2000-11-08~ ,.
~ r
AGENDA
MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 8, 2000
6:30 P.M.
1. OPEN MEETING
2.APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS
3. APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24, 2000, MEETING
4. STS CONSULTANTS, LTD PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE ORDER
FOR PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF LOST LAKE
DUMP
5. UPDATE ON PARKING MEDIATION FOR JOHN'S VARIETY
BLOCK
6. ADJOURN
HRA MINUTES -REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 24, 2000
The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, met on Tuesday, October 24, 2000, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers at
5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present: Acting Chairperson Mark Hanus; HRA Board Members: Andrea Ahrens,
Bob Brown, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Manager Kandis Hanson,
Executive Director Finky Charon, Tenant Representative Pauline Payne, and Recording
Secretary Diana Mestad. Others present: Jerry Marek, Steve Coddon, Jennifer and Derek
Zaugg, Peter C. Meyer, Carol Weber, Stef Mitchell, Steve and Sue Lathers, Stacy Lathers,
Amy Cicelise, Ed Mauer, Jim Brand, Frankand Betty Weiland, Lois VanDyke, Chris
Warrell, June McCarthy, Dolly O'Brien, Ling Tucker Reinden, Patti Harty, Paul Glynn, Orv
Burma, Rob Rebbyn, Elaine Winter, Michael Mueller, Lee Sampson, Nate Eggert, Trenton
Rehberger, Josh Denning, Steve Olson, Tom Eccles, Tom Casey, Ed Carlson, Don and
Carthy Scheven Jr. Lorrie Ham, Kevin Hinrichs, Rick & Deb Perry, Ken and Shirley
Romness.
Consera Agenda: All items listed under this Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Council member or citizen so request, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
Acting Chairperson Hanus called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and welcomed Tenant
Representative Pauline Payne to the Board.
1.1 INDIAN KNOLL MANOR CONSENT AGENDA
A. MONTHLY BIZLS FOR SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2000.
B. 11~IINUTES -SEPTEMBER 13, 2000
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Weycker to approve the agenda and
consent agenda. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
5-0.
1.2 ACCOUNTING ITEMS
A. ACCOUNTANT REPORTS
B. BANK ACCOUNTS.
The Executive Director stated that she felt the reserve amount would be fine. She
asked the Board whether there would be an immediate need for the $10,000 in
levy money as she wished to move it to a 4M fund that would require a 30-day
waiting period before withdrawal. The Board agreed that the monies should be
moved.
HRA Board Member Brown asked whether consideration had been given to
switching to a card security system rather than changing locks when tenants
moved. The Executive Director stated that the building does need new security
and thought has been given to a card system. She further stated that security
cameras are also under consideration.
HRA ACTION ITEMS
1.3 RESOLUTION x{00-21. CAPITALIZATION POLICY
The Executive Director stated this would have a $500 limit. Acting Chairperson
Hanus asked whether the language was consistent and the Facecutive Director stated it
was.
MOTION by Brown seconded by Ahrens to approve Resolution #00-21.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
1.4 RESOLUTION #00-22 IlWENTORY DISPOSAL
Acting Chairperson Hanus asked whether there was a replacement plan. The
Executive Director stated that most of the items had already been replaced.
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown to approve Resolution #00-22.
Discussion:
HRA Board Member Ahrens stated that in the future she wanted to see a list of items
being disposed of before they were disposed. The Executive Director asked if there
would be a dollar amount on the items. HRA Board Member Ahrens stated she
wanted to know about everything on the inventory list.
HRA Board Member Brown stated this could be done once a year at year-end.
Acting Chairperson Hanus called the question.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Motion carried. 5-0
1.5 RESOLUTION #00-23. ERECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S HOURS
The Executive Director stated that her hours have not changed since the 1980's.
MOTION by Brown, seconded by Ahrens to approve Resolution #04-23.
2
~.~. .
Discussion:
HRA Board Member Weycker asked whether the Executive Director was a City employee.
The Executive Director stated that in the past she was told that she was not a City employee.
HRA Board Member Weycker wondered whether the Executive Director could become a
City employee and the City Manager stated that she would check on this.
Acting Chairperson Hams called the question.
AYES: 5
NAYS: 0
Motion carried 5-0.
INFORMATION ITEMS
1.6 OPERATING SUBSIDY FOR li'YE 9/30/2001
The Executive Director stated that she is receiving a subsidy in the amount of $13,000 from
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
1.7 BiJDGET APPROVAL NOT NEEDED ANYMORE
The Executive Director stated that she is no longer required to get budget approval from
HUD and that the HRA Board would be monitoring the budget. She stated that HUD would
still require ayear-end audit.
1.8 TENANT REPRESENTATIVE REPORT
Tenant Representative Pauline Payne thanked the HRA for accepting her on the Board.
The Executive Duector stated that she feels the HUD buildings are very safe as the
inspection process is very thorough.
1.9 MISCELLANEOUS
HRA Board Member Brown stated that at the prior evening's Planning Commission meeting,
it was brought up that the HRA had discussed and approved moving the Park and Ride from
the Mound Vision Plan. The Commission felt that this should have come before them before
being approved.
HRA Board Member Ahrens asked whether this item had also been approved at the Council
meeting.
3
The City Manager cautioned the Board about adding an item to the agenda at this point in the
meeting. Acting Chairperson Hanes stated that he was comfortable discussing this as an
information only item.
Acting Chairperson Hanes stated that he was not sure whether Council had acted on this
item, but not sending it back to the Planning Commission was merely an oversight. HRA
Board Member Brown agreed it had been an oversight, but wanted to make the Board aware
of it for future matters.
The City Manager stated this had not come before Council and it was the HI2A's prerogative
to bounce items back to advisory boards.
Acting Chairperson Hanes asked whether there was a consensus by the Board to send this
item back to the Planning Commission before having it come before the City Council. The
HRA Board was in agreement with this.
The City Manager asked whether items for the Mound Vision Plan were approved by the
City Council. Acting Chairperson Hanes stated they had been to date.
Acting Chairperson Hanes stated that the Board would like clarification on the process from
the City Attorney.
MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Brown to adjourn the meeting at 7:00 p.m.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0.
Kandis Hanson, City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
4
11/02/2000 20:22
L
~.
612-315-1036
November 2, 2000
Ms. Kandis Hanson
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
r
STS CONSULTANTS
PAGE 02
STS Consultants, Ltd.
Solutions through Science 8~ Engineering
Re: Change Order -Phase Ii Environmental Site Assessment of Lost Lake Dump
in Mound, Minnesota; STS Project 97b76-XD
Dear Ms. Hanson'
This chance order request addresses additional scope of work required by the 1tilinnesota
Pollution Control Agency {MPCA) for the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the
Lost Lake Dump. As provided in STS Froposal 610824PP accepted by the City of iviound, the
cost estimate would need adjustment if the MPCA required modifications to the proposed Phase
II ESA scope of work. Costs presented in the proposal were based on a scope of work consisting
of six soil borings, four of which were to be converted to Monitoring wells, and associated soil,
waste and groundwater sampling and analyses. The MPCA scope of work includes the proposed
four monitoring wells, eliminates two soil borings and requires 14 test pits. The IvIPCA
originally requested 24 test pits which STS negotiated dawn to 14 test pits. The MPCA scope of
work also calls for obtaining a sediment sample adjacent to the dump, a sample of surface water
from the adjacent canal, waste sampling in each test pit, and sampling below waste materials.
The MPCA, through its brownfields program, will analyze two rounds of groundwater samples
obtained from monitoring wells, soil samples, the sediment sample, the open water sample and
possible water samples from the test pits with no cost to the City of Mound. Costs for analysis of
tivaste materials from the test pits will need to be paid by the City because the MPCA contract
laboratory will not accept waste samples for analysis. The MPCR conditional acceptance of the
Work Plan requires waste samples from each test pit. Analysis for all waste parameters nay not
be required for each sample. Selected parameters may be analyzed based on waste appearance
reducing casts. 1n some cases, no waste sample may be obtained if, for instance. the test pit
encounters tree wastes or demolition debris. As discussed with you on October 31, 2000 during
our telephone conversation, we present a "worst case scenario' of analytical costs based on
analysis of all waste parameters for all 14 potential waste samples.
t 0900 73rd Avenue North, Suite 150 . Maple Grove. MN 55369-5547. (763) 315-6300. (763) 315-1836 Fax
11/02/2000 20:22 612-315-1836 ~ STS CONSULTANTS PAGE 03
r`
Cary of Ia~lound
STS Project 9767G-XD
November 2, 20.00
Page 2
Potential exists that apparent hazardous materials could be encountered during test pit
excavation. The MPCA conditions require that apparent hazardous materials be segregated and
secured on-site. A 10 cubic yard dumpster will be rented for this purpose. Segregated materials
would require analysis to determine whether or not they meet hazardous waste classification.
Costs for anal}-sis and disposal of potential hazardous waste materials is not included in this
change order.
The estimated cost for STS prodded services for the Phase II ESA prior to MPCA changes was
$12,000 to $16,000. These were costs associated with Work Plan preparation, installation of
monitoring wells and preparation of a report. Costs associated with the change order are
summarized below.
Backhoe with safety trained operator, .$ 2,000
?days @ $1,000.00/day .......................................................
Waste sample analyses,
14 @ 5945.00leach .....................$ i>,230
Senior Environmental Technician, ~ ,
20 hours @ $6~.OO~hour ........................................................$ ,00
Environmental monitoring equipment, $ 400
days @ $200.00!day ........................................................
Waste dumpster (rental, dumping of
non-hazardous waste) .... ...........................~ 1,000
$ j 7,930
Rgain, please note that analytical costs could be less than the worst case estimate shown above.
In addition, Bruce Chamberlain of Hoisington Koegler Group inc. plans to apply for Department
of Trade and Economic Development (DYED) grant money which could cover costs for the
Phase II ESA if DYED selects the project for funding. The schedule for the Phase fI ESA
includes installation of monitoring wells during the week of November 6 and test pit excavations
conducted November 13 and 14, 2000.
~. , , i ~ r
11/02/2000 20:22 612-315-1836 STS CONSULTANTS PAGE 04
City of ~tilound
STS Proic:ct 97676-XD
November 2, 2000
Page 3
~~
Please accept this chans~e order by signing below. If you leave any questions, please feel free to
contact us.
Sincerely.
STS CONSULTANTS. LTD.
~~
Gar;• 1. IZ~'t!i un. PSS
Sent ~ Sail Sc:ienti,t
else /~ ~ G/'~
Robert i,. I?~Graoz. PG PE
Principal l~:~Zine~r
G1R;dn
Ci,)~~{)O~u.~ i~ n.
ACC~P~I-E_D:
Date
Firni
authoriz~ci Signature
Title
97fi7l,XI~. S"l~S Consultant,, Lid.. NuvCntber ?000
~_
Nov 03 00 02:49p
CTCalivc Solutions [ur Laud Planning and Design
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
MEMO
November 3, 2000
To: Mound HItA
CC: Kandis Hanson, Mound City Manager
From: Bruce Chamberlain, Mound Visions Coordinator
Re: Parking situation on John's Variety Block.
~o
oe
As you know, City staff and the businesses and property owners on the John's Variety block in
downtown have been mediating to strategize ail acceptable parking solution. The mediation
process led to a number of components as follows:
• The City will do what it can to !lave on-street parking preserved on the north side of
County Road 15 in conjunction with the MetroPlains development project.
• The Ciry will work with the eventual developer of the Langdon District to ensure 1?-
15 stalls of "downtown-wide, commercial-use only" parking at the northeast comer
of that district.
• The Unchartered Grounds site {if the building were removed) would be the most
viable parking alternative on the Juttns Variety block (8-9 stalls are possible). The
current business intends to move within two months and the property owner is
willing to sell the property.
• If the three items above are implemented, the Johns Variety block property owners
are comfortable with the parking situation.
The City presented the property owners with a range of funding alternatives for acquisition of the
Uncharterd Grounds site, removal of the building and construction of a parking lot. The
alternatives ranged from City-ownership and development of the lot through the use of special
assessments to private acquisition and development by the properly owners. Staff indicated that
some level of private participation would be needed for the City to complete the project. The
three property owners on the block conferred on the issue of financial participation but could not
reach consensus on a willingness to participate.
To make the subject a little more complicated, the County is now beginning to believe that a
center median may be warranted on CSAH 15 west of the new 15/ 110 intersection, which could
impact access and space available for parking. This issue will play out over the next few months.
Staff believes this is an important issue and one that impacts local businesses. There is, however,
the valid question of what can be done at this time given the circumstances. Staff does believe
that one action the HRA could consider at this time is to proceed with an appraisal of the
Unchartered Grounds site in preparation for clearer direction by January or February.
1 will be at the HRA meeting on Wednesday to discuss the issue.
p.2
123 North Third Street, Suite lUU, Minneapolis. ~iN SSdUI-169
ph r~121 338-0800 Fs (612) 338-6h3~i
~,
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Parking Lot Development Scenarios
John's Variety Block
September 25, 2000
*acquisition, demolition and pazking lot construction on Uncharted
Grounds parcel
1. Three remaining property owners acquire proposed pazking lot parcel
(self-financed). City conducts demolition and parking lot improvements and
contributes funds for those activities.
- Remaining property owners own parking property.
2. City acquires proposed parking lot property and conducts all improvements.
City assesses portion of costs back to three remaining property owners.
- City owns parking property.
3. City acquires proposed parking lot property and conducts all improvements.
City assesses 100% of costs back to three remaining property owners. City owns
property until assessments aze paid in full at which time title is transferred to three
remaining property owners for $1. Partner ownership and buy-out terms governed
by a partnership agreement.
- Remaining property owners own parking property.
® prrnletl on recycled paper