1999-08-03AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1999 AT 8:00 P.M.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 P.M. SPECIAL HRA MEETING - SEE ATTACHED AGENDA
8:00 P.M. (approximate) - COW
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Discussion on replacement well and future water needs.
Discussion on infrastructure issues.
Storm Water Utility Charges.
Discussion drainage problem on Halstead Lane.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: Woodland Point Litigation.
Discussion on Agreement between the City of Mound and Lake Minntonka
Communications Commission to run Public, Educational, and Governmental
(PEG) access programming.
Discussion on City Manager replacement.
Discussion on Tax Forfeit Property that Michelle Berglund would like
to purchase.
Discussion on personal vehicle use and mileage reimbursemem.
Adjourn.
2
2, Igg9-- 4:18PM~MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS
Eng~
ng
No. 3909~P,
Plann~g '
2/3~
Surveying
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Edward J. Shulde, ~., City Manager
FROM:
lohn Cameron, City Engineer
DATE:
November 4, I99g
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Proposed Plat "South Saunders .Lake"
Minnetrista Request for City Utilities
MFRA NO.: 12149
As per the Council's request at the Committee ofthe Whole (COW) meeting of October 20, 199g,
we are submitting the following additional
The estimateA cost of a 16" to 18", 200-foot deep municipal well capable of pumping 7:50 to
1,000 gpm would be approximately $125,000. An additional $25,.000 should be added for a
building to house the che~ feed equipment and piping necessary to connect to thc City's
distribution system. Thus, for planning purposes I would suggest using $150,000 plus 20 percent
for engineering, legal, fiscal, and admLui~ve costs for a total of approximately $1g0,000. h
must be understood that the actual cost to'install a new well has a number of variables that can
greatly affect est~m,~s. I! is conceivable that a well of much greaer depth may be required at a
specific location in order to achieve the output desired. Our estimate is based on the City's four
existing wells, wMch range in depth from 175 feet to 317 feet. The City's pr/mary well is No. 7
and is 195 feet deep in glacial dAf~
A logical location for the well and building would be the City owned property adjacent to the
elevated storage tank on Evergreen Lane. Them should be enough available space south of the
tower without affecting the existing park.
15050 2$rd Avmnu¢ North . Plymourl~, Minnesota . 55447
pt~one 612/476-6010 . fax $12/476-g552
e-mail: rnfr~mlra.com
2, l§9g~ I'I§P~CCO~BS FRANK ROOS 3gog~P, 3/3~
Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City ~,4anager
November 4, 1998
Page 2
I waz a lit=dc low with thc estimated c~st for a water tower. The elevated storage ~ arc
c~ntly oosting bctw~n $130 and $1.$0 per gallon; thus a 350,000 gallon tower would cost
roughly $500,000 to construct. Here too, an additional 20 percent or $100,000 should be added
to cover engineering., legal, fiscal, and administrative costs. I do not have a good location to
suggest, except ~h¢ present tower site on Chateau Lane. This existing 75,000 gallon tower would
be eliminated with the consuuction of a new tower, regardless of where the new tower is locatccl.
Any site should be fairly close to one oft, he Civ/'s larger distribution mains, other, vise th_ere will
be additional costs .to ire'all a new watermain.
¢:~"nain:kl2149~mklel 1.4
MOUND POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Mayor Pat Meisel
From: Len Harrell
Date: 07/20/99
Re: Infrastructure Issues
There are only three issues that come to mind for the police department in terms of facility needs.
Kennel:
We have explored for several years the need for a local impound fadlity for the Lake
area in general. We are at the mercy of a provider in Mayer because the Wdght County
Humane Society would not handle the volume of biting dogs that we have experienced. The
time for officer travel as well as the inconvenience for citizens is a major issue in our current
arrangement. It is expensive and unknown how long the current owner will be available for our
impounds.
A local kennel for our impounds would cost in the neighborhood of $200,000 for a
cement block building with fenced runs if we were to have land available.
Garages:
Squads currently are stored out of doors. We have experienced some vandalism, but
the larger issue is winter parking and cold weather starting. On many extremely cold days,
officers are confronted with vehicles that will not start and assistance is needed from our
service provider for starting.
I do not know what the cost would be, but the area where the vehicles are currently
parked would accommodate a structure being built into the hill behind city hall on property
currently owned by the city.
Property Storage:
Current overflow for large items is at Island Park. Remodeling there may change the
use of the structure and require a change in our storage habits both for secudty and space
concerns. A storage facility closer to our current location would save time and travel.
Suggestion:
A multi purpose facility north of the current police department built into the hill
accommodating garages, additional storage, and a six run sound proof kennel. I have not
researched the cost of such a facility but it may be able to address all of our future needs in
one facility.
· Page 1
FROM
: MUNIMETRIX SYSTEMS CORP
FAX NO. : 7753344788
Jul. 30 1999
Munimetrix Systems Corporation
1325 Airmotive Way-Suite 300 · Reno, Nevada 89502 · Phone (702) 334-4777 ·
For Product / Sales Information E-Mail: mai. lCa0munimctrix.com Web Site: www.munimetrin.com
(800) 548-7895
Fax (702) 334-4788
For Customer Support
(800) 45%3733
Scanl~lg/OCR Informalion
T}~ you for your interest in file Munimelrix scanning solution. W'ilh Munimctrix's respected standing itt t}le
Clerk's Indexitg arena, scamiing was ;m expected addition to our product linc. Wc know your requirement% and
now we can offer a more complete solutio.,l to your agency.
I am fotx*arding information on several r~mge, s of scanning solutions. Afe:r extensive research into hardware,
OCR software, quality of vendor support and .types of' tnaixttenance available, we have packaged a raxu,~: of
complete solulions. Itardware and software chax~,,e frequently, Munimcuix will update hardware and sottware
within the packages as better options occur. We will AI..WAYS strive to provide d'~c BEST possible solution at a
reasonable cost. A review of your volmnes and expectations will determine wlfich option is best for you.
~e/Speed 7 t'PM 28 PPM ~ PPM 64 .PP~
Invesm~ent $ 3,195 $ 5,195 $ 6,195 $ 8,195
The above prices (prices are subject to chvaige) reflect ,.'m all-inclusive system except for installation vmd training.
Included are a ~anner, card :md cable to connect to your PC, Iyem- on-site scanner maintenam:c, OCR software,
1 year Munlmctrlx support, shipph~g mid handling.
If you decide not to invest in a scanner and OCR software, we can provide you with a sc,'uming service. The cost
is $1.95/page/side for 81fi'xl I~ size documents w}dch includes scamfing, OCR, editing of docmnent and return to
your agency on suitable media. For legal size documents (SVfxl4'), the cost. is $2.45/page/side.
Wiflfin fl'm next six rnonflxs Munimeu'Lx will be offering imag4ng as another step to fulfilling our customer base
requests. This will provide a "Complete Document Imaging Solution".
If you have any questions, or would like addition'al inlbnnafion, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Munimctrix Systems Corporation
I:~MMX\WPD OC$ ~USSS;OCR.COV.DOC
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 29, 1999
TO: Pat Meisel, Mayor
From: Jim Fackler, Park Director
Subject: Future Improvements
1) Park Garage Repair
2) Yearly Wall Replacement for lOyrs
3) Park Play Structure Replacement for 10yrs
4) Tennis Court Replacement 3 Courts
5) Moundbay Park Parking Lot
6) Ball Field Repair
Swenson, Philbroke & Three Pts.
7) Play Shelters
Swenson, Philbroke, Three Pts. & Highland
8) Moundbay Boat Launch Repair
9) Purchase Property On Lynwood & Westedge
10) Depot Deck On Lake Side
11) Repair Four Small Boat Landings
12) City Hall Work Stations
13) City Hall Refurbish / Carpet, Paint & etc.
14) City Hall Lower Level Parking Garage
15) Storm Drain Under Swenson Repaired
16) Dakota Rail Trail Way Fund
17) Top Dress Commons Rip Rap for 5yrs
18) Fund For Monies To Be Used To Subsidize
Sale Of City Unuseable Lands for 10yrs
19) Moundbay Park Improvements
20) Shelters For Portable Toilets
21) Monies Put Into A Fund Each For C/O
$ 200,000.00
75,000.00
30,000.00
35,000.00
40,000.00
45,000.00
90,000.00
20,000.00
300,000.00
75,000.00
30,000.00
30,000.00
50,000.00
200,000.00
100,000.00
200,000.00
30,000.00
15,000.00
50,000.00
30,000.00
50,000.00
NOTE: Cost figures are very rough estimates.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 28,1999
TO:
Pat Meisel, Mayor
FROM: Greg Skinner, PW
SUBJECT: Capitol Expenses
Listed below are the costs, the year of purchase and
description of equipment that will be needed for the next
five years.
For the year 2OO1.
1. Single axle dump truck w/plow, wing, and sander to replace
existing 1981 truck. Cost $85,000. Street Department.
2. Sign Maker to replace existing 1970 maker. Cost 15,000.
Street Department.
3. Crane to replace existing 1985 crane. Sewer.Department.
4. Pick-up truck w/plow to replace existing 1991 truck. Cost
$38,000. Water Department.
$. Overlay for 1.3 mi. of Toad. Cost $50,000 Street
Department.
For the year 2002.
1. Street Sweeper to replace existing 1980 model. Cost
$70,000.
2. Woodchipper to replace existing 1974 model. Cost $25,000.
3. Liftstation panel upgrade. Co~t $20,000. sewer Department.
4. Grinding of excavated asphalt. Cost $15,000. Water and
Sewer Department.
5. Overlay for 1.3 mi. of road. Cost $50,000. Street
Department.
I printed on recycledpaper
For the year 2003.
1. Single axle dump truck w/plow, wing and sander to replace
existing 1983. Cost $90,000. Street Department.
2. Tandem dump truck to replace existing 1985. This would be
a used truck. Cost cannot be determined now. 8est estimate
would be $50,000. Water and Sewer Department.
4. Overlay for 1.3 mi. of road. Cost $50,000. Street
Department.
For the year 2004.
1. Liftstation panel up-grade. Cost $25,000. Sewer
Department.
2. Overlay for 1.3 mi. of road. Cost $50,000. Street
Department.
3. Skid-steer to replace 1994 model. Cost $35,000. Street and
Water Department.
For the year 2005.
1. Single axle dump truck w/plow, wing and sander. Cost
$95,000. Street Department.
2. Overlay for 1.3 mi. of road. Cost $50,000. Street
Department.
3. Liftstation panel up-grade. Cost $30,000. Sewer
Department.
4. 1-Ton dump truck w/plow and sander to replace 1995 model.
Cost $ 45,000. Street and Water Department.
This does not include some smaller items that would be added
to the capitol outlay budget each year.
In regards to your second request, what qualities would I
like to see in a City Hanager. I would like to see someone
with experience and that plans to stay here for an extended
period of time. Someone with vision and long range goals. A
manager that will work with the community. Not someone that
will make wholesale changes for their personal gain and than
leaves in a short period of time. Host importantly, a manager
that is willing to work and trust staff.
7-30-99
INFASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
From Jon Sutherland:
Streets - Long term plan, (Island View Drive curb & gutter) See city engineer & go for a
tour, offer people assistance when we do a street to put in a driveway, Citywide it
would help Lake Minnetonka (and our catch basins)
City Hall: take a close look in and out
Retaining Walls - take a comprehensive look @ what we should do, you may save
some money. Saint Louis Park is building brand new walls out of the same material
we are throwing away. Our old walls are constructed with an excellent "natural" product
but the design & installation was flawed. Retaining walls should go through an arch
review committee. Issues such as safety (see attached zoning code line of site).
Include the input of the person who lives adjacent to the wall, and the input of a
landscape architect. Get some "art & design" into the reconstruction.
Stormwater/Streets - tie stormwater into streets when possible, collect stormwater
fees. Many misc areas - where we can do improvements - need to include City
Engineer and go out to look at sites. Jon Sutherland has a quick list.
Scattered site requistion.
City wide matching trash cans like Minneapolis. When you move into the city you
receive a can.
Parks (see Planning Commission wish list) Trail acquisition and development connection
beyond our borders.
Sell existing City Hall building to High Tech Co. and build a new City Hall in conjunction
with the Post Office.
MOUND CITY CODE
¢ Z]
SECTION 350:745, SUBD. 1.
The natural drainage system shall be used as far
as is feasible for storage and flow of runoff.
Stormwater drainage shall be discharged to
marshlands, swamps, retention basins or other
treatment facilities. Diversion of stormwater
to marshlands or swamps shall be considered for
existing or planned surface drainage.
Marshlands and swamps used for stormwater shall
provide for natural or artificial water level
control. Temporary storage areas or retention
basins scattered throughout development areas
shall be encouraged to reduce peak flow, erosion
damage, and construction cost.
Section 350:750. Traffic Control. The traffic generated by any
use shall be channelized and controlled in a manner that will
avoid: (a) congestion on the public streets, (b) traffic hazards,
and (c) excessive traffic through residential areas, particularly
truck traffic. Internal traffic shall be so regulated as to ensure
its safe and orderly flow. Traffic into and out of business areas
shall in all cases be forward moving with no backing into streets.
On corner lots, nothing shall be placed or allowed to grow with the
exception of seasonal crops in such a manner as materially to
impede vision between a height of two and one-half (2-1/2) and ten
(10) feet above the centerline grades of the intersecting streets
to a distance such that a clear line of vision is possible of the
intersection street from a distance of thirty (30) feet from the
intersection of the right-of-way lines·
STREET
No Obstruction in Clear Sight Triangle
84
3/15/93
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 9, 1998
1.15 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE~
The City Manager explained the background of this item.
The City Attorney reviewed the memo written by attorney Karen Cole, regarding the Council's
question of what would happen if the City failed to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan.
1. Failure would give the (MCWD) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District the power
to regulate the use and development of land in the City of Mound.
2. The Metropolitan Council could bring suit in district court to enforce the statute
requiting preparation of the plan.
The City Attorney's recommendation was not to subject the City of Mound to either of the above
sanctions.
The Mayor stated the following: "The Stormwater Management Plan is something that has been
mandated by the Legislature through the Metropolitan Planning Act and the Met Council is
charged with carrying out the Comprehensive Plan Review. The Stormwater Management Plan
is a part of that Comprehensive Plan Review. We have known for a number of years that we
would be faced with completing a Stormwater Management Plan by the end of 1998. The
Council has taken a strong position with the Legislature to curtail, unfunded mandates that the
City needs to generate more tax revenue to implement. The Mayor stated that the Stormwater
Management Plan preparation will cost approximately $50,000."
The Mayor stated that the Council takes very seriously, the equitable spreading of cost. The
sole reason the Council and Staff came up with this Stormwater Utility Ordinance is to set up
the utility where the City can spread the cost among the users that is a more fair and equitable
way of spreading the costs of treatment of stormwater and runoff and upkeep of the system. The
City is hoping that the public will realize that as stormwater management becomes more complex
and more regulations are generated, and more is required to be done, that the fairest way of
spreading this cost and insuring that single family homeowners do not get caught UP · paying
a disproportionate share, is to have a user generated system in place.
The Mayor opened the public heating.
The following persons spoke:
Mark Chatterton, 5429 Bartlett Blvd.
Para Amidon, 1909 Lakeside Lane
Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane
Bob Schmidt, 4708 Island View Drive
Becky Glister, 5008 Wren Road
Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road
Bob Hanson, 5424 Bartlett Blvd.
Dave Osmek, 2160 Basswood Lane
Shale Nyberg, 2872 Highland Blvd.
Scott Nagal, 4586 Denbigh Road
The above people made the following comments:
Just tell whoever is requiring a Stormwater Management Plan no that we will not
prepare one.
Would like to see a plan before setting up the Utility and charging fees.
They want to see the stormwater cleaned up before it gets to the Lake.
The Council discussed g2 from the comments. They explained that fees would be worked on
after the plan is prepared. Setting up the utility does not generate any fees. The fees would be
set by resolution after the plan is completed. Even though a public hearing is not required to
be held on fees, there will be a public heating before fees are set to let the public know how
much will be charged for all users of the system.
The Council discussed the following:
Having to use money from the Capital Improvement Fund for the preparation of
a Stormwater Management Plan and then paying it back when the fees are set.
Section 650:15 and requiring a public hearing before setting rates and adding this
requirement to the proposed ordinance setting up the Stormwater Management
Utility.
Section 650:25 which talks about adjustments'that can be made to the basic
charges including the classifications based on unique situations such as the
differences in hardcover on residential lots.
Polston moved to adopt the ordinance setting up the Stormwater Utility with the provision that
the setting of rates would require a public hearing added to 650:15 and that Section 650:25
reflect the impetus of what was discussed on adjustments by establishing user fees based on the
amount of hardcover and the amount of stormwater being generated.
ORDINANCE//98-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY
CODE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES,
BY ADDING SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER
SYSTEM
Councilmember Hanus seconded the motion for discussion.
The City Attorney asked if the Council wants 650:25 to say that adjustments will be
made reflecting extraordinary properties which have nonconforming and extraordinary
hardcover ratios. Councilmember Hanus stated what he had in mind was listing them
in the land uses as conforming and nonconforming. Councilmember Hanus felt that
would be clearer for someone reading the ordinance. The City Attorney suggested that
this can be done when the rates are set in Section 650:15. The Council agreed.
The Council discussed setting rates when the Stormwater Management Plan is completed
and approved by the Metropolitan Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update.
They will then have more hard data to indicate what the rates should be.
The Council asked that the following change be made to Section 650:15:
Section 650:15. Establishing Basic Rate. In determining charges, the Council shall,
from time to time, by resolution and after a public hearint,, establish a basic system
rate to be charged against one acre or land having and REF of one. The charge to be
made against each parcel of land shall then be determined by multiplying the REF
(Residential Equivalency Factor) for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's
acreage time the system rate.
There was comment from the audience that what they want is a plan before anything is
acted upon, including setting up the stormwater utility.
The Council asked the City Engineer when he thought the Plan would be done and
approved. He stated it could be March or April of next year, depending on the review
process.
Councilmember Weycker stated she does not understand why this has to be adopted now
if it is likely we will not be setting rates and charging for another year.
The Mayor stated that this, at least, establishes the utility and the fact it will be based
on user fees and not property taxes to pay for and implement the plan and the operation
of the stormwater utility.
The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 98-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY CODE,
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY ADDING
SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 650 is hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
Section 650 - Storm Sewer System
Section 650:00. Storm Sewer System: Statutory Authority. Minnesota Statutes, section
444.075, authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of
storm sewer facilities ("charges"). By this Section, the City elects to exercise such authority.
Section 650:05. Findings and Determinations. In providing for such charges, the findings and
determinations set out in this Section are made.
Subd. 1. In the exercise of its governmental authority and in order to promote the
public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, the City has constructed, operated
and maintained a storm sower system (the "system"). This Section is adopted in the
further exercise of such authority and for the same purposes.
Subd. 2. The system, as constructed, heretofore has been financed and paid for through
the imposition of special assessments and ad valorem taxes. Such financing methods
were appropriate to the circumstances at the time they were used. It is now necessary
and desirable to provide an alternative method of recovering some or all of the future
costs of improving, maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of
charges as provided in this Section.
Subd. 3. In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes
to make them just and equitable. Taking into account the status of completion of the
system, past methods of recovering system costs, the topography of the City and other
relevant factors, it is determined that it would be just and equitable to assign
responsibility for some or all of the future costs of operating, maintaining and improving
the system on the basis of the expected storm water runoff from the various parcels of
land within the City during a standard one-year rainfall event.
Subd. 4. Assigning costs and making charges based upon expected typical storm water
runoff cannot be done with mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within
reasonable and practical limits. The provisions of this Section undertake to establish a
reasonable and practical methodology for making such charges.
Section 650:10. Rates and Charges.
Subd. 1. Residential Equivalent Factor. Rates and charges for the use and availability
of the system shall be determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor"
("REF"). For the purposes of this Section, one REF is defined as the ratio of the
average volume of surface water runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to
a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected
to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one-year rainfall
event.
Subd. 2. Determination of REF's for Land Uses. The REF's for the following land
uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows:
Land Uses REF
Cemeteries .25
Parks and Railroads .75
Two-family Residential 1.00
Single-family Residential 1.00
Public and Private Schools and 1.25
Institutional Use
Multiple-family Residential Uses and 3.00
Churches
Commercial, Industrial and Warehouse 5.00
Uses
Classification
1
2
3
4
5
Subd. 3. Other Land Uses. Other land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be
classified by the City Manager by assigning them to the classes nearly like the listed
uses, from the standpoint of probable hydrologic response. Appeals from the City
Manager's determination of the proper classifications may be made to the City Council
in the same manner as other appeals from administrative determinations under Section
350:510.
Section 650:15. Establishint, Basic Rate. In determining charges, the Council shall, from time
to time, by resolution and after a public heating, establish a basic system rate to be charged
against one acre of land having an REF of one. The charge to be made against each parcel of
land shall then be determined by multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification
times the parcel's acreage times the basic system rate.
Section 650:20. Standardized Acreage. For the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges
against property used for single-family and two-family residential purposes, each of such
properties shall be considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre.
2
Section 650:25. Adjustments of Charges. The City Council may by resolution, from time to
time, adopt policies providing for the adjustment of charges for parcels or groups of parcels,
based upon hydrologic data supplied by affected property owners, demonstrating an actual
hydrologic response substantially different from the REF being used for the parcel or parcels.
Such adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of the City Manager and
shall not be made effective retroactively. If the adjustment would have the effect of changing
the REF for all or substantially all of the land uses in a particular classification, however, such
adjustment shall be accomplished by amending the REF table in Section 650: 10, Subd. 2.
Section 650:30. Excluded Lands. No charge for system availability or service shall be made
against land which is either (i) public street right-of-way or (ii) vacant and unimproved with
substantially all of its surface having vegetation as ground cover.
Section 650:35. Supplyinf Information. The owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises shall supply the City with such information as the City may reasonably request related
to the use, development and area of the premises. Willful failure to provide such information
or to falsify it is a violation of this Section.
Section 650:40. Estimated Char~es. If the owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises fails or refuses to provide the information requested, as provided in Section 650:35,
the charge for such premises shall be estimated and billed in accordance with such estimate,
based upon information then available to the City.
Section 650:45. Drainage and Erosion Control.
Subd. 1. Drainage Plan. In the development, improvement or alteration of land, the
direction, quantity or qualify of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the
development are submitted to the City Engineer. Run-off shall be properly channeled
into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility.
Subd. 2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Prior to the issuance of a building or
grading permit for any development, improvement or alteration of land, a plan for
erosion and sedimentation control shall be presented with the site plan. The erosion and
sedimentation control plan shall specify the measures to be used before, during and after
construction until the soil and slope are stabilized by permanent cover. These control
measures shall be maintained in good working order until site stabilization occurs.
Subd. 3. Plan Approval. In areas which are susceptible to erosion hazard or
sedimentation damage, the City may require the erosion and sedimentation control plan
to be approved by the appropriate water management organization prior to the issuance
of a permit.
Subd. 4. Approval. Plans and provisions required for compliance with this Section
must be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
ATTEST:
SS/BOB POLSTON
Mayor
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council 6-9-98
Publish in the Official Newspaper, The Laker,
6-20-98
4
The Cit7 ot: Mound is considerin9 the use of o new technique to pay for
the costs of managing storm wQter runoff-Q Storm W~ter Utility. A
public hearing is scheduled on May 26 to discuss the proposed storm
water utility. Everyone is invited. Below-are some frequently asked
questions about storm water utilities.
What do you mean by storm water?
Why does it need to be managed?-
Very simply, storm water is another name for rain.
Before people settled in Mound, rainwater that fell
was absorbed into the ground or flowed naturally to
Lake Minnetonka or other water sources. When people
moved to Mound they built roads, driveways, stores,
churches and parking lots. Consequently, the ground
cannot absorb the water as easily, and more water
runs off when it rains. The storm sewers, the grates in
the curbs on the streets, collect the water that falls
and directs it into the sewer system.
What is o storm water utility?
A storm water utility is a service similar to the water
and sanitary sewer utilities. Like the sanitary sewer
utility fee, the fee is based on the amount of water
that is discharged into the system. For instance, a
parking lot creates more runoff than a similar-sized
grassy area so it pays a higher rate. Similarly, a large
parcel creates more runoff than a small parcel, so it
too pays a higher amount. In this way, the citizens of
Mound will pay for the management of storm water in
proportion to the amount of water they "contribute,"
not on the value of their property.
Why is a utility needed?
Federal and state regulations require Mound to take
greater and costlier actions than ever before to
protect water quality in our community. These actions
include forming new water management organizations
and developing regional and local plans to identify
problems.
These new costs, when combined with the money spent
for ongoing storm drainage maintenance each year,
represents a major expenditure. Today, most storm
water costs are paid for using property taxes and
sanitary sewer fees. Mound must find a way to meet
these rising costs in a fair and equitable manner,
without adding to the tax rolls.
How much will it cost me?
Fees will not be set at the May 26 meeting. The
ordinance that will be considered on May 26 simply
creates the utility and allows, by resolution, to estab-
lish a fee schedule based on the needs of the city. The
fees would likely be set later after the issue has been
studied in greater detail.
What would the money funds collected be
used for?
The money collected would be used for the operation
and maintenance of the city storm water collection
system. Some examples include
· Maintaining existing storm facilities so they will
operate properly for a longer period of time.
· E~ha~cing wetlands to clean storm water.
· Replacing existing storm facilities that no longer
are usable.
· Sweeping streets and picking-up leaves so they
don't get into the system.
A more specific example would be the Mound Visions
program. As Mound Visions is put in place downtown,
there are requirements that must be met relating to
ponding to handle the downtown area's drainage
system. Specifically, the City will need special ponds in
the downtown area to collect and handle the drainage
of the developed area. Ponds will also be needed to
account for other drainage issues in the community.
Costs associated with the redevelopment of downtown
under Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for
payment out of a storm water utility.
Where can 3: get more information?
The Mound City Council will hold a public hearing on the
Storm Water Utility on Tuesday, May 26 at 7 p.m. at
Mound City Hall. Everyone is invited to attend. You
can also call City Hall at 472-0600 for more
information.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 1998
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER&'~ 5-
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORM WATER UTILITY
As you know, we have been discussing, for about one year, the idea of creating a storm water utility.
The purpose of such a utility provides the City with a fair method of financing needed operations
and maintenance to the overall drainage system of the City. The utility also provides funding for
improvements such as the possible acquisition of property for regional storm water ponds and/or the
maintenance of such ponding areas.
As you know, federal and state laws, as well as watershed district regulations mandating stormwater
management, are currently in place. For example, as the Mound Visions program is implemented
in the downtown area, there are requirements that have to be met relating to ponding to handle the
downtown area's drainage system. Specifically, the City will be required to have regional ponds in
its downtown area to handle the drainage of the redeveloped area as well as to account for other
drainage issues in the community. Costs associated with the redevelopment of the downtown under
Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for payment out of a storm water utility.
The City will be required to complete a stormwater management plan as a part of its Comprehensive
Plan Update that is due into the Metropolitan Council by the end of 1998. A possible source of
funding for the stormwater management plan would be the storm water utility fund.
Other costs, such as street sweeping, which are now paid for out of the general fund, could be paid
for out of the storm water utility fund. As you can see, there are many advantages to having such
a utility available.
Attached is a proposed ordinance creating a storm water utility. This ordinance is based upon the
prmted on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
April 10, 1998
Page 2
City of Richfield's ordinance which was passed in 1985. The ordinance does not spell out the fees
to be charged within the utility. The ordinance simply creates the utility and allows, by resolution
to establish a fee schedule based upon the needs of our City. The fees could be established later
after we have had the opportunity to study the issues in more detail.
Although this ordinance does not require a public hearing, you may want to consider having one so
that when you actually establish a fee schedule, the public would have had some background on the
utility. I have also attached some information that Richfield used to educate the public on the
purpose of the utility. Although they used a public hearing process, they were also very careful to
provide adequate education to their residents so that everyone became informed about the utility and
why it was being created. I share this idea with you only to avoid public relations problems that
could occur after the ordinance is established. We can talk more about this Tuesday evening.
I believe we are proceeding in the right direction by establishing a storm water utility. It will
provide another source for financing necessary improvements to our overall drainage system in the
City of Mound.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
ot,3
3
;ity of .~,~ ~
U.S. Postage
PAID
ichfield P,~,, ~o. ~
M~nneaooli$, MN
'00 Porlland A~ue South
~chtield, Minnesota 5S423-2598
.I
STORM SEWER CHARGE
CITIES 0 - 2,500
Spdn9 Park
Watertown
Woodland
CITl1~'.$ 2,500 - ]0,000
Arden Hills
Bayport
Cimle Pines
Dayton
Deephaven
Falcon Heights
Independence
Jordan
Lauderdale
Mahtomedi
Mound
Newport
Oak Park Heights
Orono
Shorewood
Spdng Lake Park
St. Anthony
St. Francis
St. Paul Park
Wayzata
CITIES 10,000 - 20,000
Champlin
Chanhassen
Columbia Heights
Hastings
Mendota Heights
Mounds View
North St, Paul
Oakdale
Pdor Lake
Robbinsdale
Rosemount
Savage
Shakopee
Stillwater
West St. Paul
CITIES OVER 20,000
N/F Apple Valley 3.95/MO
N/A RES,EQUIV
N/A Blaine N/A
Bloomington 5.50/2 MOS
Brooklyn Center 7.50/QTR
Brooklyn Park
RES. 3.98/UNIT; Bumsville 22.40/REU
TWNHSE 5.16 Coon Rapids N/A
UNIT;APT.32.48/ Cottage Grove NONE
AC,IND.COMM Crystal 3.20 QTR.
50.75/AC. Eagan 5.25/REF/QTR
Eden Praide 3/QTR SGL-FAM;
N/A OTHER 7.38-38.07/
N/A ACRE
N/A Edina 40
3.25/LOT/QTR Inver Grove Heights NONE
N/A Maple Grove
N/A Maplewood
N/A Minneapolis 2.04 PER CF NO
N/A STRMWTR
N/A Minnetonka VARI ES
N/A New Brighton N/A
/PROJECT New Hope 15/YR
Plymouth N/A
Richfield 8.55/LOT
4.88/QTR. Shoreview
NONE South St. Paul N/F
St. Louis Park N/A
N/A St. Paul
White Bear Lake N/A
CITY HAS DETAIL Woodbury 8.50/QTR SGL FAM
N/A
CITY HAS DEAIL
NONE
N/A
3.50/QTR.
N/A
1.35/LOT
0
3.75
1/MO
5.15/QTR
4/BI-MO RES
N/A
N/A
59
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 16, 1999
Mr. Kevin Bielger
2820 Halstead Lane
Mound, MN. 55364
Dear Mr. Bielger:
The City of Mound is considering a storm sewer improvement project to eliminate an on-going
drainage problem in the area of your property. An information and discussion meeting with City Staff
is scheduled for Wednesday, July 28, 1999, at 7:30 P.M. at Mound City Hall. You are encouraged to
attend this meeting and discuss this potential project.
Sincerely,
Fran Clark
Acting City Manager
CC:
John Cameron, City Engineer, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Gregg Skinner, Public Works Supt.
Pat Meisel, Mayor
printed on recycled paper
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
Worksheet
By:
Date:
Checked By:
Client:
Project:
Project No.:
File:
e:~aain:~forms\worksheet (12/96)
Engineering · Planning ° Surveying
May 26, 1999
Ms. Pat Meisel, Mayor
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound
Halstead Lane/West Edge Boulevard
Storm Sewer
MFRA/ti 1379
Dear Pat:
This letter is a follow-up to our meeting with resident Kevin Beigler and then City Manager, Ed
Shukle, regarding flooding problems on Mr. Beigler's property at 2820 Halstead Lane. Myself and
another engineer from our office made another trip to the site and conducted an inspection of the
complete system from the storm sewer outlet in the wetlands west of Halstead Lane to the beginning
of this drainage area at Beachwood Road and West Edge Boulevard. We also obtained copies of the
original surveys from the property jackets that were used when building permits were issued for the
Beigler property and also the three lots on the north side of Pine Road between Halstead Lane and
West Edge Boulevard.
A few more facts have come to light that may help to explain why there is a problem with this storm
sewer system. I was also very concerned about the sinkholes on Mr. Beigler's property after
watching the videotape of the 1995 rain event.
The closed storm system from the inlet on the Beigler property to the outlet in the wetlands west of
Halstead Lane does not appear to be of sufficient size to accommodate the run-off under present
conditions. At the time, this system was installed when Woodcrest was developed in the early
1970's, West Edge Boulevard did not have curb and gutter or catch basins. As part of the 1980 Street
Improvement project, concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer was installed in West Edge
Boulevard. The culvert under West Edge Boulevard at the lot line between Lots 11 and 12, Block 2,
Westwood was replaced with catch basins and a storm sewer line which discharges into the same
swale where the old culvert outlet was located. At that time, the only house of the four in question to
exist was the home on Lot 12, 2879 West Edge Boulevard, PID 23-117-24 32 0030. The other three
homes were built between 1982 and 1984. The improvement of West Edge Boulevard, with the
15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447
phone 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532
e-ma/L' mfra@mfra.com
Ms. Pat Meisel, Mayor
May 26, 1999
Page 2
addition of curb and gutter and storm sewer, directed all the street run-off to this system. Previously,
much of the rainfall was absorbed or ran to other areas before it could reach the swale between Lots
11 and 12.
The elevations at which the storm sewer inlet on the Beigler property and the Beigler home itself
were built at, also add to the problem. The storm sewer inlet was installed approximately two feet
higher than the design grade as shown on the development plan for Woodcrest of Mound. In
addition, the survey used for the building permit on the Beigler home did not show the existing
storm sewer and has different proposed elevations for the house then what was actually built.
Storm sewer systems such as this one, with inlets in rear yards, should have emergency overflows
below any openings into structures. The intended overflow for this system has a number of
obstructions, such as bushes and a large clump of trees at the curb line. The threshold of the patio
door on the Beigler home is well above the storm sewer inlet, but it is only a couple of inches higher
then the top of the curb at the intended overflow. The overflow elevation at the street should be 6 to
12 inches below any door opening in adjacent homes.
The area of the outlet for this system is also in need of major repairs and maintenance. Twenty-five
years of silt deposited at the flared end section has resulted in large delta, which restricts the flow
into the wetland. This area needs to be cleaned out and riprap added at the apron.
The only complete solution that we see for this flooding problem is to replace the existing storm
sewer system with larger pipe and at the same time extend the storm sewer to the catch basins in
West Edge Boulevard. This will put the flows from West Edge Boulevard in a closed system and
eliminate the erosion problems now experienced between West Edge Boulevard and the inlet on the
Beigler property. An additional catch basin should be added to the west curb line on West Edge
Boulevard, which will help to eliminate the problem of water overflowing the curb in larger
rainstorms.
A section of street at the catch basins in Halstead Lane will need to be removed to allow the curb
lines to be lowered six to eight inches, which will provide the necessary emergency overflow. At a
minimum, the large clumps of trees behind the east curb line must be removed and the overflow
swale regraded. Replacement of the storm sewer from Halstead Lane west to the outlet is a problem
because of the number of large trees growing in the easement, some of which may be over the
existing pipe. At least two, possibly three, will need to be removed. Some regrading of this area will
also be necessary to eliminate an erosion problem next to the foundation at the back portion of the
home on the north side (Lot 8, Block 6, 2811 Halstead Lane). At the present time, if the catch basins
in Halstead Lane cannot accommodate a larger rainstorm and the street overflows, it runs next to the
house instead of in a swale within the drainage easement.
Ms. Pat Meisel, Mayor
May 26, 1999
Page 3
Except for one small area, the existing permanent utility and drainage easements are sufficient for
the new lines; however, temporary construction easements may be required to allow working space
for the contractor during the construction. The problem of the sinkholes could be handled when the
storm sewer pipe is replaced. They need to be filled to eliminate future erosion.
The issue of how to pay for the reconstruction of this storm sewer system also needs to be
addressed. The drainage area of this system covers approximately 9.2 acres, which includes all or a
portion of 27 lots and some School District property. It would be very difficult to assess a project
such as this on a basis of drainage area and be able to justify the assessment. As an alternative, we
would suggest a meeting with the six property owners adjacent to the proposed construction and
directly affected by the situation. Methods of financing and cost sharing could then be discussed at
this meeting.
Enclosed is a cost estimate to replace and extend the present storm sewer as previously suggested. It
also includes the excavation required to clean out the sediment deposit and create an open swale at
the outlet end of the system.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron, City Engineer
JC:pry
Enclosure
cc: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager, City of Mound
eSrnain:\11379\meise15-25
Ma,/ 26. 1999': 10'22AM' '"'MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS'::"" ..... :-' No. 7919--P. 5/5'
COST ESTIMATE
HALSTEAD LANE/WEST EDGE BOULEVARD STORM SEWER
!TEM UNIT UNIT COST
Tree and Brush Removal Lump Sum $ 2,000.00/LS
Bituminous Removal 300 SY $ 3.50/8Y
15" RCP 70 LF $ 30.00fLF
18" RCP 160 LF $ 35.00/LF
21" RCP 75 LF $ 50.00/LF
24" RCP 130 LF $ 60.00/LF
24" Apron with Trash Guard I EA $ 1,000.00/EA
Maztholes 2 EA $ 1,500.00/EA
Catch Basin Manhole 1 EA $ 1,500.00/'EA
Catch Basin 1 EA $ 1,200.00/'EA
Reconstruct Existing Catch Basin 2 EA $ 500.00/EA
Riprap 10 CY $ 75.00/CY
Remove and Replace Curb and Gutter 150 LF $ 25.00fLF
Class 5 Gravel 100 TN $ 12.00frN
Bimm/nou$ Ba$e (2") 35 TN $ 45.00/TN
Bitummou~ Wear (1-1/2") 25 TN $ 50.00/TN
Sod 600 SY $ 4.00/SY
Seed and Mulch Lump Sum $ 500.00/LS
Remove Sedimem at Outlet 40 CY $ ' 25.00/CY
Contingencies (10%)
Total Estimated Consmlction Cost
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost (35%)
Total Estimated Cost
TOTAL
2,000.00
1,050.00
2,100.00
5,600.00
3,750.00
7,800.00
1,000.00
3,000.00
1,500.00
1,200.00
1,000.00
750.00
3,750.00
1,200.00
1,575.00
1,250.00
2,400.00
500.00
1,000.00
$ 4,275.0ff
$ 46,700.00
$ 16,300_.00
$ 63,000.00
June 23, 1999
IIECEI¥ 'D JUN 2 4 lggg
Honorable Pat Meisel
Mayor City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Pat,
We last spoke the week of May 24 at which time you informed me that you were waiting for the city
engineer's report regarding the repeated flooding and pending of water that has been occurring on my
property at 2820 Halstead Lane. At this time I expressed my concern that the flooding was once again
occurring as we entered the rainy season. At this point you told me that due to the delay in this report you
had set a deadline with your engineer for the following week which would have been the week of Memorial
Day Or May 31~t.
It is now 3 weeks later and I have yet to receive any contact fi.om the City of Mound. I am writing this
today to inform you that once again flooding had occurred on my property and has extended to more than
just ponding of water in the yard. Today this flooding has included inundating the deck area and has
included internal flooding of my home with water standing in the basement. I cannot express my complete
disappointment in the cities' persistent unwillingness to correct a problem that is the direct result of the
easement through my property that is used for drainage. The damage to my property and home continues to
expand and become cumulative. Pat, I have expressed my interest in working with the city to correct these
problems however, there is a limit and my home is being repeatedly damaged and devalued and I feel that
between the photographs, video tape, letters, and my own private mgineers report I think that the city of
Mound has had adequate notice of the problem (4 years) and more than sufficient documentation of the
problem with more than enough time to correct this on their own.
I am requesting at this point an immediate follow-up to this correspondence and considering the most
recent damage re-emphasizing my desire to have the property restored to it's original condition to reflect
it's actual and appreciated value. I am more than willing to meet with city officials to review and itemize
these damages and would like them documented for future reference.
Thank you,
2820 Halstead Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Cc: Leah Weycker, Mound City Council
June ~3, 1999
Honorable Pat Meisel
Mayor City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
,ECEii/Eg dUN 4 1999
Dear Pat,
We last spoke the week of May 24 at which time you informed me that you were waiting for the city
engineer's report regarding the repeated flooding and ponding of water that has been occurring on my
property at 2820 I-lalstead Lane. At this time I expressed my concern that the flooding was once again
occurring as we entered the rainy season. At this point you told me that due to the delay in this report you
had set a deadline with your engineer for the following week which would have been the week of Memorial
Day Or May 31'.
It is now 3 weeks later and I have yet to receive any contact l~om the City of Mound. I am writing this
today to inform you that once again flooding had occurred on my property and has extended to more than
just ponding of water in the yard. Today this flooding has included inundating the deck area and has
included internal flooding of my home with water standing in the basement. I cannot express my complete
disappoinlment in the cities' persistent unwillingness to correct a problem that is the direct result of the
easement through my property that is used for drainage. The damage to my property and home continues to
expand and become cumulative. Pat, I have expressed my interest in working with the city to correct these
problems however, there is a limit and my home is being repeatedly damaged and devalued and I feel that
between the photographs, video tape, letters, and my own private engineers report I think that the city of
Mound has had adequate notice of the problem (4 years) and more than sufficient documentation of the
problem with more than enough time to correct this on their own.
I am requesting at this point an immediate follow-up to this correspondence and considering the most
recent damage re-emphasizing my desire to have the property restored to it's original condition to reflect
it's actual and appreciated value. I am more than willing to meet with city officials to review and itemize
these damages and would like them documented for future reference.
Thank you,
2820 Halstead Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Cc: Leah Weycker, Mound City Council
CITY OF MOUND
Memorandum
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From:
FRAN CLARK, ACTING CITY MANAGER
Date: August 2, 1999
Subject: Proposed Agreement with LMCC
As you all know, as of February 1, 1999, Triax, is no longer in charge of our local access
studio. I have been communicating with the LMCC (Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission) about taking over our Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG)
programming. Attached is the proposed agreement as prepared by our cable attorney, Brian
Grogan, after a meeting with LMCC.
Please remember we are not loosing any money. We have never received the PEG fees until
this year, 1999. It appears that will be approximately $6,500 per quarter or $26,000 per year
that we would be paying LMCC for their service. I do not feel we, as a City, can provide
the access services for this amount of money per year. If we join the LMCC, they will be in
charge of the access studio which they already have in Spring Park. They would be in charge
of providing the necessary personnel to videotape each City Council meeting for cablecast on
Channel 20. They would also assist other public, religious organizations, public libraries and
educational 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.
printed on recycled paper
Jun-30-gg 12:ZSpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T-IZg P.az/11 F-S?6
B~^~ T G~.~
C6~2?
E-Mad. ~roganl:l~raoa~-t~a.,ncrc eom
MOSS & BARNETT
A P.e-OIt'ZSSION.,~.I.
4600 N0~w~sr Cgu's't~
lune 30, 1999
Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger
City Clerk
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Draft Agreement be~een the City of Mound, Minnesota and Lake Minnetonka
Communications Commission ,,~ith respect to PEG Access Programming
Dear Fran:
Pursuant to our telephone conversations and face-to-face meeting, enclosed herewith
please find a draft agreement for your review and consideration. This agreement concerns the
provision of PEG access programming services by the Lake Minnetonka Communications
Commission ("LMCC") m return for payment by the City of Mound of $.84 per subscriber per
month as remitted by Triax.
A£[er you have had a chance to review the enclosed agreement, please conu:ct me to
discuss any proposed revisions or amendments you believe necessary. Thereafter, we can
for~,ard the document on to Sally Koenecke at the LMCC for their review and consideration.
Ifyo, should have any immediate questions or iii can provide any additional
information or assistance, please feel free to contact me.
Very truly youxs,
Brian T. Groga~
BTG/tlh
Enclosures
2673a4/z
Jun-30-gg 1Z=Z6pm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4gO0 T-1zg P.03/11 F-676
DRAFT - June 30, 1999
LOC.~L PROGRAMMING FACILITIES AGREEMENT
This Local Pro~ramming Facilities Ageement ("Agreement") is entered into this ~
day of , ! 999, between the City of Mound, Minnesota ("City") and the
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission ("LMCC").
RECITAl,S:
WHEREAS, both LMCC and City have, through separate documents, granted to Triax
Midwest Associates, L.P. ("Triax") fifteen (15) year non-exclusive cable television francl:uses;
and
WHEREAS, each franchise requires Tna.x to remit to both LMCC and the City a five
percent (5%) franchise fee on Triax's Gross Revenues; and
WHEREAS, each franchise further requires Triax to remit a separate public, educational,
and governmental ("PEG") access fee to LMCC and the Cffy in suppor~ of PEG pro~amming;
and
WHEI~EAS, each franchise requires Triax to only provide the PEG access fcc and
dedicated channel capacity in suppor~ of PEG access programming, and Tnax has no further
PEG access responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the City collects a $$4 PEG access fee, while LMCC collects a $.50 PEG
access fee, per subscriber, per billing period, ~hich is paid by Triax on a quarterly basis; and
WHEKEAS, LMCC operates a $,000 square foot equipped PEG access studio fhcility
("Studio"), which it pays for with its Pt~G access fee and with portions of its five percent (5%)
franchise fee; and
WHEREAS, the City has a~ailable PEG access eqmpment, outlined in Exhibit ,~ ("City
Equipment"), which it desires to locate at the Studio for PEG access use; and
WHEREAS, the City desires the use of the S~udio as well as the professional assistance
which LMCC PEG access staff can provide; and
WHEREAS, LMCC desires the C~ry's PEG access fee to help offset the costs associated
~ith the operation of the Studio.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth
herein, and other good and Yalaable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
2648~57tl
Jun-30-gg 12:25pm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 T-1zg P.04/11 F-676
.qF.e.'r ION 1
$COPF OF SERVICES
A. LMCC Obligations. This Agreement obligates LMCC to perform the following
functions:
1. Manage, operate, and maintain the Studio and audio/video production eqaipmem
and facilities located at , available for use by the City and its
residents,
Maintain and repmr, at LMCC's expense, the City Equipment;
3. Provide outreach and promote activities and opportunities relaung to PEG access
programming to City residents under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted for
LMCC residents;
4. Provide the necessary personnel to v,deotape each City council meeting of Cny
throughout the term of this Agreement for cablccast on Channel 20;
5. Arrange for playback and live cablecasting of¥id¢o, audio, and text programming
to the City and ~ts residents under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted for LMCC
residents;
6. Assist the public, religious organizations, public libraries, educational 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 rest. dents;
7. Provide all PEG access programming for the City and its residents on cable
Channel 20; and
8. Respond to questions and requests of City residents that pertain to PEG access
programming and related facilities and equipment.
B. City Obhganons. This Agreement obligates the City to perform or provide the following
functions:
1. Provide LMCC with the appropriate PEG access fee, in accordance with Section
II herein, as well as the City Equipment, m accordance with Section IH herein;
2. Cooperate with LMCC in the effective implementation and administration or' the
requirements and responsibilities outlined within this Agreement; and
3. Maintain sole responsibility for responding to questions and requests from City
residents regarding which do not pertain to PEG access programming, related facilmes and
equipment regarding regulatory or franchise enforcement proceedings.
264567/I 2
Jun-30-gg 12:ZTpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 T-IZg P.05/11 F-$78
SECTION II
PROVISION OF PEG ACCESS FE]E
A. pEG Access Fee to Be paid to [.MCC. The current franchisee in the City, Triax, collects
a PEG access fee in the mount of $.84 per subscriber per billing period. Triax provides the PEG
access fee to the City on a quarterly basis, which the City has agreed to use to pay for PEG
access programming. The City hereby agrees to fia-nish LMCC with the PEG ~ccess fee it
receives from Tnax within thirty (30) days of receipt from Triax, and LMCC hereby agrees to
use said fees exclusiYely for support of PEG access obligations required hereunder. 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 RenegodaTe PFG Access Fee. If, at any time, LMCC chooses to return a portion
of its franchise fee paid by Triax to LMCC to any LMCC municipality, or reduce the $.50 per
subscriber PEO access fee collected by LMCC, the City has, in its sole discretion, the option to
renegotiate the amount of the PEG access fee to be supplied to LMCC. If an agreement cannot
be reached, this Agreement shall terminate upon thirty (30) days advance written notice.
SECTION III
GR ANT OF CITY FQUIPMFNT
A. General Grant. Upon the effecnve 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 Ageement is terminated or expires, LMCC shall return to
the City the Cily Equipment in its entirety and in the same condition as when first supplied to
LMCC, absent norm',d ~ear and tear.
B. Use of'City Equipment. The City Equipmem shall be used by LMCC exclusively for the
development, construction, operation, maintenance, and other Iimctions relating to the PEG
access operations set forth m this Agreement. LMCC shall exercise reasonable care in
maintaining and repairing the City Equipment. Upon fa,lure 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. ,amy use of the City Equipment by LMCC that is not specified in
this Agreement shall require the prior written consent of the City.
C. Condition &City leq~tipment. LMCC acknowledges that it has examined the Cily
Equipment and that said City Equipment is no~v in good and satisfactory condition for LMCC's
purposes. LMCC agrees m remm the Ci~' Equipment to the City at the termination or expiration
of this Agreement in the same condition as when initially examined and used, absent normal
wear and tear. The City rrpresents to LMCC that it is not aware of any substamial defects m the
City Equipment that would not have been observable to LMCC.
Jun-3a-gg IZ:2?pm From-klO$$ & BARNETT +4gOO T-12g P.aS/11 F-$?$
D. Inventory of City I~quipmenI. LMCC shall, at all times, maintain an inventory of the C~ty
Equipment, which shall be available for the City's review upon the City providing ten (1 O) days
notice to LMCC.
E. Insurance. LMCC shall, in accordance with applicable laws, maintain all reasonable and
necessary insurance for the City Equipmen! ~6 long as the Cit~ l:quipmen! remains on the
property of or in the possession of LMCC. Such insurance shall be comparable to tho corned
for PEG access equipment owned by LMCC, and it shall list the City as an additional insured on
any and all policies covenng the City £quipment,
SECTION IV
Ol ]TR E ^ cH/pROMOTION .aND p ROG R A MMING
A. Outreach and ?romotioo. The City desires to provide PEG access programming that will
meet t. he needs of ~Is residents. LMCC recognizes that community awareness and understanding
~s essential to accomplish this goal. As such, LMCC agrees that it shall provide outreach and
promotion to City residems under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted for LMCC
residents.
B. programming. LMCC shall maintain a liaison 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.
SFCTION v
RFCORDS .aND REpOgTS
A. Maintenance of Records and R~poHs. LMCC shall make available to the City, upon
request, any requested financial information regarding the PI~G 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 and
description of each program produced, and the duration of each program produced (measured in
minutes and seconds) CRepon").
B. Inspection of Record8. The Ctty shall have the right to inspect LMCC's records during
regularly scheduled business hours or at such other times as mutually agreed to between LMCC
and the City:
^nm, al R~orr. LMCC shall submit the annual Report to the City on or before
__ of each year.
Jun-30-gg lZ:ZSpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 T-1zg P.O?/11 F-$?$
-~ECTION vi
.INDEMNIFICATION
LMCC and the C~ty shall each indemrufy and forever hold harmless the other, their
respective affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, and partners from and against any and
all liabilities, claims, losses or damages, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorneys'
fees) arising out of any brea~h of any obligation, representation or warranty hereunder made by
any party to this Agreement which gives rise to any claim by any person or entity; provided, that
in any case in which indemnification is sou~t, the pony seeking indemnification ("Indemnified
Party") shall 1) promptly notify the party from whom such indemnification ~s sought
("Indemni~ing Par~y"); 2) afford the Indemnifying Pony the opportunity of defending such
claim; and 3) the indemnified Pony shall fully cooperate in connection with such defense,
lmgation, settlement, or disposiuon and shall ha~'e 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 panners from and against any and all habihties, claims, losses
or damages, costs and expenses arising out ofprogamming errors or omissions over which
LMCC has responsibility, including copyright infrmgemem, misappropriatmn of literary
property, or ofprogam format, defamation, iuvasion of privacy, due to or arising out of
programming cablecasted on a PEG access channel. This indemnity shall be subject to the
procedural requiremems including notice and opportunity to defend as set forth above.
.~FCTlON Vll
T~RM OF ^GREI~MENT
This Agreement shall be effective as of the date hereof and shall expire on December 31,
2000. However, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for additional one (1) year terms
unless the objecting party supplies the other with ninety (90) days written notice of termination.
Such notice of termination may be submitted at any time, by either party, following December
31, 2000.
SECTION Vlll
MISCELL,a-N~OUS PROVISIONS
A. Supe~edes Prior Agreements. LMCC and the City agree that this Agreement shall
supersede any and all fights and obligations of LMCC and the City under any prLor agreements.
B. Binding on Succe.~.~ors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of LMCC and the City al'Id their respective successors and assigns.
264867/L ~
Jun-30-gg lZ:ZSpm From-I~SS & BARNETT +4900 T-Tzg P.08/11 F-676
C. Force M~0eure. fi, by reason of Force Majeure, LMCC or the City are unable m whole or
in part to carry out their obligations hereunder, neither party shall be cteemed in violation or
default during the continuance of such inability.
1. If any law, ordinance or regulation shall require or pecmit an), party to this
Agreement To perform any service or shall prohibit any party from performing any
service which may be in conflict with the terms of this Agreement, as soon as possible
following knowledge thereof, said party shall give notice to the other puny of the point of
conflict believed to exist between such law, ordinance or regulanon.
2. If any secuon, sentence, paragraph, term or provision of this Agreement is
determined to be illegal, invalid, or unconsritudon'al by any court of competent
jurisdiction or by any state or federal regulatory agency having jurisdzction thereof, such
determxaation shall have no effect on the validity of any other section, sentence,
p~-~graph, tm-m or provision hereof.
3. In the event such decision, law, rule or regulation is subsequently reversed,
repealed, rescinded, amended, or otherwise changed, so that the section, sentence,
paragraph, renn 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 provtsion shall thereupon return to fall 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 ~,finen nonce of
such change before requiring comphance with said prm, ision.
4. In the event state or federal law changes so as to substantially affect thc authority
of' local governments over cable television franchising, this Agreement shall be reopened
for negofianon.
E. Captions. The captions throu~out this Ageement are intended solely to facilitate
reading and merely reference the sections and provisions of tins Agreement. Such captions shall
not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.
F. lnterpretatior~. This Agreement has been arrived at by negotiation and shall not be
construed against any party.
G. Gnveming [4w. This Agreement shall be interpreted m accordance with Minnesota law.
H. Notices. Unless otherwise provided for herein, all notices, reports or demands required to
be ~ven m writing under this Agreement shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally
to the persons designated below, or when three (3) business days have elapsed after it is
deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or cenitied mail postage
prepaid thereon, or on the next addressed busxness day if sent by express ma.il or overnighg air
courier addressed to the party to which nouce is being given, as follows:
Jun-3o-gg 1z:Zgpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 T-12g P.og/11 F-$?$
if to LMCC:
Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission
540 Second Street
P.O. Box 473
Excelsior, M'N 55331-0473
At/n: Ms. Sally Koenecke
with copy to:
Bermck and Lffson, P.A.
5500 Wayzata Boulevard
Golden Valley, MN $$416
Attn: Thomas Creighton, gsq.
if to the City:
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Ann: Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger
with copy to:
Moss & Barneu
A Professional Association
90 South 7th Street
4800 Norwest Center
Minneapolis, M'N 55402-4129
Arm: Brian T. Grogan, Esq.
Such addresses and phone numbers may be changed by either party upon notice to the
other party given as provided in this Section.
I. ]::ntire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement ancl understanding
between LMCC and the City. No oral modifications or add,nons hereto unless specifically
ret~renced herein shall be binding. No verbal or written statements of either LMCC or the City
shall be considered a modification of this Agreement except by written documents signed by
both parties expressly stating that n is modifying this Agreement.
J. No Joint Venture. NoS'ting in this Agreement shall create a joint venture or principal-
agent relationship between LMCC and the City. Neither LMCC nor the City is authorized to act
towards third patties or the public in any manner Much would indicate such a relationship with
the od~er.
K. No Waiver. The failure of either LMCC or the City to strictly enforce any provision of
this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or as excusing the other party fi'om future
performance.
Jun-30-gg 1z:2gpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 T-1Zg P.10/11
L. ^s.~ig:nm;l~ts. This Agreement shall not be assigned or performance of'the du~.es
hereunder delegated witho,~t the express prior written consent of the parties to do so. A.ny
consent of assignment shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Thas Agreement is hereby accepted and we agree to be bound by ail of its leans and
conditions.
LAKE MINNETONKA
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
By:
Dated:
,1999
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
By:
Its:
Dated:
, I999
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEP1N )
$$.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
,1999, by .
offlae Lake Mirmetonka Communications Commissmn, on behalf
of the Commission.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COLTNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me tb~s day of
,1999, by , flae
of the City of Mound, Minnesota, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
2~$67/1 8
Jun-30-gg 1Z=3Opm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 T-1zg P.11/11 F-676
CITY EQUIPMENT
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
c
~ 0,~ ~.Ei'=oC,J
o'E eu~
0 ·
c,)r~.- m m w w m w
~~~~~~~oooooooo oo
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Considerations regarding the sharing of studio/access costs.
Equipment at Cost
$120,000
Five Year Depreciation
Annual Operating Budget
$24,000
$114,746
Total Initial Investment
$100,000
Annual Return on Investment
$5,000
Total Annual Cost of Studio Facilities
$143,746
Cost per Hour (Based on 2,080 Hours)
$69
If we agree to share the studio facility with Mound for their entire PEG Fee collections which are estimated
to be $27,690 per year, we could allocate 400 hours per year (just under 8 hours per week) for their use.
Chanhassen's playback requirements require staffing, equiping and maintenance of the facility.
Assuming 10% of the annual cost for this activity results in $14,400 to be paid from theeir PEG Fees.
This amount represents roughly 30 cents per month per Chanhassen subscriber.
These figures are based on preliminary estimates of costs without the benefit of actual experience
operating the new LMCC Studio Facility.
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
1999
Budget
Wages $85,600
Secretarial Service $855
Payroll Taxes/PERA $10,640
Travel Expense $2,400
Health Insurance $4,000
Insurance/Bonds $5,900
Legal Fees $9,000
Accounting/Audits $2,100
Conference/Schools $7,400
Rep.Maint. Serv. Supplies $4,000
Dues/Subscriptions $1500
Telephone/Voice Mail $2,330
Postage/P.O. Box $2,000
Miscellaneous $1,000
Advertising/Promo. News Let. $6,675
Office Equipment $0
Office Rent $11,500
Gas Utilities 0
Taxes 0
Electricity 0
Water/Sewer 0
Equip. Maint./Repair $20,700
Security 0
Sales Tax $1,000
1999 Revised Expenditures
Percentage
$480
$790
$24,500
$3,000
$4,888
$2,400
$432
$642
Additions
1999 Allocated Access Adminis~ation
Revised To Access Assumption Assumption
$85,600 45% $38,520 $47,080
$855 35% $299 $556
$10,640 45% $4,788 $5,852
$2,400 25% $600 $1,800
$4,000 45% $1,800 $2,200
$5,900 50% $2,950 $2,950
$9,000 35% $3,150 $5,850
$2,100 50% $1,050 $1,050
$7,400 20% $1,480 - $5,920
$4,480 50% $2,240 $2,240
$1,500 40% $600 $900
$3,120 50% $1,560 $1,560
$2,000 50% $1,000 $1,000
$1,000 50% $500 $500
$6,675 75% $5,006 $1,669
$o 0% $o $o
$36,000 75% $27,000 $%000
$3,000 75% $2,250 $750
$4,888 75% $3,666 $1,222
$2,400 75% $1,800 $600
$432 50% $216 $216
$20,700 100% $20,700 $0
$642 50% $321 $321
($1,ooo) $o
$o $o
Total Operating Expenses $178,600 $36,13~2 $214,732 57__~_% $121,496 $93,235
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Capital Outlay
(One Time Expenses)
1999 1999
Budget Additions Revised
Remodeling
Moving/Leasehold Improvements (Telephone, Security, Etc.)
Studio Equipment
Special Funds *
$37,600
$76,000 $76,000
$6,000 $6,000
$19,500 $19,500
($37,600) $O
Total Capital Outlay
$3'1,600 $63,90~0 $!01,500
Total 1999 Expenditures $216,200 $290,732
* Note Special Funds expenditures have been deleted or transfered into 1999 operating
costs and capital outlay items.
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
1999 Revised Revenues
Franchise Fees
PEG Fees
Interest
Triax Franchise Fee Settlement
Triax Moving Settlement
Landlord Contribution
1999 Franchise Fees
(Paid Quarterly in 1999)
1999
Budget
$160,000
$52,200
$4,000
1999
Additions Revved
$9,565 $169,565
$52,2OO
$4,000
$15,000 $15,000
$15,000 $15,000
$10,000 $10,000
$180,000 $180,000
Total 1999 Revenues $216,200 $229,565 $445,765
LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
1999 Revised Budget Summary
And Resulting Cash Balance
Total 1999 Revenues
Operating Expense
Capital Outlay
Total 1999 Expenditures
Beginning Cash Balance
Increase (Decrease) to Cash
1999 Ending Cash Balance
1999
Budget
$216,200
$178,600
$37,600
$216,200
$104,031
$o
$104,031
Additions
$229,565
$36,132
$63,900
$100,032
1999
RevVed
$445,765
$214,732
$101,500
$316,232
$104,031
$129,533
$233,564
CITY MANAGER
City of Mound, Minnesota, (9,650), a Lake Minnetonka community,
twenty-five miles west of Minneapolis in suburban Hennepin County
seeks a highly motivated and creative individual. Appointed by the
Mayor and 4 City Councilmembers. The City Manager is the chief
executive officer serving at the pleasure of the City Council. The
City has operated under a City Manager form of government since
1950, having only had 6 managers.
The City has 36 full-time employees and 3 bargaining units. $7M
budget ($3M General Fund). Bachelor's degree in public
administration or related field plus 7-10 years of city management
experience.
Experience in economic development and redevelopment is a high
priority. Requires a leader with integrity, a proficient manager,
a team player able to lead a strong experienced staff, and someone
with innovative problem solving skills. Salary negotiable DOQ/E
and proven ability.
Applicants should respond with a cover letter, a resume, three
municipal government references, proof of experience, educational
background, and current salary to: Acting city Manager, 5341
Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364.
'oN l.m~ocI
CIIVcI
ogmsocI 'S'f~
uo~ .~rz~u~'~O ~o.tcI-uoN
~o.tlocl o.tlqucI pu~
uo~t~s..n~upV offqucI ~o~ ~uoo
um~o~I ~!s~o~.tuft u~tfl
MOUND POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Memo
To: Mayor Pat Meisel
From: Len Harrell
Date: 07/2O/99
Re: Qualities of New City Manager
The qualities that I would like to see in our new manager include:
Integrity; high ethical standards
Ability to make independent decisions
Proactive, innovative, hands on
Knowledge, candor, honesty
Win-Win conflict resolution philosophy
Ability to deal with the "big picture"
Community odented government
Compassion for co-workers and dtizens
Accountability focus, but trusting in the abilities of her/his subordinates
Secure in allowing department heads to run their departments.
· Page 1
7-30-99
QUALITIES OF A CITY MANAGER
From Jon Sutherland:
· Honesty
· Hard Working
· Educated
· Capable
· Progressive
· Innovative
· Fun
From Kris Linquist:
Employee Oriented
Hold City staff meetings to keep employees informed
From Jodi Rahn:
· Approachable
· Honest
· Caring
From Collette Roberts:
Approachable/Sincere/Positive, Fun Attitude- Willing to listen to employees ideas,
suggestions, & concerns & act on them.
Willing to keep employees informed, ie: Hold regular full staff meetings or dept
meetings or write informational memos
Work towards performance based pay/merit raises after the first 3 years.
To: Pat Meisel
From: Gino Businaro
Date: July 23, 1999
Re: Qualities in City Manager
I do not intend to list the general qualities that a city manager must have to qualify for such a
position per se, but the ones that are relevant from a finance department perspective.
1. Vast knowledge and proven experience in city governmental budget matters.
2. General knowledge and experience of governmental cash management, finances
and accounting.
3. Skills in the human resources area to take charge of all personnel matters from
hiring to supervision to compensation to discipline to discharge, if necessary.
4. Excellent interpersonal skills to work well with department heads in a
professional way.
5. Proven record of a management style for decision making, cooperation,
prioritization and delegation.
6. A person that has excellent problem solving and interpersonal skills, and is able
to lead toward group consensus.
7. Some general knowledge of information systems and technology.
8. And some general knowledge of insurance issues.
OF
CERTIFICATE OF %URVEY FOR
MICHELLE BERGLUND
LOTS 29 AND ,30, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE
HEblNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
,' i'e' ~' I,
I
f S88025"00"E 109.00
I
~ ' o
m PgRCEL A
..._ r,~, I 8265~ SQ. FT.
'~"*'~.~/-- ~" I "2 ~*~ o ~"
~ m · ~0
I
0
Z 13995t SQ. FT.
,, I :
¢""~"~'*, NBg"50' O0'W ] 09.00 "
SW ~ tOY,' . SE COil LOT
HANOVER ROAD
I~XISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION :
Lots 29 or~d. 30., BIs. c.k .9, WHIPp.LE.
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS :
PARCEL A:
Those ports of Lots 29 ond 30. Block 9. WHIPPLE, lying northerly of o line
drown from o point on the West line of sold Lot 29 distant 77.00 feet north
of the Southwest corner of sold lot to o point on the Eosl line of sold Lot ,30
distont 5,3.00 feet norlh of the Southeast corner of sold Lot 50.
PARCEL B:
Those ports of Lois 29 and 30, Block 9, WHIPPLE, lying southerly of o line
drawn Irom o point on the West line of sold Lot :29 diatont 77.00 feet north
of the Southwest corner of said lot to a point on the £ost line of sold Lot 30
distont 3..3.00 feet north of the S0utheost corner of sold Lot .30.
o : de~otes ii:'on marl<er
(g64.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum
Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends' to show the boundaries of the above described property,
and the proposed location o! o proposed dividing line thereon. I't' does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
1.13
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
REQUEST T0 PURCHASE TAX FORFEITED LANDS, MICHELLE BERGLUND,
5138 HANOVER RD.
The City Manager explained that earlier this summer Ms. Berglund contacted the City about
purchasing 2 lots that adjoin her property. The lots are tax forfeited land. A portion of those
lots are in a wetlands which are not available for sale. The City Engineer has looked at the
property and there is a portion of Lots 29 and 30 that could be sold and are not in the wetlands.
It amounts to approximately 5,000 square feet. The applicant is concerned about the 2 lots being
built upon. The City Staff assured her that cannot happen, but she is still interested in
purchasing the non-wetlands portion of the lots. It has been the policy to send these types of
requests for tax forfeit property to the Park Commission for their review and consideration.
This was done and the Park Commission recommendation was that the property continue to be
held by the City of Mound and that discussions occur with the Minnesota Land Trust to convey
a conservation easement. This would then give Ms. Berglund what she is requesting, that
nothing be built on the property. Ms. Berglund still wants to purchase the portions of the lots
that are not in the wetlands for her own reasons.
Ms. Berglund stated that the Land Trust is only interested in large parcels (10 acres or more)
and this would not qualify.
The Council discussed the options. Councilmember Hanus stated he would prefer to have the
City be in control of any small parcels of land that are tax forfeit rather than outside City control
such as land trusts.
The City Clerk explained that if the Council chose to release the portions of these lots that are
not in the wetlands, Ms. Berglund would have to combine the parcel with her property which
would make it one tax parcel and then if she wanted to subdivide, it would come back to the
City for approval or denial.
The City Clerk further explained that the City is just the caretaker for this property. The City
does not sell the land. The City would have to reconvey the portion of the lots that is not in the
wetlands back to the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County and request that it be sold only
to an adjoining property owner. The City receives a portion of the sale price.
The Council discussed the costs of determining what portion would be reconveyed and any other
related costs. They decided it should be Ms. Berglund. Ms. Berglund stated she would pay all
related costs.
The Council discussed putting a conservation easement on the property so that it could not be
developed in the future. The City Attorney stated the City could put a covenant on the property
to preclude any development of the property. Ms. Berglund stated that would be acceptable to
her. The City Attorney will prepare the covenant.
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-109
RESOLUTION TO RECONVEY A PORTION OF
LOTS 29 AND 30, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, THAT IS
NOT IN THE WETLANDS
469
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
Ms. Berglund to pay all related costs for this.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
470
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May '10, lgg9
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 10, 1999
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Commissioners: Orv Burma, Jerry Clapsaddle,
Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, and Council
Liaison Bob Brown. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon
Sutherland, and Secretary Deb Hawkinson.
Public Present: Acting City Manager/City Clerk Fran Clark, Daren Jensen (2625
Wilshire Blvd), Kirk & Kelly Geadelmann (1709 Baywood Lane), Mike & Chris Stoltenow
(2925 Holt Ln), Michele Berglund (5138 Hanover Rd), Eisa Watson (4610 Tuxedo Blvd),
Ted Metz (1601 Bluebird Ln), Clyde Bonnema (5513 Bartlett Blvd).
Chair Geoff Michael called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m.
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 26, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to accept the minutes as
presented. Motion carried: 9-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE # 99-11: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO RELEASE A
PORTION TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY TO BE SOLD TO ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNER, XXXX HANOVER ROAD; BLOCK 9, LOTS 29 AND 30, WHIPPLE, CITY OF
MOUND, 37970
PID # 25-117-24 12 0064
Gordon introduced the property as one that is located on the north side of Hanover
Road at the east end. it is characterized as a steep hillside with heavy vegetation and
is undeveloped. The slope averages almost 50% and there are a number of large trees
on this property. The lot area is approximately 14,260 square feet and there is 109 feet
of frontage on unimproved Hanover Road. The parcel is owned by the County/City
having been a tax forfeiture property.
The adjacent property owner, Michele Berglund, inquired about some type way to
preserve this property as it was. After review by the Park Commission, the issue was
turned back over to the City to work with the Minnesota Land Trust to secure a
conservation easement. However, the parcel is not large enough. The City Council
67
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
,. May 10, 1999
reviewed and made a motion to recombine the portion that is not wetlands to Ms.
Berglund.
As a result, the properly has been surveyed and Split into two proposed parcels. Parcel
A contains the land laying below 932.1 feet would be retained by the City as wetlands.
Parcel B is everything above 932.1 feet and is approximately 5995 square feet. As the
adjacent property owner, Ms. Berglund intends to purchase the property. She has paid
for the survey to date.
Since this property does not meet lot area and lot depth requirements of 6000 square
feet and 80 feet respectively, it is nonconforming and the current practice is not to
approve nonconforming subdivisions. However, since this property is proposed to be
combined with the parcel adjacent to it, the situation could be considered differently.
The proposed Parcel B is also considered a bluff under the Shoreland Management
Ordinance which would preclude any building and provide protection to the vegetation
or grade. A conservation easement could be written which would not allow any removal
of vegetation
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor
subdivision request with the following i;onditions:
1. Combination of lots 27, 28, and Parcel B into one tax'parcel.
2. A conservation easement be placed on Parcel B to protect grading and
vegetation and restrict construction or buildings of any type.
3. The existing shed be moved off of Parcel B.
Fran Clark, Acting City Manager, stated that because it is a tax forfeiture, it should be
handled differently than a nonconforming parcel. It should be released to the County
for sale to the adjacent landowner, Ms. Berglund.
Weiland indicated that Parcel A would be land locked if this subdivision went through.
Clark indicated that it was already land locked today since it was part of the wetlands
and Hanover Road was undeveloped at this location. Gordon stated that since it would
be protected as a bluff, there could be, no buildings on it anyway.
Voss asked how much land would result when combining lots 27, 28, and Parcel B.
Approximately 16,000 above the 932.1 foot level. He asked if making it one tax parcel
would prevent someone from coming in and subdividing it into two parcels. Gordon
stated that was why the conservation easement was recommended so that there could
be no buildings on it.
68
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
Mueller asked if making it a conservation easement would preclude it from being a
buildable area. Yes, stated Gordon. Mueller then asked if part of lot 27 could be
combined with Parcel B to make it a buildable lot.
Gordon stated that lots 27 and 28 could be combined to make a buildable area, except
for the part under water. Possibly part of these two lots could be a bluff also.
Mueller asked if the bluff area was considered in the total square footage. Gordon said
it was. Mueller stated that there was 14,000 square feet which could easily be split and
he did not want to see that happen.
Clark stated that there wasn't a road there today.
Sutherland stated that once it becomes a conservation easement, although it might
have the square footage requirements, he doesn't feel it can be build on.
Mueller stated that if it was reconfigured, it could be a buildable area. Sutherland
agreed and understood where Mueller was coming from. He stated that the problem
was that it didn't come through the normal planning process for staff and Planning
Commission review and they possibly could have put a conservation easement on lot
28.
Mueller stated that the City could still keep this land and there Wouldn't be that issue.
Voss asked what was wrong with subdividing and having two new homes if the lots and
homes meet the zoning requirements. Brown asked a similar question. Gordon stated
that the lot was difficult to subdivide into two buildable lots.
Mueller stated that it was too crowded already and maybe a conservation easement
would work.
Sutherland stated that he was unable to locate the survey of the home for lots 27 and
28, so he couldn't say for sure.what was buildable or not.
Voss stated that someday a subdivision would be asked for and they would be
questioned as to why it was a conservation easement. Gordon stated that it was
difficult to play out different scenarios and the current proposal is for purposes of
protecting Parcel B.
69
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, lggg
Mueiler asked why the City was trying to sell the property. Gordon indicated that Ms.
Berglund had approached the City with the request as a way to protect the bluff. Clark
responded that it was one way to get tax forfeiture property back on the tax rolls.
Clapsaddle asked if the property sat alone would it be subject to being built upon.
Gordon stated not as it. Clapsaddle said the "salvation of this property is not incumbent
on this subdivision."
Clark indicated that she explained the same thing to the applicant. However, the
applicant wanted to "make sure nothing happened to it." Additionally, since one of the
goals is to get tax forfeiture property back on to the tax rolls. Finally, she stated that the
applicant had paid all the costs thus far for survey and application.
Ms. Berglund stated that she chose to purchase the property knowing that in her
control, it could be preserved. She wanted to maintain the view and scenery for her
family. She is aware of the "Al and Alma's" issue and did not want to see that happen
again. She thought she had the "go-ahead" from previous dealings with City and
thought it was a done deal.
Michael asked if it was unbuildable now. Gordon stated yes. Michael indicated that it
was less expensive to keep as City property. Fran stated that she brought this case
before the Planning Commission as a "courtesy." The action to sell it was approved by
City Council last year. She wouldn't even have had to bring it before them tonight.
Brown stated that was a different Council and a different Planning Commission.
Mueller stated that State laws mandated that any publicly held land be reviewed by the
Planning Commission to validate that it was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for
the City prior to selling it to a private party. Since the City C~uncil approved it last year,
he felt they acted in error legally by not bringing it before the Planning Commission.
Clark disagreed with him and reiterated City laws (1980's) which strive to get tax
forfeiture land back on tax rolls.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to table the issue until
an attorney could clarify the issue legally.
Discussion
Clapsaddle believes that by selling the property, the City is creating more problems
than they would by keeping it.
70
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 1999
A call for the question was made. Ayes: 8-1 (Voss voting Nay). Motion carried.
Mueller suggested that perhaps they could recommend to keep the land and not to sell
it, but they could reimburse the applicant her expenses.
Sutherland stated that the normal procedure is to bring in survey of existing
configuration and proposed configuration. This application is missing half the
information. Clark did go and find the survey for Sutherland.
Mueller stated they still needed legal advice on this issue. Clark indicated that the City
Attorney was at the City Council meeting last year when this was approved. She
indicated that he recommended this action.
Michael indicated that it would go on the docket as soon as possible. Clark indicated
that she could and would send this in right now.
There was some further "heated" discussion between the Acting City Manager and the
Planning Commission members. Chair Michael called the meeting back to order.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
Memorandum
To:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
From:
FRAN CLARK, ACTING CITY MANAGER
Date: August 3, 1999
Subject: Personal Vehicle Use and Mileage Reimbursement
This has not been changed since before I started to work for the City in 1981. It is currently
at $.22 per mile. I would recommend changing this to reflect the current IRS rules of $.31
per mile and change in the future when the IRS changes. This is only used when someone is
on City business and an administrative staff car is not available.
printed on recycled paper
Vehicle Cents-Per-Mile: IRS Revenue Procedure 98-63 (published Internal Revenue Bulletin,
1998-52, December 28, 1998). Internal Revenue Procedure 98-63 lowered the standard business
mileage rate fi.om 32.5 cents per mile in 1998 to 31 cents per mile in 1999, but IRS Announcement
99-7 (Internal Revenue Bulletin 1999-2, January 11, 1999) delayed the effective date of the new rate
until April 1, 1999. All other provisions included in Revenue Procedure 98-63 are effective January
1, 1999. BD