The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-09-21AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WItOLE MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL DISCUSSION ITEMS. 2. 3. 4. 5. FIRE DEPT. RELIEF ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION. STORM SEWER RATE STUDY/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT. CITY MANAGER SEARCH UPDATE - MERCER GROUP. RESTORATION OF CRESENT PARK. JIM'S MEMO WAS SENT TO THE CITY PROSECUTOR AND HE HAS O.K.'D IT. IF THE COUNCIL AGREES, CRAIG SEND A LETrER TO MR. BAUER. STREET LIGHT REQUEST ON ALEXANDER LANE. THIS WILL BE ON THE -28TH AGENDA. LIQUOR STORE LEASE NEGOTIATION. APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMMISSIONS. LOCAL PROGRAMMING FACILITIES AGREEMENT WITH LAKE MINNETONKA COMMISSION. INFORMATION ITEMS: 1. MERTZ WILL SEPTEMBER CABI .E FINANCIAL REPORT FOR AUGUST AS PREPARED BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, GINO BUSINARO. L.M.C.D. INFORMATION ON PRIVATE DOCK ON WEXFORD ROAD. INFORMATION ON THE TWO NEW POLICE OFFICERS, JAMI BURKE AND MICHAEL BRUCKNER. THEY WILL BE SWORN IN AT THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1999, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. HIRING SCHEDULE FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR BOB SHANLEY WHO WILL BE RETIRING ON JANUARY 3, 2000. MEMO REGARDING CDBG FUNDING FOR YEAR 2000. I SPOKE WITH ROD WARA AND THIS COULD MEAN A 6% REDUCTION IN OUR CDBG FUNDING FOR NEXT YEAR. AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL DISCUSSION ITEMS. J1. 2. 3. o 9. LOCAL PROGRAMMING FACILITIES AGREEMENT WITH LAKE MINNETONKA COMMISSION. INFORMATION ITEMS: FIRE DEPT. RELIEF ASSOCIATION PRESENTATION. STORM SEWER RATE STUDY/CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORT. CITY MANAGER SEARCH UPDATE - MERCER GROUP. RESTORATION OF CRESENT PARK. JIM'S MEMO WAS SENT TO THE CITY PROSECUTOR AND HE HAS O.K.'D IT. IF THE COUNCIL AGREES, CRAIG MERTZWILL SEND A LETFER TO MR. BAUER. STREET LIGHT REQUEST ON ALEXANDER LANE. THIS WILL BE ON THE SEPTEMBER LIQUOR STORE LEASE NEGOTIATION. ~ ~ /'J'~ ' %?~ APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO ADVISORY COMMISSIONS. EP(~ C E~ Ca~ CABLE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR AUGUST AS PREPARED BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR, GINO BUSINARO. L.M.C.D. INFORMATION ON PRIVATE DOCK ON WEXFORD ROAD. INFORMATION ON THE TWO NEW POLICE OFFICERS, JAMI BURKE AND MICHAEL BRUCKNER. THEY WILL BE SWORN IN AT THE SEPTEMBER 28, 1999, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. HIRING SCHEDULE FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR BOB SHANLEY WHO WILL BE RETIRING ON JANUARY 3, 2000. MEMO REGARDING CDBG FUNDING FOR YEAR 2000. I SPOKE WITH ROD WARA AND THIS COULD MEAN A 6% REDUCTION IN OUR CDBG FUNDING FOR NEXT YEAR. 85 E. SEVENTH PLACE, SLIITE 100 SAINT PAUL, MN 55101-2887 651-223-3000 FAX: 651-223-3002 September 8, 1999 SPRINGSTED Public Finance Advisors Mayor Pat Meisel City of Mound 534.1 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota Re: Proposals for Storm Sewer Rate Study/Capital Improvement Plan Dear Mayor Meisel: Based on our recent discussion, we are providing you with a proposed work plan for a storm sewer rate analysis and capital improvement plan for the City of Mound. Using this work plan as an outline, we propose a cooperative effort with you in developing a final work plan that will assist the City in setting up its storm sewer utility rates and providing the City with a plan for financing capital improvements. The first objective of this analysis is to assist the City in determining the appropriate rate structure needed to pay for ongoing operations and planned capital improvements to the Storm Sewer Utility established by the City of Mound's Code Section 650 - Storm Sewer System. The analysis will review the City's historical actual and current budgeted storm sewer operating and capital expenditures. With this information and assumptions obtained from discussions with the City staff, we will develop a plan to show the necessary rates to meet operating and maintenance costs, as well as any debt service costs related to current and future capital improvements. The second part of this analysis is to develop a plan that assists the City in its budgeting process by outlining its capital improvement plan and identifying the different funding options. The financing plan will take a historical review of the City's capital acquisitions and the sources of funding provided for the improvements. This background information and additional information on future capital improvements obtained from the City staff will enable us to develop a five-year capital improvement-financing plan. The scope of this work will be limited to the Capital Improvement Plan and will not include an analysis of any operating costs that may be associated with the capital acquisitions. SAINT PAUL, MN MINNEAPOLIS, MN BROOKFIELD, WI OVERLAND PARK, KS · WASHINGTON, DC DES MOINES, IA Mayor Pat Meisel 9eptember 8, lggg Page -2- Our discussion also included an inquiry into the possibility of a street lighting utility. We wilt be forwarding some preliminary ordinance information in this area in the near future. I look forward to discussing this proposal with you at your convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Daniel Hartman, Vice President Client Representative Copy: Ms. Fran Clark, Acting City Manager, City of Mound Mr. Gino Businard, Finance Director, City of Mound Mr. David L. Wettergren, Consultant, Management Services Ms. Susan Lemieux, Project Manager, Management Services SPRINGSTED P~blic Financ~ Advisors CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Storm Sewer Utility Rate Study/ Capital Improvement Plan Work Plan Objective The purpose of this Study is: To review and analyze the City's Storm Sewer Utility Costs to determine the appropriate rate structure needed to pay for operating expenses and maintenance, as well as identified capital improvements and bond repayments. This will form the basis for recommendations to the City Council for setting a storm water utility rate. To develop a Capital Improvement Plan that outlines the major capital projects and purchases of the City over the next five years and identifies different sources for funding the plan. The Capital Improvement Plan will not include an analysis of any operating costs that may be associated with the capital acquisitions. Tasks Storm Sewer Rate Analysis Meet with City staff to review background information and study assumptions for the Storm Sewer Utility analysis. Review current code information, past financial statements, reports, planned capital improvements, and other documents or information pertaining to the Storm Sewer Utility. · Analyze the Storm Sewer operating and capital costs. Construct Storm Sewer Fund projections. Provide a Storm Server Utility Rate Study for the City. Illustrate the required sewer rates necessary to fund ongoing operations and maintenance, as well as debt service for planned capital improvements for the Storm Sewer Utility. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Storm Sewer Utility Rate Study/Capital Improvement Plan Work Plan Capital Improvement Plan · Meet with City staff to review background information and study assumptions for the Capital Improvement Plan. Review historical capital improvements and the funding sources used for the improvements. Review current funding practices and other policies for financing capital improvements. Identify issues including the use of debt financing and the cost and timing of planned improvements. · Analyze the levy and revenue requirements for the City's capital improvement program. Determine if existing tax levies and other identified funding sources (e.g. State aids, grants, special assessments, tax increment, enterprise fund revenue) can be used to finance planned capital improvements. If not, determine the amount of debt service for capital improvements that can be funded by current revenue streams and any identified funds. If current projected revenues and/or funds are insufficient to finance debt service for improvements, determine the required increase in revenues necessary to fund the full amount of debt service fore improvements. Outcomes · Prepare a draft Storm Sewer Utility Rate Study for the City's review and comment. · Prepare a draft Capital Improvement Plan for the City's review and comment. · Incorporate City's comments into the final Study. · Present final Storm Sewer Utility Rate Study and Capital Improvement Plan. -2- CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Storm Sewer Utility Rate Study/Capital Improvement Plan Work Plan Compensation We propose to bill on an hourly basis; however, our fee for services, exclusive of any out-of- pocket expenses such as travel and copying, will not exceed $9,825 without prior written authorization of the City. The estimated time to complete the work is ten to twelve weeks from the time we received the required information from the City. Our standard hourly fee table and estimated time schedule are shown below. Estimated Time and Cost Storm Sewer Utility Rate Study / Capital Improvement Plan Time Title Rate (Hrs.) Cost Review Principal $150 2 $ 300 Client Representative 125 4 500 Project Manager 115 75 8,625 Support Staff 40 10 400 Total $9,825 -3- CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1667 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 City Of Mound 1998 Consumer Confidence Report The City of Mound is complying with the Minnesota Department Of Health in issuing the result of monitoring done on its drinking water for the year of 1998. The purpose of this report is for the consumer' understanding and awareness of drinking water and of the need to protect the water resources. The City of Mound provides drinking water from a groundwater source. There are four wells that provide water. /he depth of these range from 175 to 317 feet deep. lhese wells draw water from the Quaternary Buried Artesian aquifer and the Prairie Du Chien-3ordan aquifer. The City of Mound is in the planning stages of one new well and storage tank for the year 2000. The City of Mound monitors and tests daily for chlorine a.!ld flqoride levels, monthly for bacteria, and the Mn. Department of Health inspects the water system. For the year of 1998 no contaminant were detected at levels that exceeded the federal standards for the City of Mound. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below the legal limits. The City of Mound has and is still testing for Copper and Lead itl the drinking water as required by the EPA. Infants and Children are typically more vulnerable to lead in drinking water than the general population. Lead levels in the City of Mounds water system were found to be in compliance with drinking standards. It is possible that the lead levels in certain home may be higher than other homes as a result of the materials used in your home's plumbing. If you are concerned about possible high levels of lead in your drinking water, you can have your water tested and flush your tap for 30 to 90 seconds before using the water. Additional information is available form the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-4791. Listed below is the Key to abbreviations and the most current test data for the City of Mounds water system. Please keep in mind that some contaminants are tested less frequently than once a year. printed on recycled paper Key to abbreviations: MCLG--Maximum Contaminant Level Goal: The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. MCL--Maximum Contaminant Level: The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology. AL--Action Level: The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment or other requirement which a water system must follow. pCi/l--PicoCuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity). ppb--Parts per billion, which can also be expressed as micrograms per liter (ug/l). ppm--Parts per million, which can also be expressed as milligrams per liter (rog/l). nd--No detection. Level Found Contaminant MCLG MCL I (units) Range [ Average /Result* Nitrate (as 10.0 10.0 nd-0.55 0.55 Nitrogen) (ppm) Arsenic (ppb) 50.0 1.5-2.7 2.7 Fluoride (ppm) 4.0 4.0 -- 1.1 (11/13/97) Alpha Emitters 15.0 -- 2.9 (pCi/1) (11 / 13/97) Typical Source of Contaminant Runoff from fertilizer use; Leaching from septic tanks, sewage; Erosion of natural deposits. Erosion of natural deposits; Runoff from orchards; Runoff from glass and electronics production wastes. State of Minnesota requires all municipal water systems to add fluoride to the drinking water to promote strong teeth; Erosion of natural deposits. Erosion of natural deposits. *This is the value used to determine compliance with federal standards. It sometimes is the highest value detected and sometimes is an average of all the detected values. Contaminant 90% # sites . (units) MCLG AL Level overAL Lead (ppb) NA 15 15.0 4 out of (08/24/1993) 40 Copper (ppm) NA 1.3 0.8 0 out of (08/24/1993) 41 Level Found Contaminant (units) Range I Average/ Result Sodium (ppm) 23.0-24.0 24.0 Sulfate (,ppm) (05/05/95) -- 5 i ITypical Source of Contaminant Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Erosion of natural deposits. Corrosion of household plumbing systems; Erosion of natural deposits; Leaching from wood preservatives. Typical Source of Contaminant Erosion of natural deposits. Erosion of natural deposits. In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the Environmental Protection Agency prescribes regulations which limit the amount of certain contaminants in the water provided by public water systems. Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in the drinking water than the general population. Such as people undergoing chemotherapy, organ transplants, immune system disorders, elderly and infants can be particularly at risk from infections. These people should ask advice from their health provider. If you would like a copy of the most current water tests please call 472-0635. March 31, 1999 IMINNESOTAI IDEPARTMENTo~ HEALTH[ Protecting, Maintaining and Improving the Health of All Minnesotans Mound Water Superintendent 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Water Superintendent: Enclosed is some of the basic information you need to include in your Consumer Confidence Report for 1998, which must be completed and distributed by October 19, 1999. The attached report contains information on your source of water, monitoring results for 1998 (including detections and, if any, violations), compliance information, and standard language required by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (Note: If information you have compiled differs from what is indicated on the attached report, please contact us at 651/215-0759. One reason the information may differ is that we have converted the units on certain contaminants to comply with the EPA requirement that all maximum contaminants levels be expressed as a number equal to or greater than 1.0) Some additional information will be required on this report, including a phone number where customers can contact you with questions or requests for additional information. There may be other places on the report where more information may be needed. All of these places will be indicated with a shaded area on the report. Rather than merely adding the above information and then photocopying and distributing the attached report, it may be in your best interests to reformat all the information into a new document, which will allow you to enhance the report with maps and graphics as well as additional information, beyond what is required. (Keep in mind that the information on the attached report is the minimum that must be included in a reformatted report.) The additional information could include a description of your treatment processes and any upgrades that are planned for your water system. The reports require detection information only on primary contaminants, but it may be wise to address secondary contaminants if they are causing aesthetic proble~ns with your water. If you have detectable levels of secondary contaminants, your customers may have a greater concern about them than about those that can bring about adverse health effects. Rather than ignore this issue, you may want to address it and point out that the iron, manganese, etc., are not causing any adverse health effects even though they may be making the water look, taste, and/or smell bad. Also, for systems that serve a population that contains a significant number of people who do not speak English, please consider including one or more of the statements below in the report. (The statement says, "This report contains very important information. Translate or ask someone who understands it.") Spanish: Informaci6n importante. Si no la entiende, haga que alguien se la traduzca ahora. Hmong: Nov yog ntaub ntaxw tseem ceeb. Yog koy tsi to taub, nrhiav neeg pab txhais rau koh kom sai sai. 121 East Seventh Place · St. Paul, MN 55101 · http://www, health.state.mn.us An equal o£pormmty employer Mound Water Superintendent -2- March 26, 1999 Distribution: The population served by your system is 9480; therefore, you have two options in distributing the report: You can distribute a copy of the report to all of your users by mail or other means. Efforts must be made to get the reports to actual consumers rather than to just the billing customer. One method is to mail the report to all postal patrons within the service area using a "Simplified Address" that is available to government agencies; check with your post office about this. Other options include publicizing the availability of the report through the media, delivering multiple copies for distribution by single-billet customers such as apartment buildings or large private employers, and posting the report on the internet. You can also satisfy the distribution requirement by publishing the report in one or more local newspapers serving your service area and informing your customers that the reports will not be mailed to them but are available upon request. A copy of the report must be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Health, along with a certification of completion form (attached), attesting that the information in the report is accurate and that the required distribution was carried out. You may use the enclosed postage-paid envelope if you wish. You must also retain a copy of the report for at least five years. Sincerely, Gary L. Englund, P. E., Manager Section of Drinking Water Protection GLE:ST:lmw Enclosures 09~19/1999 15:12 7783999749 THE HERCER GROUP INC PAGE 01 The Mercer Group, Inc. Consultants To Management ( September 19, 1999 VIA FAX: (612) 472-0620 Ms. Fran Clark Acting City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Fran: I was delighted to receive the telephone cai1 from Mayor Mejsel informing me that the City Council has selected our firm to assist the City .of Mound iniconducting a search for a new City Manager. We axe very pleased to have been selected an'd look forward to working with aU of you on this important project. ~ Enclosed is a request for some information that I will need tO prepare the Position Profile. Please do not create this information if it doesn't already exist. Also enclosed are some questions that may prompt thinking on the part of the City Council and others prior to .my interview with them. The dates that will work best for mc to visit Mound to conduct interviews with the City Council and others October 5 and 6, 1999'. Please let me know if these dates will work for thc Council. My telephone number is (770)'551-0403. Tha'~ll for thc opportunity to work with you. I will look /f you ~ntil~~cess has been successfully completed: ' ~T~I/zrMERCER GROUP, INC. Jaymes L. Mercer/CiVIC ....... . Pr~_clent J Enclos~u'~s fm~vard to working with all ATLANTA - EAST LANSING · SANTA FE ~; WASHINGTON 09/~15/1999.,~, .~, ~,, li:..,15. -, .7703999749,.., THE MERCER GROUP INO PAGE 02 AGII'~_~RMENT This AGREEMENT, made as of thi~/s.~_.'t~y o[ ~, , I999, by and between ~ M~RCER GROUP, INC. and the CITY OF MOUND, ~TA, a municipal corporation. ~ WH'E~ad~AS, the City,' of Mound, MJ~ucsot~ (he~'emaRer referred to as the "City:') has made a request {o.r proposals to hire'an executive recruiter to ass/s: the City to conduct .a search for a city manager for the City; and WH2E. REAS, The Mercer Group, Inc..(herclnafter referred to ~s 7Mercer") has submitted a proposal in response to the City'~ requ~t;, and WHEREAS, thc CiD' has selected Mercer's proposal as the proposal, which be~t mecIs its needs and the City desires to hire Mercer to' conduct the City's se=ch for. a ci'~ manager; and , WHEREAS, Mercer desires to assist the City i~ conducting thc City's search for a city manager. NOW TH~ILEi:0RB, in consideration of thc following mutual covenants a.ud other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged by all parties hereto, Mercer a,ud the Cit), hereby agree as follows: Mercer agrees to conduct executive search services to the City in searckiag for a city, manager as ~ecified in M¢~cer's proposal to the city dated ~uly 28, 1999. The City and Mercer both agree that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of ,thc Stat~ of M~maesota, The City and Mei'cer both agree that in the event that any dispute arises between the parties, the complaixiing party Shall promptly notify the other oi the dispute in writing. Each party shall respond to the other party, La writing withi:~ ten (10) worki.ug days of receip~ .of such notice. The City attd Mercer both agree that any amendments to this Agreement shall be made in' vT/ting, and executed by both parties. No proposed amez~ctment' which is not in writing and executed by both parties shall effect the terms of this Agreement. 09/,i9/i999 ii:iS 7703999749 THE MERCER GROUP INC PAGE 03 Agreement Continued; 5. The parties shall have the right at either parties' convenience to terminate this Agreement following ten (10) days written notice to the ~ffected p~'ty. Should either party terminate this Agreement, the City shall only be obligated to pay Mercer for those services already provided. 6. Mercer is being rem/ned to conduct the executive search in large part duc to the reputation and experience of its president, James L. Mercer. It is understood and agreed that, absent specific consent from the City, the services to be performed by Mercer, other than clerical and aclm/nistrativc, will be performed by ]ames L. Mercer. 7. Mercer shall have access to data coliected or malnt:6~ed by the City as necessary to perform Mercer's obligations under this Agreement. Mercer agrees to maintain ali data obtained from the City consi$:ent with the requirements of the Minnesota Oovernmcnt Data Practices AcL Mercer v-ill no: rele~se or disclose the contents of dita classified as not public to any person except at the written direction of the City. Mercer agrees to defend md indemnify the City from any claim, liability, damage, or loss asserted against City as ~ result of Mercer's failure to comply with the requirements o£ the Act or this Agreement. Upon the term/nation of ukis Agreement, /Vlercer agrees to return data to the City as requested by the City. ATTEST: its City Clerk ]~D- 168 $o~ MU220-1 BY: BY: CITY. OF MOUND, MINlX~SOTA Pat Meisel Ira Mayor Fra~ Clark Its Acting City Manager TI-I2 lvlEP, CER GRouP, 15:12 7783999749 THE NERCER GROUP INC PAGE 82 If possible, please provide me with one copy. each of. the latest version of the following documents: -City Budget (or Budget Summary) -City Organization Chart -City Annual RePort (if available) -Recent Bond Prospectus -City Charter (if there is one) .. -Industrial Development Packet (from local Chamber of Commerce or Planning Department) -Strategic Plan or Statement of Current Goals of the City (if available) -List of Shared Values from City Council or City staff (if available) -City Manager Position Description (ff any) -City Manager Employment Contract (ff any) -Salary Range for City Manager PositiOn (ff established) -City Staff Headcount ' -City Population -Reproducible CiV Logo (for placement in ads/on cover of Position Profile) -Any Other Information that you think Would be helpful in gaining a quick overview of thc City of Mound, such as Brief Profiles of City Council Members, List of Issues facing the City, a Packet of Recent Newspaper Articles on the City, etc. THANKS (I can pick this information up when I make my first on-site visit) 89/19/1999 15:12 7783999749 THE MERCER GROUP INC PAGE 83 THE lV[ERCER GROUP, Ouestions for City coun~ and Others City o~ M°Und City Manager Search As you prepare for the meeting with Jim Mercer of The Mercer Group, Inc.' to discus~ the qualifications that you seek in the next City Manager for the City of Mound, please think about the fo]lowing questions: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. o What educational background do you .want in the next City Manager? How many years of experience and what type of experience do you want? What knowledge, skills and abilities are you looking .for? What style of management do you Seek? Do you want a City Manager who is' out in the public or more behind the scenes? Do you wish to employ the City Manager under, a contractual arrangement? What issues is the City facing that will require spe¢ifl'c background experience and skills of the next City Manager? Would you accept a person who is currently performing elsewhere as a'deputy or assistant City Manager? How would you feel about a person who is temporarily unemployed? What else should the search, firm be aware of as .it works on behalf of the City? CITY OF MOUND 534.1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 September 15, 1999 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor/City Council Jim Fackler, Park Director'--"!' Restoration of Cresent Park A after the fact Public Lands Alteration Permit was granted to Mr. Ralph Bauer, 1774 Heron Lane, Resolution ~97-100, to alter and improve the landscape and replace trees cut without prior authorization. The applicant, Mr. Bauer, was granted one year from the city council resolution to provide plans and complete the restoration. On October 13, 1999 Mr. Bauer was granted a extension until June 1, 1999 by council Resolution #98-113 to complete the restoration. On a on site inspection on September 15, 1999 I noted that no work had been performed by Mr. Bauer. I also saw that nature had taken its course and the trees and under brush had grown to level to cover the 1997 cutting. Staff recommends that Mr. Bauer's Public Lands Permit be retracted and a letter be sent notifying him that any further cutting on public lands will be given to the city Attorney for immediate prosecution. printed on recycled paper October 13, 1998 RESOLU~ON g98-113 RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENTION OF RESOLLUTION//97-100 UNTIL JUNE 1, 1999, FOR RALPH BAUER, 1774 HERON LANE, PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant and extention of Resolution//97-100, until June 1, 1999, for Ralph Bauer, 1774 Heron Lane, Public Lands Permit. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus, and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahren, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 280 APPROVE EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION 97-100. RALPH BAUER. 1774 HERON LANE. PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT - PROPOSED EXTENSION TO JUNE 1. 1999. RESOLUTION $98-113 RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENTION OF RESOLUTION//9%100, UNTIL JUNE 1, 1999, FOR RALPH BAITER, 1774 HERON LANE, PUBLIC LANDS PF_~MIT Hanus, Weycker, unanimously. · October 14~ 1997 RESOLUTION' iht7-100 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS ALTERATION PERN[IT FOR MR. RALPH BAUER AT 1774 I:rERON LANE LOT 3, BLOCK 3, LINDEN HEIGHTS ADDITION, PID #13-117-24 11 0005, PUBLIC LANDS CASE WiIEREAS, the applicant, Ralph Bauer, is seeking an after the fact Public Lands .Alteration Permit to alter and improve the landscape and replace trees cut without prior authorization by the city, and; Wltl*~, the subject property is a portion of Heron lane and Crescent Park adjacent to the above address and as noted on the attached survey. According to City Code section 320 a Public lands Permit is required to do the proposed modifications to the Public Lands, and; WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commissionhas reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the plan with the intent of using as many native plants, because there are enough selections there, in area A and as proposed in Area B. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVF~, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a Public lands Alteration Permit as described above and in the application and the applicant shall follow the plans as submitted reviewed and approved by the City Staff, with the recommendations of the Park and Open Space Commission as follows; The plan is approved with the intent that the applicant shall use as many native plants, because there are enough selections there, in Area A and as proposed in Area B. 2. The replacement plantings and related work shall be subject to the review and approval of the Parks Director. 0 In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved as agreed within one year of the date of the city council resolution, the Parks Director shall refer the matter back to the City Attorney for prosecution. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Polston and Weycker. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. 186 · October 14. I~7 Councilmember Jensen was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk 187 MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: September 13, 1999 Sgt. McKinley Officer Ewalds~ Street Light In reference to the petition for the city to take over the maintenance and cost of an existing street light located on a power pole at 3064 Alexander Lane, the street light is a necessity m that particular area as it does light up a good share of Alexander Lane down and across Donald Drive. There is an existing city street light on a power pole on the north side of Donald Drive and Dale Lane. There is a second existing city street light on a power pole on the north side of Donald Drive and Dundee Lane. There is a power pole located on the north side of Donald Drive at Alexander Lane if the city chose to erect a matching city street light to the ones located at Dundee Lane and Dale Lane. The existing privately owned street light at 3064 Alexander Lane is located just between the lot lines of 3064 and 3048 Alexander Lane and appears to be in good condition and operational. My recommendation would be to erect a city street light on the north side of Donald Drive at Alexander Lane to match the existing ones on Donald Drive at Dundee Lane and Dale Lane. From- T-5S3 P.OZ/OZ F-64Z September 3, 1999 City of Mound Mound, Minnesota Attention: Greg In response to our conversation of August 31, 1999, this letter is to petition the City of Mound to take over the care and maintenance of the security night light that sits on a pole at the ~ge of my property at 3064 Alexander Lane, Mound, MN 55364. Northern States Power has maintained it for years and I var a s~all fee for the electricity. HoWever, it has not been taken care o£properly mxs year, anti I anct my new.bors are concerned because when the light is not on at night, the street is very dark. I do not have the resources to maintain the light or replace fixtures when burned out. The light is a safety measure for those using the trails leading in and out of Swenson Park and also creates a measure of safety against theft, damage to property for those homeowners who live near and around the light. Your immediate consideration would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely,~~._~ ~ .~ Judith Furry 3064 A. lexander Lane Mound, MN 55364 This petition is also acknowledged by the following neighbors: NAME .... "' ' ' To: Mayor, City Council and Acting City Manager From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager RE: Lease Negotiation Date September 20, 1999 Two weeks ago I rece{ved a call from Mark Saliterman, the owner of Shoreline Plaza. He wanted to remind us that our three year lease agreement will expire at the end of this year. In our brief conversation he indicated that he intends to raise our rent from $7.50 sq. foot to $8.00 sq. foot. His rationale is that our rent has remained constant for the last eight years while his costs have risen. I told him I would get back to him after I had discussed the matter with you. The minimal increase does not bother me that much. What it would amount to would be an extra $1,428.00 per year. What our concern should be is the length of the lease. What are your intentions regarding the move of the liquor store and within what time frame? If we are serious about moving I would like to address what I believe are critical and important issues concerning the future of the store. If our intent is to enter into another rental agreement we should be very careful not to over extend ourselves. Hypothetically; Assume we move into a building that we feel fits our needs, say 7,000 - 8,000 sq. feet. It is not uncommon in today's market to pay $20.00 sq. foot or more for new construction. That would mean a base rent of $140,000 to $160,000 a year. Then there is the matter of Common Area Maintenance to consider. Presently we are paying $31,190.00 for rent and CAM. To move into an existing older building is something to think about but only if it were an improvement over what we currently have and it were considerably less than the example I gave above. Another concem I have is location. Remember, as it stands now, regardless of it's many downfalls, you own a very successful business. Two criteria for a successful high volume retail business are visibility and accessibility. We are located on County Road # 15. Visibility. We have multiple front door parking spaces. Accessibility. I would dread being stuck in a small area where we couldn't be seen, where customers would be forced to park far fi'om our doors, and our large semi trailer delivery trucks would fred it difficult if not impossible to maneuver. Ideally we should own our own store. I do not pretend to know the financial details involved in beginning such an enterprise. It is not my expertise. I imagine it would involve some monetary commitment on our part plus the sale of bonds If it could be done this is what I envision. A free standing building, approximately 7,500 square feet, or a shared structure with a compatible tenant, with easy and adequate parking for both. As of now I see only one place in Mound that could accommodate this undertaking. What would it take to operate a business of this size? Our proposed operating expenses for the year 2000 are $238,920.00. If we deduct rent and CAM We are at $206,320.00. I would need in the first year an operating budget of $350,000. That is an increase of $144,000.00. and this is how it breaks down: 1) $30,000 - Full Time Night Supervisor - includes benefits 2) $15,000 - Permanent Part Time Stock Personnel - includes benefits 3) $15,000 - Three extra Part Time Stock/Clerk Personnel 4) $10,000 - Facility and Grounds Upkeep 5) $74,000 - Yearly Bond Payment $144,000.00 What would we need to produce in sales to match the profits we made in 19987 Sales in 1998 were $1,671,000.00. Profits were $195,900.00. Gross profit percentage was 24.70%. 1) Sales - $2,250,000.00 2) Cost of Goods - $1,694,000.00 3) Gross Profit - $556,000.00 4) Operating Expenses - $350,000.00 Net Income - $206,000.00 I imagine the earliest we could begin this venture would be January 2001. 1999's sales are projected at this time to be $1,731,000.00. 2000's sales at a modest 3% increase will be $1,783,000.00. That means we would have to in- crease sales by $467,000.00 or 26% to achieve our goal. Do I believe this is realistic? Yes I do. And any sales beyond this goal in future years is extra profits. Also every year you are working to pay down the bond debt. Once that debt is fulfilled you own your own store free and clear. The $74,000,00 you were paying each year to reduce the bond debt is now yours and not some landlord's. These are just a few of the thoughts I have in mind as you approach your decisions about the future of the liquor store and it's place in the new Mound business enviroment. Should you have any questions or are unclear about anything you know where I can be reached. Sincerely, New Stores Skyrocket Sales for Savage's Liquor Operations Emphasis on By Amy Barnett Two new stores, an increased wine selection and continued quality service are sustaining the City of Savage's liquor operations while reducing costs for taxpayers. The city opened two stores within one week of each other last November, bringing the total number of municipal liquor outlets in Savage to three. Dan Patch Liquors replaces the city's original store, which dated back to the repeal of prohibition. Once a hub of activity that drew customers from neighboring "dry" cities, Savage Liquors had become outdated and inefficient at serving today's clientele. The building has been razed as part of the city's downtown redevelopment project. Marketplace Liquors, built in conjunction with a commercial development on Savage's western border, is now the largest store - exceeding the 10-year-old Sunset Liquors by nearly 4,000 square feet. Four months later, sales are up a combined 61 percent, keeping pace with what was expected from the stores two years from now. "I thought that if we could show a 10 percent increase per year for the first two years at Dan Patch, that would be real effective," said Liquor Operations Wine & Customer Service Boost Revenues Above Expectations ~1 ii i i ,--=.. ? Liquor Operations Manager Pete Mathies behind Marketplace Liquor's wine tasting bar, The bottles in the cases are specialty wines aed liquors, with some priced more than $1,000, Manager Pete ,'vlathies. B~ March, sales were up J-0 percent - a substantial turnaround from the decline in sales experienced bv Dan Patch Liquor's predecessor. "I don't know how far it's going to go." Mathies attributes the stores' success to the natural draw of the new buildings as well as continued efforts he and his staff make in serving their customers. At the Dan Patch store, customers are finding a smaller, but brighter setting than in the previous building. The store is just blocks away from the previous site, and has a neighborhood-style design complete with dormers to fit in with plans for the city's revitalized downtown. Access is convenient from a heavily traveled highway. Dan Patch sold 40 percent more in March than the previous store had one 'year ago. Most of those new sales are October IO, - IZ, 1999 Minneapolis Hyatt 812- 70-12 4 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES 6 tb women, who because of the more inviting atmosphere, tend to spend more time shopping and move money buying, Mathies said. Marketplace Liquors is more than twice the size of Dan Patch, carrying about 4,000 different kinds of beer, wine and hard liquor. More than half the inventory is wine, offering customers a selection difficult to find elsewhere in the southern Twin Cities area. Regular samplings are served from the store's wine bar, where connoisseurs with deep pockets can also find rarities that run as much as, or more than, $1,000 a bottle. While Marketplace's inventory of wines if by far the largest of Savage's three liquor stores, the city prides itself on having a generous selection of reds, whites and blushes at each of its outlets. That product knowledge is just one part of a quality service standard that keeps customers returning to one of Savage's three liquor stores. Displays are changed frequently to ensure the stores always have a "flesh" look, products are added to the shelves upon a customer's request, wine clubs offer inexpensive tasting opportunities, and store staff is encouraged to be professional, yet casual, with the clientele. "We're trying to run the stores like a private operator would," said Mathies, whose employees are comfortable wearing jeans and a nice T-shirt to Marketplace Liquors Store Operator Steve ,Johnson stacks the wine shelv.s work. "I think it makes a difference. We think it makes the help much more approachable." Citizens of Savage are benefiting from the city's successful operation of the three liquor stores. Ail pay for themselves, with money left over for community projects and expenses. More that $1 million of revenue over 20 years will help pay for the city's library, which opened in 199'7. Additionally, municipal liquor store sales contribute $105,000 each year to the city's general fund - paying for expenses that would otherwise have to be funded by residents and businesses. "That's substantially higher than what we would receive in property taxes for a private en. terprise," said Finance Director Chris Miller, adding that the financial benefit easily justifies the city's involvement in municipal liquor operations. "It lessens the tax burden on the citizens more that a private enterprise would." * Amy Barnett is the communication specialist for the CiU of Savage. ." i_nneso J-- ospit ( Insur · Constant monitoring of insurance marketplace · Represent financially stable companies · Provide best combination of coverage & pricing WE ARE WORKING FOR YOU! CALL or WRITE WAYNE D. BRIGGS P.O. BOX 250 · ST MICHAEL, MN 55376 612-497-2553 / FAX 612-497-3646 / 800-358-2291 MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES 7 From-MOSS & BkRNETT +4000 T-704 P.02/06 F-390 GRooM ~ga n~.mo,s-bar~ ti. cam L~w MOSS &. BARNETT gO Sotrru Ss~.~ S?s~t MI~EA~S. ~I~E~A S~02-4~29 T~.o.= [61gl S47-0300 September 17, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAlL Ms Francene Clark City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, M'N 55364-1687 Re Local Programming F~ciliues Aareement Dear Fran. I am in receipt ora memorandum dated August 24, 1999 directed to your attention from Ms. Sally Koenecke from the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commissmn CLMCC"). Ms Koenecke's memorandum reviews the dra~ Local Programming Facilities Agreement dated June 30, 1999 and provides LMCC's commems with respect thereto. You have asked that I review LMCC's comments and provide you with a response regarding whether such terms may be acceptable I understand you will be reviewing ~s matter with City officials and will attempt to make policy decisions regarding the amount of financial support the C~t~ chooses to dedicate toward local programming I will review LMCC's commeats in the order in which they are presented in Ms Koenecke's memorandum of .August 24, 1999 On Page 1.7th Recital LMCC's proposed revision to require a joint invemory within thirty (30) days of the acceptance of the agreement is acceptable On Pace 1, 9u' Recital. LMCC is propos~g that the Cny de&cate not only the $ 84 per subscriber per month which the City receives for support of PEG access fi.om Triax/Mediacom, but also a pomon of~e City's franchise fees to help offset the costs associated with the operanon of the studio This revision represents the most significant, substantive change LMCC is p:oposing to the agreement. This issue xs obviously a policy decision for the Cny as it relates to the benefits which the City may receive from use of the LMCC studio versus the cost of such use Issues which the City may w~sh to consider with respect to this matter include the number of Mound resxdents which will actually benefit from this rather large capital contribution to LMCC. It may be $.p-l?-gg 04:SZpm From-MOSS & BARNETT MOSS & BARNETT +4~00 F-39Q Ms Francene Clark September !7, 1999 Page 2 prudent to consider how many Mound residents will actually use the LMCC studio to produce programming Remember that the programming which LMCC regularly produces at its studio · already cablecast on Channel 21 zo all of the cities which Tnax serves off of The Lake Minnezonka headend. Thus, Waconia, Chanhasse~ Mound, Wayzata, all receive LMCC produced programming on Channel 21 whether they like it or not. LMCC is proposing to include programs which Mound residents may produce at the LMCC s~ud~o on Channel 21 as opposed to Channel 20 which was intended to be a channel specific to the City of Mound Thc f,,~ ~ha~ LMCC has chosen to dedicate a large poizion of its franchise fees and ]ts $. 50 per subscnber per month PEG access fee to support its studio operation does not necessanly mean That that is an appropriate amount of money for Mound to dedicate to such efforts I suggest that .Cny officials review the benefits to the community which may result from use of the studio and determine an appropriate contribution for such use If that figure falls below the support which LMCC is seeking with respect to use of the studio there are other alternatives. For example, the City could use the $.S4, together with the equipment that it has already acquired over The years and allow community programmers to use the equipmem to produce programming which may then be cablecast on Channel 20 v~a playbaoc from the Mound City Hall. This need not take up a sigmficant amount of space nor would it affect the City' s franchise fee revenue which is presemly pact of the City's general revenue limd. Assuming 2,500 subscribers in the City of Mound, $2,100 will be collected each month for PEG access. This represents over $25,000 each year. To the extent LMCC desu'es an amount over and above the $.84 (I understand that figure may be an additional $.40) the amount of revenue which would be dedicated by Mound towards the LMCC studio would be approximately $3g,000 Ifntdy a handful of Mound residems are using the facihty to produce programming, the City must consider whether that expenditure to facilitate the programming for these individuals provides a commensurate benefit to Mound residents and cable television subscribers. With that amoum of money in question the City clearly would have option to hire outside professionals to handle certain eablecasting responsibilities as independent contractors and may still come out with a lo,er expenditure overall Finally, it appears from the comments submitted by LMCC that their preference would be for Mound to join the LMCC thereby dedicating the City's entire five percent (~%) franchise fees to the studio effort While this certainly may be an option to consider, the City should realize that ~t will be contributing over $75,000 toward the LMCC if it should become a member of that commission. Th~s would represem approxangely $50,000 of franchise fee revenue and another $25,000 of PEG access suppor~ revenue While th~s would clearly be beneficial to the Sep-l?-gg 04:6Zpm From-mSS & BARNETT MOSS & BARNETT +4~00 T-T04 P.O4/OB F-SgO Ms Francene Clark September 17, 1099 Page 3 LMCC, as it would help to offset the cost which LMCC has incurred to construct and eqrap its new studio facility, will the City of Mound receive appropriate benefits from this significant contri bution? Page 2. Section I ,~, (2) LMCC's proposed revisions regarding equipment replacement are acceptable. Page 2 Section I A,(7) LMCC is proposing to provide the City's public access programming on Channel 21 which LMCC currently cablecasts on Thus, the whole concept of having a channel dedicated solely for the City of Mound on Channel 20 as in the past does not appear acceptable to LMCC Remember that The City will receive programming on Channel 21 regardless of whether the City chooses To enter imo an agreement with LMCC Page 2, Section I1 B (II LMCC is again proposing to require not only the $.84 PEG access fee but an additional contribution from the CiTy's franchise fees See my commems above regarding tlus issue Page 3. Section fl A. Again LMCC is seeking a comribution from the City's franchise fee as opposed to jug the $ 84 PEG access fee. Page 3. Section Il B LMCC's proposed revisions again relate to the funding w be provided to support The PEG access facility. LMCC has proposed adding language that would require that the City of Motmd pay the exact same amoum on a per subscriber basis as subscribers residing within The LMCC franchise area The objective of this amendmem appears to be the potential increase in the amount of support which Mound would provide to LMCC. In other words, to the extem the LM¢C member municipalities dedicate all of their franchise fees and the $ 50 PEG access support fee to support the ~tudio, Mound would be required to provide the same level ofconmbution This would be true even if only a handful of Mound residents take advantage of the LMCC studio for video production since iT is not based on "use" but rather on the number of subscribers Once again this relates w a policy question for Mound elected officials regarding whether this is a prudent expenditure of approximately $75,000 in revenue page 3. Section III A I am confused by this provision. LMCC ~s agreeing to integrate the equipment owned by the CiTy into the studio operation and is asking for about $38,000 in support yet will not cover such equipment under its insurance policies Moreover, LMCC has put in a provision that if anyone steals or damages the equipment ir will be the City's responsibility to include the equipment under the City's own ir~'urance policy and LMCC will not reimburse the City for any loses Isn't this an issue which should be cocered by the significant financial contribution which the City of Mound may be paying to LMCC? Sep-l?-gg 04:53pm From-MOSS & BARNETT MOSS & BARNETT +4gO0 T-?04 P.O~/O~ F-3go Ms Francen¢ Clark geptember 17. !999 Page 4 Pa~e 3, Section II1 C LMCC's proposed changes re.~arding the equipment inventory are acceptable. Page 3, Section 111 D. LMCC's proposed revisions regarding City review of the inventory are acceptable Page 3 Section III E. Once again I do not understmd the logic of the proposed revisions LMCC is requiring that the City maintain insurance on its equipment and that the City namr LMCC as an additional insured on its policies covering City equipment Since the City equipment is being located ~r the LMCC facility of~hich we have no comrol over, ~,hy would we insure the equipment and provide additional coverage to LMCC'? I suspect the City attorney will have serious concerns regarding this matter. Pa~e 4. Section IV B LMCC's proposed changes regarding imeraction v, ith educational institutions is acceptable Page 4. Section V A LMCC's proposed changes regarding monthly reports are accept, able Page 4. Secnon V C LMCC's elimination of annual report requirement is acceptable Page 7. LMCC's modification of its address is acceptable. Fran, I hope thesr comments are helpful to you as you consider these ~ssues together with your elected officmls, While ! understand your concern that the City has very few options with respect to PEG access programming except to take the deal which LMCC is proposing, I urge you to consider the needs of all of the residents of the City of Mound regarding PEG access programming and the level of comribution which the City is being a~ed to make to receive the benefit which will be provided Remember, LMCC will benefit from having Mound contribute towards the studio operation particularly given that Mound residents will impose a very mimmal burden on the LMCC studio resulting in virtually no change in LMCC's operations except a rather sizable financial conmbution to help nunimize LMCC's operating expenses. LMCC is not adding stafl~ space, extra equipmenL additional hours or anything else to sa, isfy the Agreement, all they are doing is allowing use which will cost about $38,000 under their proposal. This seems very high Sap-1 ?-gg 04:53pm From-MOSS & BkR~ETT MOSS & BARNETT T-?a4 P.O6/O6 F-3ga Ms. Franccn¢ Clark geptember l ?, 1999 Pa~e 5 Ill ca~ provide any additional inforr~uon or assistance to you regarding th~s agreement, please free To contac~ me I '.rill wait To bear from you before taking any further action on this Very truly yours, Bn~n T. Grogan ' ~ BTG/tlh Enclosure Sep-l?-gg 04:$1pm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T-?Q4 P.Q1/QE F-HQ MOSS & BARNETT A Professional Al ocia ion 4~00 lqorwest Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-4129 Telephone (612) 347-0300 Facsimile (612) 339-6686 DATE: TO: COMPANY: City of Mound, MN FACSIMILE NUMBER: 612-472-0620 TELEPHONE NUMBER: 612-472-0600 COMMENTS- FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL LETTER This transmittal consists of_~9 pages including this cover letter. Original Will Follow by Mail September 17, 1999 FILE NO.: 39962.1 Francene Clark-Leislnger FROM: Brian T. Grogan (612) 34%0340 DIP~CT DIAL NO.' TI~ mforma~on contained m this facsimile massage ~s privileged and i~ retreaded ozfly fro' I1~ us~ of the indtvtdualJcmli~y zmm~d. Any lhsseminauon of ~ commuai~uon by anyone besides ~he intanded )ecip~nt is suictly probil~ited. If you llave received ltns commtm~cati~n pica.se noilly us immediaxely by telcphone mu;1 rcmm the original message m us by mail a~ ttu: above ~css. ~ you. LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE . P.O. BOX 385 . SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 . 612. 471-7125 . FAX 612. 471-9151 MEMO DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA Date: To: Fm: Re: August 24, 1999 Fran Clark, City of Mound Sally Koenecke, LMCC Studio agreement Thank you for attending the LMCC Full Commission meeting on August 17 concerning the Local Programming Facilities Agreement. It was very helpful to the commissioners to be able to hear from you as to Mound's interest and needs regarding the studio. Jim Olds, John Weaver and I met on Friday to go over the agreement to make some recommendations for changes. The changes we made (in bold) are listed: ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY Page One Whereas, the City has available PEG access equipment, outlined in Exhibit A ("City Equipment") to be inventoried by the LMCC and the City of Mound within 30 days of the acceptance of this agreement by both parties, which it desires to locate at the Studio for PEG access use; and Whereas, LMCC desires the City's PEG access fee and a portion of the City's franchise fee to help offset the costs associated with the operation of the Studio. VICTORIA WOODLAND LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE · P.O. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 612. 471-7125 · FAX 612. 471-9151 MEMO DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREEN~'~OOD INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONK~ BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA 8AY VICTORIA WOODLAND Date: To: Fm: Re: August 24, 1999 Fran Clark, City of Mound Sally Koenecke, LMCC Studio agreement Page two, Section I 2. Maintain and repair, at LMCC's discretion and reasonable expense, the City Equipment, excluding replacement of items that are deemed to have served their useful life. 7. delete (programming may go on Channel 21) 1. Provide LMCC with the appropriate PEG access fee and a portion of the City's Franchise Fee, in accordance with Section II herein, as well as the City Equipment, in accordance with Section III herein; Page three, Section II A. ( ail the same except the second sentence) The City hereby agrees to furnish LMCC with the PEG access fee and a portion of the City's franchise fee it receives from Triax within thirty (30) days of receipt from Triax, and LMCC hereby agrees to use said fees exclusively for support of PEG acess obligations required hereunder. B. Right to Renegotiate PEG 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 PEG access fee collected by the LMCC, the City has, in its sole discretion, the option to renegotiate the amount of the PEG access fee and the amount of the portion of the franchise fee to be supplied to LMCC. The LMCC and the City will provide funding according to a per-subscriber amount based upon the percentage of subscribers represented by the LMCC and the City. This will be reviewed at 3 months and 6 months for accuracy of budget projections. LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE · RO. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 612. 471-7125 · FAX 612.471-9151 MEMO DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. 8ONIFACIUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA Date: To: Fm: Re: August 24, 1999 Fran Clark, City of Mound Sally Koenecke, LMCC Studio agreement Page three, Section III A. (keep the same except for second sentence) In the event this Agreement is terminated or expires, LMCC shall return to the City the City Equipment in its entirety and in the same condition as when first supplied to LMCC, absent normal wear and tear and excluding equipment that was deemed inoperable or had lived its useful life. If there is any theft of equipment, unexplained loss of equipment, or shortage disclosed upon taking inventory the LMCC will immediately notify the City for insurance purposes. This may or may not be covered under the City's insurance policy, however the LMCC will not reimburse the City for these losses. C. Condition of City Equipment. An inventory of all City equipment covered by this agreement will be completed by representatives of both the LMCC and the City within 30 days of the commencement of this agreement. This will constitute the City inventory of equipment. (the rest of the paragraph remains the same) D. Inventory of City Equipment LMCC shall, at all times, maintain an inventory of the City Equipment, which shall be available for the City's review upon the City providing twenty (20) days notice to LMCC. This request not to exceed twice a year. E. The City shall, in accordance ........ (rest of this sentence remains the same) (second sentence all the same except) ..... and it shall list the LMCC as an additional insured on any and all policies covering the City Equipment. WOODLAND LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE · RO. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 612. 47 I-7125 · FAX 612. 47 I-9151 MEMO DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA Date: To: Fm: Re: August 24, 1999 Fran Clark, City of Mound Sally Koenecke, LMCC Studio agreement Page four, Section IV B. Programming: LMCC shall work with educational institutions ...... (the rest of sentence remains as it was.) (Second sentence as is but add) .... as available and practicable just as the LMCC does for its member communities. Page four, Section V A. Maintenance of Records and Reports. LMCC shall make available to the City, upon request, any requested financial information regarding the PEG access Studio and facilities. LMCC shall also maintain records including the City in the LMCC monthly program report identifying all programming originating from Mound sources. C. delete Page seven if to LMCC Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission 4071 Sunset Drive P.O. Box 385 Spring Park, MN 55384-0385 Attn: Ms. Sally Koenecke ~'OODLAND LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNSET DRIVE · P.O. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK, MN 55384-0385 · 612. 47 I-7125 · FAX 612. 471-9151 MEMO DEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD INDEPENDENCE LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SHOREWOOD Date: August 17, 1999 To: Fran Clark Fm: Sally Koenecke Re: Studio agreement The attached list includes the questions that we would need some clarification on or to to discuss. The per subscriber cost of operating is based on the 1999 revised budget. If you have any questions on how these figures were arrived at call our production coordinator, John Weaver. We discussed the budget and cost of studio operation and how to determine per subscriber cost. John put together the numbers for consideration based on our discussion. I'm submitting this to you so you have an idea before the LMCC meeting this evening what we will be discussing. Thank you. SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA ~X/OODLAND Clarifications needed on Local Programming Facilities Agreement LMCC and City of Mound - 8/17/99 It is our understanding that we will be providing equal access to the residents of Mound under this agreement. Under number 5 and number 7 (scope of services) we would be providing the same level of channel preparation for Channel 20 as for Channel 21. This would take double staff time currently required to do these programming functions: text programming, scheduling, reporting 2. Regarding return of equipment ( Section III, A.), do we need a provision which would account for equipment that for some reason has become inoperable or (which happens infrequently) is missing? 3. Section III C. Upon acceptance of this proposal the LMCC would do an inventory with a representative of the City of Mound to verify the current inventory. The inventory was not checked in when the movers brought it in and some has been taken out by the current Mound coordinator. We need to recheck the inventory to verify the inventory submitted with this proposal with a representative of Mound We would also need to check the operating condition as some equipment has been used by Mound since the move. Would this be the starting inventory? 4. Section III E Would the City of Mound insure their equipment or would the LMCC? Section IV B. The LMCC would provide a production coordinator to work with educational institutions, public libraries, and religious organizations within the parameters of the production coordinator job description which is to work with non-profit groups to develop program ideas as one area of responsibility. There is not a person designated by the LMCC to be exclusively a laison to these groups. Section V A. As stated in number one above a report regarding the programming on Channel 20 would be a doubling of reporting responsibility for the production coordinator. We have calculated a per subscriber cost of operating according to the 1999 revised budget for studio operation and what the percentage total would be for the subscribers of Mound. (see attached) We did talk about a 3 month and a 6 month review process to discuss anything that might need to be changed. 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-3O-gg 1Z:Z6pm Fram-MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 T-IZg P.OZ/11 F-6TG E-Maa. G~g~:l ~rnoa:.-~ncrt corn MOSS & BARNETT MiNNP--.~'OLL5. M~NNZ~OT.% 55¢02-¢129 ~u~ [6111 339-66a6 June 30, 1999 VIA FAC.qlMII.E Ms. Francene Clark-Leisinger City Clerk 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dram Agreement be~een the City of Mound, Minnesota ~nd Lake Minnetor_ka Communications Commission v~ith respect to PEG Access Programming Dear Fran: Pursuant to our telephone conversations and face-to-face mee.ting, enclosed herewith please find a draft agreement for your review and consideration. This agreement concerns the provision ofPl!iG arcess programming services by the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission ("LMCC") m return for payment by the City of Motmd of $.84 per subscriber per month as remitted by Triax. A£[er you have had a ch~ce to rcvi¢,,v the enclosed agreement, please cont,,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. If yoa should have any immediate questions or if I can provide any additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Very truly you.rs, Brian T. Grogan BTG/tlh 2673aa/~ Jun-3a-gg 1Z:Z~pm From-~$$ & BARHETT +4gOO T-1zg P.~3/11 F-~?E DRAFT - June 30, 1999 LOC.~L PROGRAMMING FACILITIES AGREEMENT Th~s Local Programming Facilities A~eement ("Agreement") is entered into riffs.. day of ,1999, between the City of Mound, Minnesota ("City") and the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission ("LMCC"). RECITAl,S: WHEREAS, both LMCC and City have, d'~rough separate documents, granted to Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. ("Triax") fifteen (15) year non-exclusive cable television franchises; and WHEREAS, each franchise requires Tnax :o remit to both LMCC and the City a five percent (5%) franchise fee on Triax's Gross Revenues; and WHEREAS, each franchise fi~her requires Triax :o remit a separate publJ, c, educational, and goverm'nental ("PEG") access fee to LMCC and the C~ty in suppor~ of PI~G pro.staining; and WH£REAS, each franchise requires Triax to only provide the PEG access fee and dedicated channel capacity in support of PEG access programming, and Tnax has no further PEG access responsibilities; and WI-IEP~AS, the City collects a $84 PEG access fee, while LMCC collec~ a $.50 PEG access fee, per subscriber, per billing period, which is paid by Triax on a quarterly basis; and WHEK.I~AS, LMCC operates a 5,000 square foot equipped PEG access studio facility ("Studio"), wl'fich it pays for with its PEG access fee and with portions of'its five percent (5%) franchise fee; and WHEREAS. thc City ha~ available PEG access eqmpment, outlined in Exhibit A ("City Equipment"), which it desires To locate at the Studio for PEG access me; and WI-IEREAS, the City desires the use of the Studio as well as the professional assistance which L.MCC PEG access staffcan 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 valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of wi'rich are hereby acknowledged, the panics agree as follows: Jun-30-gg 1Z:ZEpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T-1Z9 P.04/11 F-$?5 .SCOPE OF SERVICES A. LMCC Obligations. This Agreement obligates I. MCC to perform the follov~ing thnctions: 1. Manage, operate, and maintain the Studio and audio/video production cqt~ipment and facilities located at , available for use by the City and its residents, Maintain and repair, at LMCC's expense, the City Equipmem; 3. Provide outreach and promote activities and oppommities relanng m PEG access pro~amming to City residents under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted, for LMCC res~dems; 4. Provtde the necessary personnel to ~,~deotape each City council meeung of City throughout the term of this Agreement for cablecast on Channel 20; 5. Arrange for playback :,nd live cablecasting of video, audio, and text programming to the City and ~ts residents under the same terms, conditions, and standards adopted for LMCC residents; 6. Assist the pubhc, 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 remdents; 7. Provide all PEG access programming for the City and its residents on cable Channel 20; and $. Respond to questions amd requests of City residents that pertain To PEG access progranuning and related facilities and equipment. B. City Obh~a~ons. This Agreement obhgates the City to perform or promde the following functions: 1. Provide LMCC with the appropriate PEG access fee, in accordance ~ith Section herein, as well as the City Equipment, in accordance with Section iii herein; 2. Cooperate with LMCC in the effective implementation and administration of the requirements and responsibilities outlined v~ithin this Agreement; and 3. Maintain sole responsibility for responding to questions and requests from City residents regarding which do not pert'aN to PEG access programming, related facihues and equipmen~ regarding regulatory or franchise enforcement proceedings. Z6~g~?,l 2 Jun-3o-gg lZ:Z?pm From-MOSS & BARHETT +4900 T-1zg P.aS/11 F-~75 SECT[ON II PROVISION OF PEG ACCESS FEE A. pEG Access Fee m Be ?~id to I-MCC. The current ~'ancl~se: in ~e CiW, TH~, collects a PEG access fee ~ ~e ~o~t of $.g4 per subscriber per billing pehod. Th~ pro~d~s the PEG access fee to ~e CiU on a q~erly b~is, w~ch tM City h~ a~aad lo asa m pay for PEG access progr~g. ~e City hereby a~ees to ~sh LMCC wi~ ~e PEG ~cess fee i: receives from Tn~ wi~ ~y (30) days of receipt from T~, ~d LMCC hereby a~e~ to ~e said fees excl~i~ely for suppo~ of PEG ~cess ob~atio~ req~ed here~der. City's first payroll to LMCC sh~ be c~culated bering on ~e effec~ve daze of this A~eemem ~e end of~e calen~ qumer. B. Right )o Renegoria)e P~:G Access Fee. If, at ~y time, LMCC chooses to remm a pomon 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, m its sole discretion, the option to renegotiate the amount of the PEG access fee :o be supplied to LMCC. If an agreement cannot be reached, this Agreement shall terminate upon ~hirty (30) days advance written notice. SECTION 11I GR ANT OF CITY EQUIPMENT A. General Grater. Upon the et'lecture 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 A~eemem is terminated or expires, LMCC shall return to the City the City Equipment ia its ennrety and in the same condition as v~hen first supplied to LMCC, absent nonnE ,,year and tear. B. Use nf CiLv F~tuipment. The City Equipment ihall be used by LMCC exclusively for the development, construction, operation, maintenance, and other Ikncttons feinting to tb.e PEG access operations set forth m this Agreement. LMCC shall exercise reasonable care in maintaining and repairing the City Equipment. Upon fatlure to do so, the City may hire a contractor to perform the maintenance and repair and seek reimbursement from LMCC for the expenses resulting therefrom. Any use of the C~y Equipment by LMCC the; is not specified in this A~eement shall require the prior written consent of the City. C. Condition ofCily ~:~Dtipment. LMCC acknowledges that it ha~ examined the City Equipment and that said City Equipment is no,,v in good and satisfactory condition for LMCC's purposes. LMCC agrees to return the Ci'W Equipmen~ to the City at the termination or expiration of this Agreement m the same common as when initially examined and used, absent normal wear and tear. The City r~presents to LMCC that i~ is no~ aware of any substantial defects m the Clly Equipment that would not have been ohs,treble to LMCC. Jun-30-gg 1Z:Z?pm From-~$$ & BARNETT +4900 T-IZg P.OE/11 F-E?E D. Inventory of City ]:_qu{prnent. LMCC shall, at all times, maintain an inventory of the C~b' Equipment, which shall be available for thc City's review upon thc City providing ten (10) days notice to LMCC. E. Insurance. LMCC shall, in accordance with applicable laws, maintain all reasonable and necessary insurance for the City Equipmem so long as the Cit3, Equipment remains on the property of or in thc possession o£LMCC. Such insurance shall be comparable to thax cart/ed for PEG access equipment owned by LMCC, and it shall list the City as an ad&don'al insured on any and all policies covenng the City Equipment. .g ECTION IV Ol ]TR E A C~/PROMOTION AND ? ROGR A MMTN'G A. Outreach and Promodnn. The City desires to provide PEG access programming that will meet the needs of ~ts residents. LMCC recognizes that community awareness and understanding ~s essential to accomplish mis goal. As such, LMCC agrees that it shall provide out'reach and promotion to City residems under thc same remus, condidorts, and standards adopted for LMCC rcsidems. 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 ~a-ough tape exchange and technical consultation services, as available and practicable. SF. CT[ON v RFCORDS AN-D RE'PORT.~ A. Maintenance of Records and Reports. LMCC shall make available to nh~ City, upon request, any requested financial information regarchng thc PEG access Studio and facilities. LMCC 'shall 'also maintain records and prepare an annual report st~tring the name o£¢ach City resident who has used lhe 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) ("Report"). B. Inspection of Records. The C~ty shall have the right to inspect LMCC's records dur:mg regularly scheduled business hours or at such other times as mutually agreed to beween LMCC and the City. 26~g~7/1 Jun-lO-99 IZ:Z~pm From-~$$ & BARNETT +4900 T-IZ9 P.OT/11 F-GTE SECTION Vl rNDEM'NIF[CATION LMCC and the City shall each indemmfy and forever hold harmless Ge other, respective affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, and partners from and against any and all liabil/ties, claims, losses or damages, costs and expenses (including r~asonable attorneys' fees) arising out of any breach of any obligation, representation or warranty hereunder made by any party to this Agreement wktch g/yes rise to any claim by any person or entity; provided, that in any case in which indemnification is sou~t, the party seeking indemnification (''Indemnified Party") shall 1) promptly notify the party from whom such indemnification is sought ("Indemnifying Party"); 2) afford the Indemnifying Party the opportunity of defending such claim; and 3) the lndernniSed Pm'ty shall fuJly cooperate in connection with such defense, hugation, sertlemem, or disposition and shall have the right, bur no~ ~he obligation, to join in and be represented by its own counsel at its own cos~ ~d expense. LMCC ~a.ll.L%d. emnify and forever hold harmless the City, its respective officers, directors, employees, agents, and pm'mots from and against any and all habihties, claims, losses or damages, costs and expenses arising out of pro.staining errors or omissions over which LMCC has responsibility, including copyright infringement, misappropriauon of literary propert), or of pro.am format, defamation, invasion of privacy, due to or arising out of progrm-nrning cablecasted on a PEG access channel. This indemnity shall be subjec~ to the procedural requiremems including notice and opportunity ro defend as set forth above. .~ECTION Vll TERM OF ACREEM~NT This Agreemem shall be effective as of the da~e hereof and shall expire on December 31, 2000. However, this Agreement shall automatically be renewed for additional one (1) year terms unless th~ ob. locking party supplies the mher with ninerf (90) days wriuen notice of termination. Such notice oftermirmtion may be submined at an), time, by either pm),, following December 3 I, 2OOO. SFCTION viii MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Supersedes prior Agreements. LMCC and the City agree that this Agreement shall supersede any and all fights and obligations of LMCC and the CiD' under any prior agreements. B. Binding c,n St~ccesmrS. This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of LMCC and the City and their respective successors and assigns. 264867// ~ CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT August 1999 66.67% August 1999 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 73,000 3,023 Promotions 4,000 0 Cable TV 1,500 35 City Manager/Clerk 196,900 8,339 Elections 3,150 0 Assessing 64,800 65,590 Finance 176,020 10,269 Computer 27,550 659 Legal 103,480 6,668 Police 1,048,010 55,211 Civil Defense 4,960 833 Planning/Inspections 224,370 16,649 Streets 472,050 23,795 City Property 82,690 2,167 Parks 170,950 17,432 Summer Recreation 38,410 0 Contingencies 20,000 0 Transfers 181,740 15,145 47,036 4,000 6,867 161,879 219 65 723 95 690 13 062 76 365 595 227 2535 124.880 343 532 52,589 118,597 0 24 121,160 PERCENT VARIANCE EXPENDED 25,964 64.43% 0 100.00% (5,367) 457.80% 35,021 82.21% 2,931 6.95% (923) 101.42% 80,330 54.36% 14,488 47.41% 27,115 73.80% 452,783 56.80% 2,425 51.11% 99,490 55.66% 128,518 72.77% 30,101 63.60% 52,353 69.38% 38,410 0.O0% 19,976 0.12% 60,580 66.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2,893,580 225,815 1,829,385 1,064,195 63.22% Area Fire Service Fund 409,680 Recycling Fund 126,780 Liquor Fund 227,890 Water Fund 429,150 Sewer Fund 903,390 Cemetery Fund 6,970 Dock Fund 92,710 6,035 199,171 210,509 48.62% 763 67,307 59,473 53.09% 15,736 159,232 68,658 69.87% 32,108 310,969 118,181 72.46% 65,332 583,124 320,266 64.55% 531 3,485 3,485 50.00% 4,975 66,560 26,150 71.79% Exp-98 09~20~99 Gino CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT August 1999 66.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments August 1999 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,253,280 0 634,902 (618,378) 50.66% 4,550 333 4,251 (299) 93.43% 114,000 26,405 111,703 (2,297) 97.99% 960,560 2,215 494,666 (465,894) 51.50% 59,700 22,284 48,306 (11,394) 80.91% 100,000 8,442 54,049 (45,951) 54.05% 63,500 685 25,107 (38,393) 39.54% 133,560 0 0 (133,560) 0.00% 12,000 1,050 8,623 (3,377) 71.86% TOTAL REVENUE 2,701,150 61,414 1,381,607 (1.319,543) 51.15% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 409,680 15,145 314,157 (95,523) 76.68% 127,600 22,710 93,341 (34,259) 73.15% 1,650,000 156,741 1,148,785 (501,215) 69.62% 451,000 46,457 293,639 (157,361 ) 65.11% 924,000 88,424 651,740 (272,260) 70.53% 5,100 100 1,470 (3,630) 28.82% 79,800 515 67,900 (11,900) 85.09% 09~20~99 rev98 Gino LAKP. MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RE~UF.,gF FOR REVIEW AND COblblF.,NT$ ~TA DI~ GENF. RAL P~ APPhlCATION NUMBEa: (Note: Comments on ~ applicatJ~ ~'e due 10 thy! from I'~atp~ of [his notice. COMM~.N'I'S ON PROPOSAl. Comments On PrOject by Reviewer (attach separate sheet if needed): Ree~ndation of Reviewer: N~o of Review. er: Title: 'V~iance to The LMCD Code VARIANCE APPLICATION TO THE LMCD CODE Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone 745.0789, Fax 745-9085 )fiUG 1 0 1999 By Because this form is to be copied, please use black ink or type. In accordance with LMCD Code Section 1.07, where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a vadance from the requirements of the Code, or may require a vadance from what is othenvise permitted by the Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinances, the public health, safety, and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by public or dpadan owners. The following application, when completed, shall be filed with the Executive Director of the Distdct along with surveys, photos, and such other information as required. The person completing this form is ~'-authoriZe. d age property owner Ccircle one). APPLICAN'r: _~2..~ c,~.~ v. ~ Address: City,'S'~ate, Zip: .':i ._. Phone#: ..' .. Fax #: PROPERTY LOCATION The property is ripadan to LMCD bay/area(s): LMCD Area Identification Number(s): State.practical .difficulties and hardships cau. sing variance to be required: Please submit names End mailing addresses of owners within a 350-foot radius of the property. Such o,.vner~ must be vedfied by checking with Hennepin County Auditors Office, 348-3271; (or a private abstract company) which can provide actual mailing labels at a cost of $1.25 per tax parcel (minimum of $25.00). This service usually takes two days, and you must have your tax parcel identification number (PIN) ready when calling for this assistance. C:~My Documents~Applications\Vadance to code appl..doc ... .~ 'Variance to Code O0cumen ¢ {isled below are require(/; check that they are attached: Locator Map (U.S.G.S area map with scale, North direction, Site clearly marked, Name or Title, LMCD Area Name, LMCD number) County Plat Map (Site cleady marked, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number) Certified Land Survey (Legal description, Name, LMCD area name, LMCD number, 929.4 N.G.V.D. shoreline) Proposed facility site plan (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with dimensions and slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable) Existing facility site plan, if applicable (to scale, 929.4' N.G.V.D. shoreline, LMCD area name, LMCD number, Scale, North direction, affected neighbors, locate setback area, locate dock use area, location of dock structure with .,~ dimensions and slip numbers, indicate type of slip if applicable) Scaled drawing of docks on abutting properties, and other affected dockage Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay. FEE CALCULATION APPLICATION FEE .......... (non-refundable) .......................................... $250.00 DEPOSIT ..................... (refundable, upon full compliance with the Code and extent of administrative, inspection and legal service required) .................................... +250.00 TOTAL FEE ENCLOSED (this fee is for processing of the application and does not ntifle the applicant to a variance) ...................... ~$500.00~ ! certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true and correct; ! understand that any variance granted may be revoked by the District for violation of the LMCD code. ! agree to reimburse the District for any legal, surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the District in excess of the amount of the application fee. ! consent to permitting officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at r~sona~J~ times to investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of .. # -..1-. ." I .. 'I"N ' R~turn this application, attachments and f~ to: Lake Minnetonka Conse~ation District 18338 Minnetonka 81¥d. Deephaven, MN 55391 Phone: 745-0789 Fax: 745-9085 Fin.? Line group, InC. P. 0. EIox 1611 Burnm~lle, M~nnesota 55337-0611 (612] 890-4267' _Dffice/F3x Subject: The clock at 2541 Wexford Road, Mound. - The property was recently redivided and two new residences are being constructed on this site. - The new addresses are 2537 Wexford and 2541 Wexford. - Both new home owners are willing to share a single dock structure. History: The home on this site was originally constructed in the 1940's and was the only structure in this area for many years. (Refer to aerial photo dated - 11/9/71) - The land owner had a navigable channel accessing Sc'ton Lake near the Channel to Emerald Lake. - In the early 1970's, during a period of low water elevations, the land owner was allowed a dock extending to the current location by the city. of Island Park (the precursor to the City of Mound), in exchange for not having to maintain the channel by dredging. The owner did not give up rights to dredging. - The original landowner sold the property to the currem landowner with a usable but deteriorating dock. -During the approval process at the city of Mound for the current building, a request was made by the Cit~ Council to adjust the location of the beginning of the clock. To move it from shoreline owned by the city. -Owner decided to renovate structure at the same time. Request: The current landowner wishes to apply for a 'Dock Use', a 'Side Setback' and a 'Dock Length' variance. - Depending upon the disposition of these variance requests, an application may be made for a dredging permit with the MCWD. Section 2.01 Subd 2b Section 2.015 Dock Placement and Configuration LMCD: Section 2.01 Subd2a Amhorized Dock Use Area. Variance mtuired. Dock use setback variance fi'om Variance required Reconfigumtion of Non-conforming Structures. Allows dockage up to 60' in length Length Variance due to Vegetation and Shallow Water Dredging for Access MCWD:Rule E. 3 (at) Rule E. 4 (1) Rule E. 4 (2) The proposed project shall represent the "minimal impact' solution.., with ~ to other mason,able alternatives such as dock extensions... To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel ... To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access Precedents: Aerial photos and an inventoty,'show tens to hundreds of docks extending more than 60' and/or dredging allowing navigational access with-in 1/2 mile of this site. Conclusion: The "minimum impact' solution is to allow thc replacement of this existing slxuaure in it's original location, with thc minor revision suggested by the city of Mound relating to the connection to the shoreline, and its extension to the edge of emergent vegetation. The granting of thc variances as applied for and the licensing of this structure. Wexford Docks List of Exhibits: A City Locator B County Plat Map - 1967 C Certificate of Survey C1 Enlargement of Survey- showing Shoreline- D Dock Site Plan E Aerial Photo of Area - 11-9-71 F Aerial Photo Composite Showing Area - 5-89 G Copy of MCWD Rule E Regarding Dredging By Z~ / / '~."¥F; "" ' '~..,~ $1~ore line occord~m~ ,\ to record plat \ \ ~RK ...4~ o~ ~ AVON ,~!.:', ';:: LAKE 3 ERALD LAKE} ~, o CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FO~ RICHARD OLIVER IN BLOCK 7, SETON HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I FGAL DESCR~:'TION ~ PRElaSES : Lota 1. 2. 5, 14 ~ 15. ~ock 7. SI:TON AUG 1 0 1999 By \ '\ \ & ORONB~O, 012'-47;3-4141 DAT[ 1--19-'99 ~ : CO~IN & ~RON~ I FAX NO. : 612 4~'J 44~5 Jun. ~ 1999 ~;~M Pl ! IN BLOOK 7, I HENNEPIN COUNT' I /', --' I Z~ I iORELINE ACCORDING RECORD PLAT · -',j;, ~,, /t/ - fi'/ // ! / / / / / / / 2 ! 9~ ~ ,- ~ ~5 ' , ,, ~: ~"' ,, ~' ~ ~ "~f,)~ ,,' ,, ,, -~o , ~2 o s ,. ~0 ~ q ~ tl~ , N ~ g o (33) , h,u [ I ~ nn; ~ I1 o o ,, o i - i , IL l) ~,' 4 ', o~ ~.Z ~ a'~~ .,o~. -~ "~PA~IC~ ROs ~S),~- .... ~ ..... ~--;~ ~Q~-~ ~ ~7 - , o ~=~7- (27)~o ' -~o ~, ~ [ o, (37) ~),~ _,', o I o ~-.' ', ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~n ~ ~,~ tOO o 100 ~, t o ,"~ ~0 ~',,o ', ~ DOC NO ~o3o937 5 ~ 5 ' 6 k°'-~ o ,n I o o ~ ~,~ 1% : ~'n~. ~ < ~ (120) , ~ ~ ~, ~ s~t, s~,o ~7,, , 4 o , o(4~ ,x ~ ~ BO ~ ' ' ~ ' ' / i ' ' ~ 'o ' ~,,~ ~ ROSCOMMON x ~ .. , / ~ ', ~ q ~ ~ N~ ,, ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ o,(~ ~ I '~'~ / ~".~ ---- ~ I ~ ......... ~ ,, : . ~, (9) 2 '~-- o ~', ', '," ~ 3 ; ~ .... :. ) x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~6 ~ ~s o .... ., ' '*'-b ~% ~ MCWD Rule E Page 1 of 4 RULE E 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreational, wildlife and fisheries resources of surface waters, and surface water quality. 2. REGULATIONS. No person shall dredge in the beds, banks or shores of any protected water or wetland in the District without first securing a permit from the District, and posting a bond or letter of credit pursuant to Rule K. 3. GENERAL STANDARDS. All permitted dredging shall comply with the following standards: (a) The spoil disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the OHW of a public water or public water wetland, wetland subject to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain and not prone to erosion. (b) In cases of an identifiable source of sediment under the control of the applicant, the plan shall include remedial action to minimize deposition of sediment into a waterbody or off-site. (c) Prior to readew by the District, all dredging proposals that involve docking shall be submitted to and approved by the Minnesota Depamnent of Natural Resources and, in the case of Lake Minnetonka, by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. (d) The proposed project shall represent the "minimal impact* solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives such as dock extensions, aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging, beach sandblankets, excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area of the public water, or management of an alternative water body for the intended purpose. (e) The dredging shall be limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for achieving the stated purpose. (Reference General Permit 95-6150, 'Excavation for Navigation', paragraph 5). (f) ff the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging the following additional standards will apply: (1) The spoil disposal site shall have a minimum storage capacity equal to four times the calculated volume of solid material to be removed, a n n mum board the top 1999 ' MCWD Rule E Page 2 of 4 of the projected water surface elevation and the top of the dike of one foot, if no outlet from the spoil disposal is proposed. (2) The construction of the spoil containment site shall be with earthen dikes. No such dike shall exceed 5.5 feet in height at any point. Dikes shall have a minimum 4 foot wide top and side slopes of 2:1 or flatter. The daces shall be adequately compacted by traversing with appropriate equipment during construction. (3) Proposed embankments which differ from the standard in 3(0(2) shall comply with generally ~a:epted engineering principles and be designed and certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. (4) Spoil containment sites of limited storage volume which propose a discharge back into a receiving water body through a control structure shall meet applicable State water quality guidelines for the receiving water body. Weekly momtoring of the instantaneous discharge shall be performed and paid for by the applicant. The results shall be promptly forwarded to the District Engineer for comparison to state water quality standards for turbidity and total suspended solids. (5) A restoration plan prepared by a qualified individual shall show proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments on site during the period of operation. The plan shall show final grades and how the site will be restored, covered and/or vegetated aRer construction. Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or eredible soils may require a cash detx~it to ensure performance and any necessary remedial actions. 4. CRITERIA. (a) Dredging shall be permitted only for the following ~: (1) To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements; or (2) To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational a~ess; or (3) To remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or contaminants; or (4) To improve the public recreational, wildlife, or fisheries resources of surface waters. (b) No dredging shall be permitted: (I) Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse. (2) Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or MCWD Rule E Page 3 of 4 wh/¢/~ w0u/d create a clmnnel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes. (3) Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake. (4) Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. (5) Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to I for an area adjoining residential lakeshore. (c) Dredging identified in 4(b)(1-3) above may be permitted where the project complies with applicable DNR roles. 5. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit application. One set - full size; one set - reduced to maximum size of 1 l'x17~. (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, and regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum). (b) Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and proposed elevations and proposed side slopes in the work area. (Topographic contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot.) (c) In the case of projects using hydraulic means of sediment removal and on- site spoil containment the applicant shall supply: (1) Cross section of the pml~ed dike. (2) Stage/storage volume relationship for the proposed spoil containment area. (3) Detail of any proposed outlet structure, showing size, description and invert elevation. (4) Stage/discharge relationship for any proposed outlet structure from the spoil containment area. (5) Site plan showing the locations of any proposed outlet structure and emergency overflow from the spoil containment al'~. (d) Site plan showing the proposed location of floating silt curtains. (e) Support data: (1) Description and volume computation of material to be ' removed. (2) Description of equipmem to be used. ' ' ~CWD Rule E (3) Construction schedule. (4) Location map of spoil containment area. (5) Erosion control plan for containment area. (6) Restoration plan for any proposed permanent on-site spoil containment site showing final grades, removal of control structure, and a description of how and when the site will be restored, covered or revegetated aRer construction. (7) Detail of any prof~s~ floating silt curtain including specifications for the silt curtain. (f) In the case of projects where dredging: (1) Might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage, or (2) Will remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or contaminants, a minimum of two soil bearing logs extending at least two feet below the proposed work elevation shall be required. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 There are few vocations which, if adequately performed, require so much of a person-ph~rsical courage, tact, disciplined temper, good judgment, alertness of observation, and .specialized knowledge of law and procedure .... Not only physical courage but strong moral fiber is required of the police officer. She/He is at war with thieves, fences, and sharpers of every sort who will stop at nothing to avoid interference by the police. These underworld characters are skilled in every form of trickery and deception needed to compromise weak police officer...But physical courage and moral stamina are not enough. A police officer may be courageous in the face of danger, or have strong defenses against corrupting influence, and yet be too indolent or too ignorant to perform many kinds of work which make no demands on his admirable qualities. Leonard V. Harrison 1934 study Police Administration in Boston From COPS & CHARACTER by Edwin J. Delattre LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Michael Bruckner September I0, 1999 Following are the terms and conditions of employment for Michael Bruckner and the Mound Police Department. 1. You will begin employment on September 27, 1999. 2. Salary and benefits as outlined in the patrol Teamster's #320 contract. You will be subject to a probationary period for the term of one year and may be discharged at any time during that year. You will be subject to an FTO program as determined by your supervisors. The department will furnish uniforms and a firearm upon employment. You will not be eligible for a uniform allowance in 2000. Uniform leather, tools/equipment, firearm, and all badges shall be returned to the deparhnent if you leave employment. 5. You agree t9 refrain from the use of any tobacco products. 6. You agree to maintain good physical conditioning and to follow the fimess standards and a program as developed by the department. Michael Bruckner LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone Dispatch Fax 472-0621 525-6210 472-0656 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Jami Burke EMERGENCY 911 September 10, 1999 Following are the terms and conditions of employment for Jami Burke and the Mound Police Department. 1. You will begin employment on October 4, 1999. 2. Salary and benefits as outlined in the patrol Teamster's #320 contract. You will be subject to a probationmy period for the term of one year and may be discharged at any time during that year. You will be subject to an FTO program as determined by your supervisors. The depatiment will furnish uniforms and a firearm upon employment. You will not be eligible for a uniform allowance in 2000. Uniform leather, tools/equipment, firearm, and all badges shall be returned to the depa, h,ent if you leave employment. 5. You agree to refrain from the use of any tobaCCo products. 6. You agree to maintain good physical conditioning and to follow the fimess standards and a program as developed by the department. Task Force. Len H~rell, Chief ot Police You understand that this position is temporary at this time (year to year) and is a "backfill" position to replace an officer that is assigned to the Southwest Metro Drug SCHEDULE FOR HIRING REPLACEMENT FOR BOB SHANLEY advertise - local paper Oct. ~ & 16 Star Oct. 10 & 17 Oct. 25, 99 -.applications close Nov. 1, 99 - interviews Nov. 12, 99 - Hire Nov. 29, 99 - start date September 16, 1999 JOB ADVERTISEMENT: PUBLISH IN THE 10/9/99 AND 10/16/99 ISSUE OF THE LAKER. PUBLISH IN THE 10/10/99 AND 10/17/99 OF THE STAR TRIBUNE. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER The City of Mound is seeking a full-time public works maintenance worker. 3ob duties include; water meter reading; street maintenance; and water and sewer maintenance. Minimum qualifications; Minnesota Class B Commercial Driver's License; High School diploma or GED; ability to operate light and heavy equipment; and mechanical skills and abilities to perform general maintenance on vehicles and related equipment. Preferred, but not required qualifications include; 3 years experience working within a municipal public works department; considerable knowledge of municipal functions as related to public works duties and responsibilities; Class D Water Operator Certificate and Wastewater Operator Certificate; and completion of a accredited water-sewer training program. Stating wage $14.05 per hour, excellent fringe benefits. For application contact the City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound Mn. 55364 Deadline is October 25, 1999, 4:30 pm. Equal Opportunity Employer Memo DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 13, 1999 fX / . Urban Hennepin County Communities~ Rod Waara, Administrative Manager Proposed Funding Cuts - HUD FY 2000 Enclosed for your information please find two news releases issued by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the ongoing funding appropriations process for fiscal year 2000. In the first release, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo calls for restoration of $1.6 billion in funding cuts made by the House of Representatives on September 9, 1999 in the President's budget proposal. The second piece is a HUD study issued in August which points out the impact the budget cuts would have on the poorest people and communities in America. A chart from the HUD web page shows the potential impacts of the cuts on Minnesota communities, including the Urban Hennepin County entitlement programs. At a recent meeting at the local HUD offices Secretary Cuomo, via telephone broadcast, reminded stakeholders at risk to make known their concerns to federal legislative representatives. This memo is intended to relay that message to our Hennepin County community partners. The Senate and conference committee will act on this in the very near furore. Please feel flee to contact me at 541-7088 if you would like to discuss this further. Hennepin County Office of Planning & Development, Development Planning Unit, 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Mail Code: 604 Phone: (612) 541-7080 Fax: (612) 541-7090 TDD/'rrY: (612) 541-7981 NEWS Department of Housing and Urban Development - Andrew Cuomo, Secretary Office of Public Affairs, Washington, DC 20410 HUD No. 99-188 (202) 708-0685 http ://www.hud.gov/news.html FOR RELEASE Friday ~ September 10, 1999 CUOMO CALLS ON SENATE TO RESTORE HUD BUDGET CUTS AND FULLY FUND PRESIDENT CLINTON'S REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON - Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo today called on the Senate to restore $1.6 billion in program cuts to the HUD budget that were made Thursday by the House, and thanked House members who cast enough votes against the bill to sustain a presidential veto. President Clinton has promised to veto the House budget bill covering HUD and other agencies because it does not provide enough funding for vital programs. The House would need 290 votes to override the President's veto, but the budget bill passed by a vote of 235-187 - 55 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for a veto override if all members vote. "The House failure to get a veto-proof majority was an overwhelming victory for America's people and places left behind - families struggling to find affordable housing, people on welfare struggling to get jobs, and cities struggling to reverse decades of decline," Cuomo said. "At this time of prosperity and budget surpluses, now is the time to remember those in need and help them become participants instead of spectators in the economic boom. If we can't remember the needs of these forgotten Americans in today's good times, when will we remember them?" "I urge the Senate to act in the national interest and restore the $1.6 billion taken from HUD's budget by the House and fully fund the President's budget request," Cuomo added. "It makes no sense to make devastating cuts in programs for the poorest families in America to finance tax cuts for the richest people in this country. Cynical attempts by some to restore funding for programs in individual Congressional Districts aren't enough. We need nationwide funding to meet a nationwide need." A HUD study issued in August found that the budget cuts would have a devastating impact on the poorest people and communities in America. The study - called Losing Ground: The Impact of HUD Budget Cuts on America's Communities - concluded that the proposed cuts would deprive 97,000 people of jobs, 156,000 families of affordable housing, and 16,000 families and individuals who are homeless or have AIDS of vital housing assistance. _ Lo,~i~lg Ground: The Impact of Proposed HUD Budget Cuts on America's Communities Page 1 of 3 .... losing ground: the impact of proposed hud budget cuts on america's communities LOSING GROUND: THE IMPACT OF PROPOSED HUD BUDGET CUTS ON AMERICA'S COMMUNITIES "At a time of unprecedented national prosperity, Congress should not rob the poorest Americans to provide reck/ess tax cuts and create a new deficiL Now is the time to invest in a brighter future for people and p/aces/eft behind." - Andrew Cuomo, Secretary In February of this year, the President submitted to Congress a budget to build on last year's bipartisan budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The President's budget would have increased vital investments in families and communities by $2 billion. In July of this year, the House of Representatives completed a "mark-up" of the HUD budget rendering deep cuts in funding that would hurt our Nation's ability to provide safe, affordable housing and economic opportunities for all Americans. For example, the House Appropriations Committee's mark-up of the FY2000 HUD/VA bill would fail to fund any incremental housing vouchers and would impose a 5 percent cut in the critical Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) program. If passed by the full Congress, these cuts would have a devastating impact on families and communities nationwide. Overall, the cuts represent: an estimated 156,000 fewer housing units for Iow-income families in Amedca at a time when worst case housing needs are at an all-time high; 16,000 homeless families and persons with AIDS who will not receive vital housing and related services; and 97,000 jobs that will not be generated in communities that need them. Specifically, the House mark would: HOUSING FOR DISADVANTAGED FAMILIES · Fail to fund the Administration's request for 100,000 incremental housing vouchers at a time when worst case housing needs remain at an all-time high and time on waiting lists for housing assistance is growing. Despite a booming economy, the number of families with worst case housing needs-defined as paying over 50 percent of their income on rent-remains at an all-time high of 12.5 million people, including 4.5 million children, 1.5 million elderly, and 3.5 million persons in families on welfare. Families in the transition from welfare to work have a special need for assistance since housing.is typically their greatest financial burden. In addition, the amount of time that families wait for public housing and Section 8 housing vouchers has increased substantially in selected cities around the country from 1996 to 1998, according to HUD's recent report Losing Ground: The Impact of Proposed HUD Budget Cuts on America's Communities Page 2 cf3 Waiting in Vain . For the largest public housing authorities, the average wait for public housing increased by 50 percent to more than 2 ~ years. Nationally, the average waiting time for a Section 8 housing voucher has increased to more than 2 years. The proposed cuts would result in a total of over 128,000 families being denied housing vouchers. It would also eliminate the Regional Opportunities Counseling program, which provides critical assistance to families trying to move out of areas with high concentrations of poverty. . Fail to fund the rehabilitation of almost 28,000 units to create quality housing. The HOME Investment Partnerships program, a flexible block grant that helps communities build and rehabilitate housing, would be cut by $20 million compared to FY1999 levels. The HOPE V! program to replace severely distressed public housing with well-designed, mixed-income communities would be cut by $50 million, and public housing capital funds would be cut by $445 million, despite the huge bacldog of rehab and repair needs in the Nation's housing of last resort. · Slow down the fight against housing discrimination. The 6 percent cut in the Fair Housing Assistance and Fair Housing Initiatives Programs would deny the assistance needed by State and local fair housing agencies to process fair housing complaints and would deny funds to local communities who want to establish new private fair housing organizations where local public agencies do not exist. · Increase disadvantaged children's exposure to lead paint poisoning. Lead poisoning is the foremost environmental health risk to American children, especially poor children and those living in older, poorly-maintained housing. The $10 million cut in the Lead Hazard Control Grant program will mean that about 900 private homes will not be made lead safe, putting at least 600 iow-income children under 6 years of age at dsk of permanent developmental and health problems from elevated blood lead. HOMELESS AND PERSONS WITH AIDS · Deny assistance to almost 16,000 homeless families and persons with AIDS. Help for homeless individuals and families would be cut by $5 million compared with 1999 revels. Ten million would be cut from the Housing Assistance for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA), despite the fact that housing is perhaps the most critical unmet need for those suffering with AIDS. Combined, these cuts would result in almost 16,000 homeless people and persons with AIDS being denied essential services, including transitional and permanent housing, mental health counseling, job training and drug treatment. JOBS · Significantly under-fund job creation nationwide. Community and economic development activity under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program would be cut by $250 million from the level enacted in lggg, and $5 million would be cut from the job-generating Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. This means that approximately 97,000 jobs that could be created by these programs would not be. CDBG is a flexible source of funds used by local officials to create jobs, construct or rehab shelters for battered spouses and the homeless, make buildings accessible to the elderly and handicapped, help working families become first-time, homeowners, and other vital community development activity. The Brownfields program provides grants that leverage significant private dollars to redevelop formerly contaminated commercial and industrial sites. Losing Ground: The Impact of Proposed HUD Budget Cuts on America's Communities Page 3 of 3 * Included in the CDBG cut are drastic cuts from the Administration's requests for critical programs-the Community Empowerment Fund to develop and expand businesses in distressed areas; Youthbuild to prepare young people for careers through empowering construction and rehabilitation experience in their communities; and the Community Outreach Partnership Centers Program that allows colleges and universities to act as community building partners. And the House mark-up completely eliminated funding for vital techi~ical assistance and information systems improvement. · In addition to cuts as compared to FY1999 enacted levels, the innovative, newly-proposed America's Private Investment Companies (APIC) program is not funded in the Committee mark-up. Modeled after a highly successful Small Business Administration program, APIC would stimulate $1.5 billion in private investment in large-scale businesses in distressed areas, both urban and rural, every year-at very modest cost to the taxpayer ($37 million for credit subsidy and program operations). The proposed cuts would come at a time when too many communities are not sharing in our booming economy: · Some communities still struggle in the slow lane of the Nation's strong economy. As HUD reported in Now Is The Time: Places Left Behind in the New Economy earlier this year, close to one in three central cities had poverty rates of 20 percent or more in 1995%50 percent higher than the national rate. One out of six central cities had an unemployment rate 50 percent or more above the national rate. In fact, one in seven central cities faces "double trouble" continued high unemployment relative to the Nation as a whole plus either significant long- run population loss or persistently high poverty rates or both. These problems confront all regions of the country, cities, and counties, both large and small (66 percent of the doubly burdened cities are small or mid-sized with populations of 100,000 or less). Many rural communities are struggling as well, especially Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, Indian Country, and the borderland Colonias. These proposed budget cuts would move America in exactly the wrong direction. Despite our unprecedented prosperity, there are significant unmet needs in our Nation's communities. We should be expanding, not cutting, programs that meet these vital housing and economic development needs. Congress should fully fund the HUD budget, including 100,000 new Section 8 vouchers, America's Private Investment Companies (APIC) and other important initiatives. Appendix A: Comparison of FY99 Total Budget and Enacted Funds vs. Proposed Congressional Cuts in FY 2000 Mark-Up (Table) Appendix B: Potential Budget Impacts-Mark-Up vs. FY 99 Enacted, by Entitlement Community (Table) hi-tn.l/ .......hud ~a~/nr¢,-or l/la-aero, ri html 9/1/99 ~ Losir~g Ground: The Impact of Proposed HUD Budget Cuts on America's Communities Page 1 of 1 TOPICS hud nev~ auc~ence groups ow~ a home rental hetp homeless your community business consumer info complaints about hud reading room handbooks/forms ~Jds let's calk local info fed one-stops losing ground: the impact of proposed hud budget cuts on america's communities · Report Shows Cuts to HUD Budget Would Have Devastating Impact · Impact of Budget Cuts on American Communities · Losinq Ground: An analysis of proposed cuts in HUD's FY 2000 Budget Back to HUD News Page httn'//www hvd oov/r~ressrel/losin~rd.html 9/1/99 Potential Impacts of HUD Budget Cuts on Local Communities, FY 2000 Page I of 1 potential impacts of HUD budget cuts..on local communities, FY 2000 IENTITLEMENT COMMUNITY BLOOMINGTON DULUTH MINNEAPOLIS MOORHEAD PLYMOUTH ROCHESTER ST CLOUD IST PAUL IANOKA COUNTY DAKOTA COUNTY IHENNEPIN ICOUNTY RAMSEY COUNTY ST LOUIS [COUNTY MINNESOTA (other areas) TOTAL FOR STATE TOTAL DOLLARS LOST ]j322,000 !tl ,1~4,ooo 6,531,000 49,000 19,000 271,000 401,000 7,291,000 ,110,000 1,293,000 311,000 86,000 310,000 5,309,000 $23,487,000 JOB I'IMPACT ON ;IMPACT ON HOMELESS and ;HOUSING !PERSONS WITH !iiFOR ![AIDS z FAMILIES 81 ?,6 430 389 !162 ,567 7 '0 0 14 11 40 15 ~1 62 230 ;;18 952 45 '.~2 195 80 1 32 ?j2 0 '1 71 ',j5 3 578 "!30 369 1,605 i~138 2,370 1 Includes CDBG and BEDI, and assumes $2626 cost per job created-national average for CDBG entitlement communities from 94 GPR (most recent cost figure available). 2 Includes COC, ESG, and HOPWA, and assumes $1080 cost per person served for the COC portion (approx. 85% of the homeless dollars lost) (cost from '98 applications) and $284 cost per person for the ESG portion (approx. 15% of the homeless dollars lost). 3 Includes HOME, and assumes $17,520 cost per unit-average of national average for HOME rental assistance ($19,951 ) and HOME homeowner rehab ($15,088). Also includes Public Housing Capital and HOPE VI, and assumes $18,510 cost per unit-national average from Abt study of public t~3using modernization needs (as of June 1999). Includes housing voucher dollars lost, and assumes $5,700 cost per unit-national average. httn.//~,r~,r~,, hi~rJ r~n~rtmrPo~rPl/hnr~r~r~telmn html Oil lqq