changes made will be added to our code so developers are still responsible for review costs. Gordon assured him that it is written in already. They are responsible for professional fees incurred. 3. MISCELLANEOUS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF JULY 10, 2001 Michael wanted to know what was Plan B in relation to the liquor store update. Sutherland indicated that the lease is due to mn out. Anderson said they are evaluating relocation. Michael inquired, regarding the Policy on Appointments and Reappointments to Advisory Commissions, who are the department heads and who picks the questions? Sutherland said, our department head would be Sarah Smith and the procedure would remain the same right now with the commission setting the questions. Anderson thought it allowed more flexibility that way and more applicable to the individual commissions. -659- Planning Commission Minutes July 16, 2001 Mueller thought that the change to the administration of the zoning code was a Planning Cornrnission item. Gordon said they were just getting a feel for the Council thoughts. It will be brought to the Planning Commission for action. Mueller wanted to specifically ask about the appeals procedure in that zoning code change. Doesn't this circumvent the Planning Commission and allow someone to go to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, which is the City Council, without going before the Planning Commission first. We need to be sure that the proper channels are outlined in the Code so no one can do that. We need to discuss this further. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 PM. MOTION carded unanimously. Chair Geoff Michael Attest, Planning Secretary -660- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -661 - 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 PLANNING REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sarah Smith, Community Development Director DATE: February 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Request for waiver of platting approval to subdivide Lots 21-24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F and adjoining vacated alley and create two (2) new lots for tax purposes APPLICANT: Walter Peterson, 6668 Smithtown Road, Excelsior, MN 55331 APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Diane Bazella, 5271 Eden Road, Mound, MN 55364 PLANNING CASE NUMBER: 02-04 LOCATION: 5243 - 5287 Eden Road PID: 13-117-24-34-0098 ZONING: Business (B-l) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Commercial SUMMARY The City Council will review a request from Walter Peterson, applicant and property owner of the multiple-family structures located at 5243-5287 Eden Road, for "waiver of platting" approval pursuant to City Code Chapter 330:12 to subdivide Lots 21-24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F into two (2) new parcels for tax-purposes. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Project Approval. The City Council approved Resolution No. 85-17 for a CLIP for Schlee Builders to construct two 4-unit multiple-family structures on Eden Road. At the time of the project's approval, it appears that the subject property included four (4) separate parcels. Building Permit Issuance. Following approval of Resolution No. 85-17, the City issued two (2) building permits and subsequently required that Lots 21 and 22 be combined into one building site to include four (4) units and Lots 23 and 24 be combined into a second building site to include four (4) units. Waiver of Platting Approval - 8 Townhouse Units. At its April 23, 1985 meeting, the City Council approved a waiver of platting request to divide the property into eight (8) lots to accommodate the individual townhouse units. -662- Current Property Status. According to Hennepin County property tax records, the subject property is considered to be one parcel and is legally described as Lots 21-24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F and east ½ of the vacated alley abutting Lot 24. It is City staff's understanding that the townhouse units are currently rented out. SUBDMSION REVIEW PROCEDURE City Code Chapter 330:12 states that any parcel of land, either platted or unplatted that has been combined for tax purposes or other reasons, cannot be re-separated or divided without an approved subdivision or a waiver of the platting requirements of the subdivision ordinance. A waiver of the platting requirement may be granted by the City Council after receipt of the background information provided by City staff. The waiver of platting and release of the tax combination may be approved if it is determined to be in compliance with all City codes. The City may impose conditions to the waiver. Applications for waiver of platting do not require review by the Planning Commission. However, if it so desires, the City Council may remand the application to the Planning Commission if it determines that their advice will be helpful in determining if the request meets the City's planning and zoning objectives. LAND USE ISSUES Zoning. The subject property is zoned B-1. Multiple-family structures are a conditional use in the B-1 district. Lot Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. Heil]ht: 35 feet Lot Size: 7500 square feet Side / Rear Setbacks: Same as B-2 if abuttin~ residential district - N/A ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Members of the City Council are advised that City staff deemed the original survey information to be adequate for "waiver of platting" review as the applicant has indicated that the townhouse project was built according to City approval(s) previously granted which was verified by the Building Official. However, the applicant has been advised that the City Council has the discretion to require that the survey be updated to ensure compliance with City Code regulations. -663- CITY DEPARTMENT REVIEW Copies of the request and all supporting materials were forwarded to all City departments for review and comment. All written comments received to date have been summarized below: Fire ChiefPederson Police Chief'Harrell Public Works Director Skinner Metro West Inspection City Engineer Cameron Parks Director Fackler No objections. No objections. No objections. Building setbacks are correct. If the applicant is contemplating dividing the building(s) into individual units, the construction of the building(s) will need to be verified. In the event that public utility easements are necessary and were not provided when the original project was constructed, they should be dedicated at this time. No comments needed from Parks Department. GENERAL COMMENTS 1. The proposal, as submitted, does not involve any current or future construction activities. The Project meets the requirements of the B-1 District and appears to be consistent wkh the CLIP previously granted in 1985. RECOMMENDATION City staff recommends that the City Council approve the application from Walter Peterson for a waiver of platting for the proposed lot split subject to the following condition: 1. Public utility easement(s), if necessary, shall be provided by the applicant if they were not previously granted. ATTACHMENTS Resolution (draft) · Application for Waiver of Platting dated December 28, 2001 · Site plan- Hennepin County ½ section map · Ordinance No. 79-1996 · Resolution No. 85-17 · Excerpts from April 24, 1985 City Council meeting and Resolution No. 85-50 · Letter to Building Inspector Jan Bertrand dated April 24, 1985 -664- Building permit # 6838 dated 3/12/85 - Lots 21 & 22, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F · Building permit # 6839 dated 31285 - Lots 23 & 24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F · Certificate of Survey dated April 8, 1985 submitted with Building Permits # 6838 and 6839 · Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan dated April 8, 1985 submitted with Building Permits # 6838 and 6839 -665- CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 02- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REQUEST FROM WALTER PETERSON FOR WAIVER OF PLATTING APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5243- 5287 INTO TWO (2) LOTS PLANNING AND ZONING CASE # 02-04 WHEREAS, the applicant, Walter Peterson, has submitted a request for waiver of platting approval pursuant to City Code Chapter 330:12 to subdivide Lots 21-24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F into two (2) new parcels for tax purposes; WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 5243-5287 Eden Road; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned B-1 and multiple-family dwellings are a conditional use inthe B-1 zone; mad WHEREAS, the City of Mound approved Resolution No. 85-17 and issued a conditional use permit to Schlee Builders in 1985 to construct the original eight (8) townhome units; and WHEREAS, Lots 21-24, Block 2, Shirley Hills were combined previously and the applicant now desires to separate the existing parcel and create two (2) new lots for tax benefit purposes; WHEREAS, City Code Chapter 330:12 states that a waiver of the platting request may be granted by the City Council if it is determined that the proposal is in compliance with all City codes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota as follows: The City does hereby approve the waiver of platting request with the following conditions: a. Public utility easement(s), if necessary, shall be provided by the applicant if they were not previously granted. -666- This waiver of platting request is hereby approved for the following described property: Lots 21-24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F, Files of Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin. Also, the east half of the vacated alley adjoining Lot 24, Block 2, Shireley Hills Unit F. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember and The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Adopted February 12, 2002 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk -667- Application for WAIVER OF PLATIING City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Public Works ~ Other City Engineer Case No. Application Fee: Escrow Account: Defieient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: INFORMATION LEGAL PROPOSED A. Lot(s) LEGAL DESCRIPTION B. Lot(s) ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-1A R-2 R-3 ~1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner other: Phone (H) OWNER Name .~_ .. (if other than applicant) Address Phone (H)( ) (M) Name SURVEYOR/ ENGINEER Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? { ) yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Th/s app//cat/on must be s/gned by all owners of the subject property, or an explanat/on g/ven why th/s /s not the case. Owner's Signature Owner's Signature -668- Date (43) RD 143.2 -669- ORDINANCE N0.79-1996 ORDINANCE Al)DING SE£TION 330:12 TO TIlE CITY SUBDYv"ISION CODE ALLOWING FOR A wAIVER OF PLATTING The City of Mound Does Ordain: ' ~ Section 330:12 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follow~-~ Section 330:12. Waiver of Platting. Any parcel of land, either platted or unplatted,'~at has been combined for tax purposes or for other reasons, cannot be re, separated or divided without an approved subdivision or a waiver of be platting requirements of this code. The City has many old subdivisions with small platted lots which standing alone do not meet current zoning requirements. Many of these lots have been combined for tax purposes and for various other reasons, i.e., to create a building site, to indicate a desire to combine to avoid or reduce special azsessments for improvements, etc. A waiver of the platting requirement may be granted by the City Council after receipt of background information provided by City staff. A request for waiver of the platting requirements shall be signed by the property owner on forms prepared for and approved by the City Council, which shall include a provision to reimburse the City for all of its costs. This request or application for a waiver shall be referred to City Staff for review. The review by staff shall be conduct~.d to deten:nine if the division or release of the tax combination and the creating of new Property Identification parcels for tax and building purposes is in compliance with City Codes and all planning and zoning standards and objectives. The staff shall prep,axe written findings and recommendations for the Council's consideration. The waiver ~f platting and the release of the tax combination may be approved if it is determined to be in~pliance with all City codes. The Council may impose conditions to the waiver and,~.ls~l"[~-ire the payment of any deferred or forgiven specials assessments which have b~6~:,a tax combination, '~ The wmver may be granted without public hearings or without referral to fl~Tlanning Commission. Nothing herein shall preclude the staff or Council from referring the matter to the Planning Commission if it is determined that their advise will be helpful in determining if the request meets the City's planning and zoning objectives. If the application for a waiver of platting requests or requkes any variances from any City code requirement, the waiver application shall be procesaed in accordance with Section 330:170 of the City Code and the request shall be referred to the Planning Commisaion and processed as any other variance request under this subdivision code. Approved by the City Council on August 27, 1996. To be published in The Laker, September 7, 1996 Attest: City Clerk ]~ob Polstqn, Mayor ........ -670- February 12, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. '85-17 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE'A CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES, TWO GROUPS OF FOUR ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE UNITS IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS (B-l) ZONE IN THE 5200 BLOCK OF EDEN ROAD, PID ~13-117-2q3~ 0034/0035/0036/0037 WHEREAS, Eugene G. Schlee, owner of four B-1 lots (PID #13-117-24 34 0034/0035/0036/0037), has requested conditional use permit approval to construct two four-unit townhouse structures; and. WHEREAS, Section 23.625.3 of the Mound Zoning Code requires conditional use permits for the construction of multipIe family dwellings in the central business (B--l) zone; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and approved it subject to stated conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the Cond.itional Use Permit is hereby granted with the following conditions: The townhouse configuration shall be staggered' so that 'there is a combination of front yard setbacks ranging from 30 to 22 feet. . Building 1 shall be rotated to meet the pattern established by Buildings 4, 5, and 8 as shown on Sketch Plan 4A. A complete landscaping plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Planner. A subdivision plat consistent with all applicable ordinances and requirements must be approved and filed with the City prior to the sale of any property. The grading, drainage and utility plans are to be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer· A site plan containing all grading and drainage information shall be submitted to and approved by the watershed district· The foregoing'resolution was moved by Councilmember °Peterson and seconded by Councllmember Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative': Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. -671 - RESOLUT I ON #85-17 SKETCH PLAN hA II ~E 0 February 12, 1985 The following Coun¢ilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk -673- 75 CASE #85-420: KERRY PETERSON, ~789 NORTHERN ROAD, W 1/2 OF LOT~ 1 &~32, SKARP &' LINDQU. IST,S RAVENSWOOD, LOT SIZE, EXISTING SETBACKp. ZQNING. DISTRICT The City Manager explained'that Mr. Peterson had applied 2n 1979 for a variance to construct a garage which was denied. He then put up a carport and eventually closed the carport in. He is now encroaching on his neighbors property with a wall of the carport. He has now applied for variances to construct a garage/carport, fence, deck and a second story addition. The Cit~ Planner explained that this property is zoned B-2 along with other property in that area and the ultimate intent of the zoning ordinance is for the subject property and the surrounding parcels to become business uses. rather than residential uses. Therefore, the Mound Zoning Ordinance severely limits alteration or expansion of the existing use. The' Staff recommendation is to approve the variance for the carport but deny the variance to expand the existing house. The expansion of the home would increase the bulk of the buildlng which is prohibited by the ordinance.. ' Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the foll6wing resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-49 RESOLUTION TO 'CONCUR WITH THE PLAN~ING . COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE OF LOT SIZE, SETBACK AND TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORSING USE OF P~OP£RTY AT 4798 NORTHERN ROAD, WEST ]/2 OF LOT 27, SUBDIVSION OF LOTS 1 AND 32 SKARP AND LINDQUIST,S RAVENSWOOD, PID' ~18-117-23 33 0026 .. SCHLEE The vote was unan s favor K__~_u_!_y~._~~..~ imou ly in . Motion carried. REVIEW SUBDIVISION RE UES OR LOTS I BLO___~C ALLEY~ SHIRLEY.HILLS UNI~ F', ~00 ,BLOCK OF EDEN ROAD, EUGENE The City Manager reported that the townhouses are now built and the developer would like to have a final subdivision of the parcels into 8 separate tax parcels, one for each townhouse unit. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resOlUtion: RESOLUTION ~85-50 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 21, 22, 23, 2~, BLOCK 2, 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F, PID $13-117-2~ B~ 00B~/00~5/00~6/00~7 (5200 BLOCK OF EDEN ROAD -674- 76 April 23, 1985 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.. REQUEST FOR COMMONS MAINTENANCE-PERMIT BEHIND. 1~6 BLUEBIRD LANE The City Manager reported that Mr. David Kunz, 15'46 Bluebird Lane has asked to be allowed to build a staircase leading down the bank to the dock on the Commons adjoining his property. The Park Commission has reviewed this and recommended approval. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-51 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF STAIRS BEHIND 15q6 BLUEBIRD LANE ON THE COMMONS The' vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS ~ SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor asked if anyone wished to make a comment or suggestion to the Council. There were none. . REVIEW .SEAL COAT BIDS The City Manager explained that the bids were received on April 19, 1985, for the 1985 Seal Coat Progrmm. T. hey were·as follows: 1. Allied Blacktop CO. 2. Buffalo Bituminous 3. Preferred Paving, Inc. 4. Minnesota ROadways 5. Bituminous Roadways $30,1 80 $31 ,875 $33,075 $33,300 $36,165 The Staff is recommending approval of the bid from Allied Blacktop Co. in the amount, of $30,180. lsen moved and Peterson seconded the followin resolution: RESOLUTION ~85-52 RESOLUTION APPR.OVING THE BID OF ALLIED BLACKTOP CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,180 FOR THE 1985 SEAL COAT PROGRAM The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. AMENDMENT TO WATER ~ SEWER CHAPTERS IN THE CI~YrCODE The City Manager explained that the Utility Superintendent has requested the the ordinances dealing with sewer and water be amended to read as follows: Each single family dwelling and each unit in a duplex, twin home, double bungalow and townhouse will have its own 1" water service tapped directly to the main. If -675- 73 April 23, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-50 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISS] RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDI' OF LAND FOR LOTS 21, 22, 233, 2~, BLOCK 2, 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F, PID #13-117-2q 34 (5200 BLOCK OF EDEN ROAD) WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements for plattings .and public hearing contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound, by Eugene G. Schlee; and WHEREAS, said request for a waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, it is' hereby determined that there are special circumstances affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or' injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: A. The final subdivision .approval is granted upon compliance with the following: The aforementioned described property will be divided 'as shown on Exhibit "A" in the following manner: a. Lo~24% except the East 32.67 feet thereof, Bl~, and that part of the East half of the adjoining vacated alley lying between the extensions across it of t/W~'hNortherly and Southerly lines of said Lot(24~J Shirley Hills 'Unit F, 'filed with the Reg'l-~-trar of Titles, County of Hennepin. be The East 32.67 feet of Lot 24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F. c. The West 32.67 feet of Lot 23, Block 2, Shirley Hills_Unit F.. d. Lo~/~33e'xcept the West 32.67 feet thereof, Bi ck~_q~, Shirley Hills Unit F. -676- 74 April 23, 1985 ee f~ ge B1 ckd~~Shirtey the East 32.67 feet thereof, Hills Unit F. The East 32.67 feet of Lo~22,) Hills Unit F. The West 32.67 feet of Lot/~l,I Block 2, Shirle% Block 2, Shirley Hills/.. U~it F. h. Lo~ 21,/ except the West 32.67 feet thereof, Bl~k~,2/ Shirley Hills Unit F. The request of Eugene G. Schlee for a waiver from the plat and public hearing provisions of Section .22.00 of the City Code is granted. Furnish a subdividers performance bond in the amount of $4,500 secured to guarantee the installation of approved landscaping· Staff' will monitor the existing escrow account and should the account become deficient to cover administrative, engineering and legal fees, the applicant shall provide additional funds as requested by the City. Payment of Park Dedication in the amount of $2,560.00 required by the platting ordinance Section 22.37 (2); the amount is 10% of.-~he $25,600.00 market value as determined by the Hennepin County Assessor· All applicable title covenants, bylaws and similar devices shall be subject to review and approva! by the City Attorney. Before the Certificate of Occupancy for any homes built in this subdivision are issued, an as-built survey certificate signed by'a registered surveyor must be provided. This certificate will state that all property irons are at proper grade and that final lot locations and grades are in conformance to the drainage development plan approved by the City Engineer. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City. -677- 75 April 23, 1985 This subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution., The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilm'em-~er "Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk -678- A. THOMAS WURST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, JOSEPH [. HAMILTON, JAMES D. LARSON~ THOMAS F~. UNDERWOOD, F?A. ROG~ J. F~LLOWS /AW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LAR$ON & UNDERWOOD IIOO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540:~ TELEFaNONE (612) 338-4-200 Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Jan: On April 17, Roger Reed sent me some proposed Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in connection with the zero lot line townhouses being constructed on Eden Road. You are also aware that this matter was before the City Council at its meeting on April 23 on the basis of a waiver to the subdivision ordinance. In essence what is happening is that Hussman Investment Company and Schlee Builders took Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit F, and obtained from the City to construct two four-unit buildings. twog s are Now Mr. Schlee wishes to divide off each !he townhouses and to in effect create eight separate parcels record. This was before the City Council on the 23rd and was approved subject to certain conditions, one of which is that all covenants, by-laws, etc. are subject to review and approval of the City Attorney. Tom Underwood of my office has reviewed the Declaration of Protective Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for this project, and we have the following comments: 1. The project calls for eight townhouses and eight separate parcels inArticle I, and it is our belief that those eight legal descriptions should be spelled out because the party walls will fall on each of the lot lines, and the division from the two existing parcels to the eight parcels under the subdivision waiver are required. -679- WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LAI~SON & UNDEI~WOOD Page 2 Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector City of Mound April 24, 1985 2. Each of the property owners will be subject to maintaining their own individual parcel. 3. Article III provides for collection of each lot owner's share 'of costs required to be paid by the Declaration. Is it anticipated that any costs other than party wall costs will be collected? If so, what other costs are covered and how will they be allocated among the eight owners? We believe that the language in Article III would have to be clarified and expanded upon before we can give our approval. 4. There is no provision in the Declaration for any architectural control committee. Therefore, subject to City approval where necessary, any one of the eight owners can put an addition onto the townhouse or make any other change or alteration to the existing structure which they desire. Individual owners also could erect fences, walls, other accessory buildings, etc. on their lot. We are wondering if this type of restriction was intentionally eliminated from the declaration. It would'appear from the standpoint of the eight owners and probably even the City that there should be some control so that you do not get a real mish-mash of the project. Could we end up with there being eight different colors of townhouses? The Declaration does not appear to take any of this into consideration. 5. There is no provision made in the Declaration for parking, access, utilities, water, sewer, etc. No such provision is necessary so long as each townhouse is on its own individual lot and has all of the services provided independent from any other lot. If, however, any of the townhouses do nOt have direct access to any or all of the above without depending on easements over lots or' common areas, then specific provision should be made in the Declaration. I am enclosing a copy of the marked up articles as prepared by Mr. Underwood to you and to Roger Reed, and it appears that Tom Underwood and Roger are going to have to do considerable revisions before these declarations can be approved. If you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me or Tom Underwood of this office. Ve r~/t rul y ~o~r~, . ,~.~.~ C~f~f A.w ~ear son, ~ity Attorney -680- CAP:Ih Enclosure cc: Mr. Roger Reed Mr. Jon Elam Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 1 of 2 Search By: ~ ^Md~ess HOUSE or BUILDING #: '§54 STREET NAME: (at least first 3 characterS) Eden Road UNIT # (if applicable) ~ records per page Hennepin County, Property Information Search Result The Hennepin County Proper02 Tax web database is updated daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p. rn. (CST) Property ID: Address: Municipality: School Dist: Watershed: Sewer Dist: Owner Name: Taxpayer Name & Address: Note: Taxes Payable 2002 (2001 Values) will be available on this web site approximately 03/01 Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2001 ~.%->,~ :3~ ~ ~:~;i:i ~ · :'"" '". 5243 EDEN RD MOUND 277 3 Construction year: 1965 Parcel Size: N 298 X 1~ WALTER F & ILA M PETERSON WALTER F & II_A M PETERSON 1869 APATAKI CT MARCO ISLAND FL 34145 Most Current Sales Information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and warranted to represent arms-length transactions. NO SALE INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY. Addition Name: Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Tax Parcel Description SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT F 002 LOTS 21 THRU 24 INCL BLK 2 INCL ADJ 1/2 OF ALLEY VAC Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Payable 2001 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2000 Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 $10,255.41 $143.71 $70.38 $10,469.50 Property Information Detail for Taxes Payable 2001 http://www2, co. hennepin, mn. us/pin s/addrresult.~'_ 6 81 - 2/5/2002 Property Information Search by Street Address Result page Page 2 of 2 Values Established by Assessor as of January 2, 2000 Values: Land Market $60,000 Building Market $319,000 Machinery Market Total Market: Land Limited Building Limited Total Limited: Qualifying Improvements Classifications: Property Type Homestead Status Relative Homestead Agricultural Exempt Status $379,000 $60,000 $319,000 $379,000 APARTMENT NON- HOMESTEAD 10073 Hennepin County is providing this information as a public service. Have a tax related question? Send e-mail to taxinfo@co.hennepin.mn.us Experience a problem searching database, have a technical question or wish to co Hennepin County Tax web site? Send e-mail to Don. Kopel(~co.hennepin.mn.us Have a comment on any of Hennepin County's web sites or E-Commerce applicati, Send e-mail to Henn.Net@co.hennepin.mn.us Copyright © 1998 - 2001 Hennepin County http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/addrresult..'_682_ 2/5/2002 LOCAT10N ~OF PROPOSED BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341Maywood Road, Hound, Minnesota 472-1155 I MPROV EM ENT STREET ADDRESS ":*,'~'.+;~-;,z~5-52D7-'~i*259 Eden Road ADDITION ~hir'te¥ Hi!ls Unit F PLAT # PARCEL LOT s '?: ~ O~NER BLOCK 5?OO PlO # ~]"'I~7-24'-3~ 0o34/0035 6 8 3 8 EST IMATED VALUE~!:I ~, nn,, ZONING DISTRICT COHPLETION DATE DATE PHONE: N'O ~.:,=.o.~ s~.?r~C, PHONE NO. ADDRESS TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION r"q Slng la Foal ty - Sq.Ft. C3 Ccee~r¢1 a 1 Sq. Ft. r"t Industrial - Sq. Ft.. · aa're gei Sq. Fc. r'q Deck - SIze Sq,Fc. ,C:~Patlo - Size .Sq..Ft. r'~Fence - Size Lh. Ft. 01-3151 PERMIT FEE $ O1-3151 PLAN CHECK FEE $ REMODEL r'~ Add I ti'O~ InteriOr Sub. Level R~ofl ng Siding ~tl lily Bldg. Sq:Ft. Sq~Ft. :,:. Sq. F t / ,' Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.. Size Sq. Ft. // 01-2222 SURCHARGE $ 74.00 78-2304 J 6'3 =~-' 78-3774 S.A.C.t~.?$ 73-3155 WATER CONN. FEE $ 500.00 73-3744 TAPPING FEE $ 300.00 78-3158 SEWER CONN. FEE $SOO~Og· 73-3842 STATIONARY ROD FEE TOTAL $ FINAL INSPECTION DATE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATE ARE ADDITIONAL PERMITS NEEDED: ELECTR I CAL PLUMB I NG HEAT lNG 1.men permit is granted. I hereby agree to do the proposed work in accordance wlth description above set forth and according to the provlsions of all ordinances of the City ol~ Mound and Of ail statutes of the State of Minnesota in such cases made and provlded. All building permits exp|re one year after date of i.ssuance. DATE 14AR i 2 1985 BUILD lNG PERM IT* APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND STREET ADDRESS ADDITION OWNER 3ch ESTIMATED VALUE 2ON I NG 01STR I CT COUPLET! ON DATE DATE ADDRESS ~ !'ff.i ~.rbor ~.ane, P~vn'!outh~ NN ~ 5!~:.'~ } BLDR .- CONT. ?.~ne PHONE NO. ADDRESS ZIP TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION O1-3151 O1-2222 78-230~ 78-377~ 73-3155 73-37~ PERMIT FEE $ ~5%.()O PLAN CHECK FEE $ ......... - S~. Ft. SURCHARGE $ 7~. S.A.C. $ t, 7o0.0o FINAL WATER CONN. FEE / TAPPING FEE $ j ,~ . 0(':' INSPECTION 31 DATE 78-3158 SEWER CONN. FEE $ :~OO,(m OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE 73-3842 STATIONARY ROD FEE $ DATE TOTAL $ '~, · ARE ADDITIONAL PERMITS NEEDED: ELECTRICAL ::~: PLUMBING X HEATING en permit is granted, I hereby agree to do the proposed ~ork in accordance wlth descr;ptlon above set forth and according to the provisions of el! ordinances of' the City of I~ound and Of ail statutes of the State of HinneSota in such cases made end provided. Ail building permits expire one year after date of issuance. -684- THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -685- '4::: OMEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2002 TO: SARAH SMITH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: JOHN CAMERON, CITY ENGINEER SUBJECT: LANGDON BAY LETTER OF CREDIT MFRA FILE NO: 12754 .FRA As requested, I have reviewed the request by R. H. Development for a reduction in the amount of the Letter of Credit held on the Langdon Bay project. The request did not contain a specific amount; therefore we had to review payments made to the contractor and look at the amount of work completed in the field in order to determine how much money could be released and the amount to be retained. The total amount of the Letter of Credit is $1,499,700.00 and we are recommending a release of $1,147,908.00. This will leave a balance of $ 351,792.00 to cover the unfinished work on the project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. CC: Jon Helmer, R. H. Development 15050 23aD AVENUE NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 -688- JCAMERON@MFRA.COM (763)476-6010 FAX (763) 476-8532 Re H. ~ ~ 2300West97~Stfaet, eloomington, MN55431 (952) 346-8073 & (962) 831-3830 Januanj 1, 2002 Mrs. Sara Smith City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Sara: I am writing you today to request a reduction in our letter of credit with the city. The grading has been completed, as have a pmlJon of the sewer, water and streets. Per Dave Klee with Enebak construction, the utilities have been tested and inspected. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (952) 346-8073 Thank you for your lime and consideration per this request John Helmer R. H. Development, Inc, -689- February8,2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Feasibility Report · Improvement Project 2002 (Mound Visions 2nd) MFRA #13646 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we submit herein a Feasibility Report for Improvement Project 2002 (Mound Visions 2nd), including adjacent Street Improvements and Streetscape on County State Aid Highways 15 and 110. If you have any questions or need additional information on any part of this report, please contact us at your convenience. Very truly yours, MFRA John R. Cameron JRC:rth s:\main:\mou 13646\reports\revisedfeasibility2-8 -690- CITY OF MOUND ~$OLU~ON NO. 02- A RESOLUTION RE~TING TO AN IMPROVEMENTPROdECT: (MOUNDVIStON ~ )21~)2 ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT AND DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota (City) as follows: Section 1. BackGround: Findin,qs. 1.01. Mound Market Place LLC, and ~ Village By the Pond, LLC (collectively, the Developer), owners of 100% of the real property known as the Mound Visions 2nd development (Development), have petitioned (Petition) this Council to construct ceAain pUbliC improvements (Project) abutting the Development and to specially assess 100% of the cost of those public Improvement against the Development in the manner provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 (Act). The Council has referred the petition to M~ombs Frank Ross and Associates, Inc. (Engineer) requesting a feasibility study of the Project. The Engineer has prepared a feasibility report (Report) and submitted it to the Council. The Report has been reviewed by the Council and is now on file with the Clerk. Section 2. ApprovalS: Authorizations. 2.01. The Report is accepted. 2.02. It is found and determined that the petition has been signed by 100% of the owners of reel property in ~the Project. 2.03. The Project is ordered as described in the Report. The Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of the Project. 2.04. The City Council declares its official intent to reimburse itself for the costs of the Project from the proceeds of tax exempt bonds. 2.05. The City Council ~ declares its present intent to conduct a separate improvement project for the other improvements described in the Report and to combine that subsequent project with the Project as provided in Section 429,021, subdivision 2 of the Act and Minnesota Statutes, section 435.56. ! -691 - Ordiner~e No. 02- 2.~. The Clerk is authorized and .directed to publish this resolution as provided in sectiOn429~036 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this day of ,2002. and seconded by Attest: Bonnie Ritter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 2 -692- 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 (952) 472-3190 MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sarah Smith, Community Development Director 2/7/2002 Proposed 2002 Fee Increase - Park Dedication Fee BACKGROUND. As the City Council may be aware, the Parks and Open Space Commission has been evaluating the current park dedication fee for the City of Mound. Presently, as set forth in City Code Section 330:120 Subdivision 3, the current cash contribution is a minimum often percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided and in no case shall the dedication in cash be less than $500.00 for each new lot being created. FEE SURVEY. A copy of the recent park dedication survey dated October 2001 from Ingraham & Associates has been included as an attachment. In general, park dedication fees on a per lot basis range anywhere from $150.00 for the City of New Brighton to $2100.00 for the City of Eden Prairie. RECOMMENDATION. Following review of the park dedication fees that are currently charged by other communities, the Parks and Open Space Commission is recommending that the minimum park dedication fee (per lot) be increased from $500.00 to $1100.00. Details regarding the Parks and Open Space Commission's review of the park dedication fee structure are contained in the minutes from the May 24, 2001 meeting. QUESTIONS. It is anticipated that members of City staff will be present at the meeting to discuss the proposed fee increase. ATTACHMENTS. · Ordinance Amendment No 03-2002 (draft) · City Code Section 330:120 -Design Standards, Public Sites and Open Spaces and Park Land Dedication · Excerpts from May 24, 2001 Parks and Open Space Commission meeting · Memorandum dated March 1,2001 from City Planner Loren Gordon · Ingraham & Associates Park Dedication Survey- October 2001 -693- C~ OF MOUND ORDNANCE NO. 03-2002 The City of Mound does ordain: Section 330'120' Subd' 3 ~ ~mended ~ md as fo~WS: 330.120 D~__ik, n St_a_ndards~ Public Sites and Open Spaces and Park Land Dedication. Subd, 3. At the City's option, except for minor subdivisions as herein defined, the sub-divider shall contribute an equivalent amount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the land which the city may require such owner to dedicate pursuant to Subd. 2 hereof, in accordance with the schedule to be set by resolution of the Council which cash contrbufion shall be a minimum of ten percent (10%) of the total fair market value of the land being divided. In no case shall the dedication in cash be less than $5~ $1,100.00 for each new lot being created. A minor subdivision is a case where three residential lots or less are to be subdivided or created by a division and in those minor subdivisions the park land dedication shall be pursuant to a schedule to be set by resolution of the Council. In no case shall the cash dedication fee for minor subdivision be less than five......-*.~,~.i"'""4"~'i ,,~v..~,ti~11'""~o ~,~.,.-vv/Igr~rt/ eleven hundred dollars ($1,100) for each new lot being created. In cases where one lot is split into two lots, it is determined that only one new lot is being created. Passed by the City Council the day of Published in The Laker theday of Effective the day of 2002. 2002. Attest: Bonnie ~tter, City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel 1 -694- 7/16/00 Mound C..tt~ ~ 330.120 3~.~0 . Des~k,n ~d~rdsi Public Slt~:and:~enSpae~ and hrk la:~"~di~fibii; ............... -:~--- ~abd, L Public Sites and.. O~en, Soaees. ' Where aproposed park, play, ground, or other public site shown on the adopted Comprehensive Plan or official map is embraced, in ~,or in-wlaole,~b¥ a-bound .~-of-a-proposed,zuMivisionand_~ach~public~i. te~_aw~ d~di,'cat~ to the CRy, such public ground shall be shown as reserved land on the pret~ plat to allow the City the oppommit~ to consider and take action toward acquiisig~ of such poblie ground or' park by purchase or other means prior to approval of Sub, d, 2. Park Land Dedlcatl0p. In every plat, replat, or subdivision of land allowing development for residential, commercial, industrial, or other uses or combination ther~f, or in a planned development area, or where a waiver or variance is granted, a ma.soaable portion of such land and/or cash shall be set aside and dedicated by the tract owner or owners to the general public as open space for park and playground purposes or public ponds except where adjustments to lot lines do not create additional lots. Ten (10) pereem of the property may be used for residential, multiple-family residential, e~rmnercial business or industrial purposes shall be deemed a reasonable porlion. Said [a~l, shall- be suitable for pabl-ic use as parks and playgrounds or for one of the afo~aed desefi,~pmt~oses, and'the City shall not be required'to accept, land which will. not. be usable for parks and playgrounds or which would require extensive eni~mdimres on the'part o;f the public to make them usable. $abd,. :L At the City's option, except for minor subdivisions as he.rein defined, the s~b~t,~ider shall eon.tribute an equivalent mount of cash, in lieu of all or a portion of the. land wb. iah the Ci~ ~ require s~h owner to dedicate pursuant m. Subd. 2.he~eof, in atloo~ wi~ the schedule to be set. by resolution of the Council which cash contribution shall: I~ a minimum of ter~ percent 0-0%) of the total fair market value of the land being dieidad, Ia no ease shall the dedication in cash be less than $500 for each new lot being A ~ sabdivisioa is. a ease where three residential, lots or less are to be subdivided or ~: ~ a divi~)a and ia those ,minor subdivisions the park land dediealiOn shall- be 1~~: m. a setaei~ to, be set by resolution.: of fl~ Council. I-n no case shall .the cash ~. fee for minor sulxli.,vi,sions be less'than five hundred dollars ($.500) for each new hat ~...~tefl. Ia. ~s w,,he, r,.e one lo~ is. split into lots+ it is determined thai. only one new'lo~ i-~ being created, (ORD, 7.~,1995 - 8-22~,95) Sub& 4, Where the owner provides for public use, neighborhood park amenities such as~ lm~,aet, limited ,to,, temais courts,, ball fields, Open space or other recreatiOnal., facilities, 2.11. 7/~6/oo -695- Mo~l.: City Cx~ 330. I20, Subd. 4 the City may recluee the amount of land to be dedicated or the cash contribution in lieu of the, faei!ifiesprov._ided ............................................ ~ .___~= Sabd. & Cash contrib~iOns required by Sulxl. 3 hereof shall be made prior to filing the final plat. ~ with other existing lots to iacrease the lot sizes to eonfonn to the l-arger sized lot,. mqui,t~l by the Zoning Ordinance. TNs exception is in recognition of the need to put ander..siaed lots together to. bring them into eonfomaanee with. zoning requirements, adopted afar the- original subdivision of properties, many of which predate any zoning regulations of the City. (ORD #30-1989 - 6-26-89) 330.12~ Road Nsmln,,g and House Numbering. Sub.& 1. Road De~aations. The use of road, street, avenue, parkway, trail, drive, boalevard, way,. court, terrace, and circle suffixes shall be used in identifying location and direction of roads. Roads shall be designated as follows: a. Roads that both originate and terminate on the same street are circles. b. Cid-de-sacs (dead ends) are named courts. c. A mad shall have only one. name for its entire length. d~ No t~o roads sh~l be. named alike, that is, have the same name or have similar soundhtg names. The name of a mad wi:Il change only if the mad changes direction 45 degrees or more at the point if deviation. proposed, s~et is an exmnsion of an e~sfing named street, that name shall be In alt etiae~ eases, t~ name of any. street previoud:y used wi:.:~in the county ~.not be ta~l ~mle. ss such u~e is consistent with the county or eommuni:ty steeet g. Sm~et names. MI not include the word "wood" (i.e. Gumwood, Maywood, etc.).. Sub& L- Howe ,N,mbe~g Sy~em. The standard method of assigning house n.mnbers to each side of the s~t shall be as follows: ~. east anal west roadways, ~en numbers are to be assigned m the no~ side of the mad~ay' a~.odd nambers are to be assigned to the south side of the roadway. 7/1;6/00 -696- Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Special Meeting May 24, 2001 Commissioner Domholdt stated the Commission has many ideas for community involvement, Most communities have only 34 pa~s, Mound has many parks and these needa recogniz_ab!e.n_~e,' T_.h.~se are all considered neighborhood ....... parks, Not community parks, (.5oraon W~ll a~scuss with other communities and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Domholt left meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2;'biSCOSS: DEDICATION FEES Staff Report: There is interest in revisiting the park dedication fee schedule for minor subdivisions to keep it current with today's market. Currently all minor subdivisions are required to pay the City $500 for all "new" parcels. Major Subdivisions contribute 10% land or equal value based on market value. INSERT BOX The Planning Commission has briefly discussed the fee Schedule and' ·. · recommended the city adopt the average fees of the survey. They did nOt have the survey information, but felt strongly enough to recommend that Mound should be in line with other commUnities. Staff recommends that the survey average be adopted. A 10% land value will generate more than a $500 fee. Land supply is Mound is getting tighter and tighter. The $500.00 fee has remained constant since the early 1980's. $500.00 is the minimum with the discretion of the Council to increase. The Planning Commission looked at this a few months ago, $1,100.00 is the average in the Metro Area. A minor subdivision is the creation of three or less residential lots. The fee monies are applied to the park dedication fund. Staff recommends the Planning CommissiOn recommendations for increasing the fees for a minor subdivision. Commissioner Motyka would like to see this issue revisited every two years to track the fees. The Commission should review this in October, 2001. MOTION by Beise seconded by HoStetler for the City of Mound to increase the Park Dedication Fee for minor sub-divisions from. $500.00 to $1,100.00 for all new parcels. -697- Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Spec/a/Meetflig May 24, 2001 City Council Representative Meyer suggested putting this number across the board not limiting it to minor subdivisions, The ordinance is different that what is noted in the paCket i ..... _.~i __~ i_ii Note to staff: June 2001 meeting insert complete existing ordinance in packet for review as it pertains to major subdivisions. Bullet item on agenda. MOTION by Motyka seconded by Hentz to adjourn meeting at 7:20 p.m. Ayes: Beise, Hentz, Hostetler, Domholdt, and Motyka Nays: Meyers MOTION carried, -698- Mar O~ 01 O~:04m p.w ......... MEMORANDUM To: Jim Fackler, Parks Director and Parks Cormnission From: Loren Gordon, City Planner Date: March 1, 2001 Subject: Park Dedication Fe~s There is interest in revisiting the park dedication fee schedule for minor subdivisions to keep it current with today's market. Currently all minor subdivisions are required to pay the City $500 for all "new" parcels. Major Subdivisions contribute 10% land or equal value based on market value. Our firm recently completed a comprehensive park fees schedule in Inver Grove Heights which looked at averages from around the metro m~d surrounding area. We used tee information front a 1999 survey prepared by Ingrahm:n and Associates for comparison purposes (see attached survey). Although, the numbers are based on largely reflective of major subdivision dedication schedules, they are a base line for the residential minor subdivisions in Mound. Park fees comI~arison S/Single S/Multi- Family unit Family Unit Average of 1999 $ t 105 $995 Ingraham survey Mound 5.500 $500 The planning Commission has briefly discussed the fee schedule and recommended the city adopt the average fees of the survey. They did not have the survey information, but felt strongly enough to recommend that Mound should be in line witl~ other communities. As Staff, I would recommend that the survey average be adopted. I will not be able to attend the March 8t~ meeting, but please call me if you have any questions. I could attend the April meeting if needed. 123 Nnr~ Third Street. Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540i ._'~'..'8-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 -700- - i Z~l -701 - -702- -703- SPEOIAL OONTRAOTOR LIOENSE$ 2,002 OHANOE Heating, AO' ventilation: Tree Surgeon: Expires April 1't 488.05 Tree surgeon (removal & treatment) Street Excavation: 605.15 Street excavation: Unpaved street Macadam Concrete or bade $30/yr. $50/yr. v/ $100+$500 deposit $100+$500 deposit $100+$500 deposit PUBLIC WORKS FEES 350.475 350.530 350.525 350.755 350.1100 350.520 SUBDIVISION & ZONING FEES Fence Permit Zoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Vacation Wetlands Permit Zoning Amendment Planned Unit Development Site Plan Review Preliminary Plat Final Plat Minor Subdivision: Lot split Per lot over 2 lots Park Dedication Fee: 365.05 Escrow deposit - small proj. app. Escrow deposit -large proj. app. Sign Permit: Sign alteration fee: Structural alteration, up to the 1~t $1,000 Temporary Sign Permit $25 $200 $350 $350 $350 $350 $1,700 $350 $350+$15/Iot $350+$15/Iot $250 $15 $500 or10% $1,000 $5,000 $100 $50 $25 10% or $1100 min. 10 -705- February'8~002 To: Mayor and City Council From: John Dm Subject: Applicability of Commercial Dock License Requirements to Certain Association Docks. For many years the City has licensed the docks at condomim'ums and other multiple ownership residential developments under section 436 of the City Code. However, no fee was charged unless the slip was being leased out to someone who was not a resident of the development. During the review of the fee schedules last fall, the Council directed staffto charge a fee on association docks if the ordinance required a fee to be charged. At the January 8, 2002 Council meeting a question was raised whether section 436 did, in fact, require the licensure of association docks. I was asked to provide you with an opinion. On January 14, 2002, this office provided an opinion on the subject. The opinion states that the "condo association is 'providing space for docking' ...for individuals, other than the owner of the dock..". The opinion then concluded that "a condominium association clearly fits within the relevant code defmitions that would require it to obtain a license to continue to operate its docks". Subsequent to the issuance of that opinion, it was brought to our attention that, in certain cases, the docks are not owned by the association, but rather by individual members of the association. We have also been informed that at least one multiple dock structure has been erected due to the desire of the owners of homes in the development to have a single dock structure rather than for each owner to have and maintain individual docks. At the January 22 Council meeting I informed the Council of this new information and requested that consideration of the matter be deferred until the February 12 meeting. Section 436,05 reads as follows: No person, association of persons, families whether incorporated or not, through any arrangement, whether through common or corporate ownership or otherwise, shall operate, carry on, or be engaged in the trade or business of docking, mooring anchoring keeping or storing of boats or make any arrangement for the use or joint use oflakeshore property for such docile of boats.., without having first obtained a license. I have highlighted two phrases in the section because I think they provide the answer. Section 436.01 subd. 2 contains the following definition: Business of D0eking or Storing of Boats~ Renting or otherwise providing space for docking, anchoring, or storing three or more boats or floating structures JBD-209807vl MU220-6 -706- boat °i' ~ctures are dock~ or s~or~ or adj~nt t0'wM¢fi said¥~;-a~e~0~n~l, .... (i~ie~s~d) possible, in my opinion, the ord'~ce intends that only as~iation docks that are used in the business of docking require a commercial:'license. Any association dock which is privately owned and used by its owner is not ~ in the business of docking. The result is different under the LMCD Code. Under that code, a license is required by the LMCD for either a muKiple dock or a commer rcial dock. A mMtiple dock is a dock constructed or maintained for ~ use of five or more reslfi~ted watercraft. As a result, association docks(for five or more unrestricted watercraft) do need a LMCD license no matter who actually owns the dock. Assuming Section 436 means what I think it means, it does present problems for enforcement. For example, docks owned by associations would be subject to licensure and the fee. Association docks that are privately owned would not be subject to licensure and the fee unless they were used by someone other than the owner. RECOMMENDATION Ifyou are in agreement with my interpretation of Section 436, I would make the following recommendations: 1. Decide whether you want the section enforced as written, or whether you would like to consider changes to it. 2. AS part of any review, it might be important to focus on the reasons why Mound would license and regulate this type of dock in the first place. 3. It would probably be a good idea to solicit recommendations form the Dock and Commons Commission in the process. JBD-2091~Tvl MU220-6 -707- IH[ A 1{~ 1~ 1[ S @ N IH[ A l~ lB O ~ T W 1[ N IH[ O M E S January 26, 2002 Dear Council Members: Our Association received a 2002 Commercial Dock License Application that had us more than a little confused. We are a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation made up of two Twin Homes and three single residences that own a common piece of property for the purpose of maintaining a multiple dock. Our dock is privately owned and 1/7 ownership is noted on each individual property deed. Our covenants clearly prohibit the leasing or renting of the docks to anyone. I attended the Council meeting last Tuesday to hear the explanation by Staff and was pleased that the matter was tabled for further investigation. We believe the ordinance for Dock Licenses must make the distinction between docks that are owned as part of our homesteads vs. docks that are rented or leased as occurs with some Associations. I believe that Lake Vq-mds and Bayview may fall into the latter category. In our neighborhood at the end of Harrison bay, there are several variations of private dock ownership, including Townhouse associations, a neighborhood association, and a lagoon with individual 30-foot lake frontages for each dock. To assess fees to any situation other than actual commercial docks would open a Pandora's box of special and unique situations that the City may wish to avoid. Our Association in particular, feels that if fees were assessed to us because we are an Association, that the Ordinance would be discriminating simply because we have a different form of home ownership. Instead of the typical single residence with a dock, we live in a form of multiple housing. That simply put, would not be fair and equal treatment of Mound residents. We urge the Council to clarify that portion of the Ordinance that refers to Associations and rescind any fees assessed to privately owned docks. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tom Brossard President 1818 Commerce Blvd. * Mound, MN 55364 · Phone 95_~.45g_.5691 -708- This agreement is made this _ day of ,2002, by and between INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, hereinafter sometimes called the "tenant/sub-lessor" or "sub-lessor", and .CITY OF MOUND MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE, hereinafter called the "sub-lessee". The, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements to be performed by the CITY OF MOUND MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE, does hereby demise and lease to the sub-lessee and the sub-lessee does hereby hire and take from the tenant/sub-lessor the premises, together with improvements thereon, located .at · 5241 Shoreline Drive, in the city of Mound, coUnty Of Hermepin, State of Miamesota, the premises outlined in red on Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference consisting o£ approximately 2855 square feet (hereinafter the "premises"). To have and to hold the premises on the following terms and conditions: 1. Term and use. The term of this lease shall commence on March 1, 2002, and shall be a month to month tenancy. It is understood that sub-lessee currently occupies the premises for use as a munidpal liquor store and wishes to continue on that basis under a month to month tenancy. The sub-lessee accepts the premises in an "as is" condition. The sub-lessee may use the premises only as a munidpal liquor store. It is further understood that a separate fadlity is being built which the sub- lessee will occupy upon completion, and that the tenant/sub-lessor wishes to occupy the premises for its use within nine months. 2. Rent and Term. (a) Fixed rent. The sub-lessee shall pay to the sub-lessor as rent for th6 p~emises the amount of Four' Thousand Three Hundred Forty-two dollars ($4,342.00) per month, payable on the first day of each month during the term hereof. The fixed rent shall include real 'estate taxes and CAM charges which will be payable by the sub-lessor. The fixed rent shall be payable at the office of the sub- lessor at the address on the signature page of this lease, .or such other place as is designated by the sub-lessor. In addition; the sub-lessee shall be responsible for and pay on a timely basis the cost for refuse removal, water and sewer, electric, gas and telephone allocated to its leased space, and hold sub-lessor harmless therefrom.: (b) Term. The tenancy shall be month-to-month, and in no event shall the term extend beyond April 30, 2003 without the prior written agreement of the sub-lessor, it being understood that the sub-lesspr ~res occupancy of the leased space for its own purposes thereafter. Nothin§~'h~f~;::Shall preclude the sub-lessor or sub-lessee from terminating the sublease sooner pursuant to statutory requirements. -709- 3. Tenant/sub-lessor's access. The sub-lessor, its employees, and its agent ~pec~g ~e.pre~ses to rake pl~ for its use. upon vaca~on by sub-lessee. No,bna in this section sh~l be interpreted as requir~g the sub-lessor to per~0rm acts.~dependent of ~e req~rements of ~e o~er provisions of ~ lease. 4. Improvements, alterations, and remodeling.' The sub-lessee shall not make any improvements; alterations, or remodeling on or to the premises, without the prior written approval of the sub-lessor, it being understood the sub-tenant's occupancy is on a temporary basis until its future leasehold is'completed. In the event any improvements remodeling or alteration is done, it will be at the sole cost and expense 'of the sub-lessee and the sub-lessee shall hold the sub-lessor harmless therefrom. 5. Care of premises. All care, maintenance, and repair of the premises shall be the sole responsibility of the sub4essee and shall be pe. rformed at the discretion and expense of the sub-lessee. In the event anY such care, maintenance, or repair is performed by the sub-lessor or its designees, the sub-lessor shall be entitled to reimbursement as additional rent. 6. Warranties of abili .ty to sub-lease and quiet possession. The sub-lessor. covenants that the sub-lessor has full right to make this sub-lease subject to the terms hereof, and the sub-lessee shall haVe quiet and peaceful possession of the premises during the term hereof (on a month to month basis) as against the acts of · all parties daiming title to, or a right to the possession of, the premises. 7. Assignment and subletting. The sub-lessee may not assign or hypothecate this lease or sublet the premises or any part thereof, whether by voluntary act, operation Of law; or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the sub-lessor in each instance. 8. Eminent domain. If the premises are taken by any public authority under the power of eminent domain or sold to any public authority pursuant to threat of eminent domain,' the sub4ease shall automatically terminate and be of no effect, and sub-tenant shall not. share in any proceeds as a result of such eminent domain action. 9. Surrender. On the last day of the term of this lease or on the sooner termination thereof, the sub-lessee shall peaceably surrender Se premises in good condition anal repair, reasonable wear and tear excepted, consistent with the sub- lessee's duty to make repairs as provided herein. On or before,the last day of the term of this lease or the sooner termination thereof, the sub-lessee shall at its expense remove all of its equipment, coolers, shelving and all of its other property from the premises, and any property not removed shall be deemed abandoned. Any costs of sub-lessor in removing such property of sub-lessee shall be immediately reimbursed to the sub-lessor by the sub-lessee. All alterations, additions, and -710- fixtures, other than the sub-lessee's equipment, which have been made or irrstalled by ei.d~er m~-~uv-~e~or or rhe-'Shb~iessee on the premmes shall remain-as m/~ suw lessor's property and shall be surrendered with'the premises as a part thereof. If the premises are not surrendered upon termination,' the sub-lessee shall indemrfify the sub-lessor against any loss or liability resulting from delay bY the sub-lessee in so surrendering the premises, i.t being understood that the sub-lessor requires the use of the premises for its purposes by the beginning of the school year 2003-04. In no event shall the sub-lessee be deemed to have abandoned the premises or 'this lease during the terms hereof unless the sub-lessee first obtains the express permission of the sub-lessor.' The provisions of this section shall survive the termination of this lease. 10. Covenants to hold harmless. Except in the case of the negligence of the sub-lessor, its agents, or its employees, the sub-lessee agrees to save, hold harmless, and defend the sub-lessor against any liability for damages to any person or property in or about the premises. The sub-lessor shall not be liable tO the sub-lessee, its.agents, employees, representatives, customers, or invitees for any personal injury, death, or damage to property caused by theft, burglary, water, gas, electricity, fire, or for any other cause occurring on' or about the premises. All property kept, stored, or maintained in the premises shall be so kept, stored, or maintained at the sole risk of the sub-lessee. The sub-lessee agrees to promptly pay all sums of money in respect of labor, services, materials, supplies, or equipment furnished or alleged to have been furnished to the sub-lessee in or about the premises. 11. Waiver of subrogation. The sub-lessor and the sub-lessee hereby mutually waive as against each other any claim or cause of action for any loss, cost, damage, ' or expense as a result.of the occurrence of perils covered by the Minnesota Standard Fire Insurance Policy and extended coverage endorsements. 12. Mechanic's liens. The sub-lessee hereby covenants and agrees that the sub- lessee will not permit or alloW' any mechanic's or matei'ialman's liens to be placed on the sub-lessor's interest in the premises during the term hereof. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, however, in the event any such lien shall be so placed on the sub- lessor's interest, the sub-lessee shah take all steps necessary to see that it is removed within thirty (30) days of its being filed; provided, however, that the Sub-lessee may contest any such lien provided the sub-leSsee first posts a surety bond, in favor of and insuring the sub-lessor, in an amount equal to 150% of the amount of any such lien. '. .' 13. NO partnership, joint venture, or fiduciary relationship c~eated hereby. Nothing contained in this lease shall be interpreted as creating a partnership, joint venture, or relationship of principal and agent between the sub-lessor and the sub- lessee, it being understood that the sole relationship created hereby is one of sub-' lessor'/sub-l'ess~e. "' " -711 - 14. Reasonable consent, whenever the sub-lessor's or the sub-lessee's arbitrarilY, or unreasonably conditioned, delayed, or withheld and shall be' d_eerned to have been given, unless within twenty (20) days of the request therefor, the sub- lessor or the sub-lessee as appropriate, notifies the requesting party that the sub- lessor or the subqessee, as appropriate, is denying such approval or consent, stating in such notice the reasonable ground therefor. 15. Attorneys' fees. If any action at law or in equity shall be brought irt court to recover any rent under this lease or for or on account of any breach of or enforce or interpret any of the covenants, terms, or conditions of this lease or for the recovery of the possession of the premises, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover from the other party as.part of 'the prevailing party's costs its reasonable attorneys' fees, the amount of which shall be fixed by the court and shall be made a part of any iudgrnent or decree rendered. 16. Notices. All communications, demands, notices, or objections permitted or required to be given or served under this lease shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given or served if delivered in person to the other party or its dulYauthorized agent or if deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, for mailing by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or if telegraphed, by.prepaid telegram, and addressed to the other party to this lease, to the address set forth next to that party's signature at 'the end of this lease. 17.. Successors and assigns. This lease shall be binding on and shall inure to. the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective assigns, executors, heirs, personal representatives, and successors. 18. Subordination. The sub-lessee agrees that at the lessor's election this sub- lease shall be subordinate to any land lease; mortgages, or trust deeds now on or placed on the premises and toany and all advances to be made thereunder, and to the interest thereon, and all renewals, replacements, and extensions thereof. The sub-lessee hereby appoints the sub-lessor or lessor as its attOrney-in,fact to execute such documents as may be required to accomplish such. subordination. 19. Brokerage fees. Each party hereto warrants ti'mt it has not incUrred any real estate brokerage fees, finders' fees, loan brokerage fees, Or .any other fees to any third party in connection with this lease. In the event that any third party institutes legal action in an effort to recover such fees, the parties shall jointly defend such action. If a judgment is obtained against the parties jointly, the party responsible for breach of this warranty shall reimburse the other for the latter's attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and share of the judgment. -712- 20. Amendment, modification, or waiver. No amendment, modification, or unless made in writing, signed by the party or parties to be bound or by its duly authorized representative, and specifying with particularity the extent and mature of such amendment modification, or waiver, Any waiver by any Party of any default of another party shall not affect or impair any right arising from any subsequent default. 21. Severable provisions.. Each provision, section, sentence, clause, phrase, and word of this lease is intended to be severable. If any provision, section, sentence, clause, phrase~ or word hereof is illegal or invalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this lease. 22. Attached lease agreement. This lease contains the entire understanding of the Parties along with the terms and conditions of the redacted Lease Agreement between Mark A. Saliterman as'lessor and the tenant/sub-lessee applicable hereto (See Exl'dbit B attached and made a part of this sub-lease as if fully set forth herein) with respect to the transactions contemplated hereby and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between the parties with respect to sub-lease of the premises. No representations, warranties, undertakings, or promises, whether oral, implied, written, or otherwise, have been made by either party to the other unless expressly stated in this sub-lease or urdess mutually agreed to in writing between the parries hereto after the date hereof, and neither party has relied on any verbal representations, agreements, or understandings not expressly set forth herein. 23. Captions, headings, or titles. All captions, headings, or rifles in the paragraphs or sections of this lease are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not constitute a part of this lease as a limitation of the scope of the particular paragraphs or sections to which they apply. 24. Minnesota law. This lease shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of 'Minnesota. 25. Arbitration. Any claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this lease or to the breach thereof shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment on the award granted by the arbitrator may beentered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. The place of arbitration.shaH be Hermepin County, Minnesota, or any other place mutually agreed on by the parties. -713- In witness whereof, the _arties hereto have executed this lease the da and year ~ve ~ Tenant/sub-lessor: INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 277 .2450 W~.Bo~evard, ~4~d, MN 5~364 Its Sub-lessee: CITY OF MOUND MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 By: Its -714- ..... ~0 U LEV.~.AD -715- EXHIBIT "B" o~, ~ ~d betweeh: k' ii n (hereinafter called "Landlord"); and Independent SChOol District 277 (hereinafter called "Tenant"). IN CONSIDERATTON OF the mutual agreements herein expressed, 'the .Parties agree as follows: DA?A SHEET (The legal significance of the'terms of this Data Sheet is governed by referemces to such terms in the remainder' of this Lease.) PPd~MISES. The area outlined in red on Exhibit B hereto, constituting approximately 9604 square feet. (Art. 1) 3o TENANT NAME Tenant shall operate and do business on the Premises, and all signs and advertising, shall be under the trade name 'Independent School District 277, Early Childhood Education, Westonka Public Schools (Art. 17) PERMITTED USE. The Premises shall be used by the Tenant solely for:' Educational Purposes · (Art. 5) TERM. Eiaht (8) years and four (4) Months. (Art 3) 5. RENT. Per DaraaraDh.47. 6. SECURITY DEPOSIT. $ -0- (Art. 26) 7. PERCENTAGE RENT PERCENTAGE. -0- %. (Art. 6) 8. C0NSTRuCTIONAND FIXTURING DAYS. -O- (Art. 3) 9. NOTICE ADDRESS FOR: Landlord: Tenant: Mark A. Saliterman, dba Shoreline Plaza 4301 Highway 7, Suite 100 St..Louis Park, MN 55416 Independent sChool District 277 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 (Art. 43) 10. ADDRESS FOR RENT PAYMENTS. (Art. 6) Same as above 11. NAMES OF PARTNERS COMPRISING TENANT. (If any). The exhibits listed below'are incorporated in this Lease by this reference and are to be construed as part of this Lease: EXhibit A: Exhibit'B: EXhibit C: Site Plan of Shopping Center Leasing Plan of Shopping Center Description of Landlord's and Tenant's Work -716- TABLE 1. pr~m~ses 3 ·4 5 6 7 8 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.. 20. '21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Term Plans·and Improvements Use Rent Gross Sales Records and Reports Definitions ~Taxes Common Area: Rights of Landlord and Tenant OPerating Expense Utilities Merchants ·Association Trade Fixtures Care of the Premises Advertising Insurance Tenant Waiver and Indemnity Mechanics Liens Assignment of Subletting Condemnation Damage or Destruction Surrender of Premises Default OF CONTENT~ 27. Subordination 28. Holding Over 29. Understanding of the Parties 30. Inspection. 31. Short Form Lease and Completion Statement 32 Non-Waiver 33 Captions 34 Limitation of Liability 35 Force Majeure 36 Brokers 37 No Partnership 38 Liability 39 Authority 40 Examfnation 41 Estoppel 42. Landlord Default Charges and Interest 43. Notices 44. Rules and Regulations 45. Successors and Assigns 46. Tenant Improvements 47. -Rent Calculation 48. 'Five (5) Year Option ~ LEASE PROVISIONS PREMISES. Landlord hereby leases to Tenant and Tenant hereby leases from Landlord, subject to and with the benefit of the terms, covenants, 'conditions and provisions of this Lease, the area described in Item i of the Data Sheet, subject to change pursuant to this Article 1, extending to the exterior surface of the storefront 'and the interior surface of the ceiling, floor and other walls; hereinafter described as the "Premises."' The. Premises include the 'appurtenances specifically granted in this Lease, but Landlord reserves and excepts, without· limitation, the use of the exterior walls (other than storefront) and the roof, any easement for light, air and Visibility, and the right to install, maintain, use, repair and replace structural elements and utility equipment, including pipes, ducts, conduits, wires and appurtenant fixtures, in, under, over and through the Premises in locations which will not materially interfere with Tenant's use thereof. Tenant is granted the right of' nonexclusive use, in common with others and subject to the restrictions herein contained, Of the automobile' parking areas and other Common Areas (.as hereafter defined) from time to time existing within the Shopping Center. The Premises are located on a tract of land (hereinafter dalled the 'Space Tenant Tract") outlined in blue on Exhibit B as changed from time to time. The Space Tenant Tract is locatedon a tract:of land that also includes the major tenant parcels (hereinafter in aggregate calledthe "Shopping Center Tract") shown on Exhibit"A as changed from time to time- Exhibits A and B set forth the general layout of the Shopping Center,· but shall in no way be deemed.to be a .warranty,· representation or ·agreement on the part of Landlord that the final layoUt will be exactly as indicated in Exhibits A and B. =~tlc'l= 1~ (i) Lu ohi£L LL= l~u=Liu~ u£ =i~ w~ll u~ w=llo Uf -717- 2o TITLE. Landlord hereby .warrants that it and no other person, firm or corporation .has the right to lease the Premises hereby demised. So long .as Tenant shall perform each and every covenant to be performed by Tenant hereunder, Tenant shall have peaceful and quiet use and possession of the Premises without hindrance on the part of Landlord, and Landlord shall defend Tenant in such peaceful and quiet use and possession under Landlord. TERM. Th6 Term of this Lease .shall commence on March 1,' 2002. The "D=ilv=z3 D,=L=" i~ Lli= d~3 La~,dluzd' ~=l,do **uLice Lo " wo~,. LO L= ~=ifui,,cdL:~ L~,dlu~d luu~u=iiL Lo E~I'*iLiL C 1,=~ b~e~, =ubst:u, Liall3 uum~let=d. The T=~,, Suo*i:i L=¢mi,iaL=d ~: h~z =i,,=f'L=~ u~uvld=d. Th= work Lv be ~=~fw~,ed b~ L=~,~u~d ~=u=**L Lu E~,iblL C ~=ei.' uv.upl=t=d wiLl.. LL= =~c=~tluii of ml.iu~ iL~.s whicli full3 uum~l=t=d' p~iu¢ Lw Lh= =**d wf Lh= Cu**oL~uuLiu** T=~i~iL" ~ uuiioLzuuLiOii =~LivlLi=o. Sliop~iii~ Ce**L=~ ~iLLii, 18 muiiLh~ ~fL~i Lh=' daL= h~l=uf, =iLhez ulu~ vf ~ucl* 18-mv**Ll* ~=llud t=~mi**=L= LI'*ia b= uu~,clusl vel~ =v id=,==d by {i) the ulu~i,,~ .of thc uOi.~Liuutlu** fi,~=,iuiii~ i=I=Li..~ Lo LL= uoiioLzuuLiu** of Lhc {u.bhe~ Lh=. l=~=Ii**~ of Lh= oiL= fulluwi**~ d=,,ullLiy~. ,u~- =i~av=Lio,i ~ul=ly fo~ Lh= i**~L=ll~Lioi~ of uLiilLi=~). D=llv=13 D=Le ~h=ll ~luL hay= o=uul~=d wiLliLi 36 Lh= d=L= h=l=~f, =iLh=l L=iidl~id ui T=.i~iiL =L a.iy Li.,¢ =ft=¢ Li,= Lion= uf ~uuh 36 mu. Lh p~iod t~¢iLtlii~L,- ~h=ll **oL h=v= OUuu~=d WiLl*l** 60 ,,,~**l'l,~ mO**Lh =**d 60-,,,o**tli ~=~iud= =h=ll **vL i.i pu~u~*L 'Lo AChi~t= 33 h¢~=of, but th= 36-mo**th ~=~iod ah=ii ~ ~ubj=~h Lv A~Ui~l='35. T=,i~,L'~ ~l~ht Lu p~ovlded l~=~=i~ oh=il b= Tw~,=~:L'o owl= ~=m=d3 fu~ a~3 f=ilu~- '4. PLANS AND ~ROVEMENTS. Landlord will pay for the improvements to the. space in accordance with the plans attached, (Exhibit C). Trr-~ -718-. USE. Tenant shall occupy the Premises upon the commencement of the Term, and thereafter shall continuously conduct and operate the business expressly set forth in Item 3 of the Data Sheet, and no other business-, fully staffed ~uid ~tu~k=d i~l u~de~ tv n~i.,i~= Pe~c=llLo~= . Rc~*L, for such reason~le hours of o~e~=Liou d~iu~ a seven day week as shall' be dete~ined by L~dlu~'d' Tenet. from t~e to t~e. .All =~Li~les hh= LiL:~iO~. of th= P~=,,~i'o=~ wlildi oll=ll b= vlolbl= f~ua, Lll=. e~t=llui the~=uf, i,=ludi~, ~ithuuL lla',i t=tlu~l, wludu~ fi~Lui==, sl~ll L= ,,=i~L=i~ed i~ .k==~L~ with the :nd ~t~d~d~ of = fi~L ~l=as olium~il~ ~=utei. T=~lt sh=ll tim=, puimu~lL to ~13 ~equll~=l~t of law ua u[ ~. ~llc desist f~ot,, s'ald u~=. IuoLall=Lio~ Of '~ v:~dlu~ mu~U Le =~Ov=d i~ =d~= i,~ w~iLi~ b~ L=udlu~d, othe~ Tenet agrees tha~ Ten~t's co~encement of work . on or oc~D~ of the 9r~ises shall be conclusive evidence that Tenet has accepted said praises ~d' that Tenet shall thereafter bear the risk that said Praises are suit~le for Tenet ' s ose. This agreement is contingent upon the Tenant securing a sublease with the City of Mound for part of the Premises, upon terms and conditions acceptable, to the Tenant. In the event Tenant does not secure such smblease .by March 1, 2002 , then and in that event the Tenant, at its sole option, may terminate this agreement without further cost or obligation. Landlord further 'consents to Tenant subleasing part of the Premises to the City of Mound to operate the municipal liquor store, upon terms:and conditions satisfactory to Tenant. ~enant covenants and agrees to pay to Landlord. at the address set out in Item 10 of the Data Sheet, or at such other plaCe as Landlord may designate in writing to Tenant, rent per paragraph 47: A. Annual Rent 'at the rate set out in paragraph 47 is payable in equal monthly installments, in advance, on the first day of each calendar month, or part thereof, during the Term. The Rent for any portion of a calendar month at the beginning of or end of the Term shall be prorated= · on the basis of 365-day year. AL Ch= e~i~blo~ tw=lv= {12 ) full ==l~ld=l Ittul~ IL-1 ,,', folluwLi~ uOlm,~=l*~,,=*lL 'ur Lhe T=~m, :~*d ~L th= =lid wf {12). ~=lei,d=i mui~Lho LL=~==fL=~ ,],:~i~l~ the -719- Pe~c=,~L~= R~uL paid will', ~e~=uL.Lu ~u~ll ~=~iod.. ~ce~L a~ p~uvld:d bcluw f0~ ~a~u~l ~dju~Lm=nt~, no ~cf~,d ~h~ll Ail pa~ents re~ired to be made to Landlord p~suant to this Lease shall be included in the te~ "rent"; and Tenant covenanEs to pay when due ~d payable all rents without any ' setoff, deduction or d~and whatsoever. Tenet ~derstands and ac~owledges that its only r~edy in the event of ~y default ~'L~dlord is to bring legal action against L~dlord, ~less L~dlord' s default · prevents the use of the premises, by Tenant for its intended use~. Except as othe~ise provided herein, any r~t provided for in this 'Lease shall be due with the installment of Rent due after receipt of notice of such additional rent from L~dlord. .. ' ...... ~ll~ll lu=~li LI~,' ~u~ul'l=o=, ~hegh=~ whull~ ~l ~=~tlall3 f~ uaOii u~ all m=~ull~idlse =,id ~=~vlc~ ~old =~id =ii ugli=, ~=1=, ba~L=~, wf uLll~lwi~, uf =1! u~ f~w*~ Lll= P~io==, L~=i~JL~, ~iLLOuL u=~LiEi~=L=o~ ~1i d=~olt~' liuL l=f~ld=d ~=uu~,,l~=d wiLhlii i~il~eLz {30% d=yo uf th= l=z=~=Z 0~" -720- Bo RECORDS AND REPORTS. All ~c~l=o aL= Lv be ~=~v~ded u~ c=oh ~i~te~ =~/ui~=d ~iLL *~ic~ll~ uu~*L~oll=d. L~,~dlu~d ~hall' h~ve a ~lg.hC uL uS= L~ ~=~u~L~,' a~d bu=L~=~ and of th= =udlted ~tate~ue~t d=~u~ib=d i~l =~=~=~i~pli (L) b=lo~ ~l*ich ~=i=L=S Lu ~uuh L~,dlu~d ~h~ll hay= LLe .~iuliL LO audlL Te,,~,L'= ~=uei~ed b~ La~dlu~d ~u~ou~L Lo =~a~au~=Pli {b} =buve,- eic=mt th=t wh=i= ~l =udlL of T=ll~lt'~ bvuko = dlSui=~=A*C~ of 4,O~= Lh=*~ fly= ~=~u=~lb {5%), wi a willful' iulssk=L=,,,:~h ~=u=~dl==~ of tli= oi~= of LI,= di~u~=pa~3, Liien L~ldlv~do,~=~ ........ ,lay= Lhe ~i~hL Lv =udlt the b~k= back Luu~='" L~u=~'Lio,~ d~L= uf Lhio L~=, ~d L~dlu~d -721 - DEFINITIONS. 9.2 FISCAL YEAR. Th= t=z~,L "Fi~ual ~, =~u=~t that uf this ~h~ll end u~ th= .l~t d~3 uf th= L=~= T=~m. L~di~d ~=~=~v=~ the 9.3. GROSS L~SABLE ~EA. all d~i~l.u .rolls, Lh= e~L=~iu~ ~clu~iv=l~ =ppz.u~i=Led for b~lcu, i=~ u~=d ~o ~Lu=k u~ ufflu= ~=ao. A d=t=~.L~tlu~* by deh=~min=tlu~, the~=uf =hull b= ~=qui~=d ~d=~ th= ~uvioiu*,~ Of Lhls ~.4 PRO RATA SHARE. T=~*L'~ Pzu f~uLiu~, th= ~=xaLu~ uf whluh i~ Lh=. G~u~o Lea~le A~=~ of pzuvld=d tu thc .~O~Lx~y hugely,. Re~dle~ uf th~ ~=~ u~ec] upo~ th= Gzu~o L==S~i= ~== =uLu=lly uuuu~i=d b~ L~L~',' p~uvld=d th=t i~* .u =v=~L oh~ll P~u 10. TAXES.. 10.l DEFINITION. ~= L=xm "Tcu~eo" ohall m=a~ crud L~ulud= =ii ~hall u~ may ~oose~=iu~ ur, u~ ~u~ du= ~,d m=3~l= uuL ur, o~ fu~, Lhn uu~ tz uC Led =~il~u=d u~ ~=d~ced), i,~ludl-9 but ~u~ 1L~it=d tu L~== u,~ -722- 10.2' TAX CHARGE, UlJo~ eo~-=~-~,=~t ~£ tl~e T=~,~, ~d' ~ ~O~Lhlx T~=o', wl~icl, ~1,~11 be u~=-tw=lfLl~ uf La**dluzd'~ =z=uL.ed Lh=~=~lz sli~ll b= ~=~aLel3 ~=ssed ~zd t~=d.~d ii L~zdlo~d ~h~ll i~oL Le ~=qui~=d Lu ~3 Lh= T~e~ l=vlcd Lh=~u~l of th: =uL.~l ~,*~ib wf T~e~, L~idluid'~ ='=Li*u~t= of ~h=il b= ~u-,~L13 =dju~L=d tu coiffure, 'Lo the actu=l ~u~L, ~,d =utu~i T=~=~ ~LL~iLuL=Li= hu Li,= ~e~iud uf ~uul, h=v= Lhe o~LlOi~ Lu c~=dlL uv=~=z,~=i,t by L=**~iL tv fuLu~= 10.3 PRORATIONS. ' T~es ~udi Pi~u=l Y=a~.' iQ..4 TAXES PAYABLE DIRECTLY BY TENANT. Tenant agrees to paY, prior to delinquency, any and all taxes and assessments levied or assessed during, the Lease Term upon or against (i) all furniture, fixtures, signs and equipment and any other personal property installed or located within the Premises, .(ii) all alterations, additions, betterments or improvements Of whatsoever kind or nature, made by Tenant to the Premises as the same may be separately levied, taxed and assessed against or imposed directly upon Tenant by the taxing authorities and (iii) the rentals payable hereunder byTenant to Landlord (o~her tha~ Landlor~'.s federal, state.and local income taxes thereon) i Should any 'governmental authority require that a tak, other than the Taxes above mentioned, be paid by Tenant, but collected by Landlord, for and on behalf of said governmental authority, and from time to time forwarded by the Landlord to said governmental authority, the same shall be paid. by Tenant to Landlord, payable monthly, in advance~ Tenant ~hall have the right to contest all taxes required to be paid pursuant to this Section 10.4, provided that such tax shall not become a lien against the Premises. ~n the event any legislation is Passed that reduces real estate taxes applicable to the Premises as a result of the Tenant being a school District, the Tenant shall realize any ~d all such benefit, dollar for dollar, as a result of .such legislation, the tax~s shall be reduced accordingly. Provided the remaining taxes are paid by the other tenants. Otherwise the taxes will be"allocated the same as common area. -723- 10.7 SUBSTITUTE TAXES. If aL a**3 Lira= du~i**~ LL= T=~m Lhe z'e~=lv~d [~om ~ucli ~=~I =~LaLe, ~ {ii) ~ llu=,ia~ f~= i, tea~ul=d m~vv~d=d tn=t (~}, (~} ~*d (iii) ~vv= ~h~ll not b= upu~ Like L~dlo~d. 11. CO_M~_ON i~{F..A; RIGHTS OF LANDLORD AND TENANT The term "Common Area" means the entire area within the Shopping Center Tract designed for common use or benefit of Landlord, tenants of Landlord, and customers, invitees, officers, agents and employees thereof~ including but not limited to, parking lots, landscaped and vacant, areas, passages for trucks and automobiles, elevators, ar eaways, roads, walks, curbs, drainage ditches, corridors, courts and arcades, together with facilities such as washrooms, comfort rooms, lounges, drinking fountains, toile~s, stairs, ramps, elevators, escalators, shelters, community rooms, porches, bus stations, and loading docks, with 'facilities appurtenant to each, and water filtration and treatment facilities, whether located within or outside of the Shopping Center. Subject to reasonable rules and regulations to~be promulgated by Landlord, the Common Area is hereby made-available to Tenant and its employees, agents, customers, and invitees for their reasonable nonexclusive use in common with other tenants, their employees, agents, customers, invitees and Landlord for the purposes for which constructed. ~zuvld=d ti,aL tl,= Cu.a,.~** Aze= ~h=ll =L ail b= o=bj=~h to gll= eAwlu~iv= uo= of L=lidlozd i;i Laiidlu~d'~ ~vle di~w==tlo~. La**dlu~d =hall hay= tl',= zi~ht f~u,,, Li,.= Lo t;,,,,'. -724- aiid u~lo uf iL~ ~.~luy=e= wlLhlii flfL==li (15) d~y~ L~dl~d wf ~ uh=~g=~ ~iLhl. fifLe~. {15) da3= =fte~ ~uuh Cul...uii ~== utLez Lll~l Lhu== d==i~liaLed, ~ld/ui (b) h=ve ~uuh 12. OP~I~ i2.i Pa~P~ OF OPE~TIN~ EXPOSE. This shall bese% at $3.~5 for :be ini:iai Derio~ ~s indica:ed in .paragraph 47. uu~=uL b~ = .... fflue~ w~ ~i~ulu=l uf L~.dlu~d, ohuwi,~u LL,'. 3==~ ~ld=l bhlo; ~ Lie1= 12, ~id (u) LL= ~.v~lL uf 12.2 DEFINITION.i ."Operating Expense"'shall include all costs and expenses incurred by Landlord in owning, operating and maintaining the:Shopping Center Tract and improvements thereon, in a manner .deemed by Landlord reasonable and appropriate and for the best interests of the tenants of the Shopping Center, including without limitation, all costs and expenses (relatiflg to the land, to Common Areas' and. to improvements) of operating, maintaining, repairing, lighting, cleaning, painting, striping, inspecting, insuring (including but not limited to liability insurance for personal injury, death and property damage, insurance against fire, theft or other casualties pursuant to Section 18:7 hereof, worker's compensation' insurance, insurance covering personnel, ihsurance against liability for defamation and claims of false arrest,"and plate' glass insurance), removing of snow, ice, debris and surface waber, renting of music, regulation of traffic, and the provision of utilities, sewerand security (including cost of water, renting of music, regulation of .traffic, and the provision of utilities, sewer and security (including cost of uniforms, equipment and all employment -725- taxes, electronic intrusion and fire control devices and telephonic alert system devices), complying with laws and re lations in ~ ' · . or permz s an lcenses7 attorneys, accountants and other professionals, employment costs, as well as all costs and expenses (other than th~ costs of initial construction) of placement of foundations, walls, roofs, gutters, downspouts, building service equipment, paving, curbs, sidewalks, walkways, roadways, parking sur£aces, landscaping, ~rainaue, e uipmen[ and fixtures. Landlord, at its election, may either depreciate capital items ~Dr expense the cost of capital items as incurred, but not both. In addition, reasonable reserves for the repair and replacement of improvements within the shopping center, may be included, provided, however, that portions of said costs and expenses paid for out of such reserves shall not be deemed a current Operating Expense for purposes of this Article. To the sum total of all of the above (but excluding costs of insuring) shall be added a fee equal 'to fifteen percent (15%) thereof for administration of the Common Area. In lieu of the 15% administration fee, Landlord, at its election, may employ a professional management organization, in which event Operating Expense. shall include the fees of such manager. IL i~ th= il~t~l, tluii u£ L~.ldlu~d ~,d T=,l=l,t LL~L thi~ iiiclud= ~11 costs al~d ex~=l~=~ i,~uu~ed b3 LalMlu~d iii 12.3 PRAISES NOT OPTING 0~O ~CLOSED ~L. A. If th=' Pz=,,iaes d0 **vt 1,=v=.~* =**b~**u= Lu the di==uLl~ =ttxlbut~l= Lo =uuh =**uluo=d ,,=11, ~Lt~ibut=bl= Lv th= e**~luo=d ,~11, ~*M (ii} a**~ uu~t bO~i~= di~eutl3 b3 T=~=,iL ~hluh ~uuld ubL=~i== (iiluludlii~ uuiildulo dll=utl~ uuiui=ut=d tu th= .~=11} , bul. do:o **ut h~v= ouch ~, =**tz~,u=,. th=** T=**a**t'= Pzu Rata a. T=~,=~,L'O P~u R=L= Sh=~= of O~=~ati,',9 Cuoto. di~=uti~ =LLxlbu:t~l= Lu Lh= e**ulu~=d ,,,=11 ohall be b. T=**~L'5 P~u R=L~ Shax= uf Op=~=Li*~ COoLo uLh=~ m=ll ~hall b= uui,,~uLed i~, =uuo~d=**ce ~iLL 9.4 u** LL= b~i~ u[ Lh= Gxu=~ Le~=bl~ ~=~ uf th~'~ -726- 13. UTI~.ITI~.~. 13.1 UTILITIES, Tenant shall promptly pay for all gas, ~"~"'"-'"';"": "'-' ---~""'~-' t-n" --~ ............... ..... .,. '~. ,,, ', temporary and permanent that are delivered to the premises. elLh=~ LO =SLim~L~ ~uch = bill, Landlordshall not be liable in damages or otherwise if the furnishings by Landlord or by any other supplier of any' utility service or other service to the Premises shall be interrupted .or impaired by fire, accident, riot, strike, act of God, the making of necessary repairs or improvements, shortage of supply, governmental regulation or request, including, without limitation, energy conservation measures, or by any causes beyond Landlord's control; and such interruption or 'impairment shall not .be construed as an eviction or disturbance of possession. ~.2 N~aTING. VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING. Tenant's heating, ventilating and air conditioning ("HVAC") is'supplied by equipment serving only' Tenant, Tenant shall be solely responsible for itS HVAC and the maintenance and repair of all equipment associated therewith. Landlord reserves the right to require Tenant' to maintain a maintenance contract with a .company. acceptable'toLandlord for the maintenance and repair of Tenant's HVAC equipment 14. MERCHANTs ASSOCIATION. T=**~L will, u~u~ u~,,~,,e~c~,,=~.L u£ the Te~,,, p~umpL13 w~k 't,,, oz~=~i~=d Lu ~vu%uL= Lh= =uLivlLi=o Of Ch= Shu~ix~ C=~t=~, L~:~L3-flv: (25) C:~L~ Lime: bh: G~u:a Ch~z~: .... L~dlu~ d :hall :qu:~ LO 'L~%: ~.u~L of much u~= Lb= P~umutlu~=l Ch~= u~l~ fv~ Lb= b~ Lh= A~vui~LiO~ O= tw=~b3'-flv= {25) u~=d fu~ Lb= ~'Oatobio~ O~ Lh= G~=~O 0~v..;.~ dazo wE th= d=t= ~f ~euelpL vf = bill Lh= A~owi~Liu~ ~,d/u~ L~dlu~d, ~=~Qi=~= uf wh=Lhe~ ~ior' -727-. 15. TRADE FIXTURES. Ail ~raae fixtures,.merchandise, supplies, decorative light la the Pre_miser shall remain the property o~ Tenant a~nd shall be removable from time to time and also at the expiration of the Term or any renewal or extension thereOf, or other termination thereof, provided (1) that Tenant shall not at such time be in. default under any covenant or condition contained herein, (ii) that prior to the expiration of the Term Tenant shall not remove so much of said fixtures and apparatus, without provision for the 'immediate replacement thereof with similar fixtures and apparatus of comparable or better quality, as to render the Premises unsuitable for conducting business in accordance with Article 5 hereof, and (iii) Tenant shall repair any damage to the Premises caused by the removal of said fixtures. Landlord shall have a lien on said fixtures and apparatus as security against loss or damage' resulting from any default by Tenant and said fixtures and apparatus shall not be removable byTenant until such default is cured. 16. CARE OF THE PREMISES. 16.10BLIGATIQN$ OF TENANT. Tenant will: (a) keep the.inside and outside of' all glass in the doors and windows of the Premises clean; (lb) keep 'all exterior storefront surfaces of the Premises clean; (c) replace promptly, at its expense, any broken door closers and any cracked or broken glass of the bremises with replacements of like kind- and quality; (d). m~intain the Premises at its expense in a clean, orderly and sanitary condition; (e) keep any trash removed at its expense On a regular basis to such location as Landlord may determine, and temporarily stored in the Premises in accordance with local codes; (f) keep all mechanical apparatus free of · vibration and noise which may be transmitted beyond the premises; (g) 'comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of governmental authorities and all recommendations of the Fire Underwriters Rating Bureau now or. hereafter in effect; (h) ti~ht th= ~how wl**duw~ of Lhc bu~,,=d uut, (i) conduct its business in all respects in a dignified, manner in accordance with.the standards of first class tenants of first class shopping centers; and (j) heat and. cool the Premises such that the Premises shall not steal heat. or cooling from' the enclosed mall. Tenant will not, without the written consent of Landlord; place or maintain any merchandise or other'articles or objects outside the perimeter of the Premises; use or permit the use of any loud 'speakers, phonographs, public address systems, flashing, moving, and/or rotating lights, ~sound amplifiers, musical instrumen, ts,~ or television or radio broadcasts which are in any manner audible or visible outside the Premises; permit undue accumulations of garbage,' trash, rubbish or other refuse within the Premises; cause or permit odors to emanate or be dispelled from the Premises; solicit business or'distribute advertising matter to the public outside the Premises or in or upon any automobiles in the Common Area~ permit the parking of delivery vehicles so as to interfere, with the use 'of any driveway, walk, parking area, mall or other Common Areas in the Shopping Center; or receive or ship articles of any kind except through service facilities designated by Landlord and at times specified by Landlord. Tenant will not overload the electrical wiring Serving the Premises or within the Premises, and will install at its expense, but only after obtaining Landlord's written a~proval, any additional electrical wiring which may be required in connection With Tenant's apparatus. Except as otherwise provided, in this Article, Tenant shall at all times keep the Premises (including but not limited to the plumbing, electrical and other mechanical equipment), in good order, condition and repair, in quality and .class at least -728- equal to the original work by Tenant, at Tenant's own cost and expense and in accordance with all laws, directions, rules and ~urisdiction in thatregard. If Tenant refuses or neglects t~ commence repairs within ten (10) days after written demand, or adequately to complete such repairs within a reasonable time thereafter, Landlord may make the repairs without liability to Tenant for any loss or damage that may accrue to Tenant's stock or business by reason thereof; and if Landlord makes such repair, Tenant shall pay to Landlord the costs thereof on demand. Tenant will not in any way alter the exterior of the Premises (including the walls, roof, storefront .and/or signs, lettering,, and advertising.matter on any windows or doors) and will not make any structural alterations to the interior of the Premises or any part thereof, except as agreed to in the Plan for Tenant Improvements. Tenant will not paint or decorate any part of the exterior of the Premises, including storefronts, or any part of the interior visible from the exterior thereof, or display any signs on the exterior of the PremiSes or within twelve {12) inches of the 'mall lease 'line of the Premises except in' accordance with Exhibit C. Landlord shall have the right, in Landlord's sole discretion, to require Tenant to remove any Sign visible from the Common area which is not in keeping with the standards of the Shopping Center. 16.2 OBbIGATION .OF LANDLORD~ Landlord shall keep the foundations, the four outer walls, the roof, downspouts and gutters of the building of which the Premises'are a part and, to the extent not servicing only the premises of a single tenant, the plumbing, sewage and heating, ventilating and air 'conditioning sYstems in good repair, ordinary wear and tear and. fire or other casualty excepted, provided Landlord shall not be liable to'Tenant for any damage caused by the same being or becoming out of repair. Landlord shall not be required to' make .any other repairs. If Tenant believes that the repair is being unreasonably delayed, Tenant shall have the right to fix said repair at Landlord's expense. If Landlord does not, pay for the said repair, Tenant shall have the right to set-off the rent. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Landlord shall be responsible for repair and or replacement of the roof top HVAC system for any amounts in excess of $500.00; 17 18. ADVERTISING. · ch=~=d ~iLhuuL L~dlu~d'o p~iu~ ~iLL=~ ~uvo1. Tenant shall use as its advertised business address the' name and · address of the'Skopping Center. Tenant agrees that Landlord's name or the name of the Shopping Center shall not be used in any confusing, detrimental or misleadingmanner, and that upon termination of this Lease, Tenant will cease to use Landlord's name or the name of the Shopping Center, or any part thereof, in any manner. 18.1 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE. Prior to its entry into the Premises and thereafter during the Term of this Lease, Tenant shall keep'in full force and effect, at its expense, a policy or policies of public liability insurance with'respect to the Premises and to the business of Tenant and any subtenant, licensee, or concessionaire. Suuh i~,,~iL ~ullui=o, SDGG,GGG.OG £v~ L~ju~3 u~ J==LL LO =*~ v~,' ~e~oo,~ SI, GOO,GOO.GO fu~ L,ju~ ~= d==Lh tv ~,v~= th~,, v~e -729- d~: Lu ~u~:~ L~ . Of uth~l '18 · ~ WORKER' operation is such as to place any or all of its employees under the coverage of local worker's compensation or similar statutes, Tenant shall also keep in force, at its e~ense, long as this Lease re, ins in effect ~d d~ing such other time as Tenet occupies the Premises or ~y part thereof, worker's compensation or similar instance affording statuto~ coverage' and' containing statuto~ limits. At the written re~est of Landlord, Tenant agrees .to fu~ish to L~dlord evidence of worker's co~ensation coverage. 18.4 FIRE ~ ~TE~ED CO~GE INS~CE. Tenant shall keep' in full force ~d effect d~ing the Te~ of this Lease, at its expense, an 'all risk' t~e o~ Ten~t's fire instance poli~ with v~ndalism ~d malicious mischief endorsement, covering the full replac~ent cost of all fixtures, merchandise, supplies, goods, the portion of the Premises described as Tenant' s Work in E~ibit C, ~d all other leasehold improv~ents made ~ Tenant. 18.5 GE~L. T~L ~h=ll =L =11 Lim~ k~ fZum Lim~ Lb Ail policies re~ired ~der this Article 18 shall be issued by companies licensed to do business in ~he state in which the ' Shopping Center is located. Tenet shall furnish L~dlord with certificates or other evid~ce acceptable to L~dlord that the policies re~ired p~suant to Sections 18.1, 18.2, 18.4 and 18.5 hereof are in effect, which evidence shall state that L~dtord shall be notified in writing 30 days prior to cancellation, material ch~ge or non-renewal of such insur~ce. The 'policies re~ired p~su~t to Sections 18.2 and 18.4 hereof shall n~e Landlord as ~ additional insured. If Tenet shall car~ any of the insur~c'e re~ired here~der in the fo~ of a bla~et poliO, any certificate re~ired hereunder shall make specific reference to the Premises- 18.6 WAIVER OF SUBROGATION. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Lease, Landlord and Tenant hereby waive any rights each may have against the other on account of any loss or damage occasioned Go Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be, their respective property, the Premises or its contents, or to o~her portions of the Shopping Center, arising from any risk coverable by the insurance required hereunder; and the parties each, on behalf of their respective inSurance dompanies insuring the property of either Landlord or Tenant against any such loss, waive-any right of subrogation that it may have against Landlord or Tenant, as the case may be. The foregoing waivers of subrogations shall be operative only so long as available in the state where the Shopping Center is situated and only so long as they do not invalidate any such policy. -730- 18.7 'LANDLORD'S INSURANCE. Landlord will during the Term of this Lease keep in force a standard form of fire insurance coverage for rent, including taxes and all other additional · rent) endorsements, issued by a. company lfcensed to do business in the state in which the Shopping Center is located, covering the portion of the Premises described as Landlord's Work in Exhibit C.' 18.8 TENANT COVENANTS. Tenant will not do or suffer to be done, or keep or suffer to be kept, anything in, upon.or about the Premises which will contravene Landlord's policies ~nsuring against loss or damage by fire .or other hazards (including, without limitation, public liability) or which will prevent Landlord from procuring such. policies in companies .acceptable to Landlord. If anything done, omitted to be done or suffered to be done by Tenant, or kept or suffered by Tenant to be kept, in, upon or about the Premises shall cause the rate of fire or other insurance on the Premises or other property of Landlord pursuant to policies issued by companies acceptable to Landlord to be increased beyond the minimum rate from time to time applicable to the Premises for the use permitted under this Lease or to any other propertY for the use or uses made thereof, then Tenant will pay the amount of any increase upon Landlord's demand. 19. TENANT WAIVER AITD INDEMNITY. Arising out of District Actions, Tenant agrees to indemnify and save Landlord harmless against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonabIe attorney's fees for the defense thereof, arising from the conduct or management of the business conducted by Tenant in the Premises or from breach or default on the part of Tenant in the performance of any covenant or agreement on the part. of Tenantto be performed pursuant to the terms, of this Lease, or from any'act of negligence of Tenant, its agents, contractors, servants, employees, sublease, concessionaires or licensees, ~n or about the P~emises. 20. HECHA~ICS LIENS. 20.1 NOTICE. Tenant agrees to notify Landlord prior.to the commencement of any of Tenant's work on the Premises so as to permit Landlord to post~otices of noD_responsibility for liens at a place or'places'6n the Premises designated by Landlord. Tenant agrees to provide Landlord With names and addresses of ag~=eo hu ~o ~,oAi£3 =Ii contractors, materialmen, suppliers and other persons either performing work or providing services and/or supplies to the Premises on behalf of Tenant. Landlord's rights under this paragrapk shall not alter Tenant's obligations under Section 20.2. 20.2 OBLIGATIONS OFTENANT. Tenant agrees to promptly pay all sums of money in respect of any labor, services, materials, · supplies Or equipment' furnished or alleged to have been furnished to Tenant in, at or about the Premises, or furnished to Tenant's agents, employees, cOntractors or subcontractors, which may be secured by'any mechanics, materialmen, suppliers or other type of lien against the Premises or Landlord's interest therein..'In the event any such or similar lien shall be filed, within thirty-(30:) days after receiving notice of the filing of the lien, discharge such lien by payment'of the amount'due to the. lien claimant. However, Tenant may in. good f~ith-contest such lien provided that Tenant duly defends Such lien ~aJ,.~L ~id li=n i~ an ~,,o~L ~b ie=~t o~= :nd o~=-i~=if (l-k Li~= 11~, -731 - ' ~=~,=dy of L=~,dl~zd, L~dlo~d ~,~y Lut ~h=ll ~ot b= oLlig=ted to ii,Lo th= v=Iidlt3' Of a~ 11=~ ~iu~ Lo ~=3~,,=~L 21. ASSIGNMENT OR SUBLETTING. Tenant agrees not to sell, assign,.mortgage, pledge, franchise or in any manner transfer this Lease or any estate or interest thereunder and agrees not to sublet the Premises or any part or parts thereof and not to permit any licensee or concessionaire therein without the previous written consent of Landlord in each instance 'first obtained. Landlord shall not unreasonably withhold its consent to a mortgage of Tenant's leasehold interest given to an institutional lender or to an assignment in which the assignee assumes the obligations of Tenant. Any rental payable to Tenant under a sublease in excess of that payable hereunder with respect to the portion of the Premises subleased, and any other consideration paid or payable to Tenant for entering into a sublease or assignment, shall immediately be paid over byTenant to' Landlord. Consent by Landlord to one assignment of this Lease or to one subletting, sale, mortgage, .pledge or other transfer, including licensing or the granting of a concession, shall not be a waiver .of Landlord's rights under this Article as to any subsequent similar action, and shall in no event release the original Tenant Or any guarantor from its obligations hereunder. Any subletting, assignment or transfer which would otherwise occur by operation of law, legal process, liquidation, receivership, bankruptcy or otherwise shall be deemed to be a transfer. If at any time during the Term of this Lease, Tenant (or any guarantor hereof) is either: (i) a corporation or a trust (whether or not having shares of beneficial interest) and there shall occur any change in the identity of any of the persons then having power to participate in the election or appointment of the directors, trustees, or other' persons exercising like functions and · managing the affairs of Tenant; or (fi) a partnership Or association or otherwise not a natural person (and is not a corporation or a trust) and there shall occur any change in the identity of any of the persons who then are members of such partnership or association or who comprise tenant; such shall be deemed to be a transfer and Tenant shall promptly notify Landlord." Notwithstanding t~e foregoing, Tenant shall have the right, without the consent of Landlord first obtained, to assign this Lease to its parent company or to an affiliate or subsidiary corporation or a corporation into which Tenant shall be merged, provided, however, Tenant shall not be released from any obligation hereunder, and provided further 'that such assignee shall agree in writing to assume all of Tenant's obligations, including bu[ not limited to those arising under Articles 5 and 17. Landlord's rights to assign this Lease are and shall remain unqualified. Upon any sale of the Premises and provided the purchaser assumes all subsequent obligations under this Lease, Landlord shall thereupon be entirely freed of all obligations of Landlord hereunder accruing after such transfer and shall not be s~bject to any liability resulting from any act or omission or event occurring contemporaneously with or after such conveyance. Upon the sale or'other transfer of Landlord's'interest in this Lease, Tenant agrees to recognize and attorn to such transferee as Landlord, and Tenant further agrees to execute and deliver a recordable instrument setting forth the provisions of this paragraph. -732- 22. 23 24. This paragraph 2i shall not apply, in any respect, to the sublease .with the City of Mound for space 'to operate its Munic~p~ %%~Q~ to such sublease. CONDEMNATION. In 'the event that 'the premises are condemned under the power of eminent domain, the Distict should receive a prorated portion of the award to reflect its interest in the premises and the expenSe of moving. if th= whol~ o£ =u~ ~t u£ LL= P~,~i~=~ -~h=ll b= Lak=~ u~de~ the ~o Lek=. v~ Lh= d=t= Te~t i~ ~=~ui~=d 'tn yi=ld =z~d vLL=~ iC~.= uf ~ddiLio~l ~=,~L w~=~b Pe~w=~L~= .Re~L ~L~ii be ~=d~c=d ~v~u~Liuii=L=lz =~ Lv LI'~= ~v~Lio. vf Lh= P~,,i~es ~u t=keli,' m~wv~u=u, un=u, ~f iii al*= O~il~Oii uf L~ldlo~d. Lhe t~i~i~. If Lhe ~,u~b wf Lhe P~io=~ 'ow Lak=~ =~u==do Lw:~,Ly ~d 'b= Lh= w~u~=~tz uf L~dluzd, ~zovld=d, llu~=ve~, Lh=t ~h=ll l~uL b= =.Lltl=d Lw ~lz =~=id ~.=d= Lu Teil~lt fv~ lv~o of b~=i.=== =~d f=i~ v=l~e of, =.d cool The te~ "~inent domain" shall include the exercise of any gover~ental power ~d ~y sale, or other transfer, in lieu of cond~at ion. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION. · If the Premises shall be damagedby fire, the elements, unavoidable accident or other casualty insurable under full standard extended risk insurance ·offered at the time in the state in which the Shopping Center ~s located, but the Premises are not thereby rendered untenantable in whole or in part,' Landlord shall promptly at its expense cause such damage to be repaired, without abatement of'rent~. If the' Premises shall be rendered wholly or partially untenantable, Landlord shall at its expense cause the damage to be repaired, and the'aggregateAnnualMinimum'Rentand additional rent other than Percentage Rent meanwhile shall be abated proportionately as to the portion of the Premises rendered untenantable, untess within sixty'(60) days after said occurrence Landlord shall notify Tenant in writing that it has elected not to 'reconstruct 'the Premises, whereupon this Lease and the tenancy hereby created shall cease as of the date of said occurrence, the rent to be adjusted as of such date. In no event shall (i) Landlord be liable ~or damage to or replacement or repair of anything other than the portion of the Premises described as .Landlord's Work ~in Exhibit C, or {ii) Landlord be required to expend more than the amount of any .insurance proceeds received by Landlord in connection with the eoent creating the repair of reconstruction obligation. SURRENDER OF PIiEMISES. For the period of six (6) months prior to the expiration of the Term or any renewal or extension thereof, Landlord shall have the right to show the Premises and all parts thereof to prospective 6enants during normal business hours. 'This Lease shall terminate at the end of the original Term hei ', or any extension br renewal thereof, without the necessity oi ~ notice from either Landlord Or Tenant to terminate the same; and Tenant hereby waives notice to vacate the Premises and agrees that Landlord shall be entitled to the benefit of all provisions of law -733- · respecting the summary recovery of possession of premises from a tenant holding over the same extent as if statutory notice had been On the last day Of the Term or'on the sooner termination thereof, Tenant shall peaceably surrender the Premises in good order, condition, and repair, broom-~lean, excepting only reasonable wear· and tear and fire and other unavoidable casualty insurable by Landlord. Tenant shall, at its expense, remove all personal property, fixtures, trade fixtures and signs from the Premises. At the option of Landlord, any property not.removed shall be deemed abandoned. Any damage caused ·by Tenant in the removal, of such items shall be repaired by and at Tenant's expense. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all masonry, poured concrete, hard surface bonded or adhesively.affixed flooring, plumbing and toilet fixtureS, power panels, switches, and transformers, and, if requested by Landlord, floor covering, wall covering, ceiling material, fixed partitions and' installed lighting equipment (whether or not the same are trade fixtures) and/or other fixtures (other than trade fixtures) designated by Landlord, which shall have been made or installed by either Landlord or Tenant upon the Premises,· shall remain upon and be surrendered with premises as a part thereof, without disturbance, molestation or injury, and without charge, at the expiration or termination of this Lease and shall then become property of Landlord. If the Premises be not surrendered in accordance with this Article 24, Tenant shall indemnify, defend and hold Landlord harmless against loss, liability or expense resulting from delay by .Tenant in so surrendering.the Premises, or failure to leave the Premises in the condition required hereunder, including, but not limitedto, claims made by any succeediTM tenant founded on such delay. Tenant shall promptly surrender all keys for the premises to Landlord a. the place then fixed for notice to Landlord and shall inform Landlord of combinations on any locks and safes on the Premises. The provisions of this Article 24 shall survive termination of this Lease. 25~ DEFAULT. If ~ Tenant shall: (i) fail at any time to maintain insurance required herein or to pay rent or any other monetary charge within sixty (60) days after the time such rent or monetary charge is due and payable to Landlord; (ii) violate any other covenant made by it in'this Lease and shall fail to cure such violation within sixty (60) days after being sent written notice of such violation by Landlord, provided however that with respect to any default with a reasonable likelihood of cure, which cannot reasonably be cured within said sixty (60) days. Tenant shall have such additional time. as shall be reasonable in which to cure so long'as Tenant promptly· commences and diligently prosecutes the curing thereof; or (iii) file or have filed against it or any guarantor of this Lease any bankruptcy or other, creditor's action, then, in any of such events, it shall be optional for Landlord to enter the Premises and 'do such things as may be permitted hereunder in the manner set out herein, and Landlord shall have no liability to ·Tenant for any loss or damages resulting in any way from such action by Landlord. A. In the event of any such default by Tenant, then, in additi6n to any other remedies available to Landlord at law or in equity, Landlord shall have the immediate option to terminate this Lease and all.rights of Tenant hereunder by giving written notice of Such intention to terminate. In the event that Landlord shall terminate this Lease then Landlord may recover from Tenant: (i) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the'unpaid rent which would have been.earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of rent Landlord has reasonable assura~nce of receiving; plus _?s4_. Bo (ii) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of rent plus (v) ~e~mltt=d f~om tim= tu Lira= b~ =~llc~bl= l=w. In the event of any such default by Tenant, Landlord shall also have the right to reenter the Premises and remo~e all persons and property from the Premises. Such property maYbe removed and stored in a public warehouse or elsewhere fat the cost of and for the account of Tenant. In the event that Landlord shall elect to reenter as pro~idedin paragraph Babove or shall take possession of the Premises pursuant to legal proceedings or pursuant to any notice'provided by law, and if Landlord does not elect to terminate this lease as prOvided in paragraph (A) above, then Landlord may from time to time, without terminating .this Lease, recover all rental as it becomes due and relet the Premises or any parts thereof for such term or terms and at such rental or rentals and upon such other terms and conditions as Landlord in its sole discretion .may deem advisable, with the right to make alterations and repairs to the Premises. In the event that Landlord shall elect to so r~let, then rentals received by' Landlord from such reletting shall be applied; first, to the Rayment of any cost of such reletting, .including concessions to a new tenant, alterations and repairs to the Premises, brokerage fees, and'attorney's fees; Second, to the payment of rent due and unpaid hereunder; .and the residue, if any, shall be held byLandlord and applied in payment of future rent as the same may become due and payable hereunder. Should that portion of such rentals receivedfrom such reletting during any month, which is applied to the payment of rent hereunder, be less than the rent payable during that month by Tenant hereunder, then Tenant shall pay such deficiency to Landlord. Such deficiency shall be calculated and paid monthly. Tenant shall also pay to Landlord, as'soon as ascertained, any costs and expense incurred byLandlord in such reletting or in making such alterations and repairs not covered by the rentals' received fr°msuch reletting of the Premises. No reentry or taking possession of the Premisesby. Landlord pursuant to paragraphs B or C of this Article 25 shall be construed as an election to terminate this Lease nor shall it cause a forfeiture of rents, or other charges remaining to be paid during the balance of the term hereof unless a written notice of such intention be given to Tenant or unless the termination thereof be decreed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding any reletting without termination by Landlord because of any default by Tenant, Landlord may at any time after such reletting elect to terminate this Lease for any such default. -735- 26. 27. ' .... d ............. be p~~l~ A (i}.~d {il} ~uv=, hh~ "~o~th ~t .th= him~ of a~d" l~ ~um~uL~d b~ ~llowi.~ i~LCa~L ~L Lh= p~O'v'id=d~ i. ~Liul= 42. A~ used i,~ p=~=~=ph A (ill) ~ov=, u~.= "worth ~t the Lime of =~d" i~ F=d=~=i K=~=~v= B=~ of ~"' ..... aL Lhe Lime of E. Iu uidei Lo piwt~CL L~lidlu~d. ~aiii~t LL= T~ii~iiL h~ieby ~iv=~ ~,d ~l~ Lo w~iv~ ~iy li~hL wi,ich [hi=' ~= b3 ~a3$~i~.Lo L~,dlo~d o~ L~Lo uou~L Lhe iii thi~ AiLiul= 25, T=li~lt ~liall.li=v= ilo ~lau= F. In addition to all other remedies here~der, the prevailing party either Landlord or Tenet shall be entitled to reasonable atto~ey's fees in enforcing its right here~der. SECORI~ DEPOSIT. SimulL=l~euu~l~ wiLL Lh= =~=wuLiu~i. uf Lhi~ L==~e, T=~i~iL sh=ll D=L= Sh==t aS = ~=uu~iLy d=~u~lL. Suuli ~ecuiiL~ d=~o~it ~l.oll t=~ln hel'=wf, L=~ldluid sh=ll, W~wvlded th=L Te..~.tL d=faul, t ~dei LL= te~mo h=~eof, l=tu~ ~id ~a3 ~=uu~iLz d=~o~iL LO Te~L, wiLhuUg iuL=~=ot, yuud ~liy d=f~lL ,b~ T~ziL wiLL z=~=uL Lu ~liy uf T=ii~IL'S ~h=li li=v= LL= ~ighL, buL ~h=ll ~ut b= obliw=L=d Lo ~p13 ~1] iii whluh ev=llL T=ll~lL oh=ll b= wbli~=L=d Lu plunt~Lly wlLh ~ .... Laiiuioiu~l= ~uo~lL ~le~=~=ly Lo ~=stu~= Ch= ~e~u~fLy' d=~omlL Lu ilo u~i~i~=l ~ttO~L. Ill th= =v=.L of Lh: o=l= or Lza~ofe~ uf L=~diuzd'~ i~L=z=oL i~ LI~= buildlu~, SUBORDINATION. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Lease, unless Landlord elects in writing to the contrary, Tenant's rights dnder this Lease are and shall always be' subordinat~ to the operation and effect of any mortgage, 'deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument now or hereafter placed upon the Shopping Center Tract, or any part or parts thereof, ' by Landlord, provided that so long as Tenant is not in default hereUnder Tenant',shall not be disturbed in its possession- -736- 28. 29. 30. 31. pursuant to this Lease. The subordination and nondisturbanca clause shall be self-operative/ and no further instrument of subordination or non-disturbance shall be require~, prQvi~ superior to specified instruments by giving .Tenant notice thereof. Without limiting the self-operative effect of the foregoing, Tenant agrees to execute from time to time such further assurances relating to subordination or attornment as may be required by Landlord or any person, firm or corporation' claiming through, by or under Landlord. .During any time a mortgage or other security instrument is placed upon any part of the Shopping Center Tract, Tenant shall'not pay rent (other than the security deposit) more than one month in advance, and shall not surrender or consent to modification of this Lease without the prior written consent of such mortgagee. Upon written request of such mortgagee for a modification of this Lease Tenant shall within 15. days of receipt thereof either execute the requested modification document, or send Landlord notice of termination of this Lease effective as of the date of such mortgagee's request. If Tenant shall not respond within such 15 day period, Tenant shall be deemed to have terminated this Lease. HOLDING OVER. ~n the event Tenant remains in possession of the Premises after the exp±ration of this Lease and without the execution. of a new lease and Landlord accepts rent from Tenant, Tenant shall be deemed ~o be occupying the Premises as a tenan~ from mo~th to month at twice the Minimum Rent otherwise payable, subject to all the other conditions, provisions and obligations of this Lease insofar as the'same ..can be applicable to a.month-to~month tenancy cancellable by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other. UNDERSTANDING OF THE PARTIES. This Lease shall be binding upon Landlord and Tenant from the date hereof. This Lease shall be construed under the laws of the state in which the Shopping Center'is located. If any provision of this Lease or portion thereof, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Lease shall. not be affected thereby; and each provision ~f-this Lease shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. This lease represents the full and complete agreement of the parties and Tenant has. not relied upon any warranty, representation or understanding made by anyone prior to the execution of this Lease. No agent, officer or employee of Landlord had or has any authority to make or modify any agreement or representation of'this Lease, exceDtbyinclusion of same in an executed .copy of this Lease or a written amendment thereto. INSPECTION. Tenant will permit Landlord, its agents, employees and Contractors to enter all parts of the Premises at reasonable hours to inspect the same, collect rents due hereunder, post notices permitted hereunder and to enforce or carry out any provision of this Lease. SHORT FO~M LEASE AND COMPLETION STATEMENT. Ot~,,~' O~ llk= t~ oh=ll b= du~= L3 L~dio~d ~d ~id Zu~ by T=~=~t.. -737- 'wiLhL~ Le,~ d~y~ ~[L:z ~:ceipL Lh:z:u[, which, u~u,~ ~x~cuLio~, Lhi: L:~&e. T:~L l'~z:L3 izzevou~13 mpmoi~L~ L:~dlozd attoz~ez-i~-f:uL Lv =~:uuL: :u~h ~ wzlti~ i~ Lhe ev:~L T:~:~L ' mh:ll f:il Lo du :u ~iLLL~ muuh LL,e. 32. NON-WAIVER. NO reference to any specific right or remedy shall preclude Landlord from exercising any other right or from having any o~her remedy or from maintaining any action to which it may otherwise be entitled either at law or in equity. Landlord's failure to insist upon a strict performance of any covenant of this -Lease or to exercise any option or right herein contained shall not be a waiver or relinquishment for the future of such covenant, right or option; but the-same shall remain in full force and effect. 33. CAPTIONS. The captions and headings herein are for reference only. convenience and 34. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Landlord's liability hereunder is limited interest in the Shopping Center Tract. tO Landlord's 35. FORCE MAJEUP~E. The time within which any of the parties hereto shall be required to perform any act or acts under this Lease, except for payment of monies, shall be extended tO the extent that the performance of such act or acts shall be delayed by acts of God, fire, windstorm,· flood, explosion, collapse of structures, riot, war, labor and/or legal disputes, delays or restrictionsbygovernment bodies, inability to obtain or use necessary'materials or any cause beyond the reasonable control of.such party (any such delay being called "unavoidable delay" in this Lease), provided however that the party entitled to such extension hereunder shall give prompt notice to the other party of the occurrence causing such delay. 36. BROKERS. Each of the parties represents and warrants to the other that there are no claims for brokerage commissions or finder's fees in connection with the execution of this Lease, and agrees to indemnify the other against, and hold it harmless 'from, all liabilities arising from any such claim (including, without limitation, the cost of counsel fees in connection therewith)- 37. NO PARTNERSHIP. This Lease does not create a joint venture or partnership relation between the parties hereto. The provisions of this Lease in regard to the payment byTenant and the acceptance by Landlord of a percentage of Gross Sales shall only be deemed a reservation of rent for the use of the Premises. 38. LIABILITY. If tWO or more individuals, corporations, partnerships or other business associations (or any combination of two or more thereof) shall sign this Lease as Tenant, the liability of each such individual, corporation, partnership or other business association to pay rent and perform all other obligations hereunder shall be joint and several. In like -738-. manner, if the Tenant named in this Lease shall be a partnership or other business association, the members of which are, b~ virtue of statute or general law, sub~ect to deemed to be joint and several. 39., AUTHORITY. Landlord, if a corporation, warrants and represents to Tenant that Landlord's.execution of this Lease is pursuant to a resolution of Landlord's Board of Directors; and Tenant, if a corporation, warrants andrepresents to Landlord that Tenant's execution of this Lease is pursuant to a resolution of Tenant's Board of Directors. 40. EXAMINATION. The submission of this Lease for examination does not constitute a reservation of or option for the Premises; and this Lease becomes effective onl.yuponexecution and delivery thereQf by both Landlord and Tenant. 41. 42. ESTOPPEL. Tenant agrees that at any time and from time to time at reasonable intervals., within thirty (30) days after written request by Landlord, Tenant will execute', acknoWledge and deliver to Landlord, Landlord's mortgagee, or an assignee designated by Landlord, a writing ratifying' this Lease and certifying: (a) that Tenant has entered into occupancy of the Premises and the date of such entry, if sUch is the case; (b) that this Lease is in full force and effect, and has not been assigned, modified, supplemented or amended in any way (or if there has been any assignment, modification, supplement or amendment, identifying the same); (c) that this Lease represents the entire agreement between Landlord and Tenant as to the subject matter hereof (or if there has been any assignment, modification, supplement or amendment, identifying the same); (d) the date of commencement and expiration of the Term; (e) that all conditions under this Lease.to be performed by landlord as of the date of said request have been satisfied and all' required contributions by Landlord to Tenant on account of Tenant's improvements have been received (and i'f not; what conditions remain unperformed); (f) that to the knowledge of the signer of such writing no default exists in the performance or observance of any covenant or condition in this Lease and there are. no defenses or offsets against the enforcement of this Lease by Landlord (or' specifying such default, defense or offset of which the signer may have knowledge); (g) the amount of Minimum Rent or other rent that has been paid in advance and the amount of security that has been deposited with Landlord; (h) the dateto which Minimum Rent and all other rents have been paid under this Lease; and (i) that during any time a mortgage or other security instrument is placed upon any part of the Shopping Center .Tract, Tenant shall not pay rent (other than the' security. deposit) more than one month in advance and Shall not surrender or consent to modification of this Lease without prior .written consent of such mortgagee- Tenant hereby .irrevocably appoints Landlord its attorney-in-fact to execute such a writing in the event Tenant shall fail to do so within thirty (30) days 'of receipt of Landlord's request. T.ANDLOP,.D DEFAULT .-~AR~S AND INTEREST. T~.,A,,L ~d=~ Lhlo 'L==o=. T=,=,~L ohall ~=z Lu L~dlu~d Lhe Lb= hl~h=~L ~Le $50.00 -739- NOTIC~S., Any notice desired or required to be given under this Lease 44. 45. 46. 47. addresses for Landlord and Tenant set out in Item 9 of the Data Sheet'as notice addresses, or (ii) if received, however sent. A notice duly sent shall be effective the day such notice is postmarked. Either party may by written notice designate a different address to which notices may be sent, and by written notice designate not more than two (2) additional parties tO whom copies of all notices must be sent. Payment of all rents shall be made to Landlord at the address set forth in Item 10 of the Data Sheet. RULES AND REGULATIONS. Landlord reserves .the right from time to time to promuIgate and amend reasonable rules and regulations concerning use.of the Common Areas and Premises. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. Except as expressly modified in Article 21 hereof, this Lease and the covenants and conditions herein contained shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon Landlord and Tenant and the respective successors and assigns of each. TENANT IMPROVEMENTS. Landlord shall pay for Tenants improvements per attached Exhibit C. The cost of these improvements are paid for by Tenant per article 47. RENT CALCULATION, a. The annual rent will be computed as follows: For the period of March 01, 2002 to February 9,. 2003 Square Annual rent Gross footage per foot rent/month 6,749 $14.1245' $7,943.85 2,855 $11.25'* $2,676.56 *as in prior lease which expires February 9, 2003 **$8.00 base rent '+ '$3.25 for common area and taxes totaling $11.25/ft/yr Total rent for the Period(S7,943.85 + $2,676.56) = $10,620.41 b. Additional rent The amount which landlord pays .for tenant improvements will be amortized over the remaining length of time of the lease using an 7.0% interest rate. This amortization will be calculated on a monthly basis and paid.monthly. A lower interest rate shall be used if tenant or landlord can obtain a bank loan who will furnish the necessary funds to.pay for tenant improvements or if tenant pays for the improvementsno additional rent will be charged. The district may pay periodic portions of the tenant improvements over the term of the Lease, and in such event the Additional Rent shall be reduced and recalculated as of the time of such payment(s) without penaltY. -c. For the period of February, 10, 2003 and ending June 30, 2010 the annual rent will be computed as follows: Square Base CAM & Taxes Total Rent footage Rent per month 9,604 $7.30 $'3.25 $8,443~52 plus the additional monthly rent as calculated in paragraph 47b if any. '- -740- 48. Effective January 1, 2007 the CAM & Taxes will increase by the Consumer Price Index equal to the change from January 1, 2002 to January 1, 2007 and every year thereafter. As promptly, as practicable after the end of the year, the landlord shall provide the tenant with a calculation of the renewal rent using the Revised Consumer Price Index - Cities published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for Tenant's review and approval. Pending determination of the additional amount, if any, to be paid by the Tenant, the Tenant shall continue to pay the rent established for the prior year. FIVE (5) YEAR OPTION. In consideration of the premises, Landlord hereby grants to the Tenant the sole and exclusive right and option to renew or extend this Lease for a further term of five (5) years commencing at the expiration of the original term. The renewal Lease shall contain the same .terms, provisions, covenants, and condition as those contained in this Lease, except as to those provisions which by its terms are only applicable to the initial term and the rental rate. Said option must be exercised in writing nine (9) months prior to the expiration of the initial Lease term. The base rent of $ 7.30 Der square foot Der year will be increased by the lesser of, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the renewal date as compared to 03/01/02 base rent, or $9.00 per square foot Der year. In addition to the base rent an amount of prorated taxes and common area maintenance (CAM) charges estimated for the year the option is exercised will be added'for the first renewalLyear. The renewal base rent shall remain the same throughout the renewal term, however, the 'CAM · will increase annually by the increase in the Consumer price Index. As promptly as practicable after the end of the initial term of this Lease, the Landlord shall ~rovide the Tenant with a calculation of the renewal rent using the Revised Consumer Price Index - Cities published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for Tenant's review and approval. Pending determination of the additional amount,-if any, to be paid by the Tenant, the Tenant shall continue to pay the rent established under the initial term. The renewal Lease shall not require the deposit of any security. LANDLORD: By Its TENANT: By ItS Independent School District 277 -741 - · ~cl "°'"' "': :"":"': [ Cl3SOdO~a .L. N.QIS3(] [] [] [] D ,3.tq,rq'x~t 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 CITY OF MOUND PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: Kandis Hanson FROM: Bonnie Ritter RE: summer Hours DATE: January 18, 2002 Following are the Summer Hours that some neighboring cities observe. The general rule is to observe these hours from Memorial Day to Labor Day. All of the cities listed have all employees working full 40-hour weeks. Orono: Monday - Thursday: 7:30 Friday: 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p,m. a.m. - 11:30 a.m. (1/2 hr. lunch w/two 15 min. breaks) Deephaven: Monday- Thursday: Friday: 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 7:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. (1/2 hr. lunch w/breaks) (1/2 hr. lunch) WayZata: Monday - Thursday: 7:00 a.m. - 4:30 p,m. Friday: 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. (1 hr. lunch) (15 min. break) Watertown: Monday- Thursday: Friday: 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p,m. 7:30 a.m. - 11:00 a,m. (1 hr. lunch) Spring Park: Monday- Thursday: 7:00 a.m.- 4:30 p,m. (1 hr. lunch) Friday: 8:00 a.m. - Noon Long Lake: Monday- Thursday: Friday: 7:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 7:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m. (1/2 hr. lunch w/breaks) Minnetrista, Excelsior and Maple Plain were other cities that I contacted. They are open the same hours every day of the week, all year long. -745- Resolution No. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUMMER OFFICE HOURS FOR 2000 AND 2001 WHEREAS, the City of Long Lake has evaluated its office hours of operation in order to determine if different hours would better se.rye the public; and WHEREAS, the City has surveyed neighboring communities to see if they altered their hours of operation during the summer months; and WHEREAS, during the course of research staff found that a number of communities implement summer hours to better service the public, and have recommended that the City of Long Lake alter its office hours as well; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Long Lake Hennepin County, Minnesota that: Summer City Hall office hours shall be set at 7:30 a.m, to 5:00 p,m, Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m, to 11:30 a,m. on Friday. Said office hours shall be implemented starting the day after Memorial Day and will return to normal office hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) the day after Labor Day. Adopted by the City Council of Long Lake this 17'n day of April 2001. P~ty 9~]~van, C~t7 Clerk By: I ..,"~ ~ -746- Page 1 of 7 Kandis M. Hanson From: To: Sent: Subject: "Dr. Alan Zimmerman" <Newsletter@DrZimmerman.com> <KandisHanson@cityofmound.com> Monday, January 21, 2002 11:45 AM Dr. Zirnmerman's Tuesday Tip ***********Tuesday's Tip with Dr. Zimmerman************ #84 January 22, 2002 Tip: When you throw dirt, all you do is lose ground. Dr. Alan Zimmerman's Comment: When I look at the history of mankind, I'm amazed at how far we've come in technology. It's awesome. Figuratively speaking, we've come millions of miles. When it comes to the history of human relations, however, we've hardly taken a step. The same problems that plagued people in ancient times are still with us today. People are still rude, selfish, insensitive, and difficult -- some of the time. In fact, one University of North Carolina survey found that 78% of respondents think incivility has increased in the last decade. And every one of the respondents could cite examples of co-workers who had treated them disrespectfully. To some extent, the media likes to glamorize examples of poor human relations. Read bumper strips. You'll find lots of rude comments made by difficult people. I read one that said, "1 like you because you remind me of when I was young and stupid!" And watch the sitcoms. I remember one scene where an answering machine said, 'Tm probably here. I'm just avoiding someone I don't like. Leave your name and number. Ill don't call you back, it's you." -747- 01/27/2002 Page 2 of 7 Now I'll have to admit there have been times I would true for you. The problem is it doesn't do any good. It doesn't work. As today's Tip suggests, when you throw dirt, all you do is lose ground. That same University of North Carolina survey documented that. They found that incivility in the workplace definitely hurts productivity. As their results were reported in Industry Week and The Dallas Morning News, 53% of the respondents said they lost work time worrying about a past or future confrontation with a co-worker. 37% said a hostile confrontation caused them to reduce their commitment to the organization. 28% said they lost work time because they avoided the person with whom they had a confrontation. And 22% said they put less effort into their work because of a confrontation with a co-worker. Unfortunately, we're forced to work with difficult people. That's life. Even though we may not like certain people or the situation they put us in, there are some things we can do. TAKE AN HONEST LOOK AT YOURSELF. I remember one man who left job after job because he found his co-workers to be annoying. Eventually, he discovered that when he spoke he gave off an aura of being easily flustered. So, of course, some of his less-than-kind colleagues took a subconscious delight in flustering him. When he discovered this about himself, he started to work on his self-confidence and started to practice relaxation exercises. He became less and less flustered. As he changed, his co-workers also changed. They all became more positive and less difficult. If people around you are difficult, take a moment to take an honest look at yourself. Is it possible that you're doing something that contributes to their difficult behavior? Don't automatically assume that you're totally innocent, and they're totally to blame. Then FIND A POINT OF ENTRY. There is always a way to get into the hearts of difficult people. It's like rowing around a mountainous island, looking for a place to land. You may not find the landing place immediately, but it's there. It just takes a bit of patience while you search for the point of entry. -748- 01/27/2002 Page 3 of 7 It's the same with people. Their mountains, their blockades, their anno~,in~ behavior often comes from some pain they're su~enng. It's like the young minister who was assigned to a New England church. A bossy woman lived next to the church, a woman who acted as though she owned the place. In fact, whenever the minister wanted to get in the church, he had to ask her for the key. The first time he met her, he introduced himself as the new minister. She became indignant and said, "Oh no you're not?' In fact, she went around telling everyone that this new guy was too young and inexperienced. He didn't even look as if he had enough sense to come in from the rain. And his first sermon in that church, she told everyone, wasn't worth much. The young man decided to look for his point of entry, to look for a way to win her over. So he went over to her house as she was busy baking cookies. He couldn't help but say how good they smelled. "So you like the smell," she said rudely. With reluctance she gave him one. After he finished it, he commented, 'q'hat's wonderful!" So at his request she gave him another one. "You don't mind asking for what you want, do you?" she asked. But then she pushed the whole plate of cookies within his reach. "1 hear you lost your boy when he was my age," the young man said. "You must have been lonely all these years." The woman nodded. "1 still make these cookies because he liked them." He said, "1 like them, too." And then he was silent. That started them off on a new relationship. The young minister said she became a cherished, lifelong friend. She would bring him into her kitchen, give him some advice, and feed him. Indeed, she showed him how to win over all the other folks in the congregation. It's so easy to react to the behavior of difficult people. After all, it's difficult. It does hurt. We can judge people's methods, but we need to be very careful about judging their motives. -749- 01/27/2002 Page 4 of 7 It also helps to LOOK FOR THE LESSON THAT CAN BE LEARNED difficult people. One prominent businesswoman told me about her approach. She said, "1 started with nothing. My parents were so poor that I was forced to drop out of school and start working. But now I am the President of the Board of Trustees of a university. I have learned life's lessons, not from schools, but from people. Everyone has something to teach me." I was told the same thing by one of the Vice Presidents of a company for which I was speaking. He said, "Whenever a difficult person crosses my path, I ask myself, 'What can I learn from this person'?" He said perhaps that person was put in my path to teach me patience or give me a chance to practice my skills in assertive communication. I think it's a great philosophy and a very helpful approach. Finally, TAKE YOUR TIME AND THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO A DIFFICULT PERSON. Before you say or do anything, figure out if it's worth it. How much time and energy do you want to spend on that person and his or her behavior? Sometimes you'll want to spend a lot, other times not. Just don't get pulled into a hissing contest. You can go back and forth forever as to who did what, who's to blame, and who started it. It doesn't matter! WORRYING ABOUT WHAT'S RIGHT IS ALWAYS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WORRYING ABOUT WHO'S RIGHT. In other words, be a little careful before you offer advice. It's like the time Billie Burke, a famous actress from a bygone era, was on a transatlantic cruise. She noticed a gentleman suffering from a bad cold. "Are you uncomfortable?" she asked sympathetically. He nodded. "1'11 tell you just what to do for it," said Billie. "Go back to your stateroom, drink lots of orange juice, and take two aspirin. Cover yourself With all the blankets you can find. Sweat the cold out. I know what I'm talking about. I'm Billie Burke from Hollywood." The man smiled warmly and introduced himself in return. "Thanks," he said. "I'm Dr. Mayo of the Mayo Clinic." -750- 01/27/2002 Page 5 of 7 Select a difficult person in your life as a personal challenge. Study that person, looking for your "point of entry." Find some way to connect with the person in a positive way. You don't have to become the best of friends. You don't have to spend a lot of time together. Just find a way to work together that is positive and productive for both of you. Have a fantastic week] Dr. Alan Zimmerman THE RELATIONSHIP RECIPE: RAPPORT, RESPECT, AND RECOGNITION Like it or not, a good portion of your success depends on your relationships. If you can build strong, trusting relationships on and off the job, you've got it made. Unfortunately, most people receive little or no training in how to make relationships work. Most training is focused on product knowledge or technical competency, even though, in the end, it's the relationship that counts the most. What is needed is an understanding of how rapport is established, respect is built, and recognition is given, for these are the building blocks of every working relationship. In fact, these building blocks will make any relationship more positive, productive, and profitable. In this program, you'll get the tools you need to build your relationships at work and at home. Whether it's a coworker, customer, or family member, you'll get some powerful insights and practical skills that will start making a difference today. To examine the objectives and get a complete outline of this program delivered by Dr. Zimmerman, click here http://drzimmerman.com/program04.htm or cut and paste this address into your web browser. Or call us at 1-800-621-7881 to bring Dr. Zimmerman into your organization. - 751 - 01/27/2002 Jan Z5 ZOBZ 14:57:1B Via Fax -> 95Z4?ZOGZB Xan&~s Xan~on ~aB~ 8BZ Of 883 AMM FAX [nellhil in p vidi g January 21-25, 2002 MHFA Releases Inclusionary Housing Recommendations On Wednesday, Jan. 23, Commis- sioner Kit Hadley of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) released her draft recommenda- tions to the Legislature regarding inclusionary housing. The Commissioner's recommenda- tions were developed through dis- cussions with an advisory commit- tee (which included representa- tives from AMM) and research on programs throughout the country. The recommendations will be ,,.Eansmitted to the legislature and ~ill incorporating the recommen- dations will be introduced this ses- sion. The Commissioner's recommen- dations include: . Adoption of a Mixed Housing Development Bill. · Expanding thetools and chang- ing the methods by which cities pay for road projects, including collector streets. i Association of Hetropolitan Municipalities 145 ~]MversiO~ ,4venue Ire~t St, Paul, MN $5105-20d4 Phone~ (651) 2l$=~000 Fax: (651) 2~1-1299 E-mail: amng~mml 4$.org __FaxNe~s ts faxed to all AMM cffy er~ and admin~rators, ~ co~- tac~ and Board ~m~. PIe~¢ f~ with your ~or~, cound~t~ and s~ to keep them abrupt of i~o~t ~o c~ty · Changing the burden of proof in disputes between developers and cities. In cases where a pro- posed development is consistent with the city's zoning ordinance the burden would be on the city to prove health or safety concerns. · Requiring a cost impact state- ment when (1) a c'~y imposes regu- lations on a housing development that are in excess of the state's building code; (2) a city amends its zoning ordinance; or (3) a city requires a developer to reduce a project's density even though the development complies with the city's zoning ordinance. · Establishing a technical advi- sory group of the Construction Codes Advisory Council to de- velop model ordinances that re- duce the costs of compact, mixed use, new development and in-fill re- development. The Mixed Housing Development bill would provide that if a devel- oper proposes a mixed housing development, then the city must, in good faith, offer"reasonable regu- latory accommodations" to facili- tate the economic feasibility of the development. "Reasonable regu- latory accommodations" would in- clude increased density, smaller set-backs, smaller street widths and smaller lots, A "mixed hous- -752- lng development" would be de~ fined as a development that in- cludes at least one of the following (1) both for-sale and rental hous- ing, with at least 20 percent of the units rental; (2) rental housing where at least 20% of the units are affordable to households earning 50 percent of the median income or at least 40% of the units are af- fordable to households earning 60% of the median income; (3) for- sale housing where at least 20% of the units have a selling price below the area's median selling pdce. The legislation would exempt cit- ies in counties with a population of 30,000 or less and cities that have adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance. The legislation would also provide a high priority for MHFA funding for developments located in a city having an inclusionary housing ordinance or built under the provisions of the act. AMM is in the process of review- ing the recommendations and would appreciate input from mem- ber cities. The complete MHFA recommendations are posted on the AMM web site at www.amm145.org, if you have questions or comments, please call Gene Ranieri at (051) 215 - 4001. Jan 25 Zflfl2 14:5fl:lZ ~ia Fax -> Association of Metropolitan Municipalities News Fax 95Z4?ZBGZB Hanson ~agc BB3 0£ 883 January21-2~ 2002, page2of2 GTS Offers New Format for Met Council Announces The Government Training Service (GTS) is now of- fering its "Advanced Zoning" course in four- sessions over the course of four months. The course will be held in the LMC building during the lunch hour (11:30 a.m. to 1:00 P.m.) on February 13, March 13, April 10 and May 15. The new format is designed to ac- commodate busy schedules and is in addition to the traditional full day session, if you are interested in either format for this course, please contact GTS at (651) 223-5307 for additional information. NRi Update: The Metropolitan Council and its partners continue to work on a natural resources inventory for the seven-county metropolitan area. Maps illustrating "regionally significant" natural re- sources are scheduled to be completed March 6. an Additional 930,000 Residents The Metropolitan Council has released new popula- tion forecasts that project 930,000 new residents for the seven-county metropolitan area between 2000 and 2030. The previous forecast, which only went out to the year 2020, had projected 500,000 new people in the region. The new forecast also projects that the region will be home to 460,000 new house- holds and 550,000 new employees by the year 2030. The projections would result in a regional population of 3.6 million in 2030, as compared to the current population of 2.6 million, and approximately 1.5 mil- lion households in 2030, as compared to 1 million today. While births still represent a majority of the growth, migration is becoming an increasingly im- portant source of new residents. The new forecast projects 75,000 more households by 2020 than cities currently have planned for in thei' comp plans. The Council is expected to see sub-regional break- downs of this forecast at their Jan. 30 meeting, -753- TOTAL P.03 J~n 31ZB02 I?:BB:I! g~ P~× AMM FAX I _ I -> ! January 28-Fobruary 1,2002 i Metropolitan Council Releases Subregional Household Forecasts The Metropolitan Council's new regional forecast calls for 460,000 new households in the seven, county metropolitan area by the year 2030. At the January 30 meeting of the Councirs Regional Growth Policy Committee, Council members heard more about how this forecast breaks out for differ- ent pads of the metropolitan area. Council staff have compiled household projections, based on the continua- tion of current trends, by quadrant of the metro area (northeast, northwest, southeast, southwest, and central) and by development stage (central cit- ies, fully developed suburbs, developing suburbs, etc.). The quadrant analysis projects that the largest increase in households will be in the southeast quadrant, which would see a 98.77 percent increase in their total number of households by the year 2030; followed by the north- west quadrant (53.59%) and the southwest quadrant (52.62%). When bro- ken down by development stage, the numbers project both the developing suburbs and cities in the rural area will have more than twice as many households in 2030 than they did in 2000. Phon¢~ (651) Fax: (651) 2~1-1297 B-majlr amm~14$.or£ AIi0ciati0fl of l¢:r0p01itan Xunicipalltlel tab. ts and Board m~mbe, r~ Ple~rz sh~a ~ f~ wl~h your ~ors, coun~~ and ~aff to k~ them ab~ of ~on~t ~ro Trend Based Forecasts for Total Households by Quadrant % increase 2000 oensus 2030 forecasf (2000-2030~] Central Cities 274,461 290,461 5.83 Northeast 'Metro 121,203 177,841 46.73 Northwest Metro 236,028 382,522 53.59 Southeast Metro 122.538 243,565 98.77 Southwest Metro 267,224' 40.7,843 52.62 ,, Metro Total 1,021,454 1,48.2,188 45.11 Trend Based Forecasts for Total Households by Development Stage % inorease 2000 oensus 2030 forecast (2000.2030) Central Cities 274,461.00 290,461.0(~ 5.83 F~Ully.Devel~ped Suburbs 359,018.00 404,01~.00 ."'12.53 .. Developing Suburbs 302,047.00 625,961.00 107.24 Cities in Rural ,N'ea 35,213.00 71,4t0.00 10:~.79 Rural A..r..ea 50;715.00 90,338.00 78.13 ... Metro Total 1,021,454.00 .1,482,18'8.00 45.11 -754- Jan ~1 2002 17:BB:51 ~/~a Fax Association of Metropolitan Municipalities News Fax 95Z47ZBGZB Xandis Hanson Page 803 Of Sl~3 Jan. 28. Feb. ~ , 2~2, ~ge 2 of 2 If cu~e~ trends and ~licies were to continue, the ~ntral c~ies would ~ home to 3.5 ~nt of the 460,000 expe~ new households, and the ~lly developed subu~s would ~ home to 9.8 in 8 pement of the new households locating in the ~ntral cities and 12 ~nt in the ~lly devel-; o~d suburbs. At the same time, a continuation of cuffent trends and policies would result in 70.3 percent of the new households going in the developing suburbs, 7.9 per~nt in the rural area and 8.6 parent in · e cities in the rural area. However, the Coundl is hoping to redu~ these ~r~ntages through Es new policies, so that only 67 parent of the new households go to the developing suburbs, 5 percent go to the rural area and 8 percent go to the cities in the rural ama. % Sh~re of 460,000 New Itouseholds Trend-Based Policy. Based Forecast Goal C~n _tral Cities '3.5% $.0% Fully Developed Suburbs 9.8% 12.0% Develop~n~ Subufl~s 70,3% 67.0% Rurat Area 7.9% 5.0% Cities in Be rural a~ea 8.6% , .8.0%- In addition to housing for the 460,000 new households expected, the Council believes the region is currently 10,000 housing units short and well need an additional 13,800 units by 2030 to maintain an acceptable vacancy rate and an additional 45,000 units to replace units that will be demolished. This results in a total demand for 528,800 housing units by the year 2030. The Council's preliminary goal is to have 180,000 (or 34 percent) of these units achieved through reinvestment, 322,300 (or 61 percent) achieved through development sen/ed by metropolitan ur- ban services and 26,500 units (or 5 percent) to be the result of development in the rural area with on-site services. The 180,000 units to be achieved through reinvestment would be divided between central cities (50,000), fully developed suburbs (80,000) and developing suburbs (50,000). This recognizes that many "developing" suburbs have both areas in need of reinvestment and areas yet to be developed. The 322,300 units to be achieved through new development connected to urban services would be divided between the developing suburbs (285,300) and cities and rural centers within the rural area (37,000). Disbursement of 5~8,000 new housing units (2000 - 2030) '- Reinvestme~xt Development Development (central services) (on-site) Central Cities" 50,000 Fully Deve'16ped Cities 80,000 D.. evelop!ng Suburbs ]~einvestrnent 50,000 "" 2020 MUSA ..... 175,000 Expanded MUSA 110,300 Rural Area 26,500 Cities & Rural Centers 37,000 "~)TAL 180,000 322,300 26,~00 %"~t;.are __ _ 34% 61% 5% - 755- TOTRL P. 0:3 F~ 81ZOBZ 17:09:49 Uia Fax -> 9SZ4?ZOGZO ~dninis~ra~op F~ge 80! 0£ 88Z The 2002 Legislature officially began their work this week after a month of reacting to the Governor's Big Fix. Capitol insiders speculate the Senate and House may be in a hurry to get a package on the table for the Governor's perusal. HOLD ONTO YOUR HATS! Session is here, two new ANNEXATION bills have been introduced in the House. Word has it House Local Government Chair Rep. Jerry Dempsey (651.296.8635), on the advise of Speaker Steve Sviggum (651.651.296.2273) will be giving the contested case annexation "right to vote" bill a hearing in the next couple of weeks. House leadership wants a vote on the bill and to send it to the House floor for a vote to pass it to the Senate. Chances of shelving it in the House are slim, but cities need to make NOISE about this hearing. Finally, it must be "killed" in the Senate. That said, it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT that cities let their legislators and the legislators on the House Local Government Committee know your opposition to any legislation that undermines the current boundary adjustment process. The bill number is HF2774. It can be viewed at: www.revisor.leg, state.mn.us. House Local Government Committee members and their contact info can be found at: www. house, lea.state, mn. us Once you are done with the House, let the Senate know your thoughts. The Senate Local Government Committee members can be reached at: www.senate, leg. state, mn.ux. Questions? Contact Remi Stone at rstone@lmnc.org or 651.281.1256. February Is 2002 Page 1 In the first week the House and genate have hit the legislative ground running as the days and nights fill up with hearings. Normally, even the short session does not contain the evening and weekend meeting schedule the Legislature has already adopted. The following list is just a taste of what is happening next week on the municipal front at the Legislature. For a full grasp of what is happening to whom, when and where consult the legislative web site at http://www.le_~.state, mn.us/leE/sched, htm. Schedules have been known to change regardless of the required three-day notice! Saturday 2/2/02 Senate State GovL, Economic Development and the Judiciary Budget Division 9 a.m. Room 107 Capitol Chair Senator Richard Cohen Agenda: Governor's bonding recommendations: Department of Administration, Capitol Area Architectural Planning Board, Department of Military Affairs, Housing Finance Agency, Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board and Department of Trade and Economic Development. Monday 2/4/02 House Taxes 10:15 a.m. 200 SOB Chair Ron Abrams Agenda: Public testimony on Governor's tax proposals (The League expects to testify). Tuesday 2/5/02 Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee Chair: Senator Jim Vickerman 1 p.m. Room 107 Capitol For mare info~rnalion on cily legialaliv¢ iasuea, conlacl any mernbet of Ihe League of Minncaola Ciliea Inler~;overnmcnlal Relationa learn. 651.281.1200 or 800.925.1122 -756- Feb fll ZflSZ I?:18:ZZ ~i~ Fax -> 9524?ZOGZfl ~&~i~istrator ~age BBZ Of flflZ I,,~,. ~ Mi,,~ ("~ o.,~ ~,,.,~,~, ....... t~ .... A wee~y legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Agenda: HF 209-Murphy Shooting Ranges, and other bills. Thursday 2/7/02 Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee 9 a.m. Room 107 Capitol Agenda: SF 1555-Higgins: Restricting the use of phosphorus in lawn fertilizer. The House and Senate meet in regular floor sessions usually on Mondays and Thursdays, with the Senate at noon and the House at 3 p.m. Deadlines for committee action are the following: 1st deadline: Friday, February 22. Bills must be out of all policy committees in house of origin 2nd deadline: Friday, March 1 All House and Senate Files out of all policy committees, including bills with financial impact. 3rd deadline: Friday, March 8 Omnibus budget bills must be out of Senate divisions, finance committees and House finance committees. If you have questions on how a bill you are following will be impacted by the deadline schedule, give us a call at 652.28].]200. February 1, 2002 Page 2 Governor's domestic terrorism preparedness package short-changes locals Flanked by several state agency commissioners, Governor Ventura yesterday unveiled his administration's domestic terrorism preparedness proposal. The governor's plan focuses on upgrading terrorism preparedness in the Minnesota departments of administration, agriculture, health, military affairs, pollution control and public safety. Unlike legislative plans, the proposal focuses on centralized coordination, training and laboratory testing. The package includes $17 million to be distributed over four years. To date, the Senate proposal provides up to $29 million and the House up to $25 million. Saying the federal government will meet local needs with President Bush's $37.7 billion homeland security package, the governor left out of his proposal the approximately $20 million local first responders have requested in domestic security aid. Public safety advocates have expressed concern that federal dollars may not arrive soon enough to address serious lapses in preparedness. Both the Minnesota House and Senate proposals include aid dollars for local units of government. Other provisions in the governor's package include: · Changes to the quarantine law · Expanded authority for certain officials during a state of emergency · Increased information sharing authority · Language that would close loopholes that give terrorists access to money, identification and information · New penalties relating to acts of terrorism For mote infotmalion on oily legislative issues, comae! any member of the League of Minneaola Ciliea Imertlovernmenlal Re, lalion,, team. 651.281,1200 or 800.925.1122 -757- "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka" Date: From: RE: January 16, 2002 Dick Osgood (LMA) & Greg Nybeck (LMCD) Zebra Mussel Stakeholders Meeting (Combined #3 & Time: January 24, 7 to 9 p.m. Location: Deephaven City Hall, 20225 Cottagewood Road Meeting nos. 3 and 4 have been combined to consider prevention strategies and actions at one meeting. An agenda and supporting memo are enclosed. Please review these materials as well as the December 21,2001 memo. Any thoughts or suggestions you may have prior to the meeting are welcome. If you have any questions, comments of concerns, please call either of us. Thank you again for your time and interest. We look forward to seeing you on January 24th. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION -758- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka" Zebra Mussel Stakeholders Combined Meeting #3 & #4 Thursday, January 24, 2002 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. At Deephaven City Hall, 20225 Cottagewood Road 7:00 p.m. Welcome Wayne Nelson, Project Facilitator 7:10 Review December 21, 2001 Memo (Previously mailed) Dick Osgood 7:20 Prevention Strategies - The Need for Inspections Wayne Nelson 8:00 Prevention Actions Wayne Nelson 8:50 What Next? Wayne Nelson 9:00 Adjourn LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT -759- D' AFT, Meeting Summary qity of Deephaven = De'~em'ber 13, 2001, Present Wayne Nelson, Meeting Facilitator; Dick Osgood, Lake Uinnetonka Association (LMA) Executive Director; Greg Nybeck, Lake Minnetonka Conservation D strict (LMCD) Executive Director; Herb Sue.~, Gary Montz, MN DNR; Randy Hayes, Extream Bass Fishing Tournament; Steve Karsseboom, Extream Bass Fishing T(~umament; Veto wagner, MN Bass Federation/Sport Fishing Congress. Welcome Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. their' comments and participation. He thanked all stakeholders present at the meeting and he encouraged Review'Meeting Schedule Nelson asked Osgood to, review the materials included in the packet, Osgood stated that the following was included in the stakeholders meeting packet: · A Meeting SUmmary from the 10/30/01 Initial Zebra Mussel Stakeholders Meeting. Any comments or changes should be forwarded to either himself or Nybeck. · A copy of the tentative meeting schedule has been prepared, subject to change, With meeting dates either conducted already or proposed. ProPosed' dates include: 1) October 30, 2001-. Initial Meeting; 2) December 13, 2001- Identify pointS and modes of possible zebra musse into Lake ~innetonka. Evaluate risk-and vQ!u..me Agree on action thresholds; 3) January 10, 2002- Complete a list of prevention strategies and methods; 4) January 24, 2002- Identify specific feasible actions that need to.be taken. Id~nt fy..responsible individuals, organizations or agencies. Identify funding req Uirements or souroesi 5) March 14, 2002- P,e~/iew and adopt draft action,; and 6) March 28, 2002- Additional meeting, if needed. The ir~tent of th~Se i~eetings is to.seque~tiall'y build an aCt on plan to address the task of preventing the introduction Of'zeb~ mussels int~ [~ke ~'inn~Ofika ~ · A matrix that outlined the points a~d"mod'es of zebra mu~sei ~t~ande to Lal~M:nn~tonka He stated that this m~itrix WOUld be discUssed later in ~e,m~eting' · A list of lakes and rivers in nea~y states that are infested with zebra mussels. The stakeholders agreed te the upcoming meeting scheduled as proposed. ~:. Points and Modes of zebra MUsSel Entra~be o~'gb~d P~.vided an o~,e~iew oft~e rnatriA that:ou'tiined'i[he Points andmodes'6f zebra mussel to Lake Minnetonka. made the following comments: He Zebra mussels can enter Lake Minnetonka at numerous points and can be carded by different modes. He believed it would be beneficial to identify the numerous points.,, an.d diffe~ent~Qdes t~ evaluate the [ange of possible situations where zebra mussel can enter the lake. · A matrix was drafted to prompt disCussion and evaluation of the stakeholders. Points of access inc!uded in the draft matrix were madnas, municipal access, public access, riparian, and tributary lakes. Modes of entry included transient fishing, transient recreation, transported watercraft, and special events. · He entertained comments or questions from the stakeholders on the draft matdx. The stakeholders discussed the proposed matrix and recommended that the point of access and modes of entry categories be amended. Points of access categories in the matrix were amended to include marinas, access, riparian, and tributary lakes. Modes of entry categories were amended to include trailered watercraft, transported watercraft, and special events. -760- Zebra Mussel Stakeholders Meeting Gray FreShwater Center December 13, 2001 Page2 Risk and Volume Osgood stated that the next step was to evaluate ihe dSl~'i~nd'VOl~e within each category or cell of the matrix. This included assigning the risk of a particular type of watercraft °i: ~Ode introducing zebra mussel and the characterizing of the volume associated with each category. He stated that each cell in the ma;dx, when complete, would have a dsk and volume assigned to it. :, The stakeholders.p~sent at the meeting discussed'the draft matrix and concluded the following: Marinas Trailered Transported Special Watercraft Watercraft Events High Risk/LoW VolUme High'RiSk/Low Volume Medium Risk/Low Volume Access High Risk/High Volume High Risk/Low Volume Medium Risk/Low Volume Riparian High Risk/Low Volume High Risk/Low Volume NOt Applicable Tributary Lakes Not Ranked _ Not Ranked ..... Not Applicable Discussion .,and. Agreement of Action Thresholds .... Osgood slated ~th.at,:the. riext steep was 'to~diSCb:~s.~tO disc..-ass :a~.d agme::Oni:~ion .thresholdS ba~ed on.,the result~i of the cells and categoi-ies 'of t~e .itiatdx just: ~mpl~tedi'-once an action'~'res§~i~ ha:~i~: bee~' a~ireed up~)n',:i~'e _~'~kei~(~id~ might war to assign i~riorities for those actionableCategodesthat remain; The stakeholders-discUsSed ~hb categories and Cblls within the matrix and'rfiade the following co~iClusion~: · A'l'l'ca!egori~s ~h~,t received rafikings are Wo~y Of attefiflon. ' . · The h'lg~est ranl~ing caiegb~ ls. traiiel'ed'Wate~ca;ft at aCCesses. - ~ ' ' · The. next highest ranking ~tegb~:'i~ad' ~i'~e" ~iJ~"i~ it. ~hjS inc uric trai ered watercaft at marinas, trailered wat~'rctaff ~t rlPa~ Sii~ ;'t~-a~rte~~ Wate~i~'~'at m~fi'~asI tr~,~port~' Wa{ei:Craf{ ai acCesses, an~! 'ira ered watercaft at dpadan sites. The last· category' had twO.celt,-in :it'. This i~iuded Special eve'rit~ at'n~'arih~i~.*arid special even·ts at accesses. Wrap Up and MeetinR Summary Osgood stated that conclusions of the cells and categories in the matrix wop!d be the b~sis..f .o,r fut~m memols and correspondence that he and Nybeck wou d be preparing. Specific pm,ventiOn actibn~ ~ibe :~i~Ussed at'f~iu~ ~takeho der meeting~i ' ' ~'~ '"' · .... '"' '~' .~ "" .... ~' ' ' Therebeing no further busmesS;'the m~tm{)was~adjoum~ at9:00 ~.m. '. Respectfully submitted; Greg Nybeck Executive Director -761 - "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel OUt of Lake Minnetonka" Date: From: January 17, 2002 Dick Osgood, Lake Minnet0nka Association Greg Nybeek, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Details of Zebra Mussel Action Plan This memo supplements the December 21, 2001 memo from us that outlined proposed prevention strategies to keep.zebra mussel out of Lake Minnetonka. This memopicks up by proposing details for discussion at the January 24, 2002 Zebra Mussel Stakeholders 'Meeting. Prevention Strategies -Trailered Boats a. Public Access. There is a very large number of trailered watercraft that enter Lake Minnetonka through public accesses. While the number .is large, we know the percentage of~ose that might carry exotic species is very small. Thus, we envision a two-stage inspection: 1)a quicki~fi~isereening and 2)~ a more thorough ~pe~ti:on Or cleaning'for: those found to bea?higherxisk: Trained people:would ne~d to staff pUblic bo~t:mmps, '-'~ .... ~ , ~. Details: There are about 10 public accesses on Lake Mirmetonka, including the Regional Park, The accesses are open 24/7. Inspections should occur as a two-stage process, a quick screening, then a more detailed inspection or evalua, tiog for ~ose boats.gOt 'passing', the screening. Boa~ 'passing' the screeningWil! pro, ceca directlY to the ramp , ~. ' Th. e q~ck,scre~g~maY to · profile whether the-boat represents a,lizgh, risk. This ~an b~ done by asking several questions and performing a visual inspection. These questions can be asked: How long has the boat/trailer been out of the water and dry? Flagged if less than 7 days and has been in an infested water Where and when was the l~t ~e the boat/Railer has been in the wat~ Flagged if in a known infested water or from out-of-state within 7.~days~ .~ . · .... ~ ~¢',:;~ .~L~F ,~';~i:,, . Has this boat been moored in another waterbody? If so, when? Is there bait in your live well or bait bucket? If so, when & where purchased? LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION -762- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka" This screening ought to take less than one minute. Those boats that are flagged, will then' be further inspected, cleaned and/or sent away. A central washing station or facility would be used. Remaining details to discuss: Who will perform the inspections? DNR conservation corps, seasonal hires, volunteers, some combination. What will it cost and who will pay? Will the inspections be 24/7 or part of the day? Can some accesses be closed during off hours, so b6aters can be routed to 2 or 3 open accesses where inspections will occur? When during the season will inspections occur? [June through September] Will compliance be voluntary? b. Marinas The number of boats entering Lake Minnetonka though marinas is small. These would also require a two-stage inspection. The inspection could probably be performed by trained marina staff. Details: Same two-stage inspection as above, only administered by trained, marina employees. Those boats to be washed would be sent to the central washing station. c. ,Riparian Trailered boats entering Lake Minnetonka through individual lakeshore properties is small. Most lakeshore owners bring their boats or those of friends onto the lake either through a public access or a marina. The LMA could provide detailed instructions for cleaning boats and trailers to all lakeshore owners. There are a few la~eh facilities assoeiated'-~ ti0meo~er* associati°ns. Because these facilities require a multiple dock license from the LMCD, it is possible to include a provision to assure boats are clean. Details: Riparian owners bring their boats through a public access or marina would be subject to the same inspection as others. The LMA would provide detailed instructions for cleaning boats to all riparian owners. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT -763- "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel~ OUt of Lake Minnetonka" a, Public Access : Commercially transported boats may use public accesses for delivering a boat to Lake Mirmetonka customers. These boats could be subject to the same inspection program as trailered boats. Details.: None needed. b. Marinas Commercially ,transported boats may use marinas for delivering a boat to. Lake Minnetonka customers. These boats-could be subject to the sameiinspection program, as trailered boats, Details: None needed. c. Riparian Commercially transported boats are unlikely to use riparian properties for delivering boat to Lake Minnetonka customers Details: n/a Prevention.Strategies - Special Events a. Public Access LMCD Code currently requires all special events on Lake Minnetonka to secure a permit from the LMCD prior to conducting the event. Special events on Lake Minnetonka include a variety of activities, with fishing toumaments and sailing regattas being the most popular. It is the responsibility of special event coordinators to ensure that all participating watercraft in the event are in compliance with LMCD Code. Currently, all p~cipating watercraft need to sign an aff,~, davit; that states either: 1) th~.Waterc~aft in which th$..y:will,~particip~e in~ speci~:e~ent: will not have been ,in any'of the listed infested waters for at:,lCast 30 days prior to p'articipa~ti°n in the" event or ifit hag been, it will have been completely dry for at least five days prior to Participation in the event, or 2) if the watercraft is placed in infested waters within 30 days prior,to launching and is not completely dry for five consecutive days during that period, that they will berequired by law to have the watercraft inspected and cleaned by personnel approved by the LMCD. Details: Changes to LMCD Code might need to be considered to ensure that parti¢ipatingwat~r~r~ i~' special events are clean. Some areas that might need to be addressed in LMCD Code include: How effective is the affidavit system that is currently required for all participating watercraft? LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION -764- LAKE MINNETONKA CONsERvATION D~sTR~CT "Let's Keep Zebra Mussel Out of Lake Minnetonka" currently stored on Lake Minnetonl~a? - How to deal with participating watercraft that enter Lake Minnetonka prior to the event? · Whether there, is a need to limit special events on Lake Minnetonka? · Whether there is a need to direct participating watercraft to specific access point(s) to be used in conjunction with the event for inspection purposes? b. Marinas The number of participating watercraft that enter Lake Minnetonka through marinas for special events is small. These would also require a two-stage inspection and could probably be performed by trained marina staff. Details: Same two-stage inspection as referenced earlier in the document, only administered by trained, marina employees. Those boats to be washed would be sent to the central washing station. Prevention Strategies -Tributary Lakes There are several lakes that are directly tributary to Lake Minnetonka~ Those lakes have few (one or two), if any, accesses. A similar two-stage inspection program should be considered for these lakes. In addition, lakeshore owners around these lakes should receive detailed instructions for assuring their boats are clean upon entering the lake. In addition, these lakes should be monitored for zebra mussel adults and veligers as Lake Minnetonka has. Details: tbd Prevention Strategies - Other Activities There are a small number of other activities that enter Lake Minnetonka for specific purposes. One example includes dock installers at residential and commercial sites around Lake Minnetonka. There is a need to ensure that equipment used with these of other activities is clean Prior to entering Lake Mirmetonka. Details: Same two-stage inspection as referenced earlier in the document, with the possibility of the LMCD requiring permits for these types of activities. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT -765- Page 1 of 5 Kandis M. Hanson From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:25 PM Subject: westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 17 January 25, 2002 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic . communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Contents 1. News Briefs --What Do You Want to See on School Web Sites? --Budget Feedback Requested --Understanding Your Teenager's Brain --Calling All Ideas for Youth Activities! 2. Focus Topic: Timeline for Budget Planning 3. Upcoming Events 4. Tell Us What You Think NEWS BRIEFS **What Do You Want to See on School Web Sites?** How can we improve school district Web sites? A group of parents and staff is examining needed improvements to Web sites in the Westonka Public Schools, and we want to know what you think needs to be added, improved, or revised. The main district page begins at http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us, with schools and program info branching off from there. Don't know where to start? Use the "site map" link to - 766- 01/27/2002 Page 2 of 5 see your options. ............ ~'leaSe s6nu usany a~aw~ ~ugges~ons'Tor'cn~ang'es-~o-znewveU-s~es:~v,~e ........ · are committed to making as many cost-free improvements as we can. Send your suggestions/critiques to welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. **Budget Feedback Requested** While you're checking out the Web sites (see above), please take special note of the budget reduction information at http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us/badget/. You'll find feedback forms you can use to submit suggestions and questions for the task forces, school administrators, and school board members to consider. All questions and suggestions are invited and can also be e-mailed to welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us or left on the Budget Hotline at 952.491.8443. **Understanding Your Teenager's Brain** If you live with a teenager, don't miss this opportunity to learn more about new explanations for why teenagers behave the way they do. "Frontline" will feature an hour-long look into the teenage brain, exploring "the mystery of mysteries-especially to parents." The topic is relevant to families and teachers, as new discoveries are changing the way we parent, teach, and understand our teenagers. The program airs January 31, on TPT Channel 2, at 8 p.m. **Calling All Ideas for Youth Activities? If you'd like to see more kids involved in positive activities outside of school, share your ideas with the Youth Work Group of the Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative. This group meets about once per month. For more information, contact Chair Sandy Rauschendorfer at 952.472.6882, or Leah Weycker (weyckerL@westonka. k12. mn. us) FOCUS TOPIC **Budget Planning Time Line, 2002-2003** February 1 Task Force Reports (see notes at http:llwww.westonka.k12.mn.uslbudgetl) due to Superintendent -767- 01/27/2002 Page 3 of 5 February 4, 6:30 p.m. School Board Special Study Session 2003 .......... -- Revenues -- Expenditures -- Governor's proposed cuts in educational funding 2. Identify the gap between Revenue and Expenditures for 2002-2003 3. Receive Task Force Reports Finance Committee follows Board Meeting February 11, 7:30 p.m. **Public Input Opportunity** School Board Meeting 1. Regular Agenda Items 2. Discussion on how the gap between projected revenue and expenses might be met 3. Focus Topic: Decision Resources Report on Community Survey re November 2001 Levy Vote 4. Decide if (and when) another levy vote might take place 5. School Board action on budget goal (amount to cut for FY03) 6. Discuss possible cuts based on Task Force reports and other data -- Summary of Task Force Reports (Findings) -- Discussion on possible cuts 7. Consider announcing another study session/public input opportunity for the week of February 18 Week of February 18 **Possible Meeting: Public Input Opportunity** Possible additional School Board study session/public input opportunity on budget planning February 25, 7:30 p.m, **Public Input Opportunity** School Board Special Study Session/public input opportunity 1. Continued discussion on possible cuts 2. School Board to finalize reduction areas UPCOMING EVENTS --January 26, Starz Dance Team conference meet, Orono High School. Doors open at 10:30 a.m. --January 28, No School, K-12, Teacher Workshop Day --January 28, School Board Study Session, 7:30 p.m., Shirley Hills Primary --January 29, Hilltop Book Fair Begins --January 29, GMS Parent Advisory, 3 p.m. · - 768- 01/27/2002 Page 4 of 5 --January 29, Early Childhood Advisory Council, 6:30 p.m., Early Childhood Center ....... ~--,January $"i, ¼iiit~l~ F~, nuy r-un-lqigh~F~p:rn: " ;-January 31, Overview of Budget Task Force Discussions, an evening opportunity for those who can't attend the late afternoon task force meetings, led by Supt. Pam Myers, 7-8:30 p.m., Room 200, Shirley Hills Primary School Home Athletic Competitions: --January 26, Boys Hockey vs. Park Center: JV, 1 p.m.; Varsity 3 p.m., Pond Arena --January 29, Boys Hockey vs. Orono: JV, 5 p.m.; Varsity 7 p.m., Pond Arena --January 29, p.m.; Varsity, --January 31, --January 31, Wrestling vs. Mahtomedi and Minneapolis Lutheran, Parents Night, event starts at 5 p.m., Mound Westonka High School, call 491.8107 for more info. Girls Basketball vs. Buffalo: Gr. 9, 4:30 p.m.; JV, 6 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School Varsity Girls Hockey vs. Orono, 7 p.m., Pond Arena TELL US VVHAT YOU THINK! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us http://www.westonka.k12, mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is -769- 01/27/2002 Page 5 of 5 given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka School District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. According to public data. -770- 01/27/2002 Page 1 of 5 Kandis M. Hanson From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 11:37 AM Subject: westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 16 January 18, 2002 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, SuiteA, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Budget Planning Information Now on the Web --Get Inside Your Child's Brain --Minnesota Lynx Basketball Clinic --National School Nurse Day is January 23 2. Focus Topic: Task Force Updates 3. Upcoming Events 4. Tell Us What You Think NEWS BRIEFS **Budget Planning Information Now on the Web** If you're interested in how the school district is planning $300,000 to $500,000 in cost reductions for next year, check out the Westonka School District's web site, http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us. Click on the link at the bottom of the home page to go directly to budget information. Updates will be added on a regular basis as task forces continue to - 771 - 01/27/2002 Page 2 of 5 meet. If you'd like to see certain information posted that isn't there now, please send your suggestions to welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Pl;~t~ie ~i-eci~i"r~ote 0fthe fee(:j-ba~l~ 'i0'ims YOu'can use to submit suggestions and questions for the task forces, school administrators, and school board members to consider. All suggestions and questions (with answers) will be posted online on an ongoing basis. In addition, all questions and suggestions are invited and can be e-mailed to welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us or left on the Budget Hotline at 952.491.8443. **Get Inside Your Child's Brain** How does a baby's brain organize itself? How do children learn how talk? These questions, and more, will be explored in a new PBS documentary that starts Tuesday, January 22, at 8 p.m. (on local TPT Channel 2). The "Secret Life of the Brain" is a five-part series that explores how the brain works from conception to adulthood. Find out more at http://www, pbs.org/wnet/brain/ **Minnesota Lynx Basketball Clinic** Kindergartners through eighth-graders can join Minnesota Lynx players and staff to learn new basketball skills right here at home. Westonka Community Education and Services is handling registrations for the clinic, to be held at Mound Westonka High School, Saturday, February 9, at 2 p.m. Cost is only $10, and includes clinic activities, ticket to a Lynx basketball home game ($10 value) and prizes. Call 491-8040 to register. Registration is limited; deadline is February 5. **School Nurse Day is January 23** Westonka's school nurses, led by Licensed School Nurse and RN, Lois Van Dyke, are the caring professionals your child sees when he or she feels ill, has a bump, or needs someone to ooh and aah about that scratch from the family cat. School nurses across the country will be recognized on National School Nurse Day, Wednesday, January 23. School nurses and health aides are critical assets to our schools, and we're extremely proud of our staff: Joy Grundeen, LPN, at Shirley Hills; Kathy Berlin, RN, at Hilltop; Sharon Baumel at Grandview; and Lois Van Dyke, LSN, RN, at Mound Westonka High School (with overall responsibility for the district). -772- 01/27/2002 Page 3 of 5 Take a moment to thank a school nurse next week! FOCUS TOPIC **Task Force Updates** Check the district web site for more detailed information. Calendar Task Force Meeting, January 8, 2002 Task force members reviewed a document that outlines the process school districts must follow before they can adjust their school year calendar. The task force also considered the following areas to see if savings could be achieved by changing to a four-day school week: transportation (yes); food service (no, the program is self-sustaining); and custodial services (perhaps). Additional questions arose regarding how a school year with fewer days might affect the teachers' retirement plan, educational programs that are specific to students with special needs, and community use of school facilities. Task force members acknowledged concerns regarding how children would spend their time on non-school days, and how any change might affect the non-public schools in the community. Next meeting: January 15, 3:30 p.m., Room 200, Shirley Hills Primary. Transportation Task Force Meeting, January 9, 2002 Task force members reviewed a handout on student enrollment counts showing the impact that reductions in teaching positions could have on each grade level and on class sizes. A summary of feedback from other school districts either considering or using 1-2 mile walking distances was shared. Discussion followed regarding the level of parent support for changes in transportation, student safety, transportation service for non-public students, and streamlining bus routes. The consensus of the group was that a walking distance of 4/10 mile for primary routes and 6/10 mile for secondary routes might be appropriate, and that dollars could be saved by reducing the length of routes, or reducing the number of routes. Task Force members suggested that, with approval of the school board, some changes to routes could be phased in this spring. Transportation staff were directed to estimate the potential savings changing walking distances to school (one and two miles), and implementing a distance to bus stops of 4/10 mile for primary students and 6/10 mile for secondary students. These potential savings will be reported at the next Task Force meeting. Future meeting dates (4.45 p.m., Room 109, Shirley Hills Primary School): 1/23, 1/30--Wrap up final report for the school board. (Note: no meeting was scheduled for January 16 to allow Transportation staff time to determine potential cost savings.) - 773- 01/27/2002 Page 4 of 5 K-12 Task Force Meeting, January 14, 2002 l--Task f0'Tr¢~'~-rn-~-~'';-e~ie~e-d- dasSSiz~chart ShoWing how class sizes would increase if course sections were reduced. Task force members then ranked the options according to priority for budget cuts. Curriculum Review Cycle: All subjects taught in the Westonka Schools, grades K-12, are reviewed on a five-year cycle. The district could save money by pausing the curriculum review cycle for one year. Staff Development: State law requires school districts to set aside 2% of the basic state funding for staff development for teachers. Principals recommend that no less than $10,000 be preserved for staff development. Additional discussion is needed to determine if the available $82,000 could be cut out entirely for 2002-2003. Fund raising: Each task force has asked whether there are ways to raise funds for Westonka's schools, to reduce the need to cut. One member is ready to convene a group of volunteers to consider fund raising options. Interested volunteers may contact Mary Landberg at 952.491.8007 (landbergm@westonka.k12.mn.us). Final meeting: Monday, January 28, 3:30 p.m., Room 200, Shirley Hills Primary. Primary Task Force Meeting, January 16, 2002 Task force members reviewed a class size chart showing average class size increases if one less section is taught at each grade K-12. They also considered a form that could be used to report their findings prior to a recommendation being made to the school board. Pros and cons of moving from two K-4 buildings to a K-2, and a 3-4 building were discussed. A fund raising model from another district was reviewed. A task force member is ready to organize a fund raising group in Westonka, and several others signed up as volunteers. Interested volunteers may contact Mary Landberg at 952.491.8007 (landbergm@westonka.k12.mn.us). Next meeting topic: more information on all-day every-other-day kindergarten. Next meetings: 1/23, 1/30, 3:30 p.m., Room 200, Shirley Hills Primary. UPCOMING EVENTS --January 21, No School, E-12, Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday --January 22, Peace, Respect and Diversity Week begins at Shirley Hills Primary --January 23, Superintendent's Roundtable, an informal opportunity to get your questions answered by Supt. Pam Myers, 5 p.m., Room 200, Shirley Hills Primary School --January 24, Shirley Hills Title I Advisory Council, 3:15 p.m., Shirley Hills --January 24, Shirley Hills Imagination Fair, 6 p.m. --January 24, Hilltop Grade 4 to Orchestra Hall - 774- 01/27/2002 Page 5 of 5 --January 25, End of Quarter Two ....... ""' Hb~e Athlefi8 c6mpeuti6fis:'" ...... '"' ................ --January 22, Boys Hockey vs. Benilde: JV, 5 p.m.; Varsity 7 p.m., Pond Arena --January 24, Boys Basketball vs. Fridley: Gr. 9, 4:30 p.m.; Gr. 10, 6 p.m.; Varsity, 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School --January 24, Boys Hockey vs. St. Michael, JV, 5 p.m.; Varsity 7 p.m., Pond Arena --January 26, Boys Hockey vs. Park Center, 3 p.m., Pond Arena --January 26, Girls Gymnastics, 4 p.m., Mound Westonka High School TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 VVilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka School District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. According to the State of Minnesota, the subscriber list for this newsletter is public data. -775- 01/27/2002 Page 1 of 5 Kandis M. Hanson From: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 12:59 PM Subject: westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 2, No. 18 February 1,2002 The Westonka Public Schools' channel for direct electronic communication to i.nterested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: · 952.491.8043; e-mail: welisten@westonka.k12.mn, us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Minnesota Paraprofessional Recognition Week is February 4-8 --Rachel Foley Breaks Ali-Time Scoring Record --Task Force Summaries Online Next Week --MVVHS Prom Date Set for May 11 --We're Still Looking for Feedback About School Web Sites --Send Us Your Thoughts, Questions About Budget 2. Focus Topic: Parents Dive Into School Issues, Spark Movement for Change 3. Upcoming Events 4. Tell Us What You Think NEWS BRIEFS **Minnesota Paraprofessional Recognition Week is February 4-8'* While the word "paraprofessional" isn't too familiar outside of school circles, it's an important one because it describes people who are essential to the learning experience for many schoolchildren. - 776- 02/04/2002 Page 2 of 5 Governor Ventura has declared February 4-8, 2002, as "Paraprofessional ~c0gnm on-we~eK;"--nonor~ n g tne-z-~u t)~:ParaproTess~0nais~l n-'~:~mnesota- whose duties range from playground supervision to classroom observations to helping students with special needs. The majority of Westonka's paraprofessionals provide one-on-one assistance to students with special needs, as well as students who just need a little extra help to succeed in school. We appreciate them all, and congratulate them on this special week of recognition! **Rachel Foley Breaks Ali-Time Scoring Record** Mound Westonka High School senior, Rachel Foley, broke the all-time scoring record in basketball, for both boys and girls, when the V~itehawks beat Buffalo on Tuesday of this week. By the end of that game, Foley had scored 1309 points in her career, surpassing the previous record of 1307 points, claimed by Jeremy Berg during the 1997-1998 season. Last night, against Benilde, she scored another 19 points, bringing her career total to 1328. And the season isn't over yet. Foley has six more games to play, virtually guaranteeing that her record will stand for many years to come. Foley is a true all-star student athlete. An honor student and National Honor Society member, she excels in the classroom, as well as in sports. Mound Westonka principal Gene Zulk beamed, "Rachel is an exceptional young woman. This is wonderful recognition, marking an incredible accomplishment over her high school career." **Task Force Summaries Online Next Week** Several budget task forces have met over the past 6 weeks, collecting information, doing cost/benefit analysis, and considering impact of potential budget cuts on the classroom and on local families. Today is the deadline for the task forceS to submit their reports, which will be given to the School Board to consider during their deliberations to set a budget target for 2002-2003. Note: as of this writing, the school district is experiencing problems with its Internet server. The task force reports will be posted online at http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us/budget/as soon as the server is back up and working properly. -777- 02/04/2002 Page 3 of 5 **MWHS Prom Date Set for May 11'* ~y For more information, contact prom advisor Pat Furlong at 952.491,8158. **We're Still Looking for Feedback About School Web Sites** A group of staff and parents is collecting suggestions for how to improve school Web sites, and we'd still like to hear from you. The main district page begins at http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us, with schools and program info branching off from there. Don't know where to start? Use the "site map" link to see your options. Please send us any and all suggestions for changes to the Web sites. We are committed to making as many cost-free improvements as we can. Send your suggestions/critiques to welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. **Send Us Your Thoughts, Questions About Budget** Please take special note of the budget reduction information at http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us/budget/. You'll find feedback forms you can use to submit suggestions and opinions for school administrators and school board members to consider as they ponder budget cuts for 2002-2003. We've promised to post all suggestions and questions (with answers) online, but so far, only one person has written in! If you prefer, you can send questions and suggestions to welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us or leave them on the Budget Hotline at 952.491.8443. FOCUS TOPIC **Parents Dive Into School Issues, Spark Movements for Change** Nearly every weekday for the past six weeks, parents, citizens, and staff have been meeting to explore a variety of school-related issues. Discussions have focused primarily on budget issues, but have included topics ranging from federal funding for special education, to strengthening community support for public education. Three "action areas" have arisen from these discussions, providing -778- 02/04/2002 Page 4 of 5 opportunities for others to join in and work for change in these areas: (1]) ~-uno raising. I-'arent LIDDy ~ raoer naS ottereo to convene a group of volunteers who will explore ideas for immediate and long-term fund raising for our school district, ranging from business partnerships to whatever anyone has in mind. Her group met for the first time yesterday, and she's inviting new volunteers to the next two meetings: 4 p.m., Thursdays, 2/7, and 2/14, in Room 200 of Shirley Hills Primary. If you're interested lending a hand with fund raising, please contact her directly at Itrader@visi.com. (2) Legislative Action. This group is in the process of forming. To accommodate parent schedules, it will meet during an evening time slot. This group would monitor what's happening in St. Paul, and communicate with our local legislators and education committee members in the House and Senate about the impact of their ideas on our local schools. If you are interested in helping in the political arena, please contact Dr. Pam Myers at myersp@westonka.k12.mn.us or 952.491.8001. (3) "Yes Westonka," a group of citizen supporters of school referendum efforts. Given the current funding situation, another operating levy referendum might be in Westonka's future. It's the School Board's decision, but if they choose to request another vote, a strong citizens group will be absolutely essential for the vote to succeed. Initially, these citizens could advise school staff on ways to address the information gathered from community survey regarding what voters needed in order to support last November's vote. If you are interested in helping with a citizens' campaign committee, please contact Dr. Pam Myers at myersp@westonka.k12.mn.us or 952.491.8001. UPCOMING EVENTS --February 4, School Board Study Session, 6:30 p.m., Room 200, Shirley Hills Primary. At this meeting, the board will hear the district financial forecast for FY 2003, identify the gap between projected revenues and expenditures, and receive budget task force reports. --February 4-8, Grandview Middle School Book Fair --February 7, Grandview Middle School Showcase, Fine Arts, and Ice Cream Social, 6 p.m. Home Athletic Competitions: --February 2, Boys Hockey vs. Fridley: JV, 1 p.m.; Varsity 3 p.m., Pond Arena --February JV, 6 p.m.; 4, Girls Basketball vs. Columbia Heights: Gr. 9, 4:30 p.m.; Varsity, 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School --February 5, Varsity Wrestling vs. Chaska and Watertown, 5 p.m., Mound Westonka High School. --February 7, Boys Basketball vs. Brooklyn Center: Gr. 9, 4:30 p.m.; -779- 02/04/2002 Page 5 of 5 Gr. 10, 6 p.m.: Varsity, 7:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School TELL US WHAT YOU THINK! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to <welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 welisten@westonka.k12, mn. us http://www.westonka.k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara Olson, editor. The information contained in this broadcast is given in good faith based on available information. The Westonka SchOol District accepts no legal responsibility for its accuracy. According to the State of Minnesota, the subscriber list for this newsletter is public data. -780- 02/04/2002 Page 1 of 1 Kandis M. Hanson From: Sent: Subject: "Barbara Olson" <olsonb@westonka.k12.mn.us> Monday, January 28, 2002 11:32 AM Upcoming Events corrections With the editor's apologies, please note the following corrections to the "Upcoming Events" listed in last week's westonka.news, the school district's electronic newsletter. 1) The School Board Study Session, incorrectly listed for January 28, has been rescheduled for **Monday, February 4, at 6:30 p.m.** at Shirley Hills Primary School. 2) Tuesday, January 29, GMS Parent Advisory meeting is at **7 p.m.** at Grandview Middle School. We'll work harder to get the information right the first time from now on. Barbara Olson Community Relations Coordinator Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Blvd, Suite A Mound MN 55364 p: 952.491.8006 f: 952.491.8043 e-mail: olsonb@westonka.kl2.mn.us We know your child by name... We help your child achieve. -781 - 01/28/2002 January 28, 2002 Attention: Mound City Council Re: "Pete's Sleep Out" I am a thirty-five year resident and taxpayer in Mound. I am sending a contribution to "Pete's Sleep - Out" in support of Pete's quest to provide services that are needed. I have always believed in people donating their time and money to community wide services. However, I am very upset with many of the decisions of the Mound City Council. I find it negligent that in order to provide minimum recreational services for our youth in the community, "the residence must provide these services". I consider providing lifeguards at a public beach to be a required city service. In addition, I have just joined the Community Center in Waeonia for a very reasonable non- residem fee. I would have been happy to pay a larger resident fee for a Community Center in Motmd. Also, I plan to send ongoing contributions to the Cdllespie Senior Center to help with their maintenance costs. Again, why can't the Mound Council find a creative way to support the Senior Center that provides many valuable services to the citizens of Mound. I feel that some of these smaller decisions not to provide your citizens with services erodes your support of some of your bigger decisions. The "Mound City Vision" has been on hold for a long time and the commtmity needs of the youth and the seniors can not wait forever. Sincerely, Sharon Catton Mound Resident Cc: Pete Meyer -782- MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JANUARY 7, 2002 Tho~e present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Jorj Ayaz, Orvin Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle, · Beck~ Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Frank Weiland. Staff present: City Planner: Loren Gordon, Community Development Director Sarah Smith, Planner Loren Gordon and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: John Zambori Duane Leisinger Fran Clark-Leisinger Margo Hopkins Dennis Hopkins Mary Ann Thurk Pam Paul Jonathon Paul 4681 Wilshire Boulevard 7020 CR 26, Maple Plain 7020 CR 26, Maple Plain 4609 Wilshire Boulevard 4609 Wilshire Boulevard owner 4601 Wilshire Boulevard P.O. Box 443, Spring Park 4213 Merriam Road, Minnetonka 4677 Wilshire Boulevard Chairman Michael welcomed the public and called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. 1. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Clapsaddle, to approve the minutes of the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. 2. BOARD OF APPEALS CASE #01-45 STREET VACATION 2333 Wilshire Boulevard American Legion Civic Corporation and WWT Partners Proposed alley vacation is to vacate the alley between Lots 8 & 9 and Lots 38 & 39, completing the vacation approved in November, 2001. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation with an easement retained for the in-place utilities. Mueller inquired about the extent of the invitation to respond. He felt there should be a time limitation. Open public hearing. Close public hearing. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to accept staff recommendation to approve the vacation with a limitation on staff comments once the vacation is approved by City Council. MOTION carried unanimously -783- Planning Commission Minutes lanuaw .7, 2002 CASE #01-44 MINOR SUBDIVSION 2337 and 2361 Wilshire Boulevard American Legion Civic Corporation and WWT Partners The Planning Commission is asked to consider a one-foot boundary adjustment that would resolve an existing building encroachment problem. Staffwould also like to encourage the property owners to consider combining the lots in some configuration. MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to approve staff recommendation with a limitation on staff comments once the subdivision is approved by City Council. MOTION carried unanimously. CASE #01- 46 STREET VACATION Kells Lane Jon Paul/Jeff and Pam Paul Planning Commission reviewed this request on several occasions. The Parks and Open Space and Dock and Commons Commissions have reviewed it. Staff contacted Jeff and Pam Paul and the 2 owners to the west of Jon Paul to see if they wanted to participate in the vacation request. The westerly property owners did not want to participate. Jon and Jeff are co- applicants. If the city sells a portion of Lot 6, City Council wanted staff to get an appraisal. The estimate came back at about $3,000. We looked at a few other comparable parcels and found similar estimates and decided not to order the appraisal because of cost. Hennepin County was consulted about an extra access along Wilshire Boulevard that was looked upon as favorable by Hennepin County. Driveway widths (14-22 feet) would be appropriate. City would want to secure easements behind the curb for roadway and sidewalk. Staff recommends the vacation of Kells Lane, selling of a portion of lot 6 to Jon Paul and a portion of lot 6 to Jeff and Pam Paul. Waiver of platting would then be done to formalize the property division. A power pole is located in the proposed driveway area for Jeff Paul which would be their responsibility to relocate. If we move forward with this we would need to condition this on securing the land prices and settlement fees. Mueller asked if staff had looked at the road right-of-way regarding the 33 feet from the centerline on the north side. Does the city get something back on the south side? Clapsaddle thought that the unvacated portion along the lake could be vacated and attached to the south portion. Mueller stated that the Kells Lane portion must go to the parcels on the north because it was platted with that land and not the Wychwood parcel to the south. Burma did not feel that the lines should be drawn to preserve the gravel drive constructed by Jon Paul, on city property, without permission. He feels that the property line should be drawn through the drive in a more logical manner. Weiland wants it noted that we are "not on the clock" as regards this project. -784- Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2002 Open public hearing. Pam Paul (owner of Lots 26, 27 & 28) - She would like to encourage the city to vacate the entire length of Kells Lane, then they would give back the portion of lake shore in exchange for their share of Lot 6. Dennis Hopkins (3609 Wilshire Blvd) - He sees no reason to vacate Kells Lane for a landlocked parcel that has no access now. Neighbors have wanted the area to be cleaned up so it's usable and the city wouldn't do that. John Zambori (4681 Wilshire Blvd) - Consider leasing instead of vacating. City would retain ownership and control and gain lease monies that could be used to improve the park area to the east. Mueller - Kells Lane hasn't been used. Leasing doesn't help in the conformance issue. Jon Paul has been maintaining it for the benefit of us all. Mary Ann Thurk (4601 Wilshire Blvd) - She likes the idea of a lease. If the place were marked more people would use it. Need to look at the community as a whole. Jon Paul (4679 Wilshire Blvd) - The proposal by staffis o.k. with him. If this proposal isn't meeting certain needs he is open to other suggestions. Primarily he is concerned with the Kells Lane vacation because of the proximity to his home. Pam Paul - She is as much a property owner as anyone else and deserves to have access to the property. Close public hearing. Discussion Clapsaddle thought Mueller's suggestion made sense. Where do we stand in the process? Can we direct the plan be changed to be presented to City Council? Gordon thought they could. City Council wanted Planning Commission input. We can either retain Kells Lane to develop it for use by residents or get rid of it. MOTION by Mueller and seconded by Clapsaddle to approve recommendation to vacate Kells Lane west of a line as drawn by staff at a diagonal across Kells Lane on the exhibit. Continuing on the same line to the Wilshire Boulevard platted fight of way, another line running parallel northwest of it to delineate Jeff Paul property and remainder of Lot 6 to the west to Jon Paul. Any profit fi:om the current city property should be used to improve the usability of the park area, including fishing access. Vacation of Kells Lane is subject to the agreeable disposition of the land described. Easements shall be maintained for utilities. -785- Planning Commission Minutes January 7, 2002 Burma said we all have m ~ a little bit. Motion by Mueller is a goodmiddle__m'ound It allows for an increase in Jon Paul's property, access for JeffPaul and addresses the concerns about access to the lake. Hasse felt that, if we give anything away we'd never get it back. Weiland added that we are supposed to see that it's for the good of the community. MOTION carded. Voting against - Hasse, Weiland, Michael; Voting for - Clapsaddle, Ayaz, Glister, Burma, Mueller Chairman Michael called for a short recess at 9:07. Back in session at 9:12. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Q & A with City Attorney John Dean B. Adoption of Planning Commission Work Rules for 2002 - postponed to the next meeting. C. Review of Planning Commission Schedule for 2002 - First and third Mondays will remain the schedule. Second meetings in January and February will be as needed. Mueller stated that he was totally opposed to the Police Department delivering the packets. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Glister, seconded by Hasse, to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 P.M. MOTION carried unanimously. Chair Geoff Michael Attest: Planning Secretary -786- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 10, 2002 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2002 Present: Chair John Beise, Commissioners Gene Hostetler, Norman Domholdt, Derrick Hentz, Ron Motyka, Susan Taylor, and City Council Representative David Osmek. Also present: Parks Director Jim Fackler, Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. Citizens present: Peter Meyer Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 1. APPROVALOFTHE DECEMBER1' SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES AND OPEN MOTION by Domholdt second by 2001 Parks and Open Space following change: lo approve December 13, IV with the Page 4, last paragraph reported on the Skate Park. They will be meeting moving on the fasl referendum. society." Jim Fackler still getting ideas. for ideas. This project is ;an be included on the spring with the historical MOTION None 3. DISCUSS: WELCOME THE REAPPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS (JOHN BEISE AND NORM DOMHOLT) (TERM 01-02 THRU 12-04) Chair Beise welcomed the reappointed Commissioners. -787- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 10, 2002 4. DISCUSS: ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2002 (CHAIR AND VICE. CHAIR) Parks Director Jim Fackler clarified Chair Beise's term as Chair of the Park and Open Space Advisory Chair. MOTION by Beise to nominated Commissioner Susan Taylor for Chair and Commissioner Ron Motyka as Vice-Chair. MOTION died as lack of a second. MOTION by Motyka second by Hentz to nominate Chair Beise for Chair and Commissioner Domholdt as Vice-Ch~.[~=, MOTION carried unanimously. 5. REVIEW: 2002 AGENDA CALENDAR ..... The Commission reviewed the 2002 calend~ .... No additions or deletions at this time. Chair Beise questioned if there i~'~,,,.budget for tree planting. Parks Director Fackler expla in the budget for tree planting; however the doll; )0. Chair Beise discussed working on. No date at Redistricting the Commission is The Commiss~( work rules. ParkS Director Jim ,r indicated the changes that were made. Page 11 "The Process of Interviewing Candidates For Park and Open Space Commission Appointments" this will be addressed in a new Resolution that is in the works. Page 12 and Page 13 is the old Resolution which should be disregarded. Staff will update with new information for the next Parking Meeting. This will be under the "For Your Information" heading on the agenda. Commissioner Domholdt indicated the start time for the is incorrect. Item B, number 3 should read, "All public hearings shall be held at City Hall. All meetings shall be called at 7:30 p.m. and shall conclude at 10:00 p.m. unless waived by the majority. Any business unfinished at the scheduled closing time, shall be taken up as old business at the next regular meting." -788- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 10, 2002 Item B, number 4 should read, "If at 10:00 p.m., items still remain, then the item and/o~motion current/yon the floor will be' immediately tabled bY the Ohair, without a motion to tab/e, and the Chair will put forth a continuance motion to extend the meeting for an additional 15 minutes. If passed, the item tab/ed immediately prior will be brought back up. This cycles until all items are completed or the continuance motion fails. Any items/eft at adjournment wi//be automatically added to the next meeting's agenda prior to any new items." Item B, number 5 should read, "If all items listed on the agenda prior to the start of the meeting are not completed and the continuance fails, then the Chair has discretionary authority to schedule a second meeting for that month without a motion. That meeting will take p/ace on the fourth Thursday of the month from 7:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m." Item B, number 6 should read, "If any items, not liste start of the meeting are not completed, and the will move the Commission for a second of the month from 7:30p. m. to lO:OO p.m." agenda prior to the then the Chair fourth Thursday 7. REVIEW: PARK DEDICATION There is interest in revising the division to keep it current with today'~, are required to pay the City 10% land value for a for minor sub- all minor sub-divisions This is far below the Chair Beise stated Commission has made approve an incr increase to time. each December. The Parks requesting the City Council The Planning Commission requested an ~ot been reviewed by the City Council at this City Council stated that this will be reviewed soon by the City Council. The Park requested staff to add this to the agenda item for the next City Council meeting. The Parks Commission is reqUesting staff to add this as an agenda item for the next City Council Meeting -789- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 10, 2002 8. REVIEW: PARK AND NATURE AREA INVENTORY INFORMATION The Commission was given this chart as a handout revised 01-20-02. The Commission then discussed the differences of listing school property. Staff will provide two charts. One including school property and one chart listing only City property. Commissioner Domholdt stated that the discussion should be made on the idea that all parkland could be used for children. However, for the Commission's purpose, only the City controlled Park Land should be included. Staff to add "Dundee Park to the chart and correctly spell "Veteran's Park. Omit "Beach" feature. Omit "Lake Access" Add to Centerview Beach an X for "Winter Access". Staff is requested to bring this back to next Par~::~':Meeting for final changes. The Commissioners are requested to bringii~!~ir Parks Tour Information with them to the next meeting. ~,~iiiiii?~;~;??:' "~:'~::::~iliiii~ii!ii¢::~:.. ~ City Council Representative David Osmek staff to":i~i~de this information on the City web-site. 9. REVIEW: METRO PLAINS DEV! Parks Director Fackler wanted to upd~ Agreement that will be in fronl the Park Development. Dedication that lead to on the Sub-Division ¥ 8, 2002 as it relates to previously reviewed the Park The Developer will: Dor 000.00 for play equipment. play equipment installation. (City Staff will order equipment). Install ion system in designated areas. Seed all the 'Park lands. Staff will order the equipment as described in the proposal from Minnesota Playgrounds as soon as possible to take advantage of 2001 pricing. This equipment is the same that was installed at Swanson Park in 2001. Staff is planning on a late summer or early fall installation. -790- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 10, 2002 10.DISCUSS_.'- THE. N~MING OF PARKS IN THE ROTTLAN,D AND METI~O PLAINS DEVELOPMENT. The Commission requested Staff to bring this back as a reminder for the policy that was adopted by the City Council. A possible name for the Metro Plain site would be Hadorff Park. Staff would like this procedure by completed in the spring of 2003. The Commission would like to promote as much public involvement as possible in the naming of their parks. Staff is requested to look into the possibility of a short article in the City Contact, The Laker, and the City web-site requesting suggestions from the public. City Council Representative Osmek suggested a type of Trade Center September 11, 2001.' to the World Chair Beise would like to see all aspects corn new play structures the day of the g can use the The park in the Rottlund Development will will be living there at that time. hborho d and no one Commissioner Domholdt requested Contact and The Laker. The rules included in the article. Staff next agenda. print deadline for the City naming a park should be as an action item on the 11.DISCUSS: PROPOSED BY CENTER FUNDRAISER Community raise funds. lifeguard City Council ar very tough outside in an unh~ to the Park Commission a way to ram for this summer. Meyer acknowledged Staff, for their time and effort spent on this year's item very close to Meyer's heart. Meyer is sleeping for the months of January and February to collect donations and pledges' for the Lifeguard Program and the Gillespie Center. Meyer's goal is to raise $40,000 for the Lifeguard Program and $8,000 for the Gillespie Center. For each dollar donated $.80 will go to the Lifeguard Program and $.20 to the Gillespie Center. Meyer feels this is a good way to raise funds to keep the beaches safe. There is a tent in Meyer's front yard. This was discussed at the previous City Council Meeting on January 8, 2002. City Council Representative Osmek is concerned for the liability. The City is indirectly affected and has very deep projects. Osmek suggested having a local bank be the fiscal agent for this project. Community Member Meyer did discuss check with area banks and they will not participate. The seniors are investigating being the fiscal agent for this project. This fund-raiser is just being presented to -791 - Minutes of a Meeting oft he Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 1 O, 2002 the Commission and is looking for support. Also City Council Members David Osmek and Bob Brown are contacting the pull-tab gi-oups for money and support. The Commission stated this is a very noble effort. City Council Representative Osmek stated he has been in contact with Ro×anne Palm to gather information for a statistical Analysis for when the Parks are being used. They are used mostly on the weekends. There is a 17% difference in the weekend than the weekdays. The Mound VFW will be contributing $5,000 for the lifeguard program for next year and that will entail Friday, Saturday and Sunday only from Memorial Day to Labor Day. If the City does not receive enough money to run this program; no money will be acce The cost to run this program for weekends only is $15,939.00. Three groups will also be donating money. This needs to be completed by ~iddle of February so that the program can be put into place. A "Lifegua Sponsored By with their insignia" sign needs to be in place for next Commissioner Hentz suggested" the Lifeguard Program. If parents see the forthcoming. This might generate en Ih mo Commission did not feel there is s for donations could be an extra weekend. The lize. 12. REVIEW: FEBRUARY Add Under For Your bring back request ADD: Fund Rais~nc es and 2003 capital outlay. Staff will gram, Money Raising Ideas. REPORTS CITY COUNCI DAVID OSMEK: Reviewed the Spaces with the latest changes. A walk through was completed in December on the Greenway Space. City Council Member Meyer discussed his lifeguard fund-raiser. The City Council is concerned with liability. Naming rights of the street are starting to be discussed for Auditors Road. Informal discussions. Nothing formal at the Council Meeting. A City Contact Survey newsletter was discussed. Top three items of concern were downtown revitalization, then cleanup downtown and new fire station was third on the priority list. -792- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 10, 2002 The Gramercy~roject was discussed at length. PARKS DIRECTOR JIM FACKLER New truck arrives in early spring. Reminder to R.S.V.P. for the Commissioners Recognition Dinner. Working On a contract with the Gillespie Senior Center to help provide snowplowing and mowing. Staff is very careful so that there are no misunderstandings because staff is so limited. The proposal is that staff will mow once a week. No picking up of clippings. Also included will be a few other minor issues and snowplowing. No hand shovel and some sanding. All snowplowing will be done by vehicle. This will quite soon. ISLAND PARK TASK FORCE COMMISSIONER DERRICK HENTZ The sites and options were reviewed. the Fire Station, Police Department and the Island Park Hall and the Public cility i will not be on a referendum this s The best option for the Parks Departr Works Facility on Lynwood B another facility on the built, it did not meet the Fire Station, at City hall. is on the tail-end of projects. Apparently the waiting list. These two working on plans. to the Public Department would then build time the Public Works Building was Works Department. The options for Hall Renovations will be on display Commissiom task force Hall would be the City Council 'ing the Commission the latest handout from the ons. The approximate cost for a new Island Park The Task Force will still make a recommendation to ion on this project. SKATE PARK UPDAT'~ COMMISSIONER GENE HOSTETLER Commissioner Hostetler reported that he put together a budget for the Skate Park. See handout. Two type of fundraising is beginning at this time. The Committee is looking for people that have materials to donate to excavate, drainage, etc. A donor information packet will be available at the next Park Meeting. $15,000.00 is being budgeted for a consultant to organize this project. Contractors are being contacted with a materials list. This is being done by Hostetler and the money donations are being organized by other members of the task force. Looking for a completion date of this Spring. -793- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission January 10, 2002 Staff is requested to look into an_By_grant money that may be provided by the Metropolitan Council, MOTION by Domholdt second by Motyka to adjourn at 9:45 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously, -794- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY DOCKS COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 2002 Present: Chair Jim Funk, Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Frank Ahrens, Greg Eurich, Gerald Jones and City Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present Community Developer Sarah Smith, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Katie Hoff, and Recording Secretary Sue Schwalbe. Citizens Present: Julie and Karl Weisenhorn, 1733 Bluebird Lane Robert Beadle, 1708 Finch Lane Stephen Kakos, 1720 Finch Lane Phil Bowman, 1717 Finch Lane Dan Wombacher, 1701 Gull Lane Bruce McKeeman, 1744 Avocet Lane Todd Landon, 1738 Avocet Lane Kathy Goodfellow, 1730 Avocet Lane Douglas Rood, 1652 Eagle Lane Scott Thoma, 1716 Eagle Lane Merlin Woytke, 1701 Bluebird Lane Chair Funk called the 30 p.m. APPROVAL OF ADVISORY COMMIS CAN( DOCK AND COMMONS 'DECEMBER MEETING WAS 2001 following ch s: by Jones to approve the November 15, Advisory Commission minutes with the Page 7, MOTION should read "MOTION by Ahrens second by Funk to approve the 1733 Gull Lane Public Lands Permit Application as per staff recommendations and conditions." Page 9, bullet item #2 should read "'10250 was changed to an abutting site last year. Page 9, bullet item #7 should read "Ava/on Park questions regarding watercraft. Keep the larger size. Marking G and H as temporary sites then eliminate as the sites are not renewed. Leave lines 6 and 7 but eliminate 8 and 9 as 8 and 9 (40550K and L) were a temporary second watercraft." -795- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 2. AGENDA CHANGES Change Item #9 to Item #3 and Item #7 to Item #4. renumbered. All subsequent items MOTION by Funk second by Jones to approve the agenda with the ,changes listed above. 3. REVIEW PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, PHIL BOWMAN, 1717 FINCH LANE. Development Director Sarah Smith and Park Director Jim Fackler gave a brief explanation of the history of this issue. Phil Bowman of 1717 Finch Lane is requesting an "after-the-fact" Public Lands Permit to allow ~ number of evergreen shrubs that were planted in November 2001 t~!ii~'main in Wiota Commons. The Docks and Commons Commission is,:,,~ised that it appears the property owner planted the landscaping elements i~iiiii~}iiii~ he assumed the use of the Wiota Commons had transitioned fromiiil~ city'::"~i!!i~e neighborhood. Further information is conta ned in the applic~ surve~!~!i~i~:~ Written comment was received from the arborvitae shrubs have been planted over event that work on the watermain is shrubs will survive nor will the City reimbursement. Greg Skinner stating watermain. In the not guarantee the placement or Parks Director Jim Fackl IS. City staff including Park~ conducted a site appears that Development Director Smith ¥ 8, 2002. Based on field conditions, it in the Finch Lane right-of-way. The shrubs d. be hindering public access from Finch Lane to the staircase Iocate~ nor does it appears to negatively impact foot traffic over The shrubs may help to provide shade for the subject area and help to provide windbreak protection. Staff is in agreement that the vegetation helps to provide separation between Finch Lane and the subject's property. Staff recommends approval of the Public Lands Permit request from Philip Bowman to allow continued placement of the evergreen shrubs in the Wiota Commons area. Please note: in the event that work on the existing watermain is needed and/or undertaken, the City shall not be responsible for replacement or reimbursement of the evergreen shrubs. Approximately eleven neighborhood residents were present for this issue. -796- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 Phillip Bowman, 1717 Finch Lane. Applicant. The reason for planting the shrubs is to act as a "SOil hOlder" as grass Will not grow. The sh'rubs can be trimmed to any height set by the Commission. Evergreens look presentable throughout the year. Also this will work as a snow barrier. Bowman explained the reasons for not applying for a permit due to an underlined fee simple title issue. The City is running a good public dock program. This was a beautifying effort. The trees can grow up to 15 feet; however they can be trimmed to as Iow as four feet. Commissioner Ahrens reviewed the site and has no issues with this permit. It is as the applicant describes the property. Robert Beadle 1708 Finch Lane. Has lived on Finch Lane had a dock for 15 of those 22 years. Beadle has walkE and also cross county ski's across the Wiota Commo~ agree to approve this permit. Believes this pro )r 22 years and has area for 22 years the lake. Does not by the residents. Bruce McKeeman, 1744 Avocet Lane. RE Thanked the Commission for the use and has walked this area and did not notice the view the site because this is a bee :ion shrubs. The stairway is still open. the grot non-abutters. Stated he uested the Commission He has no issues with the Commissioner Goldberg requested non-dedicated commons the rules for dedicated and Scoff Thoma, 1716 Ea¢ This landscaping beautif with the corn are fine and offer privacy. s area. Residents is concerned commons are governed. Julie ~, 1733 Believes the a sho believes the appl Commission be ~. Graduate student of horticultural. have. applied for a permit. Was on site today and a good choice for the plants. Requested the as to what is being planted close to the lake. Chair Funk closed the public discussion. City Council Representative Hanus stated that officially the rules are the same for privately dedicated commons and publicly dedicated commons. The City is in the position to stand back and wait for the outcome due to the legal issues that were realized at Woodland Point. As per the City Council, the residents/neighborhood should decide. -797- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 Merlin Woytcke, 1701 bluebird Lane. Has lived in Mound since 1970. The City of-lVlound has done an excellent job maintaining all-the Commons areas. I-he applicant's only mistake was not getting the permit first. He is bettering the area and the community. Commissioner Eurich stated he is struggling with this issue, Questioned staff as to what was done previously. The evergreens add beauty and helps with the erosion of the lakeshore. City Council Representative Hanus questioned staff as to what determent to the property would be and is the public loosing rights to this land. Parks Director Fackler stated the first issue staff investigates is if there is blocked access. At other sites, Individual trees have been had to be removed and/or replaced due to damage from house ing, etc. Commissioner Eurich favors approving this req, opposition to the application and views this Commissioner Goldberg requested Mr. trimming the trees to a proper height. ~ee much in agreement with Applicant stated he is willing to trim feet. MOTION by Ahrens Commons Permit req evergreen shrui stipulati{ or reim to recommend the Dock and d approve of the Public Lands continued placement of the area. Including a g work on the watermain is needed not be responsible for replacement or evergreen shrubs. Mr. Bowman belie should be recommended for a full hedge. Robert Beadle, 1708 F:i'nch Lane. Very concerned with his view of the lake. Does not want the trees to grow to that height. Will loose his entire view of the lake if this permit is allowed. Steve Kakos, 1720 Finch Lane. Believes the trees are an attempt for traffic control. The bushes are 4-5 feet now. Would like some limit as to the height of the trees. The neighborhood should be able to come back to the Commission if the trees grow too tall. Parks Director Fackler clarified that it is the responsibility of the applicant to trim trees and bear the cost; however if for a utility issue then the City will bear the cost. -798- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 MOTION carried unanimously. This item will be in front of the City Council on February 26, 2002. Arborvitae was planted. 4. REVIEW: FLOW CHART/PROCEDURE MANUAL Parks Director Fackler stated approximately five years ago (1996) changes/modifications were made to the ordinances which would cause changes in the Procedure Manual. There was a lapse. This needs to be updated and move forward. This Flowchart/Procedure Manual can be changed or amended as per what the Commission would like to apply. Commissioners Goldberg and Ahrens requested further review. lng this back for Ahrens brought this to the commission and Flow Chart is not updated based on inform~ previously. Change in Mound City Code recommended to be presented to the ity Coui Council acted on this issue. u The Commi passed amended and Questioned if the City City Council Representative that was presented. Council adopted everything Parks Director Fackler not believe this Flow Ch~ Chart was ap ed this was dropped. Staff does utilizes the City Code. The Flow tion in 1993. Commi,, hrens "MOTION encroachment po Attorney to prepare voting nay. Motion carried." on ~acket page 27 the following is stated, by Weyecker to accept and approve the y the DCAC and directing the City form. The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen The $15.00 fee was not written in the Ordinance. Believes the Flow Chart and guidelines for writing a recommendation were approved by the City Council. Three items were approved. (1) Amended the decision Flow Chart, (2) Amended the guidelines for writing staff reports and public lands permits, and (3) amendments were recommended for Mound City Code #320. Parks Director Fackler stated the City Clerk will provide the Commission with the latest revision to the Mound City Code #320.00 subd 8. By Resolutions this was changed. This will be provided at the March DCAC meeting. Staff will review and indicate any changes that were made. -799- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 5. WELCOME THE REAPPOINTMENT OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS Chair Funk welcomed the reappointment of himself and Greg Eurich. Parks Director Fackler stated this is reviewed each, Commission if they would like any additions or City Council Hanus questioned staff if this i,~ Park Director Fackler answered the mainly consistent. There is a chan¢ candidates for DCAC applicants. 8. REVIEW: 2002 AGEN[ DISCUSS: ELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2002 (CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR) MOTION by Ahrens second by Jones to recommend Jim Funk be retained as chair and Greg Eurich as Vice-chair. MOTION carried unanimously. REVIEW: DCAC WORK RULES month. ADD: February and Commissioner projections. new fees for MOTION calendar the ions. oth~*~ Commissions. minor changed; however it is of interview Manual. to see revenue projections and or fee Finance Director's spreadsheet with the by Goldberg to approved the 2002 agenda additions. -800- Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 9. REVIEW: PROPOSED RIP-RAPPING LOCATIONS Parks Director Fackler indicated that last year the worst areas were improved. Staff recommends the following rip-rapping for 2002: ~ Waterbank Common 700 LnFt Land ~ Centerview Road 420 LnFt Land Crescent Park 540 LnFt Barge Twin Park 80 LnFt Land Idelwood Access 164 LnFt Barge All of the above sites are locations where rip-rapp' due to erosion or red rock breakdown repairs this work be completed after the ice-out in A in the past but recommends There is $35,000.00 in the 2002 budget desi requesting the DCAC view the four recommend other sites for 2002. to other areas they would like to see ~ an~ rip-rapping. Staff is oritize them for installation or fr°m Commission as Applications are not a prol holders must be Centerview would only rather easily. Because th out for bids. The rip-rapping a 3-4 month lead-time. Dock Site ~ight have to relocate their boat. these areas should be done $50,000.00 this does not have to go d the City Council has adopted a standard for rock. Commissioner Crescent Park the Sunset landing all sites over the past weekend. On the barge or bobcat be used to place the rock and use access. Would a barge be more expensive. Parks Director Fackler stated he is concerned with the softness of the land. The bobcat might do damage and then repair work would have to be completed. Staff believes most of these should be done in the summer because of settling. Large rocks will be down first. There is still some red-rock that is being used as a base. City Council Representative Hanus reviewed each site before the first snow. Crescent Park needs work. Commissioner Ahrens stated that at Twin Parks only 80 feet is being rip-rapped. -801 - Minutes of a Meeting of the Mound Advisory Docks Commission January 17, 2002 Parks Director Fackler indicated this is due to drainage and so that the access is .... hbt]51o-~l~c17 st~iff Wo-uld Iil~'-th~ C-o~i~issi°n-(~-~:-6~r-th~'-ideT~5<::;d- ~,c-ce~s-~r'~a this spring. This area is very difficult to find. This area will have to be done with barge. Commissioner Ahrens would like to request a spring meeting at 6:30 p.m. to tour these areas. 10. REVIEW: FEBRURY 2002 AGENDA CALENDAR ADD: Projected Fee/Revenue Expenditures. Spreadsheet from Finance Director. Forecast out 10 years. ADD: Flow Chart and Procedural Manual ..... ~,,;!!;!iiiii¢iii?;:' ADD: Review: Proposed Rip-Rapping Locations. ~:::'~i!ili?~:~i~.rovide linear foot costs. FOR YOUR INFORMATION ~ii Packet page 85. Line 54, Site #10220. Minui~"~ii~{~.'.~:~he Meeting need to be changed. ":'"~iiiili~iiii i iiiii!:~. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE No report. PARKS The Gull ~e project ~ii!i~ow'~?Public Works project and they will incur costs. Staff will visit':'~ha~ei~?'~oad as a follow-up for property stakes. .... ii!i::::::i::!iii~i~::...::!~¢~!iii!::::::~i .... Brief update on the'G.S.I, project. Hopefully staff will have information to the Commission for the February Meeting. Public and private land will be marked. MOTION by Funk second by Ahrens to adjourn meeting at 10:00 p.m. MOTION carried unanimously. -802- Understanding City Fund Balances By Eric Willette and Jennifer O'Rourke lity fund balances have become a popular topic of discussion among state policymakers. Some of these discussions include basic misunder- standing of city finances. This heightened attention means city officials must be able to explain to their citizens, legislators, and the media the purposes of city fund balances. While each city's financial situation is unique, this article provides an overview of the basic characteristics most city fund balances share. Vdhat the Office of the State Auditor reports as city fund balances is really a combination of several important com- ponents of city finances including cash flow funds, savings for projects, and rainy day reserves. Cash flow funds. Due to the semi- annual structure of city finances, city fund balances are very different from state finances. The Office of State Auditor report measures city fund balances on Dec. 31, shortly after the city receives its largest sources of revenue from the property tax and state aid distributions. These reserves are necessary to carry ciries through the next five to six months of operations--until the next property tax and state aid distributions in June and July. Measuring a city's fund balance on Dec. 31 is equivalent to measuring your personal wealth on the day after payday, before you've paid the mortgage and car loan. Without adequate cash flow reserves, cities would be forced to bor- row to pay for operating expenses, which increases ~he overall cost of city services to taxpayers. Graph A shows a one-year cash hal- ance for the city of Oak Park Heights. The cash balance is highest in December and July, after taxes and state aids are distributed to the city. The difference between the peaks and valley, about two-thirds of the city's cash balance at the end of December, is the city's cash flow need. Graph A: Oak Park Heights General Fund Cash Balance Savings for projects or dedicated uses]~' Prior to undertaking a capital project, the city may increase reserves to help pay for a portion of the project, thus reduc- ing the need to issue debt. City fund balances may include savings for a major project. Graph B: Arlington Fund Balance Graph B shows a two-year fund bal- ance for the city of Arhngton. In 2000 the city began construction ora commu- nity center, for which k had funds saved. By the June 2001, the project was complete and the city's fund balance was about one-third as large as it had been in December 1999. Cities may have reserves in dedicated funds, such as sewer and water utilities or enterprise funds, which are generated from user fees. These reserves are dedi- cated for operation, maintenance, and improvement of the utility or enterprise. These funds usually cannot be used for any other purpose. Similarly, monies in debt service funds can only be used for the repayment of debt for the particular project. Rainy day funds. The state of Min- nesota maintains a budget reserve of $653 million, commonly referred to as the rainy day fund. This fund helps the state address unexpected economic downtums, other fluctuations in state revenues, or unexpected expenditure needs. Similarly, city fund balances act as a rainy day fund for revenue short- falls, unexpected expenctitures, or emergencies. Given that cities only receive property taxes and state aids twice a year, these funds can be critical for responding to unforeseen local needs. Fund balances and credit ratings. Gov. Ventura outlined a fourth reason in his State of the State speech last week: favorable bond ratings. The gov- ernor said that the state's triple-A bond rating "allows us to borrow money to finance building projects at the lowest interest rate available and consequently save milhons of dollars in interest pay- ments. If we try to solve this budget problem with quick fix accounting gim- micks or borrowing on future revenue sources, you can be sure that Wall Street will be watching and our credit rating will suffer." As with the state, Wall Street takes into account the financial well-being of a city when determining its municipal bond rating. The city's reserves are an important indicator of a city's overall financial health; a city is more likely to be given a higher bond rating flit is deemed to have a healthy fund balance. Like the state, a high rating for a city reflects the strength of the local economy and indicates its sound fiscal management. Like the state, a high rating bolsters the confidence of other investors and its tax- paying residents. This high bond rating is significant for taxpayers as its issuance enables the city to borrow at a lower interest rate, thereby lowering the cost of municipal debt, and ultimately saving the taxpayers' money. ~r Eric Willette is policy research manager and Jennifer O'Rourke is intergovernmental relations liaison with the League of Minne- sota Cities. 2002 MINNESOTA CITIES -803- 13 League of Minnesota Gties 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 281-1200 (800) 925-1122 TDB (651) 281-1290 LMC Fax: (651) 281-1299 LMCIT Fax: (651) 281-1298 Web Site: http://www, lmnc.org To." From: Re: Date: MEMORANDUM City Mayors James F. Miller City Fund Balances and state aid cuts 1/9/2002 The projected state budget deficit has once again focused attention on city fund balances and potential cuts in aids paid to cities. We fully expect the upcoming legislative session will include intense scrutiny of nOt only the state budget but the operations of cities as well. ' ~ In preparation for the session, we would like to pro~'ide you with some information on fund balances that may help you to respond to criticism of your city's reserves and to respond to proposals to cut state aids such as LGA or the market value homestead credit reimbursement. The attached memo is a description of the importance of city fund balances. Although the concepts outlined in this brief are simple and straightforward, when coupled with specific information on your city's fmancial situation they might help explain to citizens, the media or other interested parties why maintaining sufficient reserves is a prudent cost-effective financial practice. Below are a few responses to criticisms or questions about your reserves and responses to legislative proposals to force your city to reduce its reserves. · The unique needs and financial situation of each city are important factors in determining the necessary level of reserves. For example, a rapidly growing community that is expanding its tax base may need a different level of reserves than a stable, aging community. A "one-size-fits-all" budget reserve for all cities would not accommodate these unique community characteristics. · Most cities maintain at least one-half of their annual operating budgets in reserve simply to avoid short-term borrowing. These reserves are similar to the state's cash flow account and are necessary because property tax settlements and aid payments only occur twice a year. -804- · Tap_ping ciW fund balances through state aid cuts would be a one-time source of revenue for the state and would not solve the ongoing state budget problem. · Looking at city fund balances on December 31 is very deceiving since cities.have just received state aid payments and property tax settlements. It is akin to looking at your checkbook on payday and believing you have a lot of money, without accounting for the bills that must be paid. · Financial advisors have indicated that bond ratings could be adversely affected by a forced depletion of reserves. Although the governor and others have recently criticized city and county fund balances, at this time we believe that neither the legislature nor the governor will propose legislation that will directly force cities to deplete their reserves. A more likely scenario might be that the governor or legislators rationalize general cuts in city aids by concluding that local reserves are higher than they need to be and that cities can weather the cuts without cutting services or raising taxes. If that scenario plays out, there are several points that you may want to consider. -Cities did not proportionately benefit during the state's economic growth over the past decade. · In the decade from 1992 to 2002, aid to cities has grown by about 10% while state general fund revenues have increased by over 60%. · Overall, aids to cities were cut by 10% for 2002 alone. · Cities have paid a sales tax since the last state recession in the early 1990s. Cities and counties now pay over $100 million per year in sales tax. -Cutting aid to cities will have consequences · Aids and taxes pay for city services. Reducing aids will affect the level of services citizens receive. · The largest expenditure category for cities is public safety. Depending on the extent of aid cuts, public safety expenditures could be impacted at a time when citizen demands for increased public safety are rising. · Financial advisors have indicated that city bond ratings could be adversely affected depending on the nature and severity of cuts. Preserving bond ratings is as important to cities as to the state; they directly affect the cost of government. · All of these impacts could be compounded in cities with low property values because they cannot as easily compensate for aid cuts. If you have general questions on fund balances, contact Eric Willette or Gary Carlson at the League offices. -805- City fund balance basics _, :. ..... , ...... . ,., ......... ~,,~ .~ p,.p,ul. ~: p c , ,discussmn amen .state oi1' ". · :' .f .... . .. .................... _ ....... ;~ ,..... , ,. . g . p. cym~ers. 8ome o mese mscusmons mclud¢ basic nnsundcrstanding of clty finances, This heightened 'attention means it is imtcortant fog city. of¢c~als~,.to be able t~; e~plain .to;thc?citizens' i~ islators ........... e '-.:.~: ":,~... ~,... :~ ' ;;;; ~: !, ;. ",:;;' ',. ;,.,.< ' ..... -. ..... ' ........ ~ ..... .. . , ~ , and the me,.the purP0se.s~ of q!t:Y ~d l~alances. Wtfil,' e ea,.Ch; ci~'s ,fiuan~ial'simation i~'~que¢~:'?' artifile prOvideS afl oV~r~ew Of the basic eharacterlsUcs that:mos~ city fund balances shkre. ' What the Office of'the State Auditor reports as city fund balances is really a combination of several important components of city finances including cash flow funds, savings for projects, and rainy day reserves. Cash flow funds Due to the semi-armual Structure of city finances, city fund balances are very differem from the state's reserves. The Office of State Auditor report measures city fired balances on Dec. 31, shortly a~er the city receives its largest sources of revenue from the property tax and. state aid distributions. These reserves are necessary to carry Cities through the next five to six months of operations~until the next property tax and state aid distributions in June and July. Measuring a city's fund balance on Dec. 31 is equivalent to measuring your personal wealth on the day after payday-before you've paid the m6rtgage and car loan. Without adequate cash flow reserves, cities would be forced to borrow to pay for operating expense~, which increases the overall cost of city services to taxpayers. Graph A shows a one-year cash balance for the city of Oak Park Heights. The cash balance is highest in December and July, after taxes and state aids are distributed to the cityJ The difference between the peaks and valley, about two-thirds of the city's cash balance at the end of December, is the city's cash flow need. Graph A: Oak Park Heights General Fund Cash Balance 1,400,000 1,200,000 . 1,000,000 800,00O 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 -806- The armual State Auditor's report shows city fund balances as a percentage of total current expenditures for the year. Graph B illustrates the general fund cash balance as a percentage of :the-general-fund-budget fora'suburban city: In-DeCe-mber~ w---h~ ~th~ St;at~-~-u-di~6F~e~p-0~rt- ....................... meas~es.fuad)alanecs~ the c. ity's,general.,~d':caSh ~balance.-is Over 40 percent o~:bU~eted . expenctitares;.~,~'at.pereentag~ ~ps~ b~lO,W:20..percent~in ~MaT ~d 'N6'~l~~ :~'~ ~i~ ar ~i~' t~.D:¥,~al~.S,' ..' ..:~ ~!: :;:i~:J:: '&: ':'~.. !'::"..;;: .' :.'~"~..?i ~.,.'i/.;. ':,~. ::/:. ~':': { ::.i:2: '.j .:~ .%,. ~ ':: ::'-;'~::' "." i '~','>'.::.r'i::.: .'; ~:'.';.:~::'.: · i~_~':'~ .,; :: 3:':,5; i: ~0~ [o~ ~0*A 0% Graph B: General Fund Cash Balance as a Percentage of. General Fund Budget- Suburban City Dec-99 Feb-00 Apr-00 Jun;00 Aug-00 Oct-00 Dec-00 Feb-01 Apr-01 Jun-01 Aug-01 Oct-C1 Dec-01 Savings for ' ' " ' "' ' ' ' ' ': ' projects or dedmcated uses Prior to-Undertaking a capi~ project, the city ~ay increase:reScueS. ~O~help.pay for a.porQon o£ :. the project, thus redbciiig th; fi~ed to: i~sued~b~2:CitY fungi balanCes may include ~av~gs'for a major project. Graph C shows a two-year fund balance for the city of Arlington. In 2000 the city began construction o£a community center, for which it had funds saved. By the end of June 2001, the project was complete and the city's fund balance was about one-third as large as it had been in December 1999. The most recent State Auditor's report shows fund balances from December 31, 1999, which greatly overstates the actual current fund balance of cities like Arlington. Graph C: City of Arlington Fund Balance 1,200,000: ,o0o,o00; soo,odO' 6co,cbc 400,00.0 2OO,OO0 0 2 -807- Cities mayJ~vg~res~~ledmat ed~q md s ,~UCl~a~ e~er~a~ad~vat er~tili~ies _or~n~_~ which ~e generated from ~er fees. ~ese rescues ~e de~eat~d for °pe~fon, ~proV~ment~ of~e u~i~ o~ ent~fis~, in. each off, se sima~on~, isle .~ds.~e elassified~, ~ rese~d,':me: ~ds :'c~3t be Usea; fOr'~y ~er' P~se. 'Sillily, ~o~es re'debt semite e~ o~y be used for ~e repaymem of debt for ~e p~c~ prQeet. ~Y day funds .... ~e ~te of~eSom ~~ a budget rescue of $653 ~llion. ~s is commo~y refereed as ~e r~y day ~d. Due to ~e volafili~ in estimating state ~come ~d s~es ~d helps ~e sm~ M~ess ~e~eet~ economic do~m, o~er flue~fions ~ state revenues, or mexpeeted e~en~e needs. Simil~ly, ci~ ~d b~ces act as a r~y day ~d for revenue shovels, ~expeeted e~endi~es or emergencies. Oven ~m cities o~y receive prope~ roes ~d state ~ ~ce a ye~, ~ese ~ds c~ be cfitic~ for respond~g to .~oreseen loc~ nee~. ' ~ Fund balances and credit ratings Cash flow needs, savings for projects, and reserves for unforeseen needs are three important reasons why fund balances are important. Gov. Venmra ouffined a fourth reason in his State of the State speech last week: favorable bond ratings. The governor said that the state's triple-A bond rating "allows us to btrrow money to finance building projects at the lowest interest rate available and consequently save millions of dollars in interest payments. If we Wy to solve this budget problem with quick fix accounting gimmicks or borrowing on fum~ revenue sources,'. you eanbe sure that Wall Street wail be Watching and our credit rating wall' sUffer . .' ' '~. As with the state, Wall Street takes into account the financial well-being of a city when :: 4, :: determining its municipal bondrating. The city's reserves are au important indicator of a city's overall financial health; a city is more likely to be given a higher bond rating if they are deemed to have a healthy city fund balance. Like the state, a high rating for a city reflects the strength of the local economy and indicates its sound fiscal management. Like the state, a high rating bolsters the confidence of other investors and its taxpaying residents. This high bond rating is significant for taxpayers as its issuance enables the city to borrow at a lower interest rate, thereby lowering the cost of municipal debt, and ultimately saving the taxpayers' money. League of Minnesota Cities January 7, 2002 -808- CITY OF MOUND ~ i B.U D_G ET_EX_P _E N DITU_R_E_S R E PqRT Dec. 2001 100.00% Dec. 2001 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE PERCENT VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 81,320 4,598 80,663 657 99.19% Promotions 4,000 0 4,000 0 100.00% Cable TV 48,000 0 48,472 (472) 100.98% City Manager/Clerk 229,430 17,188 195,643 33,787 85.27% Elections 2,300 0 179 2,121 7.78% Assessing 73,450 726 78,126 (4,676) 106.37% Finance 196,830 17,896 187,516 9,314 95.27% Computer 18,950 4,725 77,614 (58,664) 409.57% Legal 118,980 20,440 142,521 (23,541) 119.79% Police 1,125,850 127,984 1,078,524 47,326 95.80% Civil Defense 6,950 3,365 8,847 (1,897) 127.29% Planning/Inspections 261,980 30,420 284,852 (22,872) 108.73% Streets 496,120 52,464 538,614 (42,494) 108.57% City Property 80,440 10,417 129,777 (49,337) 161.33% Parks 247,740 587 223,883 23,857 90.37% Summer Recreation 42,260 42,260 42,260 0 100.00% Contingencies 25,000 400 66,649 (41,649) 266.60% Transfers 206,740 32.424 206,740 0 100.00% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3.266.340 365.894 3.394,880 (128,540) 103.94% Area Fire Service Fund 415,850 32,892 364,665 51,185 87.69% TIF 1-2 0 94,124 644,943 (644,943) Recycling Fund 135,480 9,547 136,845 (1,365) 101.01% Liquor Fund 332,450 45,547 367,491 (35,041) 110.54% Water Fund 478,620 51,155 519,989 (41,369) 108.64% Storm Water 712,000 11,834 39,949 672,051 5.61% Sewer Fund 948,210 50,627 969,027 (20,817) 102.20% Cemetery Fund 7,500 5,320 8,198 (698) 109.31% Dock Fund 144,620 28,549 214,862 (70,242) 148.57% Exp-01 01/2812002 Gino -809- CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Dec. 2001 100.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Dec. 2001 YTD B. UDGET . REVENUE REVENUE. 1,429,370 728,560 1,461,312 4,340 30 7,425 160,920 28,041 283,762 970,380 409,057 961,019 132,750 806 131,586 100,000 15,201 97,913 142,400 145,582 259,135 153,000 153,000 153,000 12,500 (312) 11,550 PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED 31,942 102.23% 3,085 171.08% 122,842 176.34% (9,361) 99.04% (1,164) 99.12% (2,087) 97.91% 116,735 181.98% 0 100.00% (950) 92.40% TOTAL REVENUE 3.105.660 1.479.965 3,366,702 261,042 .1.08.41% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND STORM WATER UTILITY SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 403,270 (25,940) 415,706 121,880 9,681 130,171 1,900,000 228,311 1,941,575 510,000 95,189 527,342 101,000 30,432 119,743 990,000 159,358 1,127,715 6,250 243 4,098 81,350 15,947 86,940 12,436 103.08% 8,291 106.80% 41,575 102.19% 17,342 103.40% 18,743 118.56% 137,715 113.91% (2,152) 65.57% 5,590 106.87% 01/2812002 rev01 Gino -810- MOUND POLICE Fax 472-0656 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Kandis Hanson Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for December, 2001 ST^TIST~CS, The police of include vehicle There were 51 Pan II offen.~ r~brtedl Those offenses include 6 child abuse, 2 forgery/NSF, (5 with during the month Those offenses assault, 6 burglary, 2 to property, 1 weapon, 1 DUI, 13 domestics arrest warrant The were 31 other 25 adults and 6 felony warrant misdemeanor injuries. There Mound assisted on 3 -811- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - December, 200 II. INVESTIGATIONS The Investigators worked on 9 child protection and 2 criminal sexual conduct eases in December accounting for 52 hours of investigative time. Other cases included burglary, assault, theft, stolen vehicle, domestic assault, possession of a controlled substance, identity theft, damage to property, terroristic threats, sex offender registration, fraud, shoplifting, NSF cheeks, forgery, DOA, false info to police, personal injury accident, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for felony assault of a police officer, felony obstructing lawful arrest, furnishing of alcohol to a minor, disorderly conduct, false information to police, driving after revocation, marijuana in motor vehicle, drug paraphernalia, occupy unsafe building, domestic assault, harassment, hit and run accident, exterior storage, building code violations, DUI, animal at large, and worthless cheeks. III. PERSONNEL/STAFFING The department used approximately 128 ours of overtime during the month of December. Officers used 34 hours of comp-time, 57 hours of sick time, and 75 hours of vacation and 9 holidays. Officers earned 76 hours of comp time. Three officers suffered personal injury at a call in December. Two officers were seen at the emergency room and one later with his own doctor. 180 hours on "injury on duty" were used for two of the officers. Officer Bruckner suffered a broken hand and Officer Niccum suffered a severely sprained ankle. Officer Swensen received assorted contusions but did not miss work. IV. TRAINING Officers Swanson attended the Reid interviewing course in preparation for her assignment in investigation in 2002, Sgt. Truax attended the Problem Oriented Policing Conference, Officer Alexander attended School Resource Officer training, and 6 officers attended "Racial Profiling" required training. -812- ............ Y ....COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER CSO Salter handled 236 calls for service including 21 animal complaints, 39 ordinance violations, and 176 miscellaneous calls. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 153 hours to the community in December. The Unit took it upon themselves to again purchase gifts for "Toys for Tots" and delivered them to KARE 11 for distribution. The unit currently has eight members who contribute on a regular basis. -813- LEN HARRELL Chief of Police TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Kandis Hanson c~ Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for January, 2002 STATISTICS The police department responded to 574 caiisttor service during the month of January. There were 16 Part I offenses repOrted. Those offenses include 4 arson, 4 / There dThose offenses include 2 child abuse, 14 forgery/NSF, 3 criminal damage to property, 1 weapon, 1 narcotics, 2 liquor law 4 domestics (2 with assaults), 1 harassment, The patrOl division issued 77 adult citations and 1 juvenile citation. Parking violations accounted for an Mditional 33 tickets. Warnings were issued to 33 indiViduals for a v~ety 0fviolations. There were 2 jti~rdnile fe~s arrested, ~ :15 adults and 2 juveniles arrested f°r:misdemeano~.:~There~W~l:~adutt feiony~Warrant arrest and there were 4;miSde~e~or adult warrant an'ests. The 13 were 14 medical agencies on -814- MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT, January, 2001 II. INVESTIGATIONS The Investigators worked on 4 child protection and 2 criminal sexual conduct eases in January accounting for over 22 hours of investigative time. Other cases included burglary, assault, theft, stolen vehicle, domestic assault, violation of OFP, vulnerable adult, identity theft, damage to property, terroristic threats, sex offender registration, witness tampering, fraud, NSF cheeks, forgery, false info to police, personal injury accident, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for assault, disorderly conduct, gross misdemeanor false information to police, domestic assault, building code violations, gross misdemeanor DUI, speed, and worthless checks. III. PERSONNEL/STAFFING The department used approximately 16 ours of overtime during the month of January. Officers used 41 hours of comp-time, 34 hours of sick time, 131 hours of vacation and 24 holidays. Officers earned 44 hours of comp time. Two officers continued on IOD (120 hours) from injuries suffered in December. They both returned to work within the month. IV. TRAINING Officers Swanson and Nelson attended an interviewing course for investigators. Officer Alexander attended a 40 hour School Resource Officer training and 80 hour course to become a DARE officer. Chief Harrell attended and taught at the CLEO and Command course sponsored by the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Educational Foundation for new chiefs. V. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER CSO Salter handled 220 calls for service including 23 animal complaints, 27 ordinance violations, and 170 miscellaneous calls. VI. RESERVES The reserves donated 167 hours to the cOmmunity in January. The unit currently has eight members who contribute on a regular basis. -815- The GiHespie Gazette VOL X NO 2 February 2002 January 15, 2002 PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE Pear Members and Friends, For those of us who remain here in Minnesota through the wirrr, er months, we'll hope that the worst of winter is behind us. ! know any number of ice fishermen who feel they have been shortchanged this winter. Even t, hough we are in the middle of winter, our Center remains vibrant and busy with act, ivities. We have many i~eople to thank for that. Our wonder staff:, Cathy Bailey (Center Director), Linda Dynan (^seistant Director), I~ev Abbott and Marian Danielson (,~enior Outreach), and Mary Hatch (,~enior Dining Manager) do a remarkable job for us. They work many extra hour~ and always seem to go the extra mile to make our Center a ~econd home for all of us. Thanks, staff. would especially like to thank Lowell Olson, who leaves us at the end of January. Lowell has been our ~roject Manager, l~uilding Operations Manager and Rental Coordinator~ since we opened our Center. He has probably done every task needed to keep our Center runnlr~j each and every day. He has worked with many of us to make sure our Center runs smoothly a~-r, er he is gone. Thanks, Lowell, for a job well donel There are many other~ who help keep our Center running smoothly. Mary Ellen ~rr, orlien and all our telephone receFl;ionists deserve a big ~rhank You" for the warm and friendly image you give to tho~e calling our Center. A big '~rhank You" also goes to l~arb Calhoun and her crew of hosts and dishwasher~, who help make our dining program a success. Incidentally, the Hennepin County Community Health Deparr, ment recently inspected our kitchen for health and cleanliness. Thanks to Mary Hatch's effort; we received a perfect, score. That doesn't, happen of~n when the County is inspecting. One last LThank You" goes to our tireless friends who work in the Meisel Room with the new~paper project, doing mailings and crt;her project;s which need to be done. For those of you who receive your newsletter before February, please join us for an evening to remember on Friday, Eebruary 1'~ for the Valentine's Lasagna Dinner wFr, h entert, ainment by the Moand- Westonka F'op ~ingere. Jack Weist President -816- -817- · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · -818- oo 0 -819- -820- · · · · · · · · · · -821 - 0 r~ -822- -823- 299 MOUND CITY COUNCIL blt ~'NII2F.$ . JUNE 23 ~- 1998 1.10APPROYAL. OF STORMWATER. AGI MI IT PLAN PROPOSAL IeROM MC COMBS FRANK R00$ & ASSOCIATE,q, City Manager stated this proposal is not to ex~. $39,800.00. Hanus moved and &hrens seconded the following reSOlution: RESOL ,~UT~ION ~8-69 RESOL~ON TO APPROVE A PRO~S~ WITH MC COMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOC~IAT~, INC. TO PREPARE A STORMWATER MANAG .EMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MOUND AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $39,800.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion ~ed. COMMENTS& SUGGE-,qTION$ FROM CITIZENS PRI*-qENT There were none. PUBLIC HEARING: CABLE TV FRANCHIgE RENEWAl. The City Manager explained that this came before the Council on May 26th and the Council asked that a public hearing be held on the Franchise Agreement and the Regulatory Ordinance. City Manager introduced the City's Cable Attorney, Brian Grogan who reported that all 3 of the >ther eitids (Wayzata, Waeonia and Chanhassen) have now adopted the Franchise Agreement with Triax Cablevision and the regulatory ordinance. They are in the process of receiving acceptance from Triax. The general operating standards for each cable operator are contained in the regulatory ordinance. The Franchise Agreement governs the unique relationship between the City and Triax and serVes essentially_ as a contract between the City and Triax. It also deals with the system upgrade, serVice to public facilities, support for the local public programming, and other related issues. Councilmember Hanus stated that there are a number of areas in the Agreement that talk about what Tri~ is willing to provide, i.e., 80 channels by a date certain; there are indications of surveys; and handling complaints in certain ways, Hanus asked what provisions are in the Agreement that will guarantee that those items are preformed on those dates and what kind of restitution is allowed if these items are not performed? Mr. Grogan stated there are several different areas. First, there is a security fund in the dOCument that can be drawn on for T~'s failure tOper, form under the contract. There is also a construction bond requkeme~ for the aetufl system upgrade. In term~ of ongoing compliance when construction is finished, there is a procedure section for revocation and termination of the franchise if Triax fails to comply with the material terms. The Council asked who would be conta6tedif a subscriber wanted to file some type of a grievance under that section? Mr. Grogan explained that the contract is governed by the City so a subscriber would have to approach City Staff and bring it before the Coune'fl so 'the Council' eouid take tion on the Franchise. He pointed out that subscribers have their own contract with Triax when they oseto have service with Triax. If they have a dispute with Triax, they should contact Triax. If they need further action, then they would come to the City. The Mayor asked if Triax would like to say anything before he opens the public heating. was, no. -824- Their response MOUND CI'I~. COUNCIL MINU'IF,$- JUNE 23, ,.1998 The Mayor slm~ ~t the roles of the pubU¢ ~. am that we treat, e~h other with~ respect and dignity at all times. Address all comments to the Chair. There will be no one on one arguing. The Mayor opened the public hearing. /lan DenBeste. 5212 Lvnwood Blvd, stated she was at the May 26th Meeting and Triax has still not rectified the problem of placing a cable on her property without permission. She stated she is not a cable subscriber. She asked what recourse .there is for her when something like this happens? She is against a 15 year franchise because she doesn't see any incentive for Triax to satisfy customer complaints. Mr, Grogan stated that in Section 3.10, there is a provision that would allow the City to draw fines from the Security Fund, for their breach of a provision in the Franchise. That would be between the City and Triax. The Agreement does not flow in the direction of the homeowner. Ralph Bauer. 1774 Heron Lane asked .if there is any provision in the agreement to allow cable modems or is there a date when cable modem service will be available? He offered to consult with the City on this at no cost to the City. Mr. Grogan stated the upgrade requirement is for a 750 MHz system which means they will have all the capacity to provide cable modems but the City cannot mandate cable modem provisions because it is not clear under Federal Law whether a cable modem is a cable service or a telecommunication service. The Federal Law says that we cannot condition a cable franchise on the provision of a telecommunication service, lie stated this will be driven by the market. Mr. Bauer stated he has called Triax main headquarters in Texas and inquired about cable modems and was told there were no plans at this time. Mr. Bauer also asked about high definition television. (KD T-V) and if this proposal covers this? Mr. Bauer then expressed concern about granting a 15 year franchise. Mr. Grogan explained that there are .provisions in the Franchise for periodic evaluation, review and modification. He:ftmher stated the franchise requires a 750 MHz rebuild which would give the possibility of 110 analog channels at about 6.~ a piece, It is contemplated that they will have about 79 to 80 of those channels for cable T.V~ and the remainder reserved for some future applications such as some of the ones mentioned tonight. The issue of HD-T.V. is going to be driven by FCC regulations. Paul Pecora, Regional Manager for Trlax stated that Ms. DenBeste has been more than patient with them in getting her situation resolved. The situation will be resolved within the next couple of days, Mr. Pecora stated that with the upgrade, will come the opportunity to Provide alternative services, such as cable modems. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council encouraged Triax to improve their customer service. Mr. Pecora stated Triax will continue to work on their customer service. -825- 300 ~ MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 23, 1998 APPROVE CABLR ~CIHgE AND ~U~OR~ZE ~YOR ~ EX~~. ~kGI~R TO Grogan stated that there are a few minor changes that need to be made in the Franchis~ and that will done before the Agreement is executed. Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g98-70 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE CABLE FRANCHISE WITH TRIAX CABLEVISION AND AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FRANCHISE AGREF_34~NT The vote was unanimously/ri favor. Motion ean'ied. 1.12 OROINANCE ~8499$ - AN ORDINANCE A34ENDING CHAPTER 17-A OF THE CITY CODE (APPENDIX G) ENTITLED CABLE TEI.EVISION REGULATORY ORDINANCE. Mr. Grogan stated that there are a few minor changes that need to be made in the Ordinance and that will be done before the ordinance is published. Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following: ORDINANCE #99-1998 AN ORDINANCE AM'ENDING CHAFFER 17-A OF THE CITY CODE (APPENDIX G) ENTITLED CABLE TELEVISION REGULATORY ORDINANCE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC .HEARING; 1.13 CASE 98.,26; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUFJ, STATION LOCATED ~ THE B-2 ZONING ,DISTRICT, & CASE 98-27: V~IANCE, HARDCOVER, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYE~ PARK, PID #13-117,24 22 0025, The Mayor stated that there is a person who would like to make a presentation before the public hearing and prior to the applicant's presentation. Martin Garden, t760 Commerce Blvd. stated that there is one house between his townhouse and the proposed site. He stated that Amoco must demonstrate why the City should grant the variances, They specifically requested variances for items such as, driveway access width, hardcover and signage. Mr. Garden pointed out that it is their position that the undue hardship Standard for a variance, to increase the width of the driveway access to 40 feet, is not necessary because Amoco can still make reasonable use of the property withOut it. He then referred to a Minnesota Supreme Court case of Sun Oil Co. versus the Village of New Hope, which dealt with the an existing gas station that was already part of a zoned area and Sun Oil wished to Put another gas station there. The Supreme Court said that even though 301 - 826- Meeting Minutez - Mound City Council - June 8. 1999 MOTION Ahrens, ltanus, unanimously. 1.6 RESOLUTION: CASE #97-39 TO APPROVE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NON CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 25XX DRIFFWOOD ~, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN. ROBERT STEELE. RESOLUTION #9948 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND FLOODPLAIN FILL ELEVATION STANDARDS VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 23XX DRIFTWOOD LANE, LOT 10, SKARP'S EAST LAWN, PID 13-117-24 44 0059, P & Z CASE #97-39 Ahrens. Hanus, unanimously. 1.7 · PROCLAMATION FOR THE MOUND MASONIC LODGE #~20. PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SATURDAY, JUNE 19,1999, AS MINNETONKA #271 O.E.S. DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND. Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously. /.8 MOTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR TRIAX LICENSE, COM. MOTION Ahrens, Hlmns, unanimously. 1.9 MOTION TO APPROVE. APPLICATION FOR TRANSmNT LICENSE FOR GARD' EN MARKET ON THE CO~ OF LYNW~D AND COMMERCE BOULEVARD IN THE PARKING LOT FOR APPLICANT CRAIG I. GILB FOR ~T'S GARDEN MARKET', MOTIONAhrens, Hanu's, unanimously. 1.10 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM MAY 11, 1999. 3 -827- Mound C~.Council Mimae~ . July 15. IoP~ The M~yor asked ~or.a motion to ~ontinue the public lmarin~ at 8:$6 p.m, to July 27, 1999 at 6 p.m, For th~ Imaefit of.~d~z public pre--rtL I-Iambs. dizeu~, ed the' hi~ory of a permit proeer~ ~ the · A~er ~ review, Council' Members discu~ed who the final, authority should be. Staff, PI~ ~ .~md City. ~ we~' ail put fo~; MORON by Hanu~, seconded by Brown to eontinue the Public hearing on ammd~. ~ ~ 3~0:420 of the Mound City Qode unffi July' a7~, 1999 at 6 p.m,. Motion carried Hanus added that .~.'s was not meant to infer that the Planning ~o~~ was not doir~ a good job~ He fee~s they have value and are doing their job well. -tAO ~~,. ~~.',~! ~::~~XD~:::~.~ :~PL~ .~'.A~ON~. TO,: ASSI(}~ C~'Si.:.... CABLE .~.~LEVIglONi ii~~]~i .~bM. LLC, ~Ii¢ ~ would be to hear comm~n~ o~ly. l~ie ~a. asked, how :the: ~~. owae~ ehang~ wou!d impa~t au~:~ Clark explained ~at this. was a different issue being considered. The subseriber~ should not a cliffereaee, at least at the beginnln~. The Mayor stated that these were the issaea the had a coacera about increased rates. Miohaol Mue]te~,,~ke&ff. the subs~ib~-~ hav~ mom-ehannols. ~ conce, m la, that with n~w~ ~rs~p.~, new mles~ Woad, tho promiaes: made, m~ tho. Mound.~ ~d~ata still hold was anoth:er ~ra ho' had.. The MaYor dosed the pubtie, hearing -at.gil.4. p'~m~ MOTION by-Weycker, seconded by Browa to continue the public hearing on the franchise ownership change for the local cable television to. be heard and 5.10 -828- considered :within the next 30 .days,. Motion carried 5,0. COMMENTS AND,SUGGESTIONS FROM cITIZeNS, PRESENT. Gary Blix of 3025 Brighten ~ommo'ns, asked,, vchy.,the neighborhood, rlr,~ived notices from the Police Department forbidding- their congregation after 10 ~.m. Hanus stated his understanding..of the congregation i~. that it' r~not .be. noisy or ~ause. a Mr, Blix is.. concerned Ihat ~ neighbor who .lodged ..the .complaiut calls at. anything whether it is a disturbance or not. He had a petition from the neighbors against Mr~ Bruce McComb that the Police Department ignore his calls. Mr.-Blix stated that if Mr. McComb sees ligh~ afte~ 10 p~m-,, he calls the Police, : Beth Anderson indicated that the neighborhood has been verbally threatened by Mr: McComb:ihat no 0~e ~ .g~t together. ~, that,home or othe'~se ~.r!0 p,~',' e~en if the dowssr shu~ ': ~ ~M-~y0r ~iuiedi.tl~at ~ ~,0"li~: Dep~ent:m~: respond to .-.~,.~.~s,:. , Pat McKenzie and Judy Hutchins also discussed the problems they are having with this letter mid "ruling." They believe the neighborhood is a group of reasonable' adults.who irresponsible~ want to'.be, nice, ~ Mr. McI~n~e.~suggested that.,perhaps a mediator woutd help. Ms. Hutchlns feels the manner of distribution was handled very poorly, ~tterS were dropped off at homes where only children were home. Neighbors who have never caused any ~harm or done, an~hiag vcr. ong ,felt- threatened by. this actiOa,. She feels they. ~ deServe an apology~ Ciiizens stated they were afraid that the next time the police were ~ed~:.:theymo~. d~get a ticket. They wanted to see the records that were filed against them. Dean suggested~they c~u'ld ask,'~bul most ~elY th,at infOrmation, would ,be considered..con~dentiaU: · Jay Peterson of 266? Halsted La~.e addressed the Council regarding the speed limits of the Sffeets in.~s .a~ea,: ~eyare posted ~0, but. he ~feels they, should:~e 20mph, He ~~d ~e conditions, on:th'ese streets~;~ pa~cular~ ~ted;Lane, thatwould lead, J~im to that decision. He asked if there were ordinances that would help on this. issue., Next he discussed the Auditor's Road improvements and a ~urn onto County Road 15. He waned to.. know if it was temporary or long term. 511 -829- MOUND CITY COUNCIL IfflNUTES. AUGUST I0, 1999 Councilmember Hanu, s. stated he would like to see'the,lxaller park area cleaned up and redeveloped. He noted Mound ~ been hoping for so, m~g to. come along for a lOng time. At this point, though, Coun0ilmcmber .Hanus does not agree with thi.sspeci,fi¢ project. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Meisel to direct staff to review the statements and testimony received to draft a resolution of denial for the Conditiono! Use Permit to Allow for the F/~Istend Place .Planned ~Development,Area to change the current, use of an:R,! Mobile Home Park to an R-1 PDA and R.3. PDA Resident~ Development located in the R-1 Single Family Zoning District. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Attorney suggest~ a denial resolution be considered at the August 24th :meeting.. RESOLUTION ,APPROVING, THE TRANSFER A ASSIGNMF~NT OF TFrl*, CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO MEDIACOM LLC, The Acting City Manager referred to; the Agreement and stated that Exhibit D was inadvertently omitted which requires Mediacom LLC to provide a Corporate Guaranty as recommended. The replacement pages should be included with. ,the resolution, previously handed out:before tonight's meeting. The Acting City Manager also stated the conditions of the recently approved Franchise Agreement will apply to :the new owners as well. Hanus moved and Brown seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION/P99,73 RF~OL~ON APPROVING THE TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO ME1HACOM LLC. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 DISCUSSION ON C~ MANAGER REPLACEMENT. Mayor Meisel,referred to ~the City Manager consultant packets that were handed out at the Committee of the Whole Meeting. She stated she did receive a packet also from the search firm Chanhassen used to hire their City Manager which she presented tonight as well. Mayor Meisel stated she ~would like to call the search groups which are favored.the most tonight to set up interviews. Couneilmember Brown voted for Oldani as his first pick Slavin as his second; Councilmember Weyeker,.voted for Mercer as: her first choice and' Ralph Anderson as. her second, Weycker felt Sathe (the Ch~assen referral) was expensive, Hanus voted for Mercer as his first choi~, and Saathe as his second; Mayor Meisel vot~ for Old as her first choice and Sathe as her second .choice. Mayor Meisel. commented that the City Manager at Chanhassen raved about the Sathe firm because they located him and he is very pleased working in'Chanhassen. 605 -830- ACCEPTANCE OF A FRANCHISE FOR A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota ("City") by action of its governing body on August 10, 1999, adopted Resolution No. 99-73 ("Resolution") approving the transfer of the cable system and franchise to Mediacom Minnesota LLC ("Mediacom"); and WHEREAS, the City's Cable Television Franchise ("Franchise"), together with the Resolution, require that Mediacom accept the Franchise and the conditions contained in the Resolution in form and substance acceptable to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms and requirements of the Franchise and the Resolution, and in consideration of the City's approval of the transfer of the Franchise, Mediacom accepts the Franchise and all conditions in the Resolution and makes the following representations and warranties to the City: I. Mediacom is a limited liability company duly organized, validly existing, and' in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, and authorized to do business in Minnesota and with full power, authority, and legal capacity to execute, deliver, and perform this Acceptance and perform the terms and conditions of the Franchise and the Resolution. 2. All actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this Acceptance and the performance of the Franchise and Resolution have been duly author~.ed by alt necessary and required Proceedings. 3. The execution and delivery of the Acceptance and the performance of the Franchise and Resolution, do not and will not conflict with or result in the breach or termination of, or constitute a default under, any indenture or instrument with respect to the borrowing of money, or any material contract, lease or agreement, or order, judgment or decree or any law, 297207/1 -831 - rule or regulation to which Mediacom is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound or affected. 4. Mediacom has carefully read the terms and conditions of.the Franchise and the Resolution, and accepts the rights, duties, and obligations created thereunder, subject to its rights under applicable state and federal law. 5. Neither Mediacom or any of its representatives or agents have committed any illegal acts or engaged in any wrongful conduct contrary to, or in violation of, any federal, state, or loCal law or regulation in connection with the obtaining of the Franchise. Dated December 15, 1999 MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC Its: V.P., Legal & Regulatory Affairs STATE OF ~_w v,~-~ ) COUNTY OF O=a~ge ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this. 11 day of ~ 2000, bYau~_., m,.~.]~.~e v. ~,. of Mediacom f4~,~,~_..r~-. LLC, SEAL Notary Public ADRIENNE ROOSA Notary Public, State o4 New 'fork No, 01 R0503t 664 r~,,a~i~ied in Orange Com~i~ssion Expires August 297207/1 2 -832- Corporate Guaranty THIS AGREEMENT is made this 15th day of December, 1999 between Mediacom LLC ("Guarantor"), the City of Mound, Minnesota ('FranChising Authority"), and Mediacom Minnesota LLC ('Company"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Franchising Authority by action of its governing body on August 10, 1999, adopted Resolution No. 99-73 ("Resolution") approving the transfer of the cable system ("System") and the Franchising Authority's Cable Television Franchise ("Franchise'') to Company; and WHEREAS, Guarantor is the parent of Company; and whereas, Guarantor has a substantial interest in the System and the conduct of the Company in complying with the Franchise and any and all amendments thereof and any agreements related thereto, which Franchise and amendments are hereby specifically referred to, incorporated herein, and made a part hereof; and . WHEREAS, the Resolution requires the Company to furnish a guaranty to ensure the faithful payment and performance of the Company s obligations under the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the Guarantor desires to provide its unconditional guaranty to fulfill the requirements of the Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Guarantor hereby unconditionally guarantees the due and punctual payment and performance of all of the debts, liabilities and obligations of Company contained in the Franchise ('Indebtedness"). This Agreement, un!ess terminated, substituted, o.r canceled, as Provided.he.rain, shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the term of the Franchise, except as expressly provided otherwise in the Franchise. Upon substitution of another Guarantor reasonably satisfactory to the Franchising Authority or upon transfer of the Franchise to another entity not under common control of Mediacom, this Agreement shall be terminated, substituted, or canceled upon thirty (30) days pdor written notice from Guarantor to the Franchising Authority and the Company. Such termination shall not affect liability incurred or accrued under this Agreement prior to the effective date of such termination or cancellation. 27421 311 -833- Corporate Guaranty The Guarantor will not exercise or enforce any right of contribution, reimbursement, recourse or subrogation available to the Guarantor against the Company or any other person liable for payment of the Indebtedness any collateral security therefor, unless and until all of the Indebtedness shall have been fully paid and discharged. The Guarantor will pay or reimburse the Franchising Authority for all reasonable .costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses) incurred by the Franchising Authority in connection with the protection, defense or enforcement of this guaranty in any arbitration, litigation or bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. The Guarantor waives presentment, demand for payment, notice of dishonor or nonpayment, and protest of any instrument evidencing Indebtedness. The Franchising Authority shall not be required first to resort for payment of the Indebtedness to the Company or other persons or their properties, or first to enforce, realize upon or exhaust any collateral security for indebtedness, before enforcing this guaranty. The Guarantor will not assert, plead or enforce against the Franchising Authority any defense of discharge in bankruptcy of the' Company, statute of frauds, or unenforceability of the Guaranty which may be available to the Company or any other person liable in respect of any Indebtedness, or any setoff available against the Franchising Authority to the Company or any such other person, whether or not on account of a related transaction. Any notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be addressed to the Guarantor and Company at 100 Crystal Run Road, Middletown, New York 10941 and to the Franchising Authority at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364. 27421 3/1 -834- Corporate Guaranty IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, Franchising Authority and Guarantor have executed this Corporate Guaranty as of the day, month and year first above written. GUARANTOR: MEDIACOM LLC Its: v.~. Leqal & R,e~ulatory Affairs COMPANY: MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC FRANCHISING AUTHORITY: CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA t Meisel, Mayor Frand~ne C. Clark, Clerk 27421311 3 -835- o! Minneeoz SECRETARY OF STATE Certificate of Good Standing I, Mary Kiffmeyer, Secretary · of State of Minnesota, do certify that: The limited liability company listed below is a limited liability company formed or registered to do business .under the laws of Minnesota; the limited liability company was formed by the filing of articles of organization or registered to do business by filing an apDlication for a certificate of authority with the Office of the Secretary of State on the date listed below; the limited liability company is governed by Chapter 322B of Minnesota Statutes; and this limited liability company is authorized to do business as a limited liability company at the time this certificate is issued. Name: Mediacom Minnesota LLC Date Formed or Registered: October 26, 1999 State of Organization: Delaware This certificate has been issued on December 2, 1999. State of Delaware Office of the Secretary of State PAG~E i I, EDWARD J. FREEL, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STAT~ OF DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY "MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC" IS DULY FORMED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND IS ~b; GOOD STANDING AND HAS A,i~E~. ~.XISTENCE, SO' FAR.,AS THE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE SHOW, AS OF, TH~".SECOND DAY '~F DECEMBEr,. A.D 1999 -AND I DO H~REBY, FURTHER CERTIFY THAT 'T~E SAI'D "MEDIACOM MIArNESOTA LLC" WAS FORMED ON THE TWENTY-FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, A.D. AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE ANNUAL TAXES HAVE NOT BEEN ASSESSED TO D~TE, 3060919 8300 ~'~~' 991514347 Edward J. ~'d~l, Secretary of ~ta.t:.e~ . A~CATION: 12 -02-99 DATE: -837- 12/02/99 THU 16:25 [TX/P,X NO 57551 ~002 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAL Y & L/NDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane E. Bremer DIR, DIAL (612) 896-3297 E-MAIL jbremer@lhdl.com 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (612) 835.3800 FAX (612) 896-3333 September 3, 1998 Francene Clark-Leisinger City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re: Triax Cable Television Franchise Ordinance Dear Ms. Clark-Leisinger: Enclosed please find the fully executed cable television franchise ordinance between the City of Mound, Minnesota and Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. Please retain this document for your files. We look forward to the opportunity to continue serving your community. If you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. //J~e E. Bremer, for ~"LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Enclosure CC: Paul Pecora Triax Regional Manager 0426163.01 -838- Prepared by: BRIAN T. GROGAN, ESQ. Moss & Barnett A Professional Association 4800 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 (612) 347-0340 179769/1 -839- SECTION 1. 1.1) 1.2) SECTION 2. 2.1) 2.2) 2.3) 2.4) 2.5) 2.6) SECTION 3. 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) 3.4) 3.5) 3.6) 3.7) 3.8) 3.9) 3.10) 3.11) 3.12) SECTION 4. 4.1) 4.2) 4.3) 4.4) 4.5) 4.6) 4.7) 4.8) 4.9) 4.10) SECTION 5. 5.1) 5.2) 5.3) SECTION 6. 6.1) 6.2) SECTION 7. TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................. 1 Definitions .................................................................................................. 1 Written Notice ............................................................................................ 1 RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE ......................................................................... 2 G rant .......................................................................................................... 2 Right of Grantor to Issue and Renew Franchise ............................................ 2 Effective Date of Renewal ............................................................................ 2 Term ............................................................... ' ........................ 3 Franchise Not Exclusive ............................................................................... 3 Ownership of Grantee ................................................................................. 3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 3 Governing Requirements ............................................................................. 3 Franchise Fee .............................................................................................. 3 Not Franchise Fees ...................................................................................... 4 Recovery of Processing Costs ....................................................................... 4 Liability Insurance ....................................................................................... 5 Indemnification ........................................................................................... 6 Grantee's Insurance ..................................................................................... 7 Workers' Compensation Insurance ................................ 7 Security Fund. ............................... Procedure for Enforcing Franchise Agreement. .......... 8 Reservation of Rights ................................................................................... 8 Annual Report ............................................................................................. 8 DESIGN PROVISION .................................................................................. 9 Minimum Channel Capacity ........................................................................ 9 System Design ............................................................................................. 9 Operation and Maintenance of System ...................................................... 10 Special Testing .......................................................................................... 10 FCC Reports .............................................................................................. 10 Emergency Alert Capability ....................................................................... 10 Parental Control Lock ................................................................................ 11 Technical Standards ................................................................................... 11 Right of Inspection .................................................................................... 11 Periodic Evaluation, Review and Modification ........................................... 11 SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING ............................................................. 12 Services and Programming ......................................................................... 12 Leased Channel Service ............................................................................. 12 Periodic Subscriber Survey ........................................................................ 12 PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS .................................................................. 13 Public, Educational and Government Access ............................................. 13 Grantee Support for PEG Usage ........................................ : ........................ 13 REGULATION ........................................................................................... 13 179769/1 -840- 7.1) Amendment of Franchise Agreement ......................................................... 13 7.2) Conflict Between Ordinance and Agreement ............................................. 14 7.3) Force Majeure ........................................................................................... 14 7.4) Rate Regulation ......................................................................................... 14 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT E1 EXHIBIT E2 EXHIBIT F GRANTEE'S OWNERSHIP INFORMATION FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST CHANNEL LINE-UP GRANTEE COMMITMENT TO PEG ACCESS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT SERVICE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO BE PROVIDED WITH TWO-WAY CABLE DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM UPGRADE 179769/1 ii -841 - FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT (hereinafter the "Agreement"), made and entered into this ~1 day of ,3"-'~ , 1998, by and between the City of Mound, a municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter the "City" or "Grantor"), and Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. (hereinafter the "Grantee"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. CJq' I ~c]~(the "Ordinance"), the City is authorized to grant and renew one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate, construct, maintain and reconstruct a cable television system within the City; and WHEREAS, the City, after due evaluation of the Grantee's technical ability, financial condition and legal qualifications, and after public hearings, has determined that it is in the best interest of the City and its residents to renew the Franchise held by the Grantee. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1.1) Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall be defined as set forth in the Ordinance unless (i) otherwise defined herein, or (ii) the context otherwise requires. 1.2) Written Notice. All notices, reports or demands required' or permitted to be given under this Agreement and/or the Ordinance shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to the party designated below, or when five (5) days have elapsed after it has been deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail, postage prepaid thereo.n, or on the next business day if sent by express mail or nationally recognized overnight air courier addressed to the party to which notice, report or demand is being given, as follows: If to City: City Clerk 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 179769/1 1 -842- If to Grantee: Regional Manager Triax Cablevision 212- 15th Avenue NE Suite 2010 Waseca, MN 56093 Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notiCe to the other party given as provided in this Section. SECTION 2. RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE 2.1 ) G rant. Upon acceptance of this Franchise by Grantee, the Franchise granted pursuant to Ordinance No. 446, to Dow - Sat of Minnesota, Incorporated, is hereby replaced and superseded by the provisions of the Ordinance, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. This Franchise hereby provides Grantee with the authority, right and privilege to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain a Cable Television System to provide Cable Services within the Franchise Area. 2.2) Right of Grantor to Issue and Renew Franchise. · Grantee acknowledges and accepts the right of Grantor to issue and/or renew the · Franchise under the law as it existed on the Effective Date hereof and Grantee agrees that it shall not now or at any time hereafter challenge any lawful exercise of this right by Grantor in any local, State or Federal court. 2.3) Effective Dante of Renewal. The renewal of the Franchise provided for in this Agreement shall be effective on the date that both parties have executed this Agreement (the "Effective Date"), provided that said date is no later than thirty (30) days after the date the City Council, by Resolution, approves this Agreement (the "Approval Date"). The renewal of the Franchise provided for in this Agreement is further contingent upon the filing by Grantee with the City Clerk of the City, of this Agreement duly executed by Grantee together with the security fund and insurance certificates provided for in this Agreement and the Ordinance, except that if such filing does not occur within sixty (60) days after the Approval Date, the Grantor may, in its sole discretion, declare the renewal of the Franchise provided for herein to be null and void. 2.4) Term. The term of the Franchise renewed pursuant to this Agreement shall be for the period of fifteen (15) years commencing on the Effective Date, at which time it shall expire 1 79769/1 2 -843- and be of no force or effect unless the Franchise is then renewed in accordance with the Ordinance and Applicable Laws. 2.5) Franchise Not Exclusive. The Franchise renewed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be construed as limiting the right of Grantor, through its proper offices, and in accordance with the Ordinance and Applicable Law, to grant other Franchises containing terms and conditions that are no more favorable or less burdensome than those imposed on Grantee in the same Franchise Area the Grantee is entitled to occupy by this Agreement, permit or otherwise; provided, however, that such additional grants shall not operate to materially modify, revoke or terminate any rights granted to Grantee herein and shall be in accord with the provisions of the Ordinance. 2.6) Ownership of Grantee. Grantee represents and warrants to Grantor that the names of the shareholders, partners, members or other equity owners of the Grantee and of any of the shareholders~.. partners, members and/or other equity owners of Grante~e as set torth iff I-xh~D~t~-~ hereto. -, SECTION 3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 3.1) Governing Requirements. Grantee shall comply with all lawful requirements of this Agreement, the Ordinance and Applicable Laws. 3.2) Franchise Fee. (a) In consideration of the renewal of the Franchise provided for herein, the Grantee shall, at all times during the term of this Agreement, pay to Grantor a Franchise Fee of five percent (5%) of Grantee's Gross Revenues as defined in the Ordinance but excluding any Access Operating Fee funds collected. The Franchisee Fee shall be payable quarterly within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the preceding calendar quarter. Each payment shall be certified by Grantee's controller or Chief financial officer and shall be accompanied by a report in such form as the City may reasonably request showing the computation of the Franchise Fee as it relates specifically to the Mound franchise area (CUID # MN0569) for the preceding calendar quarter and such other relevant facts as may be required by the City, including the completion of a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. 179769/1 3 -844- 3.3) Not Franchise Fees. (a) Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Franchise Fees payable by Grantee to the City pursuant to Section 3.2 hereof shall take precedence over all other payments, contributions, Services, equipment, facilities, support, resources or other activities to be provided or performed by the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement and/or the Ordinance and that the Franchise Fees provided for in Section 3.2 of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be in the nature of a tax, and shall be in addition to any and all taxes of general applicability and other fees and charges which the Grantee shall be required to pay to the City and/or to any other Governmental Authority, all of which shall be separate and distinct obligations of Grantee. (b) Grantee shall not apply or seek to apply or make any claim that all or any part of the Franchise Fees or other payments or contributions to be made by Grantee to Grantor pursuant to this Agreement and/or the Ordinance shall be deducted from or credited or offset against any taxes, fees or assessments of general applicability levied or imposed by the City or any other Governmental Authority, including any such tax, fee or assessment imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services. (c) Grantee shall not apply or seek to apply all or any part of any taxes, fees or assessments of general applicability levied or imposed by the City or any other Governmental Authority (including any such tax, fee or assessment imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services) as a deduction or other credit from or against any of the Franchise Fees or other payments or contributions to be paid or made pursuant by Grantee to Grantor to this Agreement and/or the Ordinance, each of which shall be deemed to be separate and distinct obligations of the Grantee. 3.4) Recovery of Processing Costs. (a) During the term of this Agreement, if the Grantee initiates a request for approval regarding the transfer of this Franchise or a change in control of the Grantee, the Grantee shall, to the extent permitted by Applicable Laws, reimburse the Grantor for all reasonable out-of-pocket costs, including attorneys' and consultants' fees and costs, incurred by the Grantor in connection with Grantor's review and processing of Grantee's request up to a mutually agreed upon reasonable cap. (b) To aid in the analysis and resolution of any future disputed matters relative to this Agreement, the Grantor and Grantee may, by mutual written agreement (both as to whether to .hire and whom to hire), employ the services of technical, financial and/or legal consultants, as mediators. All reasonable fees of the consultants incurred by the Grantor and/or the Grantee in this regard shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, be borne equally by Grantor and Grantee. 179769/1 4 -845- · 3.5) Liability Insurance. (a) Upon the Effective Date, the Grantee shall, at its sole expense and in addition to all required insurance under Section 1.27 of the Ordinance, take out and maintain during the term of this Agreement public liability insurance with a company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota with a rating by A.M. Best & Co. of not less than "A" that shall protect the Grantee, the Grantor and their officials~ officers, directors, employees and agents from claims which may arise from operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by the Grantee, its officials, officers, directors, employees and agents or any subcontractors of Grantee. This liability insurance shall include, but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury and damage to property, resulting from Grantee's vehicles, products and operations. The amount of insurance for single limit coverage applying to bodily and personal injury and property damage shall not be less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00). The following endorsements shall attached to the liability policy: (1) The policy shall provide coverage on an "occurrence" basis. (2) The policy shall cover personal injury as well as bodily injury. (3) The policy shall cover blanket contractual liability subject to the standard universal exclusions of contractual liability included in the carrier's standard endorsement as to bodily injuries, personal injuries and property damage. (4) Broad form property damage liability shall be afforded. (5) The Grantor shall be named as an additional insured on the policy. (6) An endorsement shall be provided which states that the coverage is primary insurance and that no other insurance maintained by the Grantor will be called upon to contribute to a loss under this coverage. (7) Standard form of cross-liability shall be afforded. (8) An endorsement stating that the policy shall not be canceled without thirty (30) days notice of such cancellation given to the Grantor. (b) Grantor reserves the right to adjust the insurance limit coverage requirements of this Agreement no more often than once every three (3) years. Any such adjustment by the Grantor will be no greater than the increase in the State of Minnesota Consumer Price Index (all consumers) for such three (3) year period. 179769/1 5 -846- (c) Grantee shall submit to Grantor documentation of the required insurance, including a certificate of insurance signed by the insurance agent and companies named, as well as all properly executed endorsements. 3.6) Indemnification. (a) In addition to Grantee's indemnification obligations under Section 1.26 of the Ordinance, Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold Grantor, its officers, boards, commissions, agents and employees (collectively the "Indemnified Parties") harmless from and against any and all lawsuits, claims, causes of action, actions, liabilities, demands, damages, judgments, settlements, disability, losses, expenses (including attorney's fees and disbursements of counsel) and costs of any nature that any of the Indemnified Parties may at any time suffer, sustain or incur arising out of, based upon or in any way connected with the Grantee's operations, the exercise of the Franchise renewed pursuant to this Agreement, the breach by Grantee of its obligations under this Agreement or the Ordinance and/or the activities of Grantee, its subcontractor, employees and agents hereunder. Grantee shall be solely responsible for and shall indemnify, defend and hold the Indemnified Parties harmless from and against any and all matters relative to payment of Grantee's employees, including compliance with Social Security and withholdings. (b) The indemnification obligations of Grantee set forth in this Agreement are not limited in any way by the amount or type of damages or compensation payable by or for Grantee under Workers' Compensation, disability or other employee benefit acts, acceptance of insurance certificates required under this Agreement, or the terms, applicability or limitations of any insurance held by Grantee. (c) Grantor does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Grantee which it may have by reason of the indemnification provided for in this Agreement, because of the acceptance by Grantor, or the deposit with Grantor by Grantee, of any of the insurance policies described in this Agreement. (d) The indemnification of Grantor by Grantee provided for in this Agreement shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of any kind suffered by reason of any of the Grantee's operations referred to in this Agreement, regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages. (e) Grantee shall not be required to indemnify Grantor for negligence or misconduct on the part of Grantor or its officials, boards, commissions, agents, or employees. Grantor shall hold Grantee harmless, subject to the limitations in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466, for any damage resulting from the negligence or misconduct of the Grantor or its officials, boards, commissions, agents, or employees in utilizing any PEG access channels, equipment, or facilities and for any such negligence or misconduct by Grantor in connection with work performed by Grantor and permitted by this Agreement, on or adjacent to the Cable System. 179769/1 6 -847- 3.7) Grantee's Insurance. Grantee shall not commence any Cable System reconstruction work or permit any subcontractor to commence work until all insurance required under this Agreement and the Ordinance has been obtained. Said insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect until the expiration of thi~ A~reement. 3.8) Workers' Compensation Insurance. Grantee shall obtain and maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance for all of Grantee's employees, and in case any work is sublet, Grantee shall require any subcontractor similarly to provide Workers' Compensation Insurance for all of their employees, all in compliance with State laws, and to fully indemnify the Grantor from and against any and all claims arising out of occurrences on the work. Grantee hereby indemnifies Grantor for any and all costs, expenses (including attorneys' fees and disbursements of counsel), damages and liabilities incurred by Grantor as a result of any failure of either Grantee or any subcontractor to take out and maintain such insurance. Grantee shall provide the Grantor with a certificate of insurance indicating Workers' Compensation coverage on the Effective Date. 3.9) Security Fund. (a) Within sixty (60) days of the ApprOval Date, Grantee shall establish and provide to Grantor a security fund, as security for the full and timely payment and Performance by Grantee of all of its obligations under this Agreement and the Ordinance. The security fund shall consist of two (2) parts. The first part shall be in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and shall be in the form of a performance bond, which shall be in a form acceptable to Grantor's City Attorney. The second part shall be in the amount of at least Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) and shall be in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, established in a local bank. (b) The first part of the security fund shall be maintained at the One Hundred Thousand Dollar ($100,000) level until the System upgrade and/or rebuild provided for in Section 4.1 hereof is completed, at which time that part of the fund shall be released, provided there are then no outstanding material violations or breaches of this Agreement or the Ordinance by Grantee. The second part of the security fund shall be maintained at the Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000) level throughout the term of this Franchise Agreement. If, at any time during the term of this Franchise, Grantee seeks consent to a transfer or assignment of its rights hereunder, Grantor may unilaterally increase the security fund up to Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) if it so chooses. (c) The security fund may be drawn upon by Grantor for those purposes specified in Section 3.10 hereof, in accordance with the procedures of Section 3.10 and the Ordinance. Grantee's recourse, in the event Grantee believes that Grantor's actions in taking any security funds is improper, shall be through legal action after the security has been drawn upon. Actions brought by Grantee hereunder may be subject to 47 U.S.C. 179769/1 7 -848- §555A - Limitations of Franchising Authority Liability - which is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. (d) Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of the normal permit requirements made of all contractors working within the City's rights-of-way. 3.10) Procedure for Enforcing Franchise Agreement. (a) The procedures for enforcing violations 'or breaches of this Franchise Agreement and/or the Ordinance shall be consistent with the procedures set forth in the Ordinance. (b) In the event the Council finds that a material violation' or breach exists and that Grantee has not cured the same in a satisfactory manner, has not diligently commenced correction of such violation or breach or has not diligently proceeded to fully remedy such violation or breach, the Council may impose liquidated damages, assessable from the security fund, of up to Three Hundred Dollars ($300) per day or per incident, for unexcused violations or breaches of the System upgrade and/or rebuild completion schedule provided in Section 4.1 herein, and up to One Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars ($1 75) per day or per incident for all other violations or breaches of this Agreement and/or the Ordinance, provided that all violations or breaches of a similar nature occurring at the same time shall be considered one (1) incident. 3.11) Reservation of Rights. Grantor and Grantee reserve all rights that they may possess under Applicable Laws unless expressly waived herein. 3.12) Annual Report. In addition to the requirements of Section 1.20 and 1.29 of the Ordinance, Grantee shall submit a written end of the year report to Grantor utilizing the format outlined in the Annual Performance Review Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit C. In addition, Grantee and Grantor agree that the Annual Performance Review Checklist may be modified from time to time by mutual agreement of Grantee and Grantor. In accordance with Section 1.18 of the Ordinance, Grantee shall also provide City with a quarterly customer service compliance report utilizing the format outlined in Exhibit F attached hereto. SECTION 4. DESIGN PROVISION 4.1) Minimum Channel Capacity. (a) On or before the date which is eighteen (18) months from the date of Grantee's acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall develop, construct and operate 179769/1 8 -849- within the City a 750 MHz fiber/coaxial hybrid cable system which shall be capable of delivering a minimum of eighty (80) video program channels and which shall initially deliver to all subscribers capable of receiving said channels a minimum of sixty (60) video program channels. (b) All programming decisions remain the sole discretion of Grantee provided that Grantee complies with federal law regarding notice to City and Subscribers prior to .any channel additions, deletions, or realignments, and further subject to Grantee's signal carriage obligations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 531-536, and subject to City's rights pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 545. Grantee shall conduct programming surveys from time to time to obtain input on programming decisions from Subscribers. 4.2) System Design. (a) The System required herein will be engineered and built to provide a minimum of eighty (80) channels using a 750 MHz bandwidth technology. Grantee shall meet with City to review its system design and construction plans prior to the commencement of construction and shall, at the request of City, participate in a public meeting designed to inform residents of City of said design and construction plans. In those residential areas where fiber optic cable will be deployed, the system shall incorporate multiple strands of fiber and serve an average of five hundred (500) homes per fiber node. The System shall at all times meet the technical standards established by the FCC as they may be amended from time to time and shall be operated so as to minimize disruption of signal to Subscribers. The precise System specifications are outlined in Exhibit F, which is incorporated herein by reference. (b) Grantee shall only be authorized to construct a cable system with eight fiber- optic pairs to each node and a total of 154 fibers throughout the system. (c) On or about thirty (30) days prior to construction of the upgraded system, affected subscribers will receive a letter notifying them of same. Approximately forty-eight (48) hours before construction, all affected houses will receive door tags notifying them of Grantee's construction schedule. 4.3) Operation and Maintenance of System. The Grantee shall render effective service, make repairs promptly, and interrupt service only for good cause and for the shortest time possible. Such interruption, to the extent feasible, shall be preceded by notice in accordance with Section 1.2 herein and all applicable provisions of the Ordinance, and shall occur during periods of minimum use of the System. 4.4) Special Testing. City may require special testing of a location or locations within the System if there is a particular matter of controversy or unresolved complaints pertaining to such 179769/1 9 -850- 4.4) Special Testing. City may require special testing of a location or locations within the System if there is a particular matter of controversy or unresolved complaints pertaining to such location(s). Demand for such special tests may be made on the basis of complaints received or other evidence indicating an unresolved controversy or noncompliance. Such tests shall be limited to the particular matter in controversy or unresolVed complaints. The City shall endeavor to so arrange its request for such special testing so as to minimize hardship or inconvenience to Grantee or to the Subscribers caused by such testing. Before ordering such tests, Grantee shall be afforded thirty (30) days to correct problems or complaints upon which tests were ordered. The City shall meet with Grantee prior to requiring special tests to discuss the need for such and, if possible, visually inspect those ' locations which are the focus of concern. If, after such meetings and inspections, City wishes to commence special tests and the thirty (30) days have elapsed without correction of the matter in controversy or unresolved complaints, the tests shall be conducted by a qualified engineer selected by City. In the event that special testing is required by City to determine the source of technical difficulties, the cost of said testing shall be borne by the Grantee if the testing reveals the source of the technical difficulty to be within Grantee's reasonable control. If the testing reveals the difficulties to be caused by factors which are beyond Grantee's reasonable control then the cost of said test shall be borne by City. 4.5) FCC Rep°rts. The results of tests required to be filed by Grantee with the FCC shall also be copied to City. 4.6) Emergency Alert Capability. Grantee shall at all times comply with all Applicable Laws regarding the provision of emergency alert services. At a minimum, Grantee shall at all times have the capability for an emergency override alert. 4.7) Parental Control Lock. Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease, to Subscribers, upon request, a parental control locking device or digital code that permits inhibiting the video and audio portions of any Channels offered by Grantee. 4.8) Technical Standards. Grantee shall, at a minimum, comply at all times with all applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations, including but not limited to, Part 76, Subpart K (Technical Standards), as may be amended from time to time. 179769/1 10 -851 - 4.9) Right of Inspection. Grantor shall have the right to inspect all construction, reconstruction or in stallation work performed by Grantee under the provisions of this Agreement and Applicable Laws, to ensure Grantee's compliance and to protect the health, safety and welfare of Grantor's citizens. 4.10) Periodic Evaluation, Review and Modification. Grantor and Grantee acknowledge and agree that the field of cable television is a relatively new and rapidly changing one which may see many regulatory, technical, financial, marketing and legal changes during the term of this Agreement. Therefore, in order to provide for the maximum degree of flexibility in this Agreement, and to help achieve a continued, advanced and modern Cable System, the following evaluation provisions will apply: (a) The City reserves the right to adopt rules and regulations controlling the procedures as set forth below and the subjects for evaluation sessions. In the absence of any City action taken to exercise these rights, Grantee shall be subject to the procedures and the subjects described in this Section 4.10. (b) The City may require, in its sole discretion, that the Grantee participate in evaluation sessions with the City at any time and from time to time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, there shall not be more than one (1) evaluation session during any calendar year. (c) Topics which may be discussed at any evaluation session include, but are not limited to, rates, channel capacity, the System performance, programming, PEG access, municipal uses of the System, Subscriber complaints, judicial rulings, FCC rulings and any other topics the City or Grantee may deem relevant. (d) During an evaluation session, Grantee shall fully cooperate with the City and shall provide without cost and in a timely manner such information and documents as the City may request to perform the evaluation. . (e) As a result of an evaluation session, the City'or Grantee may determine that an amendment in the terms of this Agreement may be required, that the requirements of the System or this Agreement should be updated, changed or revised, and/or that additional services should be provided by Grantee (collectively a "Proposed Modification"). If the Proposed Modification is consistent with the terms of this Agreement, the Ordinance, the needs of the City and existing state-of-the-art technology, including what is provided by Grantee in other Systems owned, operated or managed by it, its parent company or any affiliated company, Grantee and the City will, in good faith, review the terms of the Proposed Modification and consider amending this Agreement accordingly. 179769/1 11 -852- SECTION 5. SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING 5.1) Services and Programming. Grantee shall provide Grantor with a list of programming services and other services offered, which list shall be attached hereto as Exhibit D (the "Channel Line-up"). The Channel Line-up shall include all applicable charges and pricing schedules. The Channel Line-up shall be updated each time a change is made by Grantee. Grantee shall not alter the number of program services or other services without thirty (30) days prior written notification to the Grantor and System Subscribers. 5.2) Leased Channel Service. Grantee shall offer leased channel service on reasonable terms and conditions and in accordance with Applicable Laws. 5.3) Periodic Subscriber Survey. (a) To the extent Grantee conducts customer surveys with respect to all or a portion of the system serving the City, it shall provide the City with all non-confidential information and findings from such surveys. (b) As a part of each annual report, Grantee shall provide the City with the results of any survey conducted and shall report in writing what steps Grantee is taking to implement the findings of the survey, such as correcting problems and expanding services. SECTION 6. PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS 6.1) Public, Educational and Government Access. (a) City or its designee is hereby designated to operate, administer, promote, and manage access (public, education, and government programming) (hereinafter "PEG access") to the cable system established pursuant to this Section 6. Grantee shall have no responsibility whatsoever for PEG access except as expressly stated in this Section 6. 6.2) Grantee Support for PEG Usage. In accordance with the provisions of the Cable Act and Minn. Stat. § 238.084, Grantee shall provide and make available for public, educational and governmental (PEG) access usage within the Service Area the following: 179769/1 -853- (a) Provision and use of the grant funds and Channels designated in Exhibit E of this Agreement for local educational and governmental programming and access L~se at no charge in accordance with the requirements of Exhibit E. (b) Maintenance of the Access Facilities and Channels, and support of educational and governmental programming to the extent specified in Exhibit E of this Agreement. (c) Provision of free public building Installation and cable service as more clearly specified in Exhibit E, and provision of two-way capability to the locations specified in Exhibit E. (d) Access Facilities shall be operated by the City. SECTION 7. REGULATION 7.1) Amendment of Franchise Agreement. Grantee and City may agree, from time to time, to amend this Franchise. Such written amendments may be made subsequent to a review session pursuant to Section 4.10 or at any other time if City and Grantee agree that such an amendment will be in the public interest or if such an amendment is required due to changes in federal, state or local laws. City shall act pursuant to local law pertaining to the ordinance amendment process. 7.2) Conflict Between Ordinance and Agreement. In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Franchise Agreement and the provisions of the Ordinance, the provisions of this Franchise Agreement shall control. Grantee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City hereby retains all of its police powers and the City may unilaterally amend the Ordinance in the exercise of its police powers and Grantee shall comply with said Ordinance as may be amended; provided, however that City hereby agrees to use reasonable efforts to address public health, welfare and safety needs without resorting to amending the Ordinance. By executing this Franchise Agreement both City and Grantee acknowledge and agree that neither is aware of any conflicts between this Franchise Agreement and the Ordinance. 7.3) Force Majeure. In accordance with Section 1.31 of the Ordinance, in the event Grantee's performance of any of the terms, conditions, obligations or requirements of this Agreement or the Ordinance is prevented or impaired due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, such inability to perform shall be deemed to be excused for the period of such inability and no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof, provided Grantee has notified Grantor in writing within ten (10) days of its discovery of the occurrence of such 1 79769/1 13 -854- an event. Such causes beyond Grantee's reasonable control shall include, but shall not be limited to, acts of God, civil emergencies and labor unrest or strikes, untimely delivery of equipment, inability of Grantee to obtain access to an individual's property and inability of Grantee to secure all necessary permits to utilize utility poles and conduit so long as Grantee utilizes due diligence to timely obtain said permits. 7.4) Rate Regulation. 'Nothing in this Agreement shall in any way prevent Grantor from regulating any rates charged by Grantee. If Grantor elects to so regulate, Grantor shall follow the procedures outlined in Section 1.19 of the Ordinance or Applicable Laws. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Agreement the day, month and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Dated: By: iSEAL) ATTEST: TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. Dated: (CORPORATE SEAL) By: Its: 1 79769/1 14 -855- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ~ ,19_~_, by ~.~O& ~ok~'t-O.4l , the~Bid~R~,~~f the City of ~, on behalf ~f the N~ao Public - ~The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ~-~, 19.-~', by. ~ , the ~.?~~__._~ of Triax Midwest Associates,' L.P. on behalf of the Company. No(ary Public My Commission Expires September 28, 2000 179769/1 15 -856- EXHIBIT B FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. (Mound) Subs Franchise Fee: 5% Gross Date ,1998 Revenue Source Basic Pay Tier Advertising and Pay-Per-View Other Total $ 179769/1 B-1 -857- EXHIBIT C ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST RATES AND CHARGES No change Changed Notices sent to City and subscriber Changes in rates and costs identified by attachment Change "reasonable" and consistent with the standards prescribed by the FCC Other (describe in attachment) PROGRAMS AND SERVICES No change in programs and services New programs and services added Identify new programs and services and decision for introduction Check ~Vhere A.oplicable o The programs and service changes meet demand expressed in customer satisfaction surveys Other (describe in attachment) PUBLIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACCESS 179769/1 C-1 -858- Check ~Vhere CUSTOMER SERVICE Customer service requirements complied with Summary of complaints (attached) System outages summary (attached) Description of new customer services, promotions (attached 5. FILINGS WITH FCC Summary of all filings with FCC described in attachment 6. PERFORMANCE TEST IN FRANCHISE COMPLETED Summary of performance test results (attached) 7. FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENTS MADE (ATTACH COMPLETED FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEETS - EXHIBIT B TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT) o COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION Upgrade/rebuild (summary attached) 179769/1 c-2 -859- Check ~Vhere Applicable 10. 11. · New technolo§ies incorporated into System Channel capacity increased Service extended to new areas Other NEW SERVICES No Changes Services other than programming made available in the subscriber network (summary attached) TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH Company participated in planning studied and Cable Advisory Committee activities (summary attached All insurance, bonds and deposits are updated and filed with City 12. OTHER PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS OR PLANS TO BE INTRODUCED WITHIN THE NEXT TWELVE (12) MONTHS (SUMMARY ATTACHE D) Dated this ~ day of ,19 , by Officer of Fl , a duly authorized City of Minnesota Verification: The above Annual Performance Review has been filed by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. as required. The Office of for the City of has reviewed the information and finds that the filing is complete __/is not complete ~ The following matters are deemed incomplete and require further information and/or compliance by ,19 179769/1 03 -860- THE CITY OF , MINNESOTA Dated: By: Its: 179769/1 C-4 -861 - MPL~ (17) ~TC!/PBS,MPL~ (32) ESPN (47) ~CI FI WFTC/FOX(2~)MPLS (18) K?XM(41) (3~) ~EHCORE~ (48) U~ WCCI3/CB~,M?LS (19) PUO/ACC-PPV (~4) ~RAO0 <49) Li~ETII'IE KSTP/ABC,MPLS (20) PUB ACCESS (35) MSC (50) CTU TB~,ATLAN'I'A (22) wCiNE~AX~ (37) ~HBfl~ (52) C~T PUD ~CCESS (2]) EWTH RMSF/UFR,MPL~ (24) ~H~C KLGT(2g) (~5) M-TV (40) <~LANK) (~8) KARE/NBC,~PLS (26) VH-1 (41) ~SH~WTIME~ (99) ~TMC~ C-~PAN (27) THN (42) EPG WGN, CHICAGU <28) LEARNING CHNL (43) DISCHUERY KUB~(qS)HSfl (2~)~ & E (44) TR'[ TI3N 430) CHN II ,4~ F~IILY' (31) RICKELHDEON -862- ~ATE~ ASIC,,~E~U.(~,~,C~,~?2~/~CHNLS) ,11.87 H-U-C ~HDWTIME~ 11.~ THE CA~LE GUI~E 1.50 THEMDUIE CHANNELM 11.95 HWLP 1.25 CINEMAXw ww~w~ww~ww ?.95 SEGA 12.95 EHC/STZ~j~ ~ .C8MBB-HWLP 6.95 SEGA AUTHORIZATIAN 25.00 EXP:28.21 STANDARD ~DX .59 ~"~ ~' ~" w~ww~ DIGITAL 80X 1.2~ I~T~D ~PCL(~i) HD~/~AX~ 1~.?S ~RATE INCREASE 3-15-~?~ H80/STZ/ERC~ 15.~5 BASIC I0.60 TO 11.87 H80/~AX/STZ/ENOw 18,9~ EXPANDED 2S.88 TD 26,96 MAX/STZ?ENCw 14.95 UNIUAND REMOTE PFU -863- EXHIBIT E GRANTEE COMMITMENT TO PEG ACCESS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 1. PUBLIC.. EDUQ:ATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESS CHANNELS Grantee shall provide to each of its subscribers who receive some or all of the services offered on the Cable System, reception on at least one (1) specially designated noncommercial public access channel available for use by the general public on a first- come, fi rst-served, nond iscri minatory basis; at least one (1) special ly designated access channel for use by local educational authorities; at least one (1) specially designated access channel available for government use (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "PEG Channels"); and at least one (1) specially designated access channel available for lease on a first-come, first-served, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users. The VHF spectrum must be used for at least one (1) of the PEG Channels required in this paragraph. No charges may be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded programming on the specially designated noncommercial access channels. Personnel, equipment and production costs may be assessed, however, for live studio presentations exceeding five (5) minutes in length. Charges for those production costs and fees for use of other public access channels must be consistent with the goal of affording the public a Iow- cost means of television access. Whenever the PEG Channels are in use during eighty percent (80%) of the weekdays, Monday to Friday, for eighty percent (80%) of the time for any consecutive three (3) hour period for six (6) weeks running, and there is demand for use of an additional channel for the same purpose, the Grantee shall then have six (6) months in which to provide a new PEG Channel for the same purpose, provided that provision of the additional channel or channels must not require the Cable System to install converters. The PEG Channels shall be dedicated for .PEG use for the term of the Franchise Agreement, provided that Grantee may, utilize any portions of the PEG Channels not scheduled for PEG use. Grantor shall establish rules and procedures for such scheduling in accordance with Section 611 of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 531). Grantee shall also designate the standard VHF channel 6 for uniform regional channel usage currently provided by "Metro Channel 6" as required by Minn. Stat. § 238.43. Programming on this regional channel shall include a broad range of informational, educational, and public service programs and materials to cable television subscribers throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. 179769/1 E-1 -864- 2. PEG OPERATIONS Grantor may in its sole discretion, negotiate agreements with neighboring jurisdictions served by the same Cable System, educational institutions or others to share the operating expenses of the PEG Channels. Grantor and Grantee may negotiate an agreement for management of PEG facilities, if so desired by both parties. 3. TITLE TO PEG EQUIPMENT Grantor shall retain title to all PEG equipment and facilities purchased or otherwise acquired pursuant to the previous Mound franchise Ordinance No. , 4. PROMOTION OF PEG ACCESS Grantee shall allow the Grantor to place bill stuffers in Grantee's Subscriber statements at a cost to the Grantor not to exceed Grantee's cost, no less freqUently than twice per year upon the written request of the Grantor and at such times that the placement of such materials would not materially and adversely effect Grantee's cost for the production and mailing of such statements. The Grantor agrees to pay Grantee in advance for the actual cost of such bill stuffers. Grantee shall also make available access information provided by Grantor in Subscriber packets at the time of Installation and at the counter in the System's business office within the Service Area. Grantee shall also distribute, at no charge to Grantor, through advertising insertion equipment, 28 weekly promotional and awareness commercial spots at randomly selected times in unpurchased advertising space on a "run of schedule basis" produced at the Grantor's cost and submitted by the Grantor in a format compatible with such advertising insertion equipment once Grantee has acquired and activated such capability. Grantee shall also include a listing of the known programming to be cablecast on PEG access Channels in or on any program guide of services for the Cable System. 5. SERVICE TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS (a) One (1) cable drop connection and the highest level of cable service excluding pay-per-view and pay-per-channel programming shall be provided free of charge to each public building listed in Exhibit E-1 with no Installation charges or monthly service charges. Said drop connection and service provision shall be concurrent with the construction schedule required by Section 4.1 of the Agreement. Grantee shall, in any public building hereinafter built, provide all materials, design specifications and technical advice for any one cable outlet to be installed during the construction of such building, without cost to the Grantor and Grantee shall provide the same service to such new public building as required in this paragraph (a). (b) Two-way capability shall be provided to the public buildings listed in Exhibit E-2. 179769/1 E-2 -865- 6. PEG ACCESS OPERATING SUPPORT. Grantee shall also collect on behalf of City a per Subscriber fee of eighty-four cents ($.84) per month solely to fund public, educational and governmental access -related expenditu res (hereinafter "Access Operating Fee"). In the event Grantee becomes subject to "effective competition" as defined by Applicable Law, from another Multi-Chan nel Video Programming Distributor, the Access Operating Fee shall, following ninety (90) days written notice to City, be reduced to the level of expenditure at which the multi-channel video Programming Distributor is obligated or fifty cents ($.50) per subscriber per month, whichever is greater. 179769/1 E-3 -866- EXHIBIT E1 SERVICE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES PUBLIC BUILDINGS: CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA BUILDINGS; City Council Chambers & Conf. Room #301 5341 Police Station 5341 Fire Station 2415 Westonka Library 2079 Westonka Community Center 5600 Shirley Hills Elementary School '2450 Grandview Middle School 1881 Bethel United Methodist Church 2116 Mound Evangelical Free Church 211 7 Mount Olive Lutheran Church 5218 Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church Our Lady of the Lake School St. John's Lutheran Church Maywood Road Maywood Road Wilshire Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Lynwood Boulevard Wilshire Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Bartlett Boulevard 2385 Commerce Boulevard 2411.. Commerce Boulevard 2451 Fairview Lane 1 79769/1 E1-1 -867- EXHIBIT E2 PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO BE PROVIDED WITH TWO-WAY CAPABILITY: CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA BUILDINGS; City Council Chambers & Conf. Room #301 5341 Police Station 5341 Fire Station 2415 Westonka Library 2079 Westonka Community Center 5600 Shirley Hills Elementary School 2450 Grandview Middle School 1881 Bethel United Methodist Church 2116 Mound Evangelical Free Church 211 7 Mount Olive Lutheran Church 5218 Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church 2385 Our Lady of the Lake School 2411 St. John's Lutheran Church 2451 Maywood Road Maywood Road Wilshire Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Lynwood Boulevard Wilshire Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Bartlett Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Commerce Boulevard Fairview Lane 179769/1 E2-1 I868- System Capacity Mound SYSTEM UPGRADE OVERVIEW The upgraded HFC (hybrid fiber/coax) network required pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Agreement will be designed to operate with a bandwidth of 5 MHz to 750 MHz, with 50 MHz to 550 MHz being allocated for video services. The remaining upper 200 MHz of bandwidth will be reserved for compressed digital signals. The network will have return capability utilizing spectrums from 5 MHz to 40 MHz, and will be activated on both the coaxial and optical systems. The return system can be used to transmit both data and video, and will have the capacity to be used for insertion of locally-originated programming consistent with Exhibit E2, monitoring of certain key components in the network, and transmission of data from set-top terminals used for pay- per-view and other customer services. Fiber optic transmitters, cable, and optical receivers will be used to transport the signals from the origination site, to at least one receiving location, or "node," in each community. There will be an average of 500 homes served from each node. After each node is installed, the number of active electronics, or amplifiers, will be reduced to the minimum required to reach the limits of the community, while still maintaining measurable picture quality better than current FCC requirements. *Standby" power supplies will automatically provide battery power to the coaxial system for several hours in the event of a commercial power interruption. The batteries will be automatically recharged after power is restored. Customers will have the option of an "addressable" set-top terminal to accesS programming carried on the network. Through the set-top terminal the customer can purchase special programming, such as" pay-per-view." Fiber Optics and Coaxial Plant in the Network The optical transmission system is the backbone of the new network. At the origination site, all programming to be carried on the system will be converted to optical signals, and transmitted out into the system by a network of fiber optic cables. The optical network will provide 6 individual fibers to each node location. Each node will serve an average of 500 homes via coaxial cable. The coaxial portion of the plant will begin at the node itself, where signals will be distributed over a short coax network, consisting of network amplifiers. The amplifiers are designed to accommodate return transmission capability, surge protection, and remote monitoring capability. 179769/1 F-1 -869- The Upgrade Process The first step will be to install the fiber optic network alongside the existing coaxial system. In areas where the cables are already carried on utility poles, the new fiber will be attached to the existing cables. In areas where existing cables are underground, additional construction will be required to install the new fiber optic cables. Any new coaxial cable required by the network design, in the path of the fiber optic cable, will be installed at the same time. When testing of the optical network is complete, then the second phase, upgrading of the coaxial plant, will begin. When the coaxial plant is upgraded each existing amplifier and distribution device will be removed, and replaced with a new, 750 MHz device. The new equipment will be activated and any customers served from that equipment will be switched to the new equipment. This process begins at the node, branching out through each leg of the coaxial plant. It is this portion of the upgrade that causes several brief interruptions in service. As the upgrade crews move further out into the coaxial system fewer and fewer customers will experience interruptions in service. When the upgrade of a node is finally complete all customers served from that node, are now receiving service, from the new network. After the primary upgrade of each node is complete, installation upgrade crews will sweep through the same area, inspecting each of the service lines that connect customers' homes to the distribution system. Connections will be. checked, updated splitting equipment will be installed, if necessary, and in some cases, the entire line will be replaced. At this point the upgrade of that node will be complete, and work will move on to the next node area. 179769/I 179769/1 F-2 -870- BRIAN T. GROGAN (612) 347-0340 E-Mail: GroganB~moss-barne~tcom Communications Law Update To: Moss & Barnett Clients and Interested Parties From: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. Date: November 16, 2001 1. FCC HANDS CABLE OPERATORS FRANCHISE FEE VICTORY. On October 1, 2001, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued an order in a proceeding involving the City of Pasadena, California and other jurisdictions which is having the effect of raising subscriber's cable rates through increased franchise fees (Memorandum Opinion and Order FCC 01-289 released October 4, 2001 hereinafter the "Pasadena OrderS'). The proceeding involved questions raised by franchising authorities regarding whether federal law permits cable operators to "pass-through" franchise fees to subscribers on cable television bills based on gross revenues that encompass non-subscriber related revenue, spedfically income generated by advertising sales and home shopping commissions. In the Pasadena Order the FCC ruled that cable operators can pass-through to subscribers all of the franchise fees which cable operators pay under local franchises including fees on non- subscriber revenues. By way of example, if a cable operator sells $100 worth of advertising to a local business to provide commercial spots on the cable system, many franchises throughout the country require the cable operator pay up to a 5% franchise fee on the $100 of revenue. Cities have generally argued that the local business should be required to pay the applicable franchise fee just as such businesses are required to pay applicable local and state sales tax. Cable operators, however, have argued that federal law permits operators to assess their subscribers for all applicable franchise fees and therefore the subscribers, rather than the advertiser, should collectively pay the $5 franchise fee on the $100 of local advertising. The FCC concluded that 47 U.S.C. § 543 does not address the question of passing through franchise fees on subscriber's bills and congress inter~ded that the "full amount of the franchise fee be reflected in a cable operator's rates." Since nothing in § 543 prohibits the cable operator from passing such fees on to subscribers, the FCC determined that federal law does not prohibit such a practice. Thus, the more successful a cable operator is in selling advertising, the greater the increase in a subscriber's bill as a result of the increased franchise fee. Some have even suggested that the more commercials a subscriber is forced to view on the cable system (at least with respect to those sold by the cable operator), the higher the subscriber's bill. This issue is not limited solely to advertising revenue but also includes other forms of non- subscriber revenue including commissions from sales on home shopping channels and related revenue sources. The FCC argues that franchising authorities, as opposed to cable operators, can limit the imposition of new pass-throughs on subscriber's bills by simply relieving cable operators of the franchise fee burden with respect to these revenue items. Under such a scenario munidpalities that previously received franchise fees on advedJsing revenues are being encouraged by the FCC to forego that revenue or, in the alternative, franchising 45~0~ -871 - authorities are now being encouraged by the FCC to limit the application of franchise fees in renewed contracts. In separate statements issued by FCC Commissioners Kevin Martin and Kathleen Abemathy it was noted that the Pasadena Order does not prevent a franchising authority and cable operator from reaching agreement in a local franchise regarding how franchise fees are to be calculated and passed through. However, many fear that cable operators will have no motivation to negotiate any agreement with franchising authorilJes regarding the itemizalJon and pass- through of franchise fees. Instead, cable operators are likely to reserve all of their dghts to maximize the amount of the franchise fee to be passed through as a line item on subscribers bills. The impact of the Pasadena Orderis already being felt by cable subscribers. AT&T has placed many franchising authorities on notice that the franchise fee will be increased by .23%, about $.09 per subscriber per month on an average cable bill of $40.00. Within the next several billing cycles most anticipate that cable operators will begin to pass-through non-subscriber revenue in franchise fee line items which will result in a rate increase for all cable television subscribers. Under applicable federal law the cable operator is not required to give advance written nolJce of this rate increase as it relates to an increase in a regulatory fee. Therefore, franchising authorities can expect confusion and questions regarding this rate increase. Moreover, it is enlJrely possible that many cable operators may choose to deflect any rate increase cdtidsm back to the franchising authority arguing that the franchise fee is imposed on cable subscribers through the local franchise. Fortunately, several munidpalities disagree with the FCC decision and have challenged the order at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. 2. IS A NEW WAVE OF CABLE TELEVISION TRANSFERS ABOUT TO HIT? For months, AT&T Broadband ("AT&T") has been making headlines regarding the future of its cable system operations. Over the summer, Comcast made an unsolicited offer to purchase AT&Ts cable systems and since then AT&T and Comcast have been in discussions regarding a potential acquisition. Newspaper reports have also suggested that AOL Time Warner has made inquiries regarding AT&T's systems although many regulators doubt such a merger would receive approval given the unprecedented market power the resulting company would possess. At the same time, AT&T has brought back many execu~ves from predecessor companies such as MediaOne and Continental Cablevision in an attempt to strengthen its upper level management. Whether this is a negotialJon strategy to increase the value of the company or a long term commitment to retain AT&T ownership is unknown. AT&T has stated that it intends to cladfy the future ownership of the company by year-end. In the event AT&T is acquired by either Comcast, AOL Time Warner or another entity, nearly 1/3 of all cable systems in the United States will require transfer approval. Moreover, it is entirely likely that once the initial acquisilJon is completed, additional system trades, swaps and consolidations will occur as the remaining cable operators seek to enlarge regional operating clusters. Depending upon AT&Ts actions, 2002 could be a year dominated by cable system transfe rs. If your municipality is served by AT&T or is adjacent to AT&T operated systems you may wish to begin considering issues which may be raised during a transfer proceeding. Recall that federal law provides franchising authorities only 120 days from the date they receive a transfer request to take action. The steps a city can begin taking now include a detailed review of its existing franchise to ensure the cable operator is complying with all material terms and -872- provisions. To the extent issues of noncompliance are discovered, these should be immediately documented and notice to your operator should be provided so that issues can either be cured pdor to transfer or resolved dudng the transfer proceeding. If you would like additional information regarding the transfer process please contact either Terri Hammer (ph. 612-347-0349 or e-mail at hammert~,moss-bamett, com) for a free copy of presentation papers by Moss & Barnett on this issue. Or visit our new website at www. munidpalcommunicationslaw, com to receive an electronic copy of such materials. 3. HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS. On August 9, 2001, the FCC released preliminary data regarding its findings on the deployment of high-speed Intemet services in the United States. The information relates to data as of December 31, 2000. Among the more interesting findings by the FCC were the following: The growth rate for high-speed lines connecting homes and businesses to the Intemet was 158% during 2000. There are 7.1 million high-speed lines connecting homes and businesses to the Intemet. High-speed DSL (ADSL) lines increased by 435% during 2000 to 2 million lines. High-speed Intemet connections over cable systems increased by 153% to 3.6 million lines. High-speed lines provided by satellite and fixed wire technology increased from 50,000 in 1999 to 112,000 in 2000. 4. NEW WEBSITE - MUNICIPALCOMMUNICATIONSLAW. COM Over the past decade clients and friends of Moss & Barnett have received complimentary copies of our Communications Law Update. The Update is intended to provide interested parties with information on key decisions and issue regarding the munidpal regulation of voice, video and data communications. Moss & Barnett also regularly participates in state, regional and national conferences regarding communications issues. In many cases, presentation papers are prepared and distributed at the conferences. Often, we will refer to these presentation materials in our Communications Law Update to provide recipients with additional information on a topic of interest. In an effort to provide greater services to our clients we are pleased to announce the creation of our new website www. municipalcommunicalJonslaw, com which will provide a variety of information regarding communications issues faring municipalities. The website includes recent additions of the Communications Law Update, copies of presentation papers on a vadety of topics as well as additional information regarding Moss & Bamett's communications law staff and services. Please visit ournew website and feel free to provide feedback regarding ways in which the we bsite can be im prove d to maximize our services to clients an d inte rested parties. The materials in this Communications Law Update have been complied from a variety of sources and address only a portion of the relevant issues contained within hundreds of pages of regulations and decisions. We have not addressed many important points that may apply to your situation. You should consult with legal counsel before takfng any action on matters covered by this Communications Law Update. 4s~o~/~ -873- This ~ lh-og~g F~lies Agreement (" Agreement~) is ~..ntered into ~day ~ of 2~,~, between the City of Mound, Minnesota ("City") and the Lake ~etol~ Cdmmuni'cati°ns Commission CLMCCD. RECITALS WHEREAS, both LMCC and City have, through separate documents, granted to Mediacom Midwest Associates, L.P.' ('Mediacom~) fifteen (15) year non-exclusive cable Television Franchises'; and ~$, each franchise requires Mediacom to remit to both LMCC and The City a five percent (5%) franchise fee on Mediaeom's Gross Revenues; and ~, each franchise further requires M~i_a_com to remit a separate public, educational, and governmental ("PEG') access fee to LMCC and the City in support of PEG programming; and WI~.REAS, each franchise requires Mediacom to only provide the PEG access fee and dedicated channel capacity in support of PEG access programming, and Mediacom has no further PEG access responsibilities; and ~, the City Collects a $.84 PEG access fee, while LMCC collects a $.50 PEG access fee, per subscriber, per billing period, which is paid by Mediacom on a quarterly basis; and WHI*~AS, LMCC operates a 5,000 square foot equipped PEG access studio facility ("Studio'), which it pays for with its PEG access fee and with portions of its five percent (5%) franchi'se fee; and WllERE~S, the City has available PEG access equipment, outlined in Exhibit A ('City Equipment'), to be inventoried by the LMCC and the City within 30 clays of the acceptance of this Agreement by both parties, which it desires to locate at the Studio for PEG a~ess use; and WHgREAS, the City desires the use of The Studio as well as the professional assistance which LMCC PEG access staff can provide; and - ~AS,, LMCC desires The City's PEG access fee and a portion of the City'S franchise fee to help offset the costs associated ,with the operation of the Studio. NOW TltEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1 -874- SCOPE OF SERVICES A. LMCC Obligations. This Agreement obligates LMCC to perform the following 1. Mauage, 0petal, ax~ maintain the Studio and audio/video production equipmeat and ~es lOeated at ~1 Sunset Drive, Spring park, :~Minaeso~a, available for use by ~he City and ia residea~; 2. Maimain and rep~, at LMCC's expense the City Equipment exeluding replace, ment of eqm'pment deemed to have served its useful life. 3. Provide outreach and promote activities and opport~, nities relating to PEG access program~g to City residents under the same terms, conditions, and standards adapted for LMCC residents; ' 4. Provide the necessary personnel to videotape each City Council Meeting throughout the term of this Agreement for cablecast on Channel 20 or another public access channel; 5. Arrange for play back and live cableeasting of video, audio, and text programming to the City an d its residents under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted for LMCC residents; 6. Assist the public, religious organizations, public libraries, ed.ueational institutions, and other groups and organizations of the City in the facilitation of PEG access programming efforts under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted for LMCC residents: 7. Provide all PEG access programming for the City and its residents on cable Channel 21 or another pubti'c access channel; and 8. Respond to questions and requests of City residents that pertain to PEG access programming and related facilities and equipment. B. City Obligations. following functions: This Agreement obligates the City to perform or provide the 1. Provide LMCC with the appropriate PEG aceess fee and a portion of the City's franchise f~, in accordance wi, th Section II A. herein, as well as the City Equipment, in a.~ rdance with Section M here'm; 2. Cooperate with LMCC in the effective implementation and administration of the requirements and responsibilities outlined within th/s Agreement; and 3. Maintain sole responsibility for responding to questions and requests from City residents regardiag matters which do not pertain to PEG access programming, related facilities and equipment regarding regulatory or franchise enforcement proceedings. 2 -875- pRO.ViSION OF PEG ncc ss A. PEG Access.Fee toBe.~d to. LMCC. The current franc~see in the CiW, Med~m., colle~s a PF_~ iw, coas f~ ia th~ amount of $.84 per subscxiber per b~lli~lg period. Mediaeom prow'des the PEG ams fee to the City on a quarterly basis, which thc City has agreed to' use to pay the LMCC for PEG access programming. In addition to the PEG Access Fee of $.84/per subscriber in the City, the City will pay, from it's Franchise Fee, up to aa ~tiona~ $,67/per sub~ber ia the Cit~, for a total of $1.511per subserib~ ia the City to the LMCC to pay for PEG access programming. The City hereby agrees to furnish LMCC with the PEG access fee and the portion of it's Franchise Fee it receives from Mediaeom within thirty (30) days of receipt from Mediacom, and LMCC hereby agrees to use said f~s exclusively for sapport of PF~ ~ss obligations required hereumter. City's first payment to LMCC shall be calculated beginning on the effective date of this Agreement through the end of the calendar quarter. B. Right to Renegotiate PEG Access Fee, If, at any time, LMCC chooses to return a portion of its franchise fee paid by Mediaeom to LMCC to any LMCC municipality, or reduce the $.50 per subscriber PEG access fee collected by LMCC, the City has, in its sole discretion, the option to renegotiate the amount of the PEG access fee and the amount of the portion of the franchise fee to be supplied to LMCC. The LMCC and the City wi_Il provide funding according to a per-subscriber amount based upon the percentage of subscribers represented by the LMCC and the City. This will be reviewed at 3 months and 6 months for accuracy of budget projections. If an agreement cannot be reached, this Agreement shall terminate upon thirty (30) days advance written notice. SECTION HI GRANT OF CITY EQUIPMENT A. General Grant. Upon the effective date of this Agreement, the City shall provide LMCC with use of the City Equipment. LMCC shall not, by use of the City Equipment, have any further rights therein. In the event this Agreement is terminated or expires, LMCC shall return to the City the City Equipment in its entirely and in the same condition as when first supplied to LMCC, absent normal wear and tear and excluding equipment that was deemed inoperable or had lived its useful life. If there is any theft of equipment, unexplained loss of equipment or shortage disclosed upon taking inventory the LMCC will immediately notify the City for insurance purposes. This may or may not be covered under the City insurance.policy, however the LMCC will not reimburse the City for these losses. B. Use of City_ F_a_uipm~nt, The City Equipment shall be used by LMCC exclusively for the develOPment, construction, operation:,, maintenance, and other functions relating to the PEG cess operations set forth in this Agreement. LMCC shall exercise reasonable care in maintaining and repairing the City Equipment, Upon failure to do so, the City may hire a contractor: to perform the maintenance and repair and seek reimbursement from LMCC for the expenses resulting therefrom. Any use of the City Equipment by LMCC that is not specified in this Agreement shall require the prior written consent of the City, 3 -876- C. Condition of City F.,o_ui_omept, An inventory of all City equipment covered by this agreement will be completed by representatives of both the LMCC and the City within 30 days of the commencement of this Agreement. This will constitute the City invert.tory of equipment. LMCC acknowledges that it has examined the City Equipment and that said City Equipment is now in good and satisfactory condition for LMCC's purposes. LMCC acknowledges it will examine the City Equipment and that it will determine with the City if City Equipment is in good and satisfactory condition at_thc ti_mc, of taking. Anventory~ ..... LMCC .... agrees to return the CitY Equipment to the City at the termination or expiration of this Agreement in the same condition when initially examined and used, absent normal wear and tear. D. Inventory of City F.~_ui_Dm~ent. LMCC shall, at all times, maintain an inventory of the City Equipment, which shall be available for the City's review Upon the City providing twenty (20) days notice to LMCC. This request not to exceed twice a year. E. ln~ranee. The City shall, in accordance with applicable laws, maintain all reasonable and necessary insurance for the City Equipment so long as the City Equipment remains on the property of or in the possession of LMCC and it shall list the LMCC as an additional insured on any and all policies covering the City Equipment. SECTION IV OUTREACH/PROMOTION AND PROGRAMMING A. Outreach and Promotion. The CiTY desires to provide PEG access programming that will meet the needs of its residents. LMCC recognizes that community awareness and understanding is essential to accomplish this goal. As such, LMCC agrees that it shall provide outreach d promotion to City residents under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted for LMCC residents. B. ]~r_qgi~lllilIJ~lg. LMCC shall work with educational institutions, public libraries, and religious organizations. LMCC shall assist these groups in their programming efforts. This includes the coordination of program sources through tape exchange and technical consultation services, as available and practicable just as the LMCC does for its member cities. SECTION V RECORDS AND REPORTS A. Maintenance of Records and reports. LMCC shall make available to the City, upon request, any requested financial information regarding the PEG access Studio and facilities. LMCC shall also maintain records and prepare an annual report stating the name of each City resident who has used the local programming facilities and City Equipment, the name of each program produced, and the duration of each program produced.. ("Report"). B. In~_oection of Records. The'City shall have the right to inspect LMCC's recx~rds during regularly scheduled business hours or at such other times as mutually agreed to between LMCC and the City. 4 -877- C. ~ Report, LMCC shall submit the ann~ Report to the City on or before the of Februa , year. SECTION VI LMCC and the City shall each indem~fy and forever hold hamless the other, their resl ctive = :ates, office , directors, employees, agents, aM partners from md against any and ~ liabilities, ¢lai'ms, losses or damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attoroeys' f~.~s) arising out of any breach of any obligation, representation or warranty hereunder made by any ~ to ms Agreement which gives rise to any claim by any person or entity; provided, that in any case in which indemnification is sought, the party seeking indemnification ("Indemnified Party"); shall 1) promptly notify the party from whom such indemnification is sought ("Indemnifying Party"); 2) afford the Indemnifying Party the opportunity of defending such claim; and 3) the Indemnified Party shall fully cooperate in connection with such defense, litigation, settlement, or disposition and shall have the right, but not the obligation, to join in and be.represented by its own counsel at its own cost and expense. LMCC shall indemnify and forever hold harmless the City, its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, and partners from and against any and 'all liabilities, claims, losses or damages, costs and expenses arising out of programming errors or omissions over which LMCC ~has responsibility, includ'mg copyright infringement, misappropriation of literary property, or of program format, defamation, invasion of privacy, due to or arising out of programming cablecasted on a PEG access channel, This indemnity shall be subject to the procedural requirements including notice and opportunity to defend as set forth above. SECTION VII TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall be effective as of the date hereof and shall expire on December 3 1, 2000. However, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for additional one (1) year terms u~ess The objec~g ~ supples the other with ninety (90) days written notice of termination., Such notice of termination may be submitted at any time, by either party, IJ following December 31, 2000, _ SECTION VIII MISCELLANF_.~US PROVISIONS A. Su_m~rsedes Prior A_~,eements. LMCC and the City agree that this Agreement shall supersede any and all rights and obligations of LMCC and the City under any prior agreements. 5 -878- B. Bindin~ on. Sueeessors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure 'to the benefit of LMCC and the City and their respective successors and assigns. C Force Majeure. If, by reason of Force Majeure, LMCC or the City are unable in whole or in part to carry out their obligations hereunder, neither party shall be deemed in violation or default during the continuance of such inability. D. Se_tmrabilit¥, Agreement which may knowledge believed to If any law, ordinance or regulation shall require or permit any party to this to perform any service or shall prohibit any party from performing any service be in conflict with the terms of this Agreement, as soon as possible following thereof, said party shall give notice to the other party of the point of confh'ct exist between such law, ordinance or regulation. 2. If any section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction or by any state or federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction thereof, such determination shall have no effect on the validity of any other section,, sentence, paragraph, term or provision hereof. 3. In The event such decision, law, role or regulation is subsequently reversed, repealed, rescinded, amended, or otherwise changed, so that the section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision hereof which had been invalid or modified is no longer in conflict with The decisions, law, roles and regulations, said section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision shall thereupon return to full force and effect and shall thereafter be binding on all parties, provided that the party relying on the section, sentence, paragraph, form or provision shall give the other party or parties thirty (30) days written notice of such change before requiring compliance with said provision. 4. In the event state or federal law changes so as to substantially affect the authority of local governments over cable television franchising, this Agreement shall be reopened for negotiation. E. Captions. The captions throughout @s Agreement are intended solely to facilitate reading and merely reference the sections and provisions of this Agreement. Such captions shall not affect the meaning- or interpretation of this Agreement. F. Interpretation. This Agreement has been arrived at by negotiation and shall not be - construed against any party. G, Governing 1.4tw, This Agreement shall be interpreted in'accordance with Minnesota law. H. Notices. Unless other-wise provided for herein, all notices, reports or demands required to be given in writing under this Agreement shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to the persons designated below, or when Three O) business days have elapsed after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, or on the next addressed business day if sent by 6 -879-. e~press m~i{ or, overnight air courier add~ to the ~ to which notice is be'rog given, as ff ~ LMCC: ~ ~netoaka Communications Commission 4071 Sunset Spring Pa~k, MN. 553 -0385 A~: Ms. Sally Koenecke with copy to: Bemick and Lifson, P.A. 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Golden V~ey, MN 55416 Arm: Thomas Creighton, Esq. if to the City: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364-1687 ATTN: Ms. Francene Clark-Lei.singer with copy To: Mass & Barnett A Professional Association South 7th Street 4800 Norwest Center Minaeapolis, MN 55402-4129 Attn: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. Such addresses and phone numbers may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this Section. 1. Entire. A~eement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between LMCC and the City. No oral modifi tions or additions hereto unless specifically referenced herein shall be binding. No verbal or written statements of either LMCC or the City shall be considered a modification of thi's Agreement except by written documents signed by bo parties expressly stating that it is modifying this Agreement. J. No Joint. Vengjr. Nothing in this Agreement shall cream a joint venture or principal- agent relationship between LMCC and the City. Neither LMCC nor the City is authorized to act towards third ~es or the public in any manner which Would indicate such a relationship with the other. K. No Waiver. The failure of either LMCC or the City to strictly enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or as excusing the other party from future performance. L. A,~gl!_~_.tll~. This Agreement shall not be assigned or performance of the duties hereunder delegated without the express prior w tten consent of the parties to do so. Any 7 -880- eoaseat.of assignmeat ahall not. uareasonably withheld, 7~his · .Agreement is hereby aerated and .we agree to be bound by a~ of its Terms and conditions. ~ MINNETONKA COMMUNI'CA~ONS COMMISSION Dated: q--'/- 0 0 CITY OF MOUND, MINN~.OTA Dated: ~ -Y-DI~7 STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF H~rNF, PIN) The f~egoing instrument was acknowledged before me this }~t_ day of ~.o., I , 2000, by Sallv Koenecke, the of Yhe Lake Minnetonk~ Communications Commission on behalf of the Commission. Notary Public STATE OF MINNF~OTA) ) SS. COUNTY OF I-mNNF, Pm,) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this. I ,2000, by Frgn Gl~k the Acting City Manager of the City of Mound, Notary Public 8 -881 - August 10, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99-73 APPROVING THE TRANSFER AND ASSIGNMENT OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO MEDI~COM LLC WHEREAS, on or about June 23, 1998, the City of Mound ("City") passed and adopted Ordinance No. 99-1998 granting a Cable Television Franchise ("Franchise") currently held by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. (Triax); and WHEREAS, on April 29,1999, a certain Asset PurChase Agreement ("Agreement") was made and entered Into by and among Triax and Meciacom LLC; and WHEREAS, Triax and Mediacom have requested consent by the City to transfer the Franchise and the assets comprising the Cable System to Mediacom Minnesota LLC ("Mediacom");.and WHEREAS, in compliance with the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the name of grantee/franchisee under the Franchise will be changed to Mediacom; and WHEREAS, under the Franchise and applicable law, proposed Transfer require consent from the City; and the WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the proposed Transfer and the legal technical, and financial qualifications of Mediacom and Mediacom LLC; and WHEREAS, based on information obtained and on the reports and iRformation received by the City, including the report prepared by the City's cable television consultants, Moss & Barnett. a Professional Association, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the City has found no reason to disapprove of the proposed Transfer to Mediacom. NOW, THEREFORE, the city Council for the City of Mound resolves as follows: -882- August 10, 1999 Triax is the lawful holder Of the Franchise· The City hereby consents and approves of the proposed Transfer Subject to. A. Closing of the transaction contemplated within the Asset Purchase Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions described in information provided to the City by Triax and Mediacom LLC. B. Mediacom LLC notifying the City in writing of the completion of the Transfer within thirty (30) days of the date of closing of the Transfer. C. Mediacom, within thirty (30) days of the closing of the Transfer, providing the City with a signed Acceptance of the Franchise in the form attached hereto and incorporated by reference and a Certificate of Good Standing or Existence for Mediacom for the State of Minnesota, and Mediacom LLC providing the City with a Corporate Guaranty in the form attached hereto. The City hereby waives any right of first refusal which the City may have to purchase the Franchise, or the caldle television system serving the City, but only as such right of first refusal applies to the request for approval of the Transfer now before the City. ® In the event the Transfer from Triax to Mediacom contemplated by the foregoing resolutions Is not completed, for any reasons, the City's consent shall not be effective. Mediacom may, at any time and from time to time, assign, grant, or pledge or otherwise convey one or more liens or security interests in its assets, including its rights, obligations and benefits In and to the Franchise to any lender providing financing to Mediacom -883- August l 0, 1999 To the maximum extent permitted by all applicable local, state and federal laws, this Resolution shall not be construed to in any way relieve Triax nor limit ~ediacom from any liability under the Franchise. This Resolution shall take affect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date of its passage, approval, and adoption. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Brown. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker. The following voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. ATTEST: city Clerk SS/PAT MEISEL Mayor -884- B~IAN T. ~O~A~ (~ ~2) 34%0340 ~MVf~: C-zog~nB(~moe.-bam=tt.=om LAw OI~C~S .MOSS & BARNETT A P~o~sao~L Assoc~o~ 4,800 NORWSST C~tT~ 90 So~ S~ S~ M~OLIS, MIN~SOTA 55402-4159 ~o~ (61'2} 347-0300 PA~ (612} ~39~6686 August 4, 1999 Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger City Clerk. City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re: Moss &.Barnett's Report Regarding Triax's Proposed Assignmem of the City's Cable Television Franchise to Mediacom LLC Our File No.: 39962.1 Dear Fran: Enclosed herewith please lind Moss & Barnett's Report regarding Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. proposed assignment of the City's Cable Television Franchise to Mediacom LLC. Although the Report is quite large, I believe that you will fred that the Report is broken down into sections which will allow the reader to quickly ascertain the information they are most interested in. The Report provides an overView of the information which both Triax and Mediacom made available to us on which our Keport is based, We also review the applicable !aw relevant to consider in a proposed transfer as well as a description of the Asset purchase Agreement executed by Mediacom and Triax on April 29, 1999. The Report then reviews Mediacom's legal and technical qualifications to own and operate the cable system. We also provide detailed responses of interViews we conducted with sixteen (16) differem cities which Mediacom presently serves around the country to provide the City.~vith an overview of how other similarly situated communities view Mediacom's performance. The Report contain.q a detailed review on Mediacom's financial qualifications based on the information which Mediacom provided to us. We also.address any additional issues which the City may have under its current franchise, then provide recommendations for action by the City. Attached to the Report as Exhibits are appropriate 'background information regarding the transaction as well as a proposed i~esolution at Exhibit D for the City council's consideration and action. The Report alsO contains a proposed Acceptance Agreemem and Guaranty of Performance which are referenced within the Resolution. -885- MOSS & BARNETT A Pl~ol~s,~tON.~, .A.s~eL~'nON Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger August 4, 1999 Page 2 An advanced copy of this Report was forwarded to Mediacom and Triax and they were permitted to provide input to Moss & Barnett to ensure the factual accuracy of the Report. This Report should be distributed to your City attorney and City council for their review, consideration and input. Thereafter, the City council should take action to issue its decision regarding the proposed transfer of the City's Cable Television Franchise from Tfiax to Mediacom. 'We recommend that the City utilize the proposed Resolution contained within our Report at Exhibit D for this purpose. If you should have any questions or if we can provide any additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact us. Very truly yours, BTG/tlh cc: Tfiax Midwest Associates, L.P Mediacom LLC c/o Jane Bremer, Esq. (via U.S. Mail w/enclosure) 273999/1 -886- Report to the City of Mound' Minnesota Regarding Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. prOposed Assignment of the City's Cable Television Franchise to Mediacom LLC August 4, 1999 *Also. licensed to practice in the Stste of Iowa. Prepared by: Brian T. Grogan, Esq. Timothy L. Gustin, Esq. Michael R. Nixt, Esq. VinCent J. Fahnlander, Esq.* Moss & Barneff A: professional Association 4800 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 (612) 347-0300 (612) 339-6686 facsimile 273F77/I -887- Report to the City of Mound, Minnesota Regarding Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. Proposed Assignment of the City's Cable Television Franchise to Mediacom LLC August 4, 1999 Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Applicable Law .............................. ................................................................................... 3 Description of Transfer and Assignment .......................................................................... 8 Legal Qualifications ......................................................................................................... 9 Technical Qualifications ............ ..................................................................................... 10 Interviews with City Officials .......................................................................................... 13 Financial Qualifications .................................................................................................. 34 Additional Issues ........................................................................................................... 46 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 47 Exhibits 'A. Transfer Questionnaire/ApPlication Response for Tdax Midwest Associates, L.P. and Mediacom LLC B. Certificates of Good Standing or Existence for Mediacom LLC C. Subscribers & Homes Passed by State D. Draft Resolution Approving Transfer E. Acceptance of a Franchise For a Cable Television System F. Guaranty of Performance G. Ownership Structure H. July 22, 1999 letter from Larkin, Hoffman 2'/39'/'//I ii -888- Introduction The City of Mound, Minnesota ("City") has before it a reqUest from Tria× Midwest Associates, L.P. ("Triax"), to approve a proposed assignment of its cable televi sion franchise to Mediacom Minnesota LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Mediacorn LLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Mediacom"). Pursuant to Ordinance No. 99-1998 adopted on June 2.3',:1998 at. Section 1.8 ("Franchise"), the proposed transfer of the Franchise from Triax to Mediacom is prohibited without, written consent of the City. In light of the request by Triax and Mediacom and the procedural requirements outlined in Section 1.8 of the Franchise, Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association, has been retained by the City and was asked to provide this report ("Report"). In preparing this Report, Moss & Barnett has relied upon information submitted by Triax and Mediacom including: 1. FCC Form 394-Application for Franchise Authority ConSent' to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise received by the City on or about May 24, 1999. 1999. Transfer Questionnaire/Application Response for Mediacom dated June 4, 3. Asset Purchase Agreement, dated April 29, 1999, by and between Triax Midwest Associates, UP. and Mediacom LLC, including all Schedules and Exhibits thereto, except for Schedule 1.1(h), Schedule 3.3(h), Schedule 9.3, Schedule 10.9, Exhibit F, and Exhibit G, which were withheld by Triax and/or Mediacom for reasons of confidentiality. 4. Certificates of Good Standing or Existence for Mediacom. 5. Selected financial information as described in the "Financial Qualifications" section of this Report. In preparing this Report, Moss & Barnett not only reviewed FCC Form 394 and the Asset Purchase Agreement by and between Triax and Mediacom, but also contacted sixteen (16) communities served by Mediacom to solicit input regarding Mediacom's past performance in these Communities. The purpose of these telephone calls was to review the character and operational performance of Mediacom to provide the City with a picture of the management philosophy of this company. The Report has been prepared with Brian T. Grogan serving as project manager, Timothy L. Gustin assisting with due diligence and document preparation, legal assistant Ken A. Moats a,ssisting in the telephone survey and in updating clients regarding various procedural requirements. In addition, Mr. Michael R. Nixt, who is a 273977/1 1 -889- former CPA with Coopers & Lybrand, performed the financial review of Mediecom, and Mr. Vincent J. Fahnlander, who is an attorney licensed to practice in both. Minnesota and Iowa, assisted in Report preparation for municipalities which we represent in the State of Iowa. Moss & Barnett strongly recommends that this Report be reviewed by your local City attorney. YOur local CitY attorney haS knowledge of state law a~id the City's code and we believe it is important to obtain the input of the City attorney before any action is taken on this Report and our recommended Resolution. 273977/1 2 -890- Applicable Law The following provisions of federal law, state law, and the Franchise govern the actions of the City in acting.on the request of Triax and Mediacom for approval of the transfer and assignment of the Franchise from Triax to Mediacom. FEDERAL LAW The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Consumer Protection and ComPetition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Cable Act"), provides at Section 617 (47 U.S.C. § 537): Sales of~Cable. Systems A franchising' authority' ~ha//, if'the .franchiSe requires f/'a'bchisi/~' aUthority approval of a sale or transfer, have 120 days to act upon any request for approval of such sale or transfer that contains or is accompanied by such information as is required in accordance with Commission regulations and by the franchising authority. /f the franchising authority fails to render a final decision on the request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted un/ess the requesting party and the franchising authority agree to an extension of time. The Cable Act also provides at Section 613(d) (47 U.S.C. § 533(d)) as follows: (d) Regulation of ownership by States or franchisin,q authorities Any State or franchising authority may not prohibit the ownership or control=of a cable system by any person, because of such person's ownership or control of any other media, of mass communications or other media interests..-Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State or franchising authority from prohibiting the ownership or control of a cable system in a jurisdiction by any person (1) because of such person's ownership or control of any.other cable system in such jurisdiction, or (2) in circumstances in which the State or franchising authority determines that the acquisition of such a cable system may eliminate or reduce competition in the defivery of cable service in such jurisdiction. Further, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has promulgated regulations gover~ning the sale.of cable systems. Section 76.502 of the FCC's regulations(47 C,F.R. § 76.502) provides: 273977/1 3 -891 - 47 C.F.R. § 76.502 Time Limits Applicable to Franchise Authority Consideration of Transfer Applications A franchise authority shall have 120 days from the date of submiSsion of a completed FCC Form 394, together with aft exhibits, and any additional information required by the terms of the franchise agreement or applicable state or local law to act upon an application to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer controlling ownership of a cable system. A franchise authority that questions the accuracy of the information provided under paragraPh (a) must notify the cable operator within 30 days of the filing of such information, or SUch information shaft be deemed accepted, unless the cable operator has failed to provide any additional information reasonably requested by'the franchise authority within 10 days of such request. If the franchise authority fails to act upon such transfer request within 120 days, such request shall be deemed granted unless the franchise authority and the requesting party otherwise agree to an extension of time. STATE LAW Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 Sale or Transfer of Franchise provides: Subd. 1. Fundamental corporate.change defined. For purposeS .of this section, "fundamental corporate change" means the sale or transfer of a majority of a corporation's assets; merger, including a parent and its. subsidiary corporation; consolidation Or creation of a subsidiary corporation, Subd. 2. Written approval of franchTsing authority. A sale Or transfer of a franchise, including a sale or: transfer by means of a fundamental corporate change, requires the written approval of the franchiSing authority. The parties to the sale or transfer of a franchise shaft make a written request to the franchising authority for its approval of the sale or transfer. The franchising authority shaft reply, in writing, within 30 days of the request and shall indicate its approval ofthe request or its determination that a public hearing is necessary if it determines that a sale or transfer of a franchise may adversely affect the company's subscribers. The franChiSing authority shaft conduct a public hearing on the request within 30 days of that determination. Subd. 3. Notice of hearing. Unless otherwise already provided for by local law, notice of the hearing must be given 4 4 days before the hearing by publishing 273977/1 4 -892- notice of it once in a newspaper of genera'/circulation: in the area being served by the franchise. The notice must contain the date, time, and p/ace of the hearing and must briefly state the substance of the action to be considered by the franchising authority. Subd. 4. Approval or denial of sale or transfer request. Within 30 days after the public hearing, the franchising authority shall approve or deny, in writing, the sale or transfer request. The approval must not be unreasonably, withheld. Subd. 5. Sale or transfer of franchise without system. The parties to the sale or transfer of a franchise only, without the inclusion of a cable communications system in which at least substantial construction has commenced, shall establish that the sale or transfer of only the franchise will be in the public interest. Subd. 6. Sale or transfer of stock. Sale or transfer of stock in a corporation so as to create a new controlling interest in a cable communications system is subject to the requirements of this section. The term "controlling interest", as used herein, is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes actual working control in whatever manner exercised. LOCAL LAW The City of Mound's Franchise at Section 1.8, provides: SECTION 1.8. FRANCHISE NON-TRANSFERABLE. a. Grantee shaft not voluntarily o'r involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise; 'sell, assign, transfer., lease, sublet or otherwise dispose o~ in whole or in part, the Franchise and/or Cable System or any of the rights or pdvilegeS granted by the Franchise,. without the prior written consent of the 'Council and then only upon such terms and Conditions as maY be presCribed by the~ Council with .regard to the proposed transfe'fe~'s legal,~ technical and financia! qualifications, which conSent Shall not be unreasonably ~enied or delayed. Any atternpt to sell, assign, transfer, lease, sublet o~r,. othervvi~e diSpOse of all or any part of the FranChiSe and/oh Cable .SyStem of' Grantee s rights therein without the prior written consent of t~e Council shall be null and Void and shaft be grounds for termination of the Franchise pursuant to Section 1.30 hereof and the applicable provisions of any Franchise Agreement. b. WithO~/t limiting the nature of the events requiring th'e CounciYs approval under this Section, the fo//oWibg events Shaft be deemed to be a sa/e; assignment or other transfer ~f the FranChise and/or Cabie system requiring comP)iance with this Section:' (i) the sa/e, assignment or Other transfer.of all or a majority 6'f Grantee's assets or the assets comprising the Cable System to any person; (ii) the merger of the Grantee or any of its parents with or into another Person (including the merger of Grantee Or any parent with or into any parent or subsidiary corporation or' other PerSon); (iii) the 273977/1 5 -893- consolidation of the Grantee or any of its parents with any other Person; (iv) the creation of a subsidiary corporation or other entity; (v) the sale, assignment or other trar~sfer of capital stock or partnership, membership or other equity interests in Grantee or any of its parents by one or more of its existing shareholders, partners, members or other equity owners so as to create a new Controlling Interest in Grantee; (vi) the issuance of additional capital stock or partnership, membership or other equity interest by Grantee or any of its parents so as to create a new Controlling Interest in Grantee; and (vii) the entry by the Grantee into an agreement with respect to the management or operation of the Grantee, any of Grantee's parents and/or the System or the subsequent amendment thereof.. The term "Controlling Interest" as used herein is not limited to majodty equity ownership of the Grantee, but also includes actual working control over the Grantee, any parent of Grantee and/or the System in whatever manner exercised. c. Grantee shaft notify Grantor in writing of any foreclosure or any other judicial sale of all or a substantial part of the property and assets comprising the Cable System of the Grantee or upon the termination of any lease or interest covering afl or a substantial part of'said p'roperty-'and'assets:-'Such-nofification-shatl~be-co-nsidered-by ......................... Grantor as notice that a change in control or ownership of the Franchise has taken place and the provisions under this Section governing the consent of Grantor to such change in control or ownership shaft apply. d. For the purpose of determining whether it shall consent to such change, transfer or acquisition of control, Grantor may inquire into the qualifications of the prospective transferee or controlling party, and Grantee shaft assist Grantor in any such inquiry. In seeking Grantor's consent to any change of ownership or control, Grantee shaft have the responsibility of insuring that the transferee completes an application in form and substance reasonably satisfactory to Grantor, which application shall include the information required under this Ordinance and Applicable Laws. The transferee shaft be required to establish to the satisfaction of the City that it possesses the legal, technical and financial qualifications to operate and maintain the System and comply with afl Franchise requirements for the remainder of the term of the Franchise. If, after considering the legal, financial, character and technical qualities of the transferee and determining that they are satisfactory, the Grantor finds that such transfer is acceptable, the Grantor shaft permit such transfer and assignment of the rights and obligations of such Franchise as may be in the public interest. The consent of the Grantor to such - transfer shaft not be unreasonably denied. e. Any financial institution having a security interest in any and aft of the property and assets of Grantee as security for any loan made to Grantee or any of its affiliates for the construction and/or operation of the Cable System must notify the Grantor that it or its designee satisfactory to the Grantor shaft take control of and operate the Cable Television System, in the event of a default in the payment or performance of the debts, liabilities or obligations of Grantee or its affiliates to such financial institution. Further, said financial institution shaft also submit a plan for such operation of the System within thirty (30) days of assuming such control that will insure continued service and compliance with afl Franchise requirements dudng the term the financial institution or its designee exercises control over the System. The financial 273977/1 6 -894- institution or its designee shaft not exercise control, over the System for a period exceeding one (f) year un/ess extended by the Grantor in its discretion and during said period of time it shaft have the right to petition the Grantor to transfer the Franchise to another Grantee. f. /n addition to the aforementioned requirements in this Section 1.~9, the City and Grantee shaft, at all times, comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 238.083 regarding the sale or transfer of a franchise and: with aft other Applicable Laws. SECTION 1.9. CITY'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE SYSTEM. The City shaft have a right of first refusal to purchase the Cable System in the event the Grantee receives a bona fide offer to purchase the Cable System from any Person. Bona fide offer as used in this Section means a wdtten offer which has been accepted by Grantee, subject to the City's rights under this Ordinance and any Franchise Agreement. The price to be paid by the City shall be the amount provided -f-~r in the bona fide offer, including the same terms and conditions as the bona fide offer. The City shaft notify Grantee of its decision to purchase within sixty (60) days of the City's receipt from Grantee of a copy of the written bona fide offer and such other relevant and pertinent information as the City shaft deem appropriate. 273977/1 7 -895- DesCription of Transfer and Assignment Mediacom presently owns and operates cable systems in fourteen (14) states and in 313franchised communities serving over 370,000 Cable and Internet customers. Triax is presently operating cable systems in approximately 617 franchised communities, serving approximately 342,000 customers. The transaction Contemplated will result in Mediacom expanding its scope of operations into six (6) additional states where it is not presently doing business, increasing the number of customers by nearly 100%, and increasing the number of communities served.by approximately 187%. · On April 29, 1999, Mediacom and Triax entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement ("PurchaSe Agreement") which provides for the acquisition of substantially all of the Triax cable system operations described above ("Systems"), subject to certain exclusions based upon the success of Triax in obtaining applicable governmental consent of the several hundred communities which are involved .in Triax's operations. ...................... --Th-e-F'-U-~h-~-e-Agreemefit provicles th~t-M~di~--c-b-~ ~,-[I-I-'~U-f~,h-a§-e--fi'b-~"T-fi~Th-~"S~'§~fii'i~' for a stated amount of $740,000,000.00, subject to certain adjustments, both increases and decreases to the purchase price based on the occurrence of certain events occurring prior to the Closing Date of the Purchase Agreement. The current ownership structure of Mediacom consists of Mr. Rocco B. Commisso (9.7%), Mords Communications Corporation (64.5%), Chase Manhattan Corporation (9.5%), U.S. InVestor, Inc. (6.9%), Private Market Fund, L.P. (5.3%), and BMO Financial, an affiliate of Bank of Montreal, and two undisclosed'private individuals (4.1%). There are presently a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries of Mediacom. One is Mediacom Capital Corporation, which was formed primarily for the purpose of facilitating ownership of corporate indentures by entities that are restricted from owning bonds issues by limited liability companies. The remaining subsidiaries of Mediacom were formed for operating purposes on a regional basis. Mediacom has formed new operating subsidiaries, which will hold all of the Systems acquired in this transaction as well as those from another smaller transaction with Zylstra Communications Corporation. Mediacom Minnesota LLC, the proposed grantee, will hold title to the operating assets of the business and will be the operator of the Systems. Please see the flow chart on Exhibit G for a depiction of the corporate structure. 273977/1 8 -896- Legal' Qualifications The legal qualifications standard relates primarily to an analysis of whether Mediacom is duly organized and authorized to own' and control the cable system in the City. The applicable standard of review is that the City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.~ We have focused our analysis on the legal qualifications of Mediacom LLC ("Mediacom"), the proposed grantee. Mediacom, a New York limited liability company, was formed on July 17, 1995. Confirmation was obtained from the New York Secretary of State that Mediacom is in good standing and has a legal existence in the State of New York. See Exhibit B for the Certificate from the State of New York Office of the Secretary.of Statel Mediacom was formed for the purpose of acquiring, constructing and operating cable' television properties located primarily in Alabama, Florida, MiSsissippi, Tennessee, Delaware, ............................ _M_a__ry__lan_d_,_._N_9_~th Carolina,.._MjA_s..o_ud,....Kansas,....K. entu¢_k..v~...!iiin_g~. Ok!ahoma_,C_ali.f_Q..r. nj.._a_., .................... and Arizona. As the proposed Grantee for the City's system, Mediacom Minnesota LLC must be authorized to conduct,business in the State of Minnesota. MediacOrn has provided Certificates of Good Standing or Existence for the State of New York, Where Mediacom is organized, and the States of AriZona and Iliinois. These certificates confirm the authority of Mediacom to own and operate the' cable television system in the cites in those states. However, for the States of Minnesota, Iowa and WiSconSin, Mediacom plans to qualify the legal entities shortly before closing of the transaction and therefore has not provided the certificates to confirm the requisite authority.. Upon providing the certificates, however, Mediacom will possess the legal qualifications to own and operate the cable television systems in the cities located, in those states. These cities should condition their approval of the transfer on receiPt of said certificates. See Exhibit B for the Certificate of Good Standing that have been provided. Based on our review of the legal qualifications of MediacOm, we conclude it would .be unreasonable for the City to find that upon closing of the transactions contemplated under the Purchase Agreement and receipt of the requisite Certificate of Good Standing or Existence, Mediacom will not be legallY qUalified to own and operate the cable, system in the City. Stat Section 238.083. 273977/1 9 -897- Technical Qualifications The technical qualifications standard relates to Mediacom's technical expertise and experience in operating and maintaining cable television systems. In such a review, the standard is once again that the City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld? Mediacom currently operates 148 cable television systems that serve over 370,000 subscribers in fourteen (14) different states. Mediacom has established four (4) operating regions to manage and operate those cable television systems. First, the Southern Region represents Mediacom's largest region and serves over 139,000 customers in the states of Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and Tennessee. SecOnd, the Mid-Atlantic Region serves approximately 88,000 customers in the states of Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina. Third, the Central Region serves over 84,.000 customers in Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, and Oklahoma. Fourth, theWestern Region s~erves~ver54;e~;ab~e~subscribers.and.`~nt~met~cust~mersqn.~a~if~mia-and-Ariz~na: Mediacom plans to greatly expand its operations by venturing into jurisdictions where it does not currently serve. With approval of the transfer, Mediacom will serve approximately 725,000 subscribers in 20 states and across approximately 930 franchised communities. Since Mediacom previously served 370,000 subscribers in fourteen (14) states and across 313 franchise communities, this is a subStantial undertaking in terms of technical necessity and expertise. This undertaking appears even more substantial considering the exponential growth by Mediacom in certain states, such as Illinois and Minnesota. Illinois, for example, currently has 5,046 Mediacom subscribers, or 1.4% of the Mediacom subscriber base. This number'would escalate to 121,798 subscribers, or 17.5%, upon transfer approval. Similarly, in MinneSota, there are currently no Mediacom subscribers.. However, with transfer approval, Mediacom would gain 106,330 subscribers to comprise 15.3% of the Mediacom subscriber base. Illinois and Minnesota would become Mediacom's top two states for subscriber count, upon transfer approval. Other states, such as Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio will also be a large part of Mediac0m's surge'in'Subscriber base. Please see Exhibit C regarding SUbscribers & Homes Passed by State. Nonetheless, Mediacom has not proposed any changes to the operations or service in the City, nor has it sought any changes to the obligations under the existing Franchise. Mediacom has stated that it plans to make new technologies and new services available to its customers wherever commercially feasible, and it does have a history of upgrading cable systems to improve capacity, quality, and reliability. As well, Mediacom claims that subscribers presently served by Triax will generally see little or no disruption in existing operations, aside from the billing system which will have slight changes. See Minn. Stat Section 238.083. 273977/1 10 -898- Mediacom has stated that it does not anticipate any cost changes to current services resulting solely from Mediacom's acquisition of the Systems. However, historical operations suggest that an increase in the cost of basic service borne by the subscriber. Please see the section titled "Financial Qualifications" for further discussion. Mediacom will be managed by Mr. Rocco B. Commisso, who is the Manager, Chairman, and Chief Executive Officer of Mediacom. We understand that the terms of Mediacom's Operating Agreement provide Mr. Commisso with overall management and control of the business and affairs of Mediacom and its subsidiaries, with certain issues requiring aPproval of the Executive Committee. Also, we understand that neither the members of Mediacom nor the Executive Committee has the power to remove or replace Mr. Commisso as Manager of Mediacom except in limited circumstances. We were unable to verify the accuracy of such representations by Mediacom or determine what the limited circumstances are because a copy of the Operating Agreement was not furnished for our review due to reasons of confidentiality. However, assuming such representations to be true, Mr. Commisso does have significant experience in the cable television industry and seems well positioned to manage the new Systems, if the City approves the transfer. After the acquisition, Mr. Commisso will maintain authority over most of the management decisions, and his considerable experience should provide relative comfort to the City. In addition, it appears that Mr. Commisso will retain his current management team after the proposed transaction. His management team also has significant experience in the cable television industry. The Mediacom management team, through Mr. Rocco B. Commisso, has significant experience in the day-to-day operations of cable televisions systems throughout the country. Such management expertise should provide sufficient technical oversight to assist the proposed grantee in the day-to-day operations of its systems. Based on our review, we believe Mediacom possesses significant cable management expertise and experience in operating cable television systems. In addition, the following section regarding Interviews with City Officials demonstrates the high satisfaction among cities presently served by Mediacom.' In fact, thirteen (13) of the sixteen (16) community officials we interviewed expressed great satisfaction with Mediacom's programming quality, service, and customer relations. We remain concemed, however, that the proposed transaction will more than double the size of Mediacom resulting in increased pressure on management. While we understand Mediacom will attempt to retain existing Triax personnel when possible', technical service and customer service remain concerns. 273977/1 11 -899- Based on the foregoing, we conclude it Would be unreasonable for the C:ity to find that upon closing of the transaction contemplated under the Purchase Agreement, Mediacom will not be technically qualified to own and operate the cable system in the City. 273977/1 12 -900- Interviews with City Officials Mediacom owns, operates, or controls the cable communications systems serving approximately 370,000 cable and Internet subscribers. After the proposed transaction, the communities'served will include the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Currently, Mediacom serves subscribers in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Missouri, Kansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma, California~ and Arizona. We attempted to contact city officials in communities representative of cable systems in each of these states. (The subscriber numbers used in this Report are approximated based on the Television & Cable Factbook and include a five percent (5%) increase from the last reported subscriber census provided therein.) We contacted a total of sixteen (16) communities in June and July 1999 with cable systems currently operated by Mediacom in order to ascertain the following: 1. The nature and quality of the relationship between Mediacom and the community; Whether Mediacom worked well with the community in resolving cable service problems; Whether subscribers appear to be satisfied with the services they received from Mediacom; and o The extent that Mediacom supports public access programming and local programming. These sixteen (16) communities were selected in order to obtain a response from communities with different characteristiCs. We contacted municipalities in the following states: Mississippi, Delaware, Kentucky, Alabama, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, Kansas, and Tennesse. The number of subscribers in these cities ranged from approximately 251 subscribers in Huntland, Tennessee to 2,735 subscribers in Excel, Alabama to 23,415 in the Mil/sboro, Oceanview, and Bethany Beach, Delaware area. Please note that we requested from MediaCom a list of each and every community in which it operates along with appropriate, contact information. Mediacom responded by providing only 44 communities. The sixteen (16) communities we contacted were taken from the list although the results may be suspect given that we worked from Mediacom's hand picked list rather than from the 316 communitYliSt we requested but never received. 273977/1 13 -901 - Sixteen ('16) Communities Contacted in June and July '1999 An official from each community was contacted and asked the following questions with the responses summarized below. 1. How many yearS has :MediacOm been operating the cable system? Mediacom has operated the cable systems for periods ranging from approximately two (2) years to over five (5) years. Most of the cable systems were acquired Within the last two (2) to three (3) years. 2. Did Mediacom build the cable system? Mediacom has not built the systems in any of the communities interviewed, As such, it acquired the existing system from providers in all sixteen (16) ..................................................... ~ur~ties ........................................................................................................................................... 3. How old is the existing system? System age ranges from approximately ten (10) years to over 25 years. Six of the communities have systems that are over 20 years old. Thirteen (13) of the communities have systems that are over fifteen (15) years old. Does Mediacom provide any high speed data services via the cable system to the city or any of its subscribers? Mediacom does not prOvide any high speed data services via the cable system to the interviewed communities at this time. However, in at least three (3) of the communities, Mediacom has installed fiber optic cable necessary to provide such service. o What type of operational cutbacks or franchise amendments have been made since Mediacom took over? o In only one (1) community of the sixteen (16) interviewed was a cutback reported. This community lost certain sports channels when Mediacom took over. In almost all of the other communities,' officials noted thaf there have been additional channel offerings since Mediacom took over. Two (2) officials noted that Mediacom was agreeable to a franchise fee increase when it acquired the · system. Is there a local office for Mediacom? If not, how far is the office? Eight (8) communities had a local office. Five (5) of the other communities had a local office within 10 to 35 miles. One community had an office 45 to 50 miles away, while another had an office 100 miles away, and another had an office approximately 150 miles away. 273977/1 14 -902- 7. How many basic cable channels are there? Basic. cable channels range from approximately 9 to 40 channels. Most officials were unsure how many basic channels were offered in their community as the "family basic package" is the more common package subscribed to. This is likely due to the limited offerings with the basic cable package, which is common in other communities with different cable television providers. The "family basic package" provides anywhere from 44 to 60 channels. 8. Does Mediacom support public access programming? Mediacom supports public access programming in all of the interviewed communities except for one. There, the community has not requested a public access channel. 9. Does Mediacom do any local programming? interviewed. 10. Do the schools use the system? At least eleven (11) of the communities have schools that use the system. Four (4) officials did not know if the schools use the system. One (1) community does not have schools, but the franchise requires access for schools, if built. Another community recently requested installation of a line that would provide the schools with access to the system. 11. Are most subscribers happy? Has the city received many complaints? All sixteen (16) of the sixteen (16) officials interviewed indicated that subscribers are pleased with Mediacom's service and quality in their municipality. These officials noted that their municipality has received very few complaints. Mediacom appears to be providing quality programming and good customer service. The few complaints these municipalities do receive are regarding the cable television rates. With increased channel offerings has come increased rates, in many of the communities. 12. Does Mediacom satisfactorily resolve subscriber complaints? All sixteen (16) officials interviewed indicated that Mediacom satisfactorily resolves subscriber complaints. 13. What are current subscriber rates? Current subscriber rates range from approximately $8.00 to $30.00 per mOnth for a basic channel package, with most subscribers receiving family basic coverage with rates around $20.00 to $30.00 per month. 27397711 15 -903- 14. Has Mediacom made any changes to subscriber rates? Fourteen (14) of the sixteen (16) communities have experienced rate' increases upon MediaCom's acquisition of the system. Most of these communities, however, have also experienced an increase in channel offerings. 15. How would you describe the city's relationship with Mediacom? Most of the officials described the relationship with Mediacom as good, very good, or excellent. Most responses were clearly, positive, in only two (2) communities was there a more reserved description of the relationship with Mediacom, where it was described as "fair but distant" and "cordial." No officials described the relationship in a negative fashion. 16. What types of problems has the city experienced with Mediacom? All sixteen (16) of the officials stated that the municipality has had no problems -~v-ith-fvqe---dia~;' ~l~in-t~-~b-b--~t-r~dfa-66-m ~e-n-~ ~i~fily on the ra---t'~ structure and the increase in rates. 17. What are your franchise fees? Are they paid on time? The franchise fees range from three percent (3%) to five percent (5%) of Mediacom's gross revenues. One community does not base its fee on a percentage of gross revenues, but instead receives a $25,000.00 flat franchise fee. All of the interviewed officials noted that the fees are always paid on time. One official provided one instance where a fee was not paid on time, but · Mediacom seemed to be operating under a previous paYment date. Upon notice to Mediacom, the franchise fee was immediately Paid. 18. What is the programming/picture quality like? The majority of responses ranged from good to very good. A few officials stated that local channels may experience sun spots or shadows at times, one official described the quality as less than desirable,' another described it as fair, and another as satisfactory. Overall, the communities seemed satisfied with the programming/picture quality. 19. Would you grant a' new franchise to Mediacom? Why or why not? Fifteen (15) of the sixteen (16) officials said that the municipality would probably grant Mediacom a new franchise. The other official was unsure, but thought that a new franchise would be granted. Overall, the officials indicated that the municipality and its residents were satisfied With Mediacom. This satisfaction was conditioned by six (6) of,the officials on the fact that Mediacom is the only provider available in that city. It seems that many of the cities would welcome competition and an alternative provider. Five (5) of the cities indicated that their franchise was recently renewed. 273977/1 16 ' '-904- SPECIFIC RESPONSES FOR EACH OF THE · SIXTEEN (16) MUNICIPALITIES The cities interviewed were from a list of 44 cities provided by Mediacorn and may not be a true random sample. The responses provided may or may not be the same as for the cities that were not included on the list of cities provided by Mediacom. An official from each community was contacted and asked the following questions. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. How many years has Mediacom been operating the cable system? Did Mediacom build the cable system? How old is the existing system? Does Mediacom provide any high speed data services via the cable system to the city or any of its subscribers? What type of operational cutbacks or franchise amendments have been made since Mediacom took over? Is there a local office for Mediacom? 'If not, how far is the office? How many basic cable channels are there? Does Mediacom support public access programming? Does Mediacom do any local programming? Do the schools use the system? Are most subscribers happy? Has the city received many complaints? Does Mediacom satisfactorily resolve subscriber complaints? What are current subscriber rates? Has Mediacom made any changes to subscriber rates? How would you describe the city's relationship with Mediacom? What types of problems has the city experienced with Mediacom? What are your franchise fees? Are they paid on time? What is the programming/picture quality like? 27397711 t7 -905- 19. Would you grant a new franchise to Mediacom? Why or why not? The following is a very short synopsis of the information that was conveyed by the city officials. As such, the following responses cannot be taken as a true reflection of the attitudes that the city officials have toward MediaCom. City: Louisville, Mississippi Contact: Andy Woods Title: Mayor 1. Two to three years. 2. No. 3. Approximately 25 years. 4, No. 5. None. 6. Yes. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17, 18. Mr. Woods is not sure of the number of channels offered in the basic cable package. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. He has received very few complaints with regards to Mediacom. Yes. The average rates vary from $28.00 to $33.00. The subscriber rates were increased last year. Along with the rate increases, Mediacom offered additional channels. Good. No. The city collects a 3 1/2% franchise fee which is paid quarterly and received on time. Good to very good. 273977/1 18 -906- 19. Yes. The city just renewed the franchise last year for an additional 15 years. City: Millsbore, Delaware Contact: Faye Lingo Title: Town Manager 1. Two to three years. 2. No. 3. Over 15 years. 4. No. Fiber optic cable was just added in October 1998. 5. None. 9. 10. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 273977/1 Ms. Lingo thought that there were ten channels offered in the basic package. There was also a family basic package but she was not sure of the number of channels. Yes. No. Yes. It appears that most subscribers are happy. She has received very few complaints. Yes. Ms. Lingo was not sure of the rate for the basic package. She believed that the family basic package was $27.00 per month. Yes. The rates were increased when the system was upgraded last year. Very good. None. Mediacom pays the city a franchise fee of 5%. Fees are paid quarterly and are paid on time. Good. Yes. The franchise was renewed just I. ast year. 19 -907- City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19, Cadiz, Kentucky Jim Lancaster City Clerk No. 20 years. NO. NO. No. The local office is 45 - 50 miles away. ....... Mr~ Lancaster .believes...the-basi6.package..has..at~pro~imately..ni.ne. ehanr~els. There is also a family'basic package but he is not sure of the number of channels offered. Yes. No. Yes. Mr. Lancaster would say the subscribers are satisfied. He has not received many complaints. Yes. The basic package rates are $7.88 per month. The expanded basic rate it $17.37 per month and the total family total package rate is $25.25 per month. Subscriber rates were increased in March, 1999. At ~hat time, additional channels were offered when the rates were increased. _ Mr. Lancaster would say the city has a good relationship with Mediacom. None. Mediacom pays the city a 3% franchisee fee on a quarterly basis. The fees are paid on time. Good. Mr. Lancaster believes the city would grant Mediacom a new franchise. The current franchise is due for renewal in 2002. He does not believe that with the 273977/1 2O -908- size of the city a competing cable oompany would· come in and offer a better package than Mediacom. City: Contact: Title: Oak Grove, Kentucky Ron Ramage City Administrator 1. Two years. 2. No. 3. 15 years. No, although Mediacom has considered it. Fiber optic cable was just installed in July. 5. No. 6. Yes. Mr. Ramage was not sure however he thinks there are about 14 channels in the basic package. 8. Yes. 9. No. 10. There are no schools in the City 'of Oak Grove. However, the franchise agreement does provide for this service should schools be built. 11. Yes. The city has not received many complaints since Mediacom took over. 12. Yes. 13. Mr. Ramage was not sure of the current subscriber rates. They were just increased on July 1, 1999. 14. Mediacom has increased the subscriber rates but has also increased channel offerings. 15. Excellent. 16. None. 17. Mediacom pays the city a 5% franchise fee on a quarterly basis. The fees are paid. on time. 273977/1 21 -909- 19. Mr. Rarnage's response was that he ¢o'uld not ask for any better programming options. The picture quality is sometimes less than desirable, but it is a problem that cannot be corrected. Yes. Based on Mediacom's present performance. City: Contact: 'Title: i. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Ardmore, Alabama Stacy McCormick Town clerk TWo years. No. Ms. McCormick was not sure how old the existing system is, but believes it to be over ten years old. No. None. No. The local office is in Huntsville, Alabama which is approximately 30 miles away. Ms. McCormick was not sure of the number of channels offered. Yes. No. Yes. She has not received many complaints. She would assume most subscribers are happy. Yes. Ms. McCormick was not sure of the current subscriber rates. Mediacom just increased the subscriber rates bu~ also increased channel offerings. Good. None. Mediacom pays the city a 3% franchise fee on a quarterly basis. The fees are paid on time. 273977/1 22 -910- 18. 19. Fair. Yes. Ms. McCormick felt that the city would look at a competing franchise if an interest was expressed. City: Excel, Alabama Contact: Gracie Guy Title: City Clerk 1. Three to four years. 2. No. 3. Over fifteen years. 4. Ms. Guy'did not believe that Mediacom provides any high speed data services at this time, but was not certain. 5. None. 6. Yes. 7. Ms. Guy was not sure of the number of basic channels. She thought that it was 20-25. 8. Yes. Mediacom provides a public access station. 9. No. 10. Yes. 11. Yes. Ms. Guy indicated that she has not received many complaints. 12. Yes. 13. The basic subscriber rate is approximately $20.00. 14. Mediacom just increased the rates recently. However, it also offered additional channels at that time. 15. Very good. 16. None. 17. Mediacom pays the city a 5% franchise fee on a quarterly basis. The fees are paid on time. 18. Good. 273977/1 23 -911- 19. City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4, 5. 6, 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15, 16. 17, 18. 273977/1 Yes. The city just renewed the franchise two years ago primarily because citizens want cable television, and Mediacom has the only system available. Richmond, Missouri Ron Brohaumer City Manager Two years. NO. Over ten years old. No. No.. Yes. Mr. Brohaumer believes that the basic cable provides 12 channels and the family basic cable provides 44 channels. Yes. NO. Mr. Brohaumer is not sure if the schools use the system or not. Mr. Brohaumer believes that subscribers are more satisfied with Mediacom than with previous providers. He indicated that the satisfaction has increased in the last six months. Yes. Mr. Brohaumer believes that the basic package is about $10.00 per month and the family basic package is about $19.95 per month. Mediacom has increased the rates within the FCC guidelines and has offered additional channels with the rate increases. Very good. None. Mediacom pays the city a 3% franchise fee on a quarterly basis. The fees are paid on time. Good. 24 -912- 19. Yes. Mediacom responds efficiently and effectively to questions and complaints. Yet, Mediacom is the only cable television provider in the area. City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Cameron, Missouri Phillip Lammers City Manager Two years. No. Over 25 years old. No. None that he is aware of. No. The local office is approximately 30 miles away. Mr. Lammers was not sure of the number of channels offered in the basic cable package. Yes. No. The franchise with Mediacom provides that a channel will be provided, but the city would need to purchase the hardware. Mr. Lammers is not sure if the schools are using the system or not. Mr. Lammers feels that subscribers are more satisfied than previously. He receives occasional complaints with regard to unclear stations, which have decreased since Mediacom installed a new conductor and amplifiers. Yes. Mr. Lammers is not sure of the current subscriber rates. Mediacom has raised rates.but has offered additional channels at the time of the rate increases. Mr. Lammers would describe the relationship as fair but distant. He has not had much contact with Mediacom. None. The city receives a 5% franchise fee and a $2.00 pole fee from Mediacom. The fees are paid on time. 273977/1 25 -913- 18. 19. Satisfactory. Yes. Mediacom has been easy to work with. City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Princeton, Kentucky Howard Hurt CitY Clerk Two years. No. Over 20 years. Mr. Hurt is not aware of any high speed data services available at this time. None. Yes. Mr. Hurt believes that there are approximately 10 or 11 channels offered on the basic cable package. Yes. No. Yes. Mr,r Hurt believes that most subscribers are happy. He has received very few complaints. Yes. Mr. Hurt was not sure of the current subscriber rates. Mediacom has increased the subscriber rates but at the same time added additional channels and options. Good. None. Mediacom pays the city a 5% franchise fee on a quarterly basis. Fees are paid on time. Good. 273977/1 26 -914- 19. Yes. The franchise was just renegotiated last year for an additional 15 years. City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Windsor, North Carolina David Over-[on Town Administrator Mr. Overton thought that Mediacom acquired the cable system 3-4 years ago. No. Mr. Overton indicated that the current system is 20+ years old. Not that he is aware of. None. No. The local office is about 20 miles away. Mr. Overton was unsure of the number of channels offered for the different packages available to subscribers. Yes. No. The schools have access to the cable but Mr. Overton was not sure to what extent the Schools used the system. Mr. Overton indicated that he felt most people were happy. He has not had very many complaints. Yes. Mr. Overton was not sure of what the current rates were. The rates have been periodically inoreased, but, at'the same time, more channels were offered. - Good. None to speak of. Mediacom pays the city a 3% franchise fee and a pole rental feel of $4.00 per pole. The fees are paid on time by Mediacom. Excellent. 273977/1 27 -915- 19. Mr. Overton said he did not know of any reason why the city would not grant Mediacom a new franchise. The subscribers seem to be happy with the service, but Mediacom is the only operator in the area. City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Ocean View, Delaware Joseph P. Lobb Town Manager 2 years. Mediacom acquired the cable system in July 1997. No. 15-16 years old. None. There were no operational cutbacks when Mediacom acquired the system. The franchise was amended to increase the franchise fee, and Mediacom was very agreeable to the amendment. No. The local office is about 10 miles from the city. Approximately 35 channels. Yes. No. The schools have access to the system and do use it. Yes. Very few complaints are received. Yes. Mr. Lobb has not heard that the complaints referred to Mediacom have not been resolved. Mr. Lobb was unsure of the current subscriber rates. There was a slight increase in the subscriber rates, but additional channels were offered along with the rate increase. Very good. None. Mediacom pays a 5% franchise fee based on the gross receipts of the subscribers that are within the town limits. Fees are paid on time. 27397T/1 28 -916- 18. 19. Mr. Lobb would rate the programming and picture quality as good. There have been very few outages. Yes. Based upon past experience, Mediacom has been very easy to deal with. City: Contact: Title: Santa Rosa County, Florida H u nter Wal kef County Manager Note: Mediacom has a franchise with Santa Rosa County. The county represents the unincorporated cities within the county. There are approximately 17,000-18,000 subscribers within the county represented by this franchise. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Mediacom acquired the cable system about 2 years ago from Cablevision. No. Over 15 years old. The system has been upgraded in the last 3 years. Not yet, although there has been discussions about providing the service. None. There is a local office in each of the outlet communities serviced. Mr. Walker thought that the basic service provided approximately 14 channels and the enhanced basic service provided 50-60 channels. Yes. No. Yes. .. Yes. Mr. Walker indicated that he receives few complaints. Most of the complaints center around rates and rate structure. Yes. Mr. Walker did not have the current subscriber rates available. There has been regular increases within the FOC guidelines. Along with the rate increases, however, Mediacom usually adds channels. Cordial. Mr. Walker says that he has only periodic contact with Mediacom. None. 273977/1 29 -917- 17. 18. 19. The county receives a 5% franchise fee. Fees are paid on time. Mr. Walker would rate the programming quality as beyond adequate and the picture quality as very good. Yes, primarily because Mediacom is the only operator in the area. City: Contact: Tithe: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 9. 10. 11. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Lucedale, Mississippi Kathy Johnson City Clerk Mediacom acquired the cable system about 3 years ago. No. Approximately 11-12 years old. No. There were no operational cutbacks. The franchise was amended to raise the franchise fee which Mediacom was agreeable to: No. The local office is about 2 1/2 hours away. Ms. Johnson was not sure of the number of channels offered in the basic package. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Ms. Johnson indicated that she has received very few complaints. Yes. Ms. Johnson did not have the current subscriber rates available. None that she is aware of. She described the city's working relationship with the Mediacom representatives as very good. None. Mediacom pays the city a 5% franchise fee, which is paid on time. 273977/1 3O -918- 18. 19. City: Contact: Title: 1. 2, 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Very good. Yes. The city just renewed the franchise about 2 years ago. provided good service to the city. Mediacom has Edgerton, Kansas Rita Moore City Clerk' Mediacom acquired the cable system about 2 years ago. No. Over 20 years. No. None. No. The local office is about 100 miles from the city. Ms. Moore believes there are about 20 channels offered in the Basic package. There is no public access channel in the city and the city has not requested one. No. Not at this time. A line to the schools has just been requested. Yes. Ms. Moore has seen a reduction in the number of complaints. Yes. Ms. Moore was not aware of the current 'rates being charged by Mediacom. The rates were raised slightly but additional channels were added. Good. None. Mediacom pays the city a 5% franchise fee. The paymedt was late for the first quarter of this year; however, she believed that Mediacom was operating under the payment date of the old franchise, The check was immediately sent when she called Mediacom. GoOd. 2739'r'//1 31 -919- 19. Yes. The franchise'was just renewed in May 1999. City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Huntland, Tennessee Marie Stovall City Recorder Mediacom acquired the franchise approximately 5 years ago. No. Over 15 years old. No. None. No. The local office is in Huntsville, Alabama, which is about 35 miles from the City. There are approximately 40 channels on the expanded basic package. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. The only complaints received concern the rate increases. Yes. The basic package is $10.00 per month. The expanded basic is $19.95 per month. Rates were increased last fall but additional channels were also added. Very good. None. Mediacom pays the city a 5% franchise fee. The fee has been paid on time. Good. Yes. Ms. Stovall indicated that Mediacom was easy to work with, yet she also added that Mediacom is the only operator in the area. 273977/1 32 -920- City: Contact: Title: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. t5. 16. 17. 18. 19. Bethany Beach, Delaware Glen Hudson Town Manager 2 years. No. 12-15 years old. No. No. Yes. ApprOximately 21 channels. Yes. No. The schools are wired for cable access, but Mr. Hudson was not sure whether they utilized the service. Yes. Mr. Hudson has received very few complaints. The main complaint has been the discontinuance of some of the channels from Philadelphia and New Jersey. Bethany BeaCh is a retirement community, and when Mediacom took over, some of the sports channels from Philadelphia and New Jersey were discontinued. yes. The basic cable rate is $29.95 per month. No. Very professional. - NO. Mediacom pays the city a franchise fee of $25,000.00 per year. The fees have been paid on time. Mr. Hudson would rate the picture quality goodl HoweVer, many subscribers would like the channels from Philadelphia returned. Yes. Mediacom provides good service to the community. 273977/1 33 -921 - Financial Qualifications SCOPE OF REVIEW The financial qualifications relate in part to Mediacom's ability to demonstrate it has "sufficient net liquid assets on hand or available from committed resources to consummate the transaction and operate the facilities for three (3) months? The standard of review is that the City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.4 We have reviewed selected financial information provided by Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company ("Mediacom") in conjunction with Mediacom's request for consent to the change in ownership of a television cable system (the "System") serving the City which is presently operated by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P., ("Triax"). The selected financial information which was provided, and to which our review has been limited, consisted solely of the following financial information (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Financial Statements"): (a) Consolidated balance sheets of Mediacom and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in members' equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for the period from the commencement of operationS (March 12, 1996) to December 31, 1996 and the statements of operations and cash flows from the periOd January 1, 1996 through March 11, 1996, together with the report of Independent Public Accountants, Auditor's Report and Opinion dated March 5, 1999, does not contain any material qualifications of the foregoing financial statements except with respect to Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts, which is not part of the basic consolidated financial statements and is included for SEC reporting purposes only. All of the same is published in Mediacom's Form 10-K and the amended Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 1998, as the same were filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a.s of March 31, 1999 and May 7, 1999, respectively; and (b) Unaudited consolidated balance sheets of Mediacom and subsidiaries as of March 31, 1999 and December 31, 1998, and the related Consolidated statements of operations, changes in See FCC Porto 394 Section III(l). This criteria is not referenced as a "standard" but rather as one component of a ~roposed transfere¢'s financial qualifications. See Minm Stat Section 238.083. 273~77/~ 34 -922- members' equity and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 1999 and 1998, as the same is published in Mediacorn's Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 1999, as the same ,was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of May 17, 1999. Our procedure is limited to providing a summary of our analysis of the Audited Financial Statements and Unaudited Financial Statements to facilitate the City's assessment of the financial capabilities of Mediacom to beCOme the successor operator of the System serving, the City currently operated by Triax.' II. OVERVIEW OF TRANSACTION Mediacom and Triax have entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement dated April 29, 1999 (the "Purchase Agreement"), pursuant to which agreement Triax has agreed to sell and Mediacom (and/or a designated assignee of Mediacom which may be one or more acquisition subsidiaries (hereinafter the "Acquisition Sub") which entity/les must be affiliated with Mediacom by virtue of common ownership or control) has agreed to purchase substantially all of the cable television system assets of Triax, including those which are used in or otherwise relate to the System serving the City. The purchase price for all of the assets to be transferred by Triax to Mediacom and/or the Acquisition Sub is $740.0 million, subject to adjustments (both increases and decreases) to the purchase price in accordance with the provisions of the PUrchase Agreement. · . The transaction, contemplated by.the Purchase Agreement is scheduled to close as early as OCtOber 1, 1999; with a reasonably anticipated closing date of November 1, 1999. The closing is subject to the satisfaction of several contingencies described in the Purchase Agreement,. the most significant of which include: (i) obtaining all material third party consents; (ii) satisfying the applicable waiting period and any extensions under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of1976; and (iii) a minimum subscriber threshold for the Triax systems which are being transferred, all of which contingencieS are, in all material respects, customary fora transaction of this magnitude. In the event that Triax terminates the Purchase Agreement on account of an uncured material broach by Mediacgm, Triax is entit[edlto liquidated damages in an . amount between $20.0~ million to $45.0 million. MediaClgm is entitled to seek its actual damages in the event of a corresponding termination bY.Mediacom on account of Triax's material breach in lieu of seeking specific performance of Tdax's obligations under the Purchase Agreement. Although Mediacom was requested to provide copies of all schedules and exhibits to the Purchase Agreement, certain schedules and exhibits, in particular those regarding "retained franchises" were intentionally omitted by Mediacom as containing confidential or proprietary information. As such, our review of the Purchase Agreement is conditioned on our inability to review such information. 273977/1 35 -923- III. OVERVIEW OF MEDIACOM 1. Summary of Mediac0m LLC and Subsidiaries. Mediacom LLC, a New York limited liability company, was founded on July 17, 1995 by Rocco B. Commisso to act as a holding company for its four (4) operating subsidiaries, for the purpose of acquiring, operating' a'n~l developing cable television systems in selected non-metropolitan markets of the United States? As of December 31, 1998Mediacom LLC had completed nine (9) acquisitions of cable television systems6 (the "Acquired Systems"), which Acquired Systems are owned by the operating subsidiaries of Mediacom LLC.7 Mediacom has presently divided its operations into four (4) regional bases of operations. These regional basis of operations include Southern Mid-Atlantic, Central and Western regions of the United States, with operations as follows:8 (i) The Southern region represents Mediacom's present largest region, as of December 31, 1998 providing service to approximately 134,200 basic subscribers in the outlining areas of Pensacola, Ft. Walton Beach and Panama City, Florida; MObile and Huntsville, Alabama; and Biloxi, MississipPi; (ii) The Mid-Atlantic region, as of December 31, 1998, providing service to approximately 85,500 basic subscribers in lower Delaware, southeastern Maryland and the northeastern and western areas of NOrth Carolina; (iii) The Central Region, as of December 31, 1998, providing service to approximately 81,100 basic subscribers located in the suburbs and outlying areas of Kansas City and Springfield, Missouri and Topeka, Kansas and communities in the western portion of Kentucky; and (iv) The Western Region, as of December 31, 1998, providing service to approximately 53,200 basic sUbscribers located in the following areas: Clear Lake, California; Indian Wells Valley in Central California; Portions of Riverside COunty and San Diego County, California and Nogales; Arizona and outlying areas. As of March 31, 1999, Mediacom is among the top tWenty-five (25) multiple system operators ("MSO's") in the United States, operating in fourteen (14) states and serving 313 franchise communities with approximately 370,000 basic subscribers? Following the consummation of the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement, Mediacom will conduct operations in 20 states and serve in excess of 900 franchise Communities, with approximately 712,000 basic subscribers~° and will. conduct operations in an additional six (6) sta(es with an increase of approximately 187% in the total number' of communities served arid an increase of approximately 95% i'n the total number of basic subscribers.. See Mediacom Form 10-K for the fiscal ycax ~ed DeCember 31, 1998 (''1998 10-K"), at page 1. See discussion Section ~ infra s~numarizing the "Acquired 'Systems." Mediacom LLC's operatLug sub~ ~liaries consist: of Mediacom Southeast LLC, Mediacom Delaware LLC, Mediacom Arizona LLC and Mediacom California LLC. Mediacora LLC, together with its four opemfirig subsidiaries and Mediacora Capital Corporation, a New York corporation, are collectively referred to herein as ("mediacora"). See 1998 I0-K at page 6. Id. at page 1. l0 Sum of 370,000 existing subscffbers plus 342,000 subscribers to be acquired from Triax~ 273977/1 36 -924- 2, Acqui,red Systems ~.Recent Acquisitions, As M.ediacom has been engaged in the significant growth of its system 'through acquisition of the Acquired Systems, the.following is a summary of the acquisition cost per subscriber of each of the Acquired Systems compared to the acquisition cost per subscriber from the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement (pending transaction .in italicized text). Richcrest CA $ Curran Valley, CA Nogales, AZ 1996 Valley Center, CA December, 1996 $11.0 $11.4 $2.5 1,989 1,803 1,407 1,316 Dagsboro, DE Sun City, CA Clear Lake, CA Various states Caruthersville, MO . Various ('Triax) June, 1997 December, 1997 ,January, 1998 , January, 1998 October, 1998 $ 42.6 $11.5 $ 21.4 29,800' 9,900 17,750 267,200 1,430 1,162 1,206 1~ 153 $ 308.2 $ 5.0 3,800 1,316 Fall '99 $ 740,0 342,000 2, i64 3. .Mana,qement and Operations - Related Party Transactions. Mediacom relies on MediacOm Management CorPoration, a DelaWare corporation wholly owned by Rocco B'. Commisso, for all of its strategic, managerial, financial and operational oversight and advice?~ Separate management agreements with each of Mediacom's four (4)operating subsidiaries provide for Mediacom Management to be paid compensation for management services performed for Mediacom. Under such.agreements, Mediacom Man.agement is. entitled to rece ve annual management fees Calculated as follows: (i) 5.0% of the first $50 million of annual gross operating revenues Of Mediacom; (ii) 4.5% of revenues in excess of thereof up to $75 million; and (iii) 4.0% of sUch revenues.in excess of. $75 million. In addition, Mediacom's operating agreement Provides for Mediac0m Management to be paid a fee of 1.0% of the put,asa Price of. acquisitions made by MediaCOm until' Mediacom's proforma cbnsblidated annual. operati'.ng revenue equals $75 milliOh and .5% of such purchase price thereafter. 4. Competitive Environment. The financial performance of cable television system operators are subject to many factors, including the competitive environment in which they operate. Mediacom, as a cable television system operator, faces See 1998 10-K atpage 24. 273977/1 37 -925- competition from several alternative methods of distributing video programminGl and from other sources of news, information and entertainment, the future growth and success of which could have a material adverse impact on Mediacom's prospective financial results of operation. Principal sources of such alternative entertainment include off-air television broadcast programming, newspapers, movie theaters, live sporting events, interactive on-line computer services and home video products.~2 Principal competition comes from 'high-power DBS services such as those which are currently being provided bY DirecTV InC. and EchoStar communications corporation, and ~edium-power service provided by PrimeStar, Inc. With pending transactions, DirecTV and EchoStar Could obtain high,power DBS, channel capacitY thrOugh the acquiSition of other DBS facilitieS, the result of which Would be a significant increase in the number of channels on which DBS providers Would be able to provide programming to subscribers thereby improving significantly their competitive positions with respect to cable system operators such as Mediacom and Triax. 5. Financing. The cable television business is inherently capital intensive, requiring substantial capital for the construction, maintenance and expansion of cable, plant and distribution equipment as well as to fund acquisitions. In addition to funding its ongoing operations, in 1998, Mediacom COmmenced the implementation of a substantial capital improvements program pursuant to which program Mediacom will invest in excess of $125 million between 1998 and 2000 to upgrade cable systems serving approximately 75% of Mediacom's subscriber base with state-of-the-art technology? Mediacom's financing strategy is to raise equity from its members and to issue public long-term debt by utilizing its operating subsidiaries to access debt capital, principally in the commercial bank market. Financing of Mediacom's operating subsidiaries are Currently effected through two stand-alone borrowing groups. The credit arrangements in these borrowing groups are non-recourse to Mediacom, have no croSs-default Provisions relating directly to each other, have different revolving credit and term periods and contain separately negotiated covenants tailored for each borrowing grouP? As of March 31, 1999, Mediacom was in compliance with all of the financial and other covenants provided for in its bank credit agreements, ~$which 'Credit, arrangements incldded the following: (i) a $100 million revolving batik credit facility expiring in September 2005; (ii) a $225 million revolving bank credit facility eXPiring in september 2006; (iii) a seller note in the original principal amount of $2.8 million issued in connection with:the aCquisition ~)f a cable television system; (iv) $200 million Offering of 8.5% senior notes due 2008; (v)$125 million offering Of 7,7/8% senior n0tes due 2011; and (vi) $125 million of equity capital invested in Mediacom by the members of Mediacom. a2 S~o 1998 10-K atpages 10 and 11 ~ Soo Exhibit 10 at pag~ 1. ~4 See Note 3(0) to the ~mmzdited finan~ statements of Mediacom ~nd Subsidiaries accompanying Form 10-Q for tho quarterly period ended March 31, 1999 ("1999 10-Q"). 273977/1 38 -926- As of March 31, 1999,Mediacom had approximately $306 million of unused bank commitments under the bank credit agreements described in (i) and (ii) above, all of which amount could have been borrowed under the most restrictive covenants in the bank credit agreements,is . .. Reviewer's Note: Although Mediacom believes that it will be able to generate cash and obtain financing sufficient to meet its working capital requirements, there are no assurances that Mediacom can provide that it will be successful in these endeavors. As Mediacom has not funded its ongoing cable system operation solely from working capital resources generated from operating activities,~7 Mediacom's continued reliance on ' external capital and'borrowings as a means of remaining a going concern raises questions about its long-term stability, especially in light of the fact that the future performance of Mediacom is subject to general economic conditions and to financial, political, competitive, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond Mediacom's control (although many of such factors, as they relate to the cable television system industry as a whole, would also have an adverse effect on other cable system operators). In addition, a significant portion of the purchase pdce to be paid pursuant to the Purchase Agreement is to be. paid in cash concurrent with the closing. As of March 31, 1999 Mediacom had current assets of aPproximately $12.5 million and unused bank commitments of approximately $306.0 million, which amounts are significantly less than the $740.0 million purchase price. Although Mediacom may significantly reduce the amount of its escrow by providing a commitment letter to Triax establishing Mediacom's ability to meet its financial covenants under the Purchase Agreement, Mediacom has indicated in its application that it has not made final arrangements for the financing of same. It is appropriate to consider the fact that Mediacom has not demonstrated that it has secured the necessary financial 'accommodations to fulfill its financial obligations under the Purchase Agreement, together with sufficient evidence of Working capital to operate the System (and other systems;to be acquired) upon consummation of the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement as a material issue with respect to Mediacom's financial qualifications to become the transferee of the System. Please see Exhibit H, July 22, 1999 letter from Larkin, .Hoffman regarding Mediacom's efforts regarding financing of this transaction. Mediacom LLC is in the process of restructuring its bank based credit facilities. Mediacom has represented that the restructuring will result in two ~6Id. aT See Mediacom LLC and Subsidiaries Consolidated statements of Cash Flows aCcompanying 1998 Form 10-K and 1999 Form IO-Q at pages 40 and 5, respectively. 273977/1 39 -927- borrowering groups, Media¢orn Midwest and MediaCOm USA, each of w'hich will have $500 million bank credit facilities. The Mediacom Midwest facility .,will - replace the existing bank lines of credit, .and the Mediacom USA facility will be new. Mediacom has indicated that both efforts are on schedule, and are proceeding through the bank syndication process as planned. According to IVlediacoml three of its existing lenders, including The ChaSe Manhattan Bank, have committed $100 million each'for a total of $300 million toward the $500 million Mediacom USA facility. Mediacom intends that this Structure will provide Mediacom with efficient pricing as well as maximum financial flexibility for the future. IV. FINDINGS 1. Analysis of Mediacom Financial Statements. Neither"federal law nor state laws provide guidance on how a franchising authority is to "consider" an applicant's financial abilityf8 In certain circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the performance of an applicant based on the applicant's historical performance in relation to recognized industry standards. Given the fact that Mediacom has a history of cable system operations, such statistical analysis is relevant with respect to the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement. We have based our analysis, in part, on industry standards which are generally recognized in making such a determination. These industry standards are more precisely described below.~ Based on the selected financial information which we reviewed, the following is a summary of the various financial factors, as compared to the applicable Industry Standards, for the three month period ended March 31, 1999 and the 12-month periods ended December 31, 1998 and 1997.20 ~s Sec In Re Application of Dakota Te]ecomm~3n/cat/onS C_~oup, for a Cable Television iranchiseiu 1V~rshall, Minnesota, C8-98-1139 Mina. Ct. of Appeals March 16, 1999 (case regarding award of a competitive.cable television fxanchise) citing lVfmm Stat Section 238.084, Subd 1(1); 47 U.S.C. SeCtion 541(a)(1])(c). See also FCC Form 394 Section I~(1) which l~ovides some clarification regarding "m/nimtun" financial qualifications. ~9 Except with respect to EBITDA margin, induslzy data based on information compiled by Paul Kagan and Associates~ ' 20 Where '_m, ~cated, Selected 1997 financial information and analysis is based on pro-forma data. Due to effect of Mediacom s acquisition of the Acquired Syste.~, pro-forma effect is given to selected ~inancial infonmtion to make compazison of financial information between separate reporting periods meazfin~ for the reviewer. The use ofpro-fonna data is an accepted method of measuring financial performance, however, no assurance can be: given that the pro-forma financial fifformation is representative of actual results. 273977/1 4O -928- 1. EBITDNrevenUe(1)* (Cash flow percentage) 39.09% to 42,53% 41.81 % 35.13% 54.'83% 2. Operating Income Percentage* (Operating Income/Revenue) +11% (14.15%) (9,08%) (12.74%) 3. Debt/Equity Rat!o** (long-term debt/total equity) 2.20:1 5.18:1 4.27:1 2.90:1- 4. Current Ratio' (current assetS/current liabilities) 1.0:1 .33:1 .40:1 .53:1 5. EBITDA , N/A 15 309,000 54,055,000 8,509,000 (1) Range based on a Domestic Suburban/Rural Wireline Cable Comparisons prepared by CIBC Oppenheimer, as supplied by Mediacom. Data has not been independently verified by the reviewer. * 1997 data based on pro forma financial information; ** Long term debt is estimated excluding current maturities identified in Notes to 1998 Form 10-K. Specific Financial Statement Data and Analysis: (a) Assets. Mediacom had (i) current assets of $12.5 million and $14.7 million; (ii)working capital of a negative $25.6 million and a negative $21.9 million; and (iii) total assets of $ 448.1 million and $451 1 million as of March 31, 1999 and December 31, 1998, respectively. Working capital, which is the excess of current assets over current liabilities, is a short-term analytical tool used to assess the ability of a particular entity to meets its current financial obligations in the ordinary course of business. The negative working capital balance of $25.6 million as of March 31, 1999, suggests that Mediacom may experience a short-term deficiency in available working capital resources which will need to be overcome by Mediacom drawing on other capital resources including borrowings and/or investing activities to meet its short-term operating requirements (See Section III, paragraph 5 regarding available, borrowing limits as of March 31, 1999). Mediacom's current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) as of March 31, 1999~ of .33:1 is below recognized industry standards of 1.0:1. (b) Liabilities. Mediacom had (i) current liabilities of $38A million and $36'.6,millionl (ii) long-term debt net of current maturities (estimated-.) of $343.0 mil.lion and $335,9 million; and (iii) member equity of $66.2 million and $78.7 million as of March 31, 1999 and December 31, 1998, respectively. As of March 31, 1999, Mediacom's debt to equity ratio, which is a measure of the amount of debt in relation to total equity, was approximately 5.18:1. Generally, a Iow debt to equity ratio is considered favorable. Mediacom's debt to equity ratio is higher than the industry trend of 273977/1 41 929- 2.2:1. The acquisition of the Acquired Systems, together with Mediac0m's $125.0 million capital improvement pr0gram have contributed significantly to Mediacom's high debt to equity ratio. (c) Operatin,q Income. Mediacom had: (i) revenue of $36.0 million and $129.3 million; (ii) operating expenses of $41.0 million and $140.7 million; and (iii) net loss of $12.5 million and $39.8 million for the three months ending March 31, 1999 and the year ending December 31, 1998, respectively. Mediacom's operating income percentage of (14.15%), (9.08%), and (12.74%) for the three (3) months ended March 31, 1999 for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997 (pro forma) respectively, are all significantly below the industry average of 11.0%. The deviation from the industry average is primarily due to significant increases in service costs, selling, general and administrative expenses, management fees and depreciation and amortization expenses associated with the inclusion of the assets of the Acquired Systems,2~ as well as the effect of significant capital expenditures reflected in depreciation and amortization costs associated with Mediacom'S implementation of its capital improvements project,= which are factors not necessarily reflected in the industry average. Due to the effect of the foregoing factors, it is unlikely that Mediacom's operating income percentage will approximate the industry average in the near future. (d) Cash Flow. MediaCom had an operating cash flow percentage for the twelve months ending December 31, 1998, of 41.81%, is within the range of operating cash flow percentages as described in the chart on the PreVious page. Cash flow and the cash flow percentage provide a measure of the ability of a business eritity to generate cash. A higher cash flow percentage generally means that more cash will be available tO meet the business entity's various obligations. See discussion in Section III, paragraph 5 regarding historical cash flow and working capital requirements. 3. Mediacom Manaqement DiscUssion and Analysis of Financial Statements. As the Acquired SYStems comprise a substantial portion of Mediacom's basic subscriberS, Mediacom has included a narrative analYSis of the pro-forma operations of Mediacom for the year ended December 31, 1998 compared to pro4Orma results for the See ~Chart in Section ffI, Paragraph 5, Supra. See Section m, Paragraph 5, Supra. 273977/1 42 -930- year ended December 31, 1997.23 The following is a summary of the narrative pro- forma analysis included in the t998 Form 10-K: Pro Forma Results for the Year Ended December 31, 1998 compared to Pro Forma Results for the Year Ended December 31, 1997:. (a) Revenue. Revenues increased to approximately $136.1 million for the year ended December 31, 1998, from approximately $120.5 million for the prior fiscal year. This increase was attributable principally to internal subscriber growth of approximately 2.5% in higher average monthly revenue per subscriber. Reviewer's Note: Average monthly revenue per subscriber increased to $32.88 per basic subscriber for the year ended 1998 from $29.67 per basic subscriber for the prior fiscal year; or an increase of approximately 10.82%. Mediacom's management discussion and analysis did not describe the reason for the increase although Mediacom has verbally stated that a portion of the increase.was due to an increase in the number of programmed channels. Although Mediacom has indicated that they do not have any plans to change the service and operations of the System, historical operations suggest that following an acquisition, Mediacom has increased its average revenue per subscriber, a result which presumably occurs as a result of the increase in the cost of basic service borne by the consumer. (b) Expenses. Service costs and SGA (Selling, General and Administrative) expenses in the aggregate decreased to approximately $72.9 million for the year ended 1998 from approximately $76.7 million for the prior fiscal year. This decrease was principally due to the allocation in 1997 of annual corporate overhead expenses and' employee stock expenses of the previous owners of the Acquired Systems, offset by an increase in management fee expense to approximately' $6.1 million for the year ended 1998 from approximately $1.5 million for the prior fiscal year. The. increase in .management fee expense was due to the higher revenue generated in 1998. (c) EBITDA. EBITDA 24 increased to approximately $57.2 million for the year ended 1998 from approximately $42.3 million for the Pdor fiscal year. EBITDA as a percentage of revenues increased to 2~ 1997 numbers in the pro forma analysis are annualized based on the projected results of operations assuming the ]~urchase of the Acquired.Systems had been consummated on January 1, 1997. EBITDA is the ~ of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization and is utilized asa performance measure within the cable television indnSt~, EB!TDA ~ nota measurement of financial perfomance mailer generally accepted accounting principles and does not reflect all of the expenses of doing business (i.e., interest expense, depreciation). Although EBITDA and Cash Flow From Operations may be interchangeable, these terms are not necessarily synonymous. 273977/1 43 -931 - 42.0% for the year ended 1998 from 35.1% for the prior fiscal year. This increase was due to internal subscriber growth, higher average monthly revenue per subscriber and decrease in service cost and. SGA expenses described above, off set by an increase in management fee expense. Actual Results for3 Months Ended December 31, 1998 Compared to Pro F°rma Results For 3 Months Ended December 31, 1997. (a) Revenue. Revenues increased to approximately $34.9 mi Ilion for the 3 months ended December 31, 1998, from approximately $30.8 million for the corresponding period of 1997. This increase was attributable principally to internal subscriber growth of approximately 2:5% and higher average monthly revenue per subscriber. (b) Expenses. Service costs and SGA expenses in the aggregate decreased to approximately $18.5 million for the 1998 period from approximately $19.6 million for the corresponding period of 1997. This decrease was principally due to the allocation of the 1997 'period of annual corporate overhead expenses and employee stock expenses of the previous owners of the acquired sYstems, offset by an increase in management fee expense to approximatelY $1.5 million for the 1998 period from approximately $0.7 million for the corresponding period of 1997. This increase in management fee expense was due to the higher revenues.generated by Mediacom in the 1998 period. (c) EBITDA. E.BITDA increase to approximately $15.0 million for the 1998 period from approximately $10.4 million for the corresponding period of 1997. EBITDA as a percentage of revenues increase to 42..9% for the 1998 period from 33.8% for the corresponding period of 1997. Increase was due to internal subscriber growth, higher average monthly revenue per subscriber and the aforementioned decrease in service costs and SGA expenses, offset by the' increase in management fee expense. V. SUMMARY Based on the foregoing and limited strictly to the Financial Statements reviewed by Moss & Barnett in conducting this review, we do not believe that Mediacom's request for transfer of ownership of the franchise to operate the System can reasonably be denied based solely on a lack of'financial qualifications Of Mediacom, notwithstanding the fact that Mediacom has failed to demonstrate as of the date of this report that it has 273977/1 44 ~-932- secured the necessary financial accommodations to fulfill its financial obligations pursuant to the Purchase Agreement.2s In the event the City elects to proceed with approving the transfer of the franchise, the assessment of Mediacom's financial qualifications should not be construed in any way to constitute an opinion as to the financial capability or stability of Mediacom to (i) operate its existing cable franchise operations; (ii) to operate the System or (iii) successfully consummate the transactions contemplated by the Purchase Agreement, upon which we express no opinion. The sufficiency of the procedures used in making an assessment of Mecliacom's financial qualifications and capability to become the successor operator of the System is solely the responsibility of the City. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures used either for the purpose for which this analysis of financial capabilities and qualifications was requested or for any other purpose. However, in order to ensure compliance with .its obligations to operate the System, we recommend that the CitY condition its approval of the change of ownership of the System as a result of the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement on the delivery of a guaranty from Mediacom LLC, in form reasonably acceptable to the City, pursuant to which Mediacom LLC will guaranty the payment and performance of Mediacom Minnesota LLC's obligations to the City pursuant to the Franchise. See Exhibit H, July 22, 1999 letter from Larld~ Hoffma~ 273977/1 45 -933- Additional Issues No additional issues have been raised by the City. 273977/1 46 -934- Recommendations Based strictly on the information made available to us at the time of this review, we believe Mediacom possesses the necessary legal, technical and financial qualifications based on the standardS of review identified in applicable law, and the Franchise as described within this Report. With.respect to Mediacom's financial qualifications, we recommend that the City require a parental guaranty from M~diacom LLC to insure that Mediacom Minnesota LLC fully complies with all terms and conditions of the Franchise. To the extent that such guaranties are provided, we find no reasonable grounds on which to deny Triax's request for approval of the transfer of the Franchise to Mediacom. Based on these findings, we recommend that: 1. The City Council review this Report, listen to public comment, as necessary or appropriate, and undertake all necessary action to pass and adopt a resolution similar in form and content to the document following these recommendations. 2. The City follow-up to ensure that Mediacom submits the required documents including the Acceptance Agreement and a Certificate of GOod Standing or Existence for cities in the States of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa, which must be delivered following closing of the transaction. 3. The City follow-up to ensure that Mediacom LLC submits the guaranty, for Mediacom Minnesota LLC. 273977/1 47 -935- Exhibit A Transfer Questionnaire/Application Response for Mediacom Telecommunications Company Limited PartnershiD and Mediacom LLC 273977/1 A-1 -936- TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P. CONSENT TO ASSIGN CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO MEDIACOM LLC TRANSFER QUESTIONNAIRE/APPLICATION June 4, 1999 prepared by: Brian T. Grogan Timothy L. Oustin Michael R. Nixt, C.P.A. Kenneth A. Moats, Paralegal -MOSS & BARNETT ' A Professional Association 4800 Norv~est Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 (612) 347-0300 (telephone) (612) 339-6676 (facsimile) ©Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association, 1999 261697/1 -937- INTRODUCTION Moss & Barnett, A Professional Association, has, as of this date, been retained to represent the below-listed cities (hereinafter "City") regarding the proposed assignment of cable television systems and franchises to MediaCom LLC. This list may be modified and/or increased if additional communities seek our asslstance. This Transfer Questionnaire/Application will serve as a request on behalf of the City for supplemental information regarding the proposed assignment. The Applicant for the assignment is requested to use the following forms in order to inform the City of the Applicant's legal, technical and financial qualifications. In addition to the qualifications, the Applicant is requested to identify any and ali changes proposed to the cable communications system now serving the City, the operation of that system or the franchise document. In considering a request for transfer and assignment, the City will consider and review the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the ApPlicant tOgether with any modifications requested by the Applicant. The City will comply with any and all state or federal procedural requirements. Cities represemed by Moss & Barnett 1. Apache Junction, AZ 2. Boscobel, WI 3. Caledonia, MN Cannon Falls, MN 5. Canton, MN 6. Chanhassen, MN 7. Granite Falls, MN 8. Ivanhoe, MN 9. Lake City, MN 10. Litchfield, MN 11. Marseilles, IL 12. Mound, MN 13. Ottawa, IL 14. Paynesville, MN 15. Pipestone, MN 16. Prior Lake, MN 17. Rushford, MN 18. St. James, MN 19. Savage, MN 20. Slayton, MN 21. Spencer, IA 22. Waeonia, MN 23. Wayzata, MN 261697/1 2 -938- NOTE: Moss & Barnett will also be assisting Municipal & County Management Services · ("MCMS) and its principal, Patrick Callahan, Esq. in its review of this proposed assignment on behalf of MCMS clients. Please provide five (5) copies of Applicant's Transfer Questionnaire/Application to: Brian T. Grogan Moss & Barnett 4800 Norwest.Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 The City expressly reserves the right to request _additional information~ DEFINITIONS Unless the context otherwise requires, when used in this Application, the terms listed in this section shall have the following meanings: Ac The term "Affiliate," when used in reference to the Applicant or a Principal of the Applicant, shall mean any Person that directly, or indirectly, through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with the Applicant or the Principal of the Applicant. The term "Applicant" shall mean Mediaeom LLC (as identified in FCC Form 394; please clarify if this is incorrect). The term "Person" shall mean any individual, corporation, general or limited partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, trust, association, or other entity. Do The term "Principal," when used in reference to the Applicant, shall mean (i) any officer, director, or beneficial owner of five percent (5%) or more of any class of voting securities of the Applicant and any Affiliates. of the Applicant, (ii) any Person who provides management or operatiOnal services with respect to th~ "System" (as hereinafter defined) and any officers, directors,, or beneficial, owners of five percent (5%) or more of any class of voting securities of any such Person, (iii) any general or limited partner of the Applicant or any A~Iiate of the Applicant and any officer, director, or beneficial owner of five percent (5%)or more of any class of voting securities of any such partner, and (iv) any Person who or which serves in a capacity or stands in a relationship similar to any of the foregoing. The term "System" shall mean the cable communications systems covered by the Franchise Ordinances awarded by the City, to which this Application relates. 261697/I -939- OVERVIEW OF TRANSACTION Below we have outlined an overview of the transaction based upon our initial review of FCC Form 394. If any errors have been made in our description, please provide clarification as part of your response to this application. The Applicant presently owns and operates cable systems in fourteen (14) states and in 313 franchise communities serving over 370,000 cable and interact customers. Triax is presently operating cable systems in approximately 617 franchised communities, serving approximately 355,000 customers. The transaction contemplated will result in the APplicant expanding its scope of operations into six (6) additional states where it is not presently doing business, increasing the number of customers by nearly 100% and increasing the number of communities served by more than 300%. The Applicant and Triax entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement dated April 29, 1999 ("Purchase Agreement") which provides for the acquisition of substantially all of Triax's cable system operations hereinabove described (the "Systems"), subject to certain exclusions based upon the success of the Applicant in obtaining applicable governmental consent of the several hundred communities which are involved in Triax's operations. The Purchase Agreement provides that the Applicant will purchase from Triax the Systems for a stated amount of $740,000,000.00, subject to certain adjustments, both increases and decreases to the purchase price based On the occurrence Of certain events occurring Prior to the Closing Date of the Purchase Agreement. 1. Ownership Information A. Multiple Systems OCerat°r Please specify which of the Applicant's Principals will guarantee the payment and performance of the Grantee's obligations under this franchise, B. Certificates of Authority, Good Standing,. and Existence Please provide copies of Applicant's Certificate of Authority and; if available, Certificate of Good Standing for the State of New York and ApPlicant's Certificates of Existence for the States of Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. If Applicant is not yet qualified to conduct business ~ these States, 'iSiease provide any applications or further documentatiOn of its attempt to qualify to 'conduct business in said States. C. Pledge of Grantee's Stock Please provide any documents, agreements, or other information that discusses the proposed financing plan between Grantee and a group of lenders that would include a pledge of the Grantee's interest. 261697/1 4 -940- 2. Current Franchises Please provide a list of forty (40) cable communications Systems owned, operated or controlled by the Applicant or any Principal .of the applicant. (Please specify whether the systems, below are owned and.operated by Applicant or a parent or subsidiary of Applicant). Please do not include in this list those Systems in which representative commemts were provided from local leaders in Attachment A to the FCC Form 394. When preparing the list, please provide the following information-. A. Name of Franchise Holder (Municipality/State) B. Contact Person and Phone Number C. Date of Franchise Award D. Number of Current Subscribers Potential Franchises Please state the number of subscribers the Applicant currently serves 'in each state where it provides service and the number of subscribers the Applicant will serve in each state if the transfer is approved. Please provide a list of communities where the Apphcant or any Principal of the Applicant has submitted a reqUest for an initial franchise or the approval for a transfer of ownership. A. Community in which Franchise is Sought B.. Date of Application C. Expected Date of Action D. Estimated Number of Subscribers E. Municipal Contact Person & Phone Changes to the System Is the Applicant proposing or will the Applicant undertake any technical changes in the System. Changesin the Operation of the System Is the Applicant proposing, or will the Applicant undertake any changes in the operation of the System including, but not limited to, the following areas: rate increases, programming, customer service practices, billing practices, personnel, etc.? Please describe in detail. 261697/1 -941 - 10. 11. 12. Future Plans Please provide any applicable information to help explain any future plans AP2Plicant may have regarding the implementation of new technologies into the System serving the city. How will the introduction of these new technologies impact the growth of the System in the City? New Services Does the Applicant have any plaus to add new services to the existing system? Please describe any potemial services which Applicant may consider providing over the system. Programming Line-up Does Applicant own an interest in any cable programming services? Will APplicant make any changes to the programming line-up in the City? Will Applicant consider changing the programming line-up in the future? If so, in what way? Costs Increases Please Comment on any projected Cost increases to the current services offered by applicant over the next three (3) years. Billing System Please describe any changes Applicant will make in the current billing system. Will subscribers see a new billing system and if so, what modifications or improvements will result due to a change in the billing format? Customer Service Centers Please describe how customer service will be handled. Will there be any planned cutbacks in staff, operations or locations for customer service Centers. What phone numbers will be used, e.g., will they change from existing numbers? Will customer service be centralized, and if so, where and how will it accommodate the increase in telephone traffic? Required Waivers Please provide copies of requests made to any federal or state governmental entity seeking waiver of cross ownership prohibitions existing under federal law. Please fully describe the process and timing for receipt of any required wai~vers. Please also provide eOPi6s of requests or information regarding any other state or federal regulatory approvals which must be obtained as part of this proposed transfer. 261697II 6 -942- I3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. System Upgrade Please describe any and all plans to upgrade and/or rebuild the system serving the City. High Speed Data Please describe Applicant's plans regarding implementation of high speed data services'in the system serving the City. Technical and Managerial Employees Please explain whether Applicant will retain emploYees currently providing technical and managerial services for the cable System serving the City. Asset purchase Agreement between Triax Midwest Associates and Media_eom LLC Please provide a copy of all scheduies and exhibits part of the Asset Purchase Agreement. .Seeuri.t~ Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners.and Management Please explain the equity interests presented in the chart following page 3 and responding to Section II, Question 2 of the FCC Form 394. As presented, the equity interests do not total 100 percent. Exhibit 10, Page 11 provides a similar chart that totals 100 percent and references "Other Investors" as part of the percentage.equity interests. Who are the "Other Investors"? Applicant's Operating Agreement Please proVide a copy of Applicant's Operating Agreement. Financial Qualifications With respect to financial information, the Applicant submitted the following financial information in support of its financial qualifications to acquire and become the successor operator of the Systems: · - mo Applicant's Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 31, 1999, including the eonsolidated audited financial statements of the Applicant and subsidiaries consisting of (i) report of independent public accountants; (ii)' consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 1998 and 1997; (iii) consolidated statements of operations for the years ended December 3 l, 1998 and 1997; (iv) consolidated statements of Changes in Member's Equity for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997; (v) consolidated statements of cash flows for the years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997; (vi) notes to consolidated financial statements; and (vii) valuation and quali~ accounts. 261697/I 7 -943- B. Form 10,K/A- 1; and Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 1999, filed with the SEC on May 17, 1999, including Financial Statements consisting of (i) consolidated financial statements of Applicant and Subsidiaries; (ii) notes to eonsOliclated financial statements; (iii) Financial Statement of Mediacom's Capital Corporation; and (iv) Notes to financial statement. With respect to the information provided, we have the following comments and/or requests for additional information: Ao· Applicant shall provide a detailed organizational chart of Mediacom, LLC and subsidiaries (including the Applicant's four (4) operating subsidiaries, 1Mediacom Capital Corporation and the acquisition subsidiary or subsidiaries ("Acquisition Sub") which is intended to be formed as the Assignee of the Purchase Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated thereby. A description of the relationship between Media%m, LLC and Mediacom Capital Corporation shall also be provided to the extent that Mediaeom Capital is not engaged merely as a shell for offering securities. Bo To the extent that the Applicant intends to form an Acquisition Sub to effect the consummation of the transaction contemplated by the Purchase Agreement, a description of the subsidiary(ies) to be formed, where the subsidiaries will fit within the Applicant's organizational structure, and details surrounding the management structure of the Acquisition Sub shall be provided for consideration by the City. The Applicant has indicated that "it is likely that this transaction will be financed from the proceeds of a credit facility that Mediacom intends to arrange on behalf of its operating subsidiaries." As the bulk of the Purchase Price to be paid for the System is to be paid in cash, the Applicant shall provide the City with an update as to the progress which has been made in securing such a credit facility, including a summary of the terms relating thereto (i.e., maximum facility available, repayment terms, security, etc.). The Applicant is advised that, in the event it elects to make an assignmerit of its rights under the Purchase Agreement to the Acquisition Sub, the Applicant should anticipate the City requiring that the Applicant provide a guarantee of the · performance of the operating subsidiaries with respect to the franchise, as well as possibly being required·to provide performance bonds and other forms of financial assurance of the subsidiaries operating performance, as the sine are customary under lodal law or as otherwise may be deemed reas0nably'necessary under the circumstances by the City. - END OF APPLICATION - 261697/1 -944- Exhibit B Certificates of Good Standing 273977/1 B-1 -945- 06[~?/99 ~1:27 FAX 9~46952679 . ~tate of New York Departmcnt of State } PA~E 84 bw& ·: " .Z999022~O054 35 -946- oe/].l/es ~?.! l~:.l.g [TX/P,Z NO .~S201 File Number' 0015924-7 To all to whom these Presents' Shall Come, Greeting: I, Jesse White, Secretary :of State of the State of Illinois, do hereby certi]~ that . ME~mAC0~nnC, A NEW YORK LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, APPEARS TO HAVE CO~PLIED WITH ALL PROVISIONS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ACT OF T~IS STATE RELATING TO THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION ON JANUARY 5, 1998 AND IS REGIsTErED TO T~SACT BUSINESS IN THE STATE'OF ILLINOIS ********************************************* C-260.1 In Testimony Whereofl,'.. ~, hereto set my hand and cause ~0 be affixed the Great Seal o/ the' State of IllinOis, this ~4~a 0-~TLY 1999 day of ., .. A.D. . ' SECRETARY OF STATE -947- 07/22 16:20 1999 FROM: 07/2~/99 16: 27 ~.4.,T 6.1.469~2679 9148052679 TO: 6123305207 M~aoom a=iamna ~ . I'qEDZACON N~IZONA CABLE NETWORK LLC __ SEFa-~-L=~:J6 1%,13 -948 07/02/99 FRI 16:44 ['Z"~/~ NO 7552J 07/22 16:20 1099 FROM: 01469526?9 TO: 6123396267 PAGE: 5 07/22/99 .1.6:27 ~.'~T 91.469~2670 · 1~006 /,. , . · , , - .. F~i,i'~ , ~..hm ammm ,&nd m"-' - ua~qmml ~ cite · · __. ~n~ hal .~ rB. _, ' ..... ~oa ~V~d~' ~6ku ~l~h 0 - --- _ '~e d~~~un~ ~ ~ w~ ~, .... ~e ~~o~a~. Co o P~&a~2 ' - ~n~ ~ ~_.. - 10Z3 ~ .... n, Z~. ' u~a~e 18805 ~e:~ ~~ .. -949- 07/02/99 l~I 16:44 TDg'I:~. P. ~ [TX/R~ I;0 7652! Exhibit C Subscribers & Homes Passed by State 273977/1 C-1 -950- ... 05/17/99 11:~$ -951 - Exhibit D Resolution - Approving Transfer 273977/1 D-1 -952- Augu~ 10, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 99-73 APPROVING THE TRANSFER~ ASSIGNMENT OF THE C~BLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE TO MEDIACOM LLC WHEREAS, on or about June 23, 1998, the City o~ Mound ("City") passed and adopted Ordinance No. 99-1998 granting a Cable Television Franchise ("Franchise") currently held by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. (Triax); and WHEREAS, on April 29,1999, a certain Asset ~urchase Agreement ("Agreement") was made and entered Into by and among Triax and Meciacom LLC; and WHEREAS, Triax and Mediacom haVe requested consent by the City to transfer the Franchise and the .assets comprising the Cable System to Mediacom Minnesota LLC ("Mediacom"); and WHEREAS, in. compliance with the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, the name of grantee/franchisee under the Franchise will be changed to Mediacom; and WHEREAS, under the Franchise and applicable law, the proposed Transfer require oonsent from the. City; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the proposed Transfer and the legal technical, and financial qualifications of Mediacom and Mediacom LLC~ and WHEREAS, based on information obtained and on the reports. and information received by the City, including the report prepared by the City's cable television consultants, Moss & Barnett. a Professional Association, which is hereby incorporated by reference, the City has found no reason to disapprove of the proposed Transfer to Mediacom. 1 -953- August 10, 1999 NOW, THEREFORE- the City COUnCil' for the City of Mound resolves as follows: 1. Triax is the lawful holder Of the Franchise. 2. The City hereby consents and approves of the proposed Transfer Subject to. A. Closing of the transaction contemplated Within the Asset 'Purchase Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions described in information provided to the City by Triax and Mediacom LLC. B. Mediacom LLC notifying the City in writing of the completion of the Transfer within thirty (30) days of the date of closing of the Transfer. C. Mediacom, within thirty .(30) days of the closing o~ the Transfer, providing the City with a signed Acceptance of the Franchise in the form attached hereto and incorporated by reference and a Certificate of Good Standing or Existence for Mediacom for the State of Minnesota, and Mediacom LLC providing the City with a Corporate Guaranty in the form attached hereto. T-he City hereby waives any right of first refusal which the City may have to purchase the Franchise, or the caldle television system serving the City, but only as such right of first refusal applies to the request for approval of the Transfer now before the City. I.n the event the Transfer from Triax to Mediacom contemplated by the foregoing resolutions Is not completed, 2 -954- A~gt~.~ 10,1999 for any reasons, the City's consent shall not be effective. Mediacom may, at any time and from time to time., assign, grant, or pledge or otherwise convey one or more liens or security interests in its assets, including its rights, obligations and benefits In and to the Franchise to any lender providing financing to Mediacom To the maximum extent permitted by all applicable local, state and federal laws, this Resolution shall not be oonstrmed to in any way relieve Triax nor limit Mediaoom from any-liability under the Franchise. This Resolution shall take affect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date of its passage, approval, and adoption. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus. and seconded by Councilmember Brown. The following voted in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weyoker. The following voted in the negative: none. councitmember Ahrens was absent and excused. 3 -955- the Passed and adopted by City Council'for.the City of Mound this/'b "'"'day of ~___, 1999. ATTEST: CITY OF MOUND ~ts: r~F~ ?~ ¢,_ 273977/1 4 -956- Exhibit E Acceptance of a Franchise For a Cable Television 'System 273977/1 E-1 -957- ACCEPTANCE OFA FRANCHISE FOR A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MOUND WHEREAS, the City of Mound, Minnesota ("City") by action of its governing body on ,1999, adopted a Resolution No. ("Resolution") approving the transfer of the cable system and franchise to Mediacom Minnesota LLC ("Mediacom'); and WHEREAS, the City's Cable Television Franchise ("Franchise"), together with the Resolution, require that Mediacom accept the Franchise and the conditions contained in the Resolution in form and substance acceptable to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the terms and requirements .of the Franchise and the Resolution, and in consideration of the City's approval of the transfer of the Franchise, Mediacom accepts the Franchise and all conditions in the Resolution and makes the following representations and warranties to the City: I. Mediacom is a limited liability company duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of the State of , and authorized to do business in Minnesota and with full power, authority, and legal capacity to execute, deliver, and perform this Acceptance and perform the terms and conditions of the Franchise and the Resolution. 2. All actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this Acceptance and the performance of the Franchise and Resolution, have been duly authorized by all necessary and required proceedings. 3. The execution and delivery of the Acceptance and the performance of the Franchise and the Resolution, does not and will not conflict with or result in the breach or termination of, or constitute a default under, any indenture or instrument with respect to the borrowing of money, or any material contract, lease or agreement, or order, judgment or 273977/1 -958- decree or any law, rule or regulation to which Mediacom is a party or by which it or any of its property is bound or affected. 4. Mediacom has carefully read the terms and conditions of the Franchise and the Resolution, and accepts the rights, duties, and obligations created thereunder, 'subject to its rights under applicable state and federal law. 5. Neither Mediacom or any of its representatives or agents have committed any illegal acts or engaged in any wrongful conduct contrary to, or in violation of, any federal, state, or local law or regulation in connection with the obtaining of the Franchise. Dated ,1999 MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC By: Its: STATE OF ) COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this _ day of 1999, by , the of Mediacom Minnesota LLC. SEAL Notary Public 27397711 2 -959- Exhibit F Guaranty of Performance 273977/1 F-1 -960- Corporate Guaranty THIS AGREEMENT is made this __ day of ,1999 between Mediacom LLC ("Guarantor"), the City of Mound, Minnesota ("Franchising Authority"), and Mediacom Minnesota LLC ("Company"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Franchising Authority by action of its governing body on . ,1999 adopted Resolution No. ("Resolution") approving the transfer of the cable system ("System") and the Franchising Authority's Cable TeleVision Franchise ("Franchise")to Company; and WHEREAS, Guarantor is the parent of Company; and whereas, Guarantor has a substantial interest in the System and the conduct of the Company in complying with the Franchise and any and all amendments thereof and any agreements related thereto, which Franchise and amendments are hereby specifically referred to, incorporated herein, and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Resolution requires the COmpany to fumish a guaranty to ensure.the faithful payment and performance of the Company's obligations under the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the GuarantOr desires to provide its unconditional guaranty to fulfill the requirements of the Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Guarantor hereby unconditionally guarantees the due and punctual payment and performance of all of the debts, liabilities and obligations of Company contained in the Franchise ("Indebtedness"). This Agreement, unless terminated, substituted, or canceled, as provided herein, Shall remain in full force and effect for the duration of the term of the Franchise, except as expressly provided otherwise in the Franchise. Upon substitution of another Guarantor reasonably satisfactory to the Franchising Authority or upon transfer of the Franchise to another entity not under common control of Mediacom, this Agreement shall be terminated, substituted, Or canceled upon thirty (30) days prior written notice from Guarantor to the Franchising Authority and the Company. Such termination shall not affect liability incurred or accrued under this Agreement prior to the effective date of such termination or cancellation. 273977/1 -961 - The Guarantor will not exercise or enforce any right of contribution, reimbursement, recourse or subrogation available to the Guarantor against the Company or any other person liable for payment of the Indebtedness any collateral security therefor, unless and until all of the Indebtedness shall have been fully paid and discharged. The (~uarantor will pay or reimburse the Franchising Authority for all reasonable. and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and legal expenses) incurred bythe Franchising Authority in connection with the protection, defense or enforcement of this guaranty in any arbitration, litigation or bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings. The Guarantor.waives presentment, demand for payment, notice of dishonor or nonpayment, and protest of any instrument evidencing Indebtedness. The Franchising Authority shall not be required first to resort for payment of the Indebtedness to the Company or other persons or their properties, or first to enforce, realize upon or exhaust any collateral security for Indebtedness, before enforcing this guaranty. The Guarantor will not assert, plead or enforce against the Franchising Authority any defense of discharge in bankruptcy of the Company, statute of frauds, or unenforceability of the Guaranty which may be available to the Company or any other person liable in respect of any Indebtedness,. or any setoff available against the Franchising Authority to the Company or any such other person, whether or not on account of a related transaction, Any notices given pursuant to this Agreement shall be addressed to the Guarantor and Company at 100 Crystal Run Road, Middletown, New York 10941 and to the Franchising Authority at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687. 27397711 2 -962- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, Franchising Authority, and Guarantor have executed this Corporate Guaranty as of the day, month and year first above written. GUARANTOR: MEDIACOM LLC By: Its: COMPANY: MEDIACOM MINNESOTA LLC By: Its: FRANCHISING AUTHORITY: CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA , Mayor , Clerk 273977/1 3 -963- Exhibit G Ownership Structure 273977/1 G-1 -964- -965- Exhibit I-I July 22, 1999 Letter from Larkin, Hoffman 273977/1 H-1 -966- :.' Jane E. Bremer DIR. DIAL (812) 896-3297 E.MAIL Jbremer~lhdl.com July 22, 1999 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 NORWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (612) 83,5-3800 FAX (612) 896-3333 Brian T. Grogan,'Esq. Moss & Barnett 4800 Norwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129 VIA FACSIMILE 612-339-6686 & US MAIL Re: Application of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. for Consent to Assign Cable TelevisiOn Franchise to Mediacom LLC Moss & Barnett Clients Dear Mr. C_rrogan: Following are the responses to the memo written by Michael Nix't, CPA to Brian Crrogan on July 14, 1999. On or prior to consummating the Triax acquisition, Mediacom LLC ("Mediacom") will assign its rights to an operating subsidiary. Mediacom is in the process of creating the appropriate operating subsidiaries for this transaction. The assignee will be a joint and several co-borrower of a new borrowing group ("Mediacom Midwest") of Mediacom LLC. Mediacom Midwest is expected to arrange new $500 million bank facilities on terms and conditions similar to Mediacom's existing $325 million bank facilities and the new Mediacom USA bank facilities (see below) that will contain industry standard financial covenants and will be on a stand alone basis (i.e. not subject to cross-default or cross-collateralization to other operating companies of Mediacom or Mediacom itself). Based on its business plans, the leverage profile of Mediacom Midwest will not impair its financial ability to operate, maintain, and upgrade the cable television systems in this transaction. .- To.help finance the Triax acquisition, in addition to the planned Mediacom Midwest credit facilities (discussed above), Mediaeom has now underway the syndication of new $500 million facilities for its Mediacom USA borrowing group. Borrowings under the Mediacom USA credit facilities in the amount of $375 million will be invested in Mediacom Midwest to help complete the funding necessary to ~lose the Triax transaction. The Chase Manhattan Bank and two other institutions have each committed $100 million to the Mediacom .USA facilities ($300 million in total) prior to launching.the syndication to our existing and new lenders. -967- LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY'& LINDGKEN, LTD. Brian T. Crrogan, Esq. July 22, 1999 Page 2 At this time Mediacom has nOt delivered a commitment letter to Triax pursuant to Section 3.2(a) of the Purchase Agreement, and has no immediate plans to do so. I hope this information is helpful. If you have any additional comments or questions, please feel free to contact me. J/ne E. Bremer, for ('"'/-L-~RI~, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. cci Chris O'Toole Tom Bordwell Eric Schultz Calvin Craib Eric Breisach, Esq. 0507663.01 -968- 01-24-2002 10:47AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 9524720620 P.O1 4071 Suns~ ~ Box385 Phcx~ 952..471-7125 Fax- 952-471..915t -969- 01-24-2002 10:4?AM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICA TO 9524?20620 P.02 -970- 01-24-2002 10:48RM FROM LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICR TO 9524720620 P.03 Immmml $ -971- TOTAL