The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-11-09 AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1999 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL ClIAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Con. vent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. ?here will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councihnenlber or Citizen so requests, in }vhich event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered itt nomlal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGY APPROVE AGENDA. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. *C. *D. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26, 1999, REGULAR MEETING. . . 3715-3720 SET PUBLIC HEARING FOIl ADOPTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. (SUGGESTED DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1999) ............. 3721 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO At. LOW A LOTTERY SYSTEM FOR THE COMMONS DOCK PROGRAM ........... 3722 PAYMENT OF BILLS ........................... 3723-3741 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. (PLEASE LIMIT Tills TO 3 MINUTF_S PER PERSON) REQUEST FROM R ~ESIDENT FOR TItE CITY COUNCIL TO DIRECT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF A FOUNDATION AT 3018 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE ......................................... 3742-3751 AGREEMENT WITH LMCC FOR I,OC. AL ACCESS ............ 3752-3773 INFORMATION/MISC EI~LAN EO US Financial Report as of October 31, 1999, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director .................................. 3774 Bo Planning Comtnission Minutes of October 25, 1999 ......... 3775-3780 Information from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) regarding Metrico~n Agreement ............................ 3781-3794 Letter frown lx~ah Weycker, Coordinator of the Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative ............................. 3795 ~,~~ f ~7-~e~ ~ ¢~ 3714 MINUTES - CITY COUNCIL - OCTOBER 26, 1999 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, October 26, 1999, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were Mayor Pat Meisel, Councilmembers: Andrea Ahrens, Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, Acting City Manager Fran Clark, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. The following interested citizens were also present: Shirley Andersen, Deb Anderson, Kim Anderson, Marshall Anderson, Sheree Archie, Beverly Barkley, John and Kristin Beise, Brenda Berent, Dan Berent, Alex Blackwell, Connie Blake, John Bussie, Martin Carlsen, Jane Carlsen, Tom Casey, Sue and Steve Cathers, Tom Cathers, Micheal Chern, Stacy Cothers, Bob Dorfner, Dean Ehlebracht, Wayne E. Ehlebracht, Mary Elliott, Tom Elliott, Katie Flann, Kim Gabby, Laurel Gabby, David Greenslit, Lorrie Ham, Jon Haulton, Robert W. Imes, Barb Johnson, Brian Johnson, Robert Johnson, Becky and Jones Jorgenson, Mark Kelly, Don Ketcher, Nancy Ketcher, Don Kohls, Jerry Kohls, Richard Lillehei, Tony lx>cken, Rod and Virginia MacCharles, Becky McVay, Eric Meisel, Peter C. Meyer, Jackie Meyer, Pat Murphy, Sheila Murphy, Tom Murphy, Dave Moore, Carol Perkins, Gary Petters, Collin Prouty, Steve Roberts, Jim Rumreich, Donna Saater, Jenny Scharland, Savana Scharland, Greg Severson, Ryan Severson, Toni Shaska, Eric Sharlow, Taylor Sherman, Shelly Shisman, Jo Sichender, Linda Skorseth, Samantha Skorseth, Martin Sulander, James Steffen, Julie Steffen, Christine Swansen, Jeff Thorson, Leo Uthecht, Kevin Walsh. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETENG - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Meisel stated she would like to add to the Agenda an Executive Session regarding the Woodland Point litigation after the Comments and Suggestions from Citizens. Councilmember Hanus requested Items A and D to be pulled from the Agenda. MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda with the removal of Items A and D and with the addition of an Executive MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 26, 1999 MOTION by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda with the removal of Items A and D and with the addition of an Executive Session. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. CONSENT AGENDA *1.0 CASE# 99-35: RF~OL~ON TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM EXISTING ONE; BLOCK 8, LOTS 8-20- 21-22, THE HIGHLANDS; 6033 CHERRYWOOD ROAD; RICHARD LILLEHEI, 61610, PID//23-11%24 34 0011. RESOLUTION g99-100: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM THE EXISTING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6033 CHERRYWOOD ROAD, BLOCK 8, LOTS 8- 20-21-22, THE HIGHLANDS, PID # 23-11%24 34 0011, P & Z CASE # 99-35, 61610. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. *1.1 CASE//99-38: MINOR SUBDIVISION; TO CREATE TWO (2) PARCELS FROM EXISTING ONE; BLOCK 4, LOTS 1, 2, & ELY 12' OF LOT 3, THE HIGHLANDS; 5869 IDLEWOOD ROAD; LAURIE KARNES & DENNIS CARLSON, 61610, PID # 23-117-24 42 0099. RESOLUTION g99-101: RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR SUBDIVISION TO CREAT TWO (2) PARCELS FROM THE EXISTING LOT OF RECORD AT 5869 IDLEWOOD ROAD, LOTS 1, 2, & ELY 12' OF LOT 3, THE HIGHLANDS, PID # 23-117-24 42 0099, P & Z CASE # 99-38, 61610. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. · 1.2 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AMONG THE LAKE AREA CITIES TO MEET THE AREA'S HOUSING NEEDS. RESOLUTION #99-103i RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF COOPERATIVE EFFORTS AMONG THE LAKE AREA CITIES TO MEET THE AREA'S HOUSING NEEDS. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. '1.3 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 26, 1999 MOTION. Weycker, Hanus, unanimously. 1.4 APPROVE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 12. 1999. REGULAR MEETING. Councilmember Hanus stated on page 3557, the first paragraph under 1.14 to be restated to read as follows: "Councilmember Hanus asked when this program would sunset and the Acting City Manager stated June 30, 2000." MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus, to approve the minutes as amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 5-0. 1.5 PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT. LANE HANSEN, 2057 ARBOR LANE. Councilmember Hanus referred to page 3580. He restated this issue involves an approval of a resolution that will allow an individual to do some improvements on City property at his own expense. Councilmember Hanus explained in the resolution there is a reference that the individual must improve an area using "native species" trees. Councilmember Hanus is concerned about making this section of the resolution so restrictive. He would like to strike this notation in the resolution to leave it open for other acceptable types of trees. Councilmember Weycker stated the fourth paragraph in the resolution should refer to the "Park and Open Space Commission" not the "Dock and Commons Commission." Tom Casey, a member of the park commission, stated the park commission deliberately put in the "native species" clause in the resolution. Mr. Casey stated this was disturbed property and the park commission felt they should recommend that the applicant replant the same species that was destroyed which was native species trees to the State of Minnesota. Mr. Casey would recommend keeping the restriction of planting "native species" trees in the designated area. Councilmember Hanus, Councilmember Brown, and Councilmember Ahrens agreed to allow the resolution to include the "native species" language which would include Basswood and Maple trees, but indicated they do not want to set a precedent by restricting applicants when they are using their own money to improve City property. Sutherland stated he would contact the applicant and inform him of the Council discussion regarding tree planting. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to accept resolution approving a public lands permit with specific change to the fourth paragraph of the resolution as noted above. RESOLUTION//99-102: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT FOR LANE HANSEN FOR THE PARK ADJACENT TO 2057 ARBOR LANE, PART OF LOT 7, SKARP & MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 26, 1999 LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 543. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. (PLEASE LIMIT THIS TO 3 MINUTES PER PERSON). Linda Skorseth, 5648 Alder Road. Ms. Skorseth stated she would like to submit a petition containing 102 pages with 830 signatures tonight to have the City act on it according to Minn. Stat. Sect. 205.10, subd. 1. Ms. Skorseth presented the petition to Mayor Meisel and she accepted it. The following persons supported keeping the ballfields on the School Distrist site: Wayne Ehlebracht, 4873 Shoreline Drive. Eric Sharlow, 2624 Westedge Boulevard. Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road. John Beise, 6643 Bartlett. Pat Murphy, 2044 Belaire. Bob Doffner, 4849 Glassgow Road. Jo Sichender, 3318 Fairview Lane. Becky McVay, 2999 Highview Lane. Deb Anderson, 6825 County Road 110 West. Brian Johnson, 2928 Westedge Boulevard. Gary Peters, 6200 County Road 26, Minnetrista. Greg Severson, 5636 Alder Road. Becky Jorgenson, 5758 Elm Road. Leo Uthick, 6825 County Road 110. Katie Flann, 5945 Sunset Road. Bob Johnson, 2928 Westedge Boulevard. The Council again told the residents that the property has a is sold and when, and if, the developer fails to follow through with the sale on December 15, then the property will be looked at again by the City. Linda Skorseth thanked the councilmembers for giving the citizens of Mound their time tonight. 1.5 EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION. The City Attorney explained the Council would meet in dosed executive session to discuss the pending Woodland Point Litigation. Councilmember Weycker was not in attendance at the executive session. The Council went into Executive Session at 9:40 p.m. The City Council returned from Executive Session at 10:05 p.m. The City Attorney stated that the Council has given him direction on how to proceed in this litigation. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 26, 1999 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS. A. Financial Report for September as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Dffector. B. Quarterly report from Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager. C. POSC minutes of October 14, 1999. D. Letter from MCWD introducing Glenda D. Spiotta, Planner & Program Manager. E. FYI - Letters in this weeks Laker. F. Park and Open Space Advisory Commission Special Meeting Agenda for October 28, 1999, including attached Resolution to amend Comprehensive Plan. G. Memorandum dated October 14, 1999, from Jim Strommen regarding progress with the NSP Tariff negotiations. H. Resolution to Ensure Access to Affordable Energy (undated). I. Minutes of the quarterly meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority of October 20, J. Letter dated October 22, 1999, from LMCD regarding rescheduling of the board meeting. K. Information regarding the 1999 Policy Adoption Conference for November 17, 1999. L. Letter dated October 24, 1999, from the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. M. REMINDER: COW Meeting on November 1, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Jim Prosser will be attending the November 1, 1999, meeting. Mr. Prosser will answer any questions the councilmembers have at that time. The Council has been instructed by Mayor Meisel to bring the information Jim Fackler put together regarding the docks. Councilmember Brown stated the planning Commission will be going through the Comprehensive Plan page-by-page at the next Planning Commission meeting. The Council will get their recommendations by November 23, 1999. Mayor Meisel suggested the Plannin. g Commission hold a special meeting to accomplish this page-by-page task because the November regular meetings will involve reviewing TIF. Staff was directed to set up a special meeting for the Planning Commission to discuss the Comprehensive Plan page-by-page. Councilmember Brown stated the Planning Commission reviewed the Park and Open Space Commission's Resolution to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and it was turned 5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - OCTOBER 26, 1999 down unanimously by the Planning Commission. Councilmember Brown stated paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 contained false statements. AD.IOURNMENT MOTION by Ahrens, seconded by Brown, to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Francene C. Clark, Acting City Manager Attest: Council Secretary CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing before adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. All interested citizens and public are welcome, The Comprehensive Plan provides the City with the framework to guide decisions for the next 10 to 20 years on issues related to land use, housing, transportation, public improvements, parks and recreation, and redevelopment. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk Publish in The Laker - November 13, 1999 CITY OF MOUND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City Council of the City of Mound will hold a public hearing before adopting the City's Comprehensive Plan. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. All interested citizens and public are welcome and encouraged to attend. The Comprehensive Plan provides the City with the framework to guide decisions for the next 10 to 20 years on issues related to land use, housing, transportation, public improvements, parks and recreation, and redevelopment. The Mound Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 8, 1999, and recommended approval. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on November 8, 1999. Francene C. Clark, CMC City Clerk Publish in The Laker - November 13, 1999 Section 437:05 Applications for an~ Issuance of Dock Lic. Subd. 5. FiroL ~im~ Application for a Non-Abutting Docking Site. Application must be filed with the City on or before the last day of February of each year. Applicants will be notified of whether they have been awarded a license by the first day of May. Selection shall be by lottery in accordance with such process as the City Council shall from time to time determine by resolution. PAYMENT BILLS DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1999 BILLS BATCH # t/9103 AblOUNT $240,482.46 TOTAL BILLS $240.482.46 P ~ G [ I 8 I A I U b II ^ S E J O U h: N A L :)i f!U UNL) ,A~ dUNI Pf ,(I<Jf'!ICN ................... AC C OLLNLNL/MB ER_ ._ ]1/09/99 ] ]/(,v/S ,: wESl(.}t~t t. IIE(..ttANI£AL CONIR* YLNl){~k WSo~;O ??82 11109199 ii /09,'VY Z(f ~4 ?'~1026 (~i~E ',AVAGE Z658~ 9VlOi& P,[ C'rr 11/09/99 Af!h 11109/99 ] VI 1.1/09199 1 V E h!t)hhl ~ f ,',1. PI{E-PA ID 10114/99 11/09/o9 ['i~ E ,-!'1,. Ih ]i/q2/'~9 ii,' 11/09/9V TO'T^L ALL VF_hf[' d;: ,',',:, CU'S 3/4" ........................ 73'r7300_-2300 .__ 'il -~ h 1010 I~'!:fl I',/,IN BREAK 10-10-99 7B-7800-3800 J; !H.-( D ................................... _lOlO _._ W~liI~N,',IN iSREAK 10-10-99 I :it_-( D 73-7300-3800 ................. 1010 i¢t t't,;l;t i', 2 HAIN BREAr, S 10/4199 i. HL--LI) 73-7300-3800 ........ iOlO._ ;.~i [!fl:Hl~Sf.~4EN'f FOR SUPPLIES 22-4170-2200 1010 i':I ulSIt-;^I10N RECXiLI.N6_ CONEER_ ....... ZOr4270rJ.100_ Irt,Il -(_D 1010 -1~-99 g 10-26-99 01-4030-3100 I,, t -<[) ............................ lOlO_ DEPOSIT i; u! -ti, 1010 i~,!ll I,lU5 :~ERHIT.REFUND ................... 01r.3251%0_~00 .... iNVOiCE NMt3R DAlE P:~li b~/,]U5 CITY OFFICE 5776.382 5R1399g SUPPLY ]110019? 103199 PRE-P,', I D 10/21/'99 }t),':'i/79 Ut:UH t ~FE tNSURi, HCE v', 2,', 2 ', Il, I,~&L['I{ONL WiSt i¥ [;ENblCKSON w54%2 971001 lilOql ~', ! l,' .':. Vi. Ni ;!!.: t IfAI. 991 ..101 ]1109109 } ~5571 27332 S E J O U R N A L HOUND ] 2,5~,',. /, ] ,', . h (I I . /fl ACCOUNT_ SUPPLIES 01-4140-2200 SUPF'LIE5 ........................... 01_-. ~ 190= 2200 SUPPLIES 01-4340-2200 SUPPLIES 01-4280-22,00 SURPL/E5 ........................ 71-F100.2200 SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200 SUPPLIES 78-7800-2200 101 .l:,' Nt -CD 101 lull), HASIER STANDt AUX, STAND 78-7800-5000 Jl~lit-(D 1.01 O( f 99 TOT'AL PR DEDUCTED/PAiD 01-2040-0000 w I 90 BETtlKE 46492 01-2040-0000 !](.1 V9 SCilUKLE 01-2040-1529 ~[ I r.)r'¢ 5/tt~ALBE 45464 01-2040-0000 .F: ',~t -Cb .............................................. 1~1~ i ~;I. - (.t) 101 ~( ! 99 CLEANING___SERY_JCE ............ 01:_428_0r_z,,2_0_0 (;~ ! 99 CLEANING SERVICE 73-7300-4200 Hf I 99 CI_[ANING SERVICE 76-7800-4200 ~( I 99 /.LEANIN~ SEHyICE ............ 01-43.Z~=4210 H, uL-CD ] 01~ U~,v v9 CLEANING SE_RVICE .......... 01-4320-4210 :~',~ ?9 CLEANING SERVICE 01-4280-4200 N'Jv o9 CL[ANING SERVICE 73-7300-42_00 f;( v 99 CLE Alii NG_ SERyI.CE ......... ~T78_0_0-4~00 . J~,' ql -CE) lOl' %;.1$ ')','[Al it. bOW ON HETER 73-7300-2300 5/.15 J!,rlL-Cb lOl( JOURNAL 049090 TBUE VALUE 2288123-2 72~R123-3 lJ /09/79 I 1/'O'Jl"'? 11/09/97 11/09/99 1 ] /gv,"y'? 11/09799 11/09/99 ] 1 r,,.,/ .~g ] ~,, jul?? ! i ", 11109199 11109199 11109/99 22'~181-2 ...... · ~.C C o_U J'LT~_ ~ U>J u,E FL_. _ ............................. Oltb28Or2.250 ...... 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 .................... J '/~, I !.tllNAIED PADLOCK 78-7800-2310 li.ld.-(D .................................... 1.01_0_ AND bAT'IERY CUP 01-4320-2300 ............................. 10.10 .... h'h^R R()OKST YLE 01-4040-2100 Id!/.R h'.OOKST YLE 01-4.].40-2100 rd,, AR BOOKST)'LE ............... 01:: ~', 28O_r 210.9 ........ Mb/,P [500K5] YLE 01-A090-2100 ,-rD lOlO ,~u,,~H,,~ [ LDLP LEGAL (i', 1010 li S 01-4090-2200 iLS ......................... It 5 01-4190-2200 IF5 01-4340-2200 ils ................... 9_!:_~_2 ~gz ~ 20.E ....... lES 71-7100-2200 lES 73-7300-2200 --( D 1010 I(F %LIPPLi ES 01-4090-2200 1~.[ '.,Ui'PL ~ [ S 01-.4140-2200 If ~ 5UPPLIrS 01-4190-2200 lk[ SUPPLIES t([. sur'pL lES 01-4280-2200 J([ SUPPLIES .................... 1CF SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200 ILE SUPPLIES 78-7800-ZZ00 J:HL-CD I~L %UPPLIES 148,967 176270 ] 70271 i4'J568 INVOI (L I,~][ d )1 !) DAlE jill i, tAIdS ]1/09/V9 ] I/I;V/ ; 11/091V9 } )I0-.'=; 11/09/99 ) ]t~ 111¢)0/99 11109199 'L 1 / 9'*/?"~ ]1109/99 ill(It-'/';? 11109/99 11109/99 I I/()V :v IH(); PF 9ISIRI~IjTING (o ~? IIHF SAVLR OFF ]i/Og/?? ] i I~'. ]1109/99 1 ],,'~: . ]1109/79 ]1/P.';"~9,, SITE :-;E(.N]::: v hbr~l: J.}i 'l_ 1110'2/99 t' ~ i~ ( H A S E J 0 U R N A L 049533 ION ........................ ACCOUNT MI %C} LL t, NE (jU5 71-7100-9550 ~H [ R 71-7100-9530 F,; LR 71-7100-g5~0 I';~{ Hi.t IIIiG pit{UT.ES .............. 01-k340~-4200 ~, il -~ I~ ]glo ~: 'il -(1) !010 ., :,/'. i 1¥ (our;clt .HlG_.l_O~-12-:9_9 ..... 0174020_-_310.0__ ):'!1l -(I) 1010 ,; ,',t rtL[lING 10-2_6r. 97 ........ Oi-&~_O_-41O0 _ J;-;tL--LD 1010 PI ^t;r4IllG COHH lG 10-25-99 ~ ................ 0.1-_~ 1 ,q 0 r~.2_O.O__ F~qI.-tD 1010 [. ) I ,t Lt)UNC 1L/.H_.F(!_M_TG__i~-_2_6-_[.~9 ...... 01_-~_020~_4._2_00 .... Ii: Iii -iD lOlO J,~ dl_-CD 11109/g9 11/0 ?/' q'~; ',,)ILAR[ S 01-4340-2310 01-4340-2300 iO1Q 191o. q;~. ;qvOJEE NH~R DAlE I)t,! ]1/09/99 ',(HI it"I~tI~(,LR 1HDUSIRIfS Vi ~tiF;i:: 11/09/99 ! 1105 11109/99 ll/u~- 51EPHF EIECIRI£ C0 ') Q SERVICE 11109/99 PRE-PI, Ii: ].0/22/';7 l-(u£.i, ' ~.%IEHS LLC 147!6 gS77 1! !qut,I~/~l:I[.5 If) G() 1 z,?50 /,12 (,18 11109/99 i', J' '-,":': 1]./09/9V i JtO'~. , 11/00/9~ 11/07/79 11/09/99 I .1. / 09/9',~ ION ........................... ACCOUNI. NU~IBER l!/,,l~:lAltl O?-13r99_IItRU_ 9--12-00 ......... 71-_7.300:r4200 _ W~ll -, ii lOlO '.>! ~i't't I~ 2 DEAD MAPLES 01-4340-5110 ,F'!~L .-CD _ 1010._ STORM DAMAGED BASSWOOD 01-4350-5110 ........................................... i010 l.i qt~:l D 2 IREES BRIGHI'ON/BRUNS 01-4340-5110 *,.iNI -~ I; ............................................. 1010 WIRES 0 i---;*~ =7-20-0- ---- 1010 ~,'1 lt, lil, AEROSOLc ST_j~_E_MI_ ............. 01.~41_40z2270 ~ t,q --: {) 1010 Iii[ ' It^RGES 0].-~,090-2210 INE CHARGES ..................... 01 r 419.0.~- 221. 0 I!4f C~,ARGES 01-4~80-~210 1~4[ [tiARGES 73-7300-2210 Ill[ ~HARGES ........................ 73-~800-2210 _ _ T:I[ ,1 flANGE S 01-4340-2210 '(I.) 1010 ,:' ;~7, I1[ It^INIEhlAHCE ................ O~ir>320r3100 .... ~"Ul --rD 1010 ENDING 10-17-99 01-4190-3100 lids WE£K El;DING 10-31-99 ;11. -( D 02-4190-3100 1010 VI NPOf? iNVUICE i)~it' JOURNAL iON .............................. A_ C C_O U2',' J. NU~':BER ._ 566-30 F 64 & 87 - 00 767321-00 7-00 11/09/9V 111091?9 11/07/o? 1]/09, 11/09/97 11.,'{!:]/ ~,~ 11/09/97 ] il/UD;'DV ] lin ..'77 11/09/99 :^,L ll~ ,,'INE & SPIb, IIS ,[-r.'l,{'i¢ li/O?/9V ! i ,'('?, /7 ] I /t;T/Dr'~ ] j /~),.. ; b/. 3] ~, t'?b';71 ' Ar'! T ?'~rL~LN ] 1/09/9V 71-7100-9510 ............................... 1010_ 71-7100-9520 .................................. lOlO__ 71-7100-9510 ................................... 1010_ 71-7100-9570 ................................... J~!O 71-7100-9520 ................................. !.O1. Q_ 71-7100-9510 ............................ 1010_ 71-7100-9510 ............................. 1010__ ~,, I V9 1RASH SERVICE 01-4320-3750 ii ~[ -t!; lOlO rOLlS 3AXADLE ...................... 7~-7100r°550__. 1010 ".i :i LLr, N[¢)US ................ 73~-7100r9550 x !;i '' I) 1010 C ? ?. 0 0 (,7% . ~,h] r ~[AR SAFELY COORDINATOR 01-4340-3i00 YIAR 5AFET~Y CO()_R. DIhI_A_'~pR .......... 01-42B_0-_3100__ YEAR SAFETY COORDINATOR 7~-7300-~100 ft AR SAFETY COORDINATOR Z8-7800-3100 IF:UI -([) ......................... lOlO ,," ,I[ ~ll PIC;<UP 70-4270-42D0 I.'NI -r l) 1010 200.n!) t.~i HI:HAI CLEANUP. DEp. O'[/WINDOWS_ 211(i.()!l J;" ~t -CD 1010 (.ASH 1637664 I' ,i f; C it A S E J O U R N A L ( I I Y ~}F HOUhlD ................................................. INVOI(E {~Ut ilr!Lb DATE bAIE 51AIUS AtlUi*nl bLbLHIPIION A C C 0 U]',I ]'___.I,~ U~H B E R_ PRE-PA 11/03/9~/ PAU%I IS g SONS WINE COMPAN V~ HI~()I< IUIZ, L - 30855291 PEPSi-COLA COMPANY' vLN{)ON lol ~L P~O~ 1 5~,6g01 llI09/~V I I/ ,,"~v 11109199 ii/ 59O088 11/09/99 1],'t 9/?o ]1/0~/99 ')','1 I 10 '-q ' h ;t PI IHI!,H PEITY CASH HISC ITEM 01-4140-2200 a',. ,~ .};::HI-CD ............................. 1010 ,,11'f ,ifF WlNDSttlELD WASttER 01-4280-2250 wit'! rH I' WINDStlIELD WASHER 73-7300-2250 wll'[ull WIliDS. ItlELD_~ASJiER ........... zgr780.0.2250_ _ PHi --(D 1010 71-7100-9520 l?~:.cn Iii× 71-7100-9540 126.~,0 H Ill-CD 1010 ~.')0 HIX 7!-7100-95~0 3.F/',. ,,$ ';HL-(D, ............................. 71_- Z1.00-9J20___ 1010 ';: , . '/. ).:Ill -< D 1010 il, .~ : ! t' ~ il t AHEOLI5 .............. 71y71.00-9.540 ___ i!, .:,r, u ~,'I-~ D 1010 ~ ~',., I ] :,~il',! TIES 71-7100-9550 :] ,,., ,' J ,'Il[ -CD .................................... lOi. O ~'t,' .,,r, ( 1 ,3A*~I I lES 71-7100-9550 / ~,S.~ ,, It! r{{ -({) .............................. 19],0_ ~;~.<t ()( I H~V DFC 99 INSECT CONTROL 01-4320-4200 ;'~'.,.! H:4I -( D 1010 ,';5.{)n M,,HI lURING 1111/997-_04-_.30-2000_ _ _ 01-4280-420Q__ 45.un m~ltt ]()kING 11/1/~9--04-30-2000 73-7300-4200 ~',.OU Hr~qIIOR ING 1111/99--04-30-Z000 78-7800-4200 135.Un .J~Illt-(] U 1010_ 11/1/99--04130/2000 71-7100-398" ....................... P t, (:, [ ] 1 AP-( b2-i~l ti(). lqv'OIC£ NMBR DAI'E H ~ b E JOURNAL ICl I9It ....................... AGCOUN.T NUMBER___ t.l(*Ut.U) f 1;,~[ PLf'/,FIt. If.;,If 11109/99 1110:,,/97 RELIEF 95-9500-1400 1010 .... PRE-PAID 10120109 10t20/'/',~ 1(;5.?~ t}l Il I IY 131LLIt,IG POSTAGE 78-7g00~3210 ~t? 11 1 ly BILLING POSTAGE 73-7300-3210 Ii; NL_-' l) ............................... 1010~__ 793 []25 11/00/99 ] 11n7/'79 11109/99 11/09/99 1 1/09/'7u 73 ? I . 2? I '5 2 (} 5362 11109/99 1 ?.37 ,,''.!Il 11~[ ] 7.%? t; !11 -ED 13.12 @ 1.33 73-7300-2210 1010 580 11/09/9V J.l ,7 / -', 73-7300-2210 1010 ,0', 5t9 ] i/0'//','" 17.05'8 @ 1.359 /3-7300-2210 1010 h57/? ~uiO31 hlF XI[L (.OMHUNICATIUr,~s, Il,lC 103199 10121/99 3i;/?l/ /,?,.u': ~, 1 '-'9 .10/21 DJ. P_D_NOy__P_{t_E.MIU.M ...... 01.-_2_040-0u00_ NCPLH$ vi IJDOF, I0I AL. 47~.t)(' P3v!,r) 105179 PRE-PAID 10121199 .5,e,z?.[, ,. 1 09 PEPA 10/21/99 DATE PD O1-20z, O-O000 0,877.1I~ ;; NI. -CD .................................... 1010,__ LC 3199-A PRE-PAID 11104199 11/U&,")'/ 7,27v.x,. (~ I ',,9 PERA 11104/99 DATE PD 01-2040-0000 7,,f ? 9. ~,'. F,' N[_- (L~ .................................. 101~_ P [ t,~ A vLtll)()lz It}l;,! I 0 f' i~ ~i ~ H A 5 E J 0 U R N A L , 1 1Y Eli HntlND ...................................... [HHICE 991019 10/01 /99 I ,3/0 /':? V[!i[()[< lql AL MIEH[ [ tg I.L£×ANDER 11109/99 ] 110915°9 V L 1-: DI)l~ lh'l AL PEE-PAID t0/20/99 10/20/99 PRE-PA I O P!?[-P;, ID 10/07/99 2 "/ '' '!'- ?-^ ]{J/d1/?? ] : I ,':{ 11109/99 PRE-I'A I D ]0/09199 t 0/09 /:,'9 it~} ~'531S 9~9930 tit; ! i f'f OF "~{~,S5 lr ;199 ~h I!_,~M' l[h'S LOCAL 320 H34;'8 117~,8 11109/99 .... Ac. C_O_U ~J__ N_~J~ b I v9 qWANSUN, t. 46996 01-2040-0000 I ;'? :,IUISMAN ........................ O_l-919_.q_-lSlP_ ...... I 99 qAHL)(,~UICoT, L ($196.70) 73-7300-1510 I ?'/ ',Atd~(~UIST, LOiS 78-?800-1510 I '~? ',A'II)WUIST, E._ (~196.70~___ 73p7300,-1510 ?V '.AHDroUIST, g. 78-9800-1510 9'0 IltARALSON, RAMONA 01-4140-1510 ~ ? ~ RAf I, HERHAN ............ 01~4140r15].0~ ~ ~ RAF 1, LUVERN 01-4140-i510 ?? ~:NAUSE, JEAN 01-4280-1510 1010 ?!>?.:,.? ; r l'tiHIh",tr.~ENl F'RINIER CARTRIDG 22-4170-2100 292. d':,~ I;-' ~,tL - (I) .... l_O~l O_ !,70(!.0(] ,*!']H!U1P. S[°.ENI DEPENDENT CARE 01-2000-0000 1,700.00 J:.H~ -~{) 10 L'S?.',,q ,~ 1 '/9 ORdUP #9548 237.VA t; 'IL-( D 1010 57;,F': '" ; ;'/ t:JrCtJP, g JAYK{) 10/7 PD 01-2040-0000 b;';'. ;:,' ~, t:l -t I) ..................................... 1010_ 579.,".' :,, i ',,u HICCUIt g JAYKO 10/21 PD 01-2040-0000 S??.."/ ~: ';I -' D ........................................ 101_0_ ] l[":.',i' ',At. ES USE TAX 71-2042-0000 lAX 73-2042-0000 ...................................... 10 !0_ t,;?.ns ~,( I ',,9 ,~),! TEAH.SIER$ 10/07 PD 01-2040-0000 /l. " ',~. ] I (iii .S ............... 01-?,280_-2310 ,',!. '. ~: t:i -{l) 1010 MOt~hOF TRUCK [(OUIPMEt,IT M3491 ~16R6 45n.Ur, ,i"~';(,~IPIION THRU 12-31-2000 22-41Z0-4130 11/09/99 11/0'¢/'/9 450.00 .Il /4L-CD 1 V[.NI~uR IH'vUi(k HO. IWVUICE Nv,~R DATE t.. t It A S [: J 0 U R N A L ~ i I~ UI HOUHD ........................................ ;d L<.:II'IiLIN ...................... ACCOUHT NLI~iSER.. PRE-PA][) lvt,',', hl I~li~i~!'h[~EN1 PRE-lAX HEDICAL 01-2050-0000 lO] .'.~1 JR :11_- ," I) .................................... 1010 LT Uh/, h'[, H ~016 6,S$3 (,fi S 5 ,5070 6 0 91 F FO 7 ¢,?: S 11/09/09 ] ]/O':'/V',~ 11/09/9V' ] 1]/09/9o 11 /09/'/'-' ] 1/09/?g. J/ '~ ,' / '~' J*:';L-'( D 10i0 ,.r I ~,,,S/,iOitN~(;~-[_)ELI VERY 71-7100-9600 ~; HI .-(D lblO iii ( ! I~,'.)Y [)EL IVERY 71-7100-9600 Jh'NI -CD 1010 F, NI -(1) lOlO ........................................ ;: tAS[5 DELIVERED 10-~1-99 71-7100-9600 :'wL -{(3 1010 E It-rD 1010 ~.7F4 (gL, tS DELIVERED 10-25-99 71-7100-9600 HI-CD 1010 .',,v (~:>{ S DELIVERED 10-28-99 '71-7100-96fl0 7,1754 11 /i:'./ - }." . 5.30 _ 101 : 1/Oq/ :9 764 206 J.l/Ugl s~ '.'..': t :'.:,LLL/.N£t)US IAX,~.L~LE ............ 7j.,_71_0_0_-9%4.0... · ' '.,', ;i'qt -el) ................... ZlrZlOpr ~_53q . 101[ l;' ,1/, }ut. )/ PR1 AND PP, 2 01-2040-0000 BEIHKE 46993 ........ O1-20.40uOOO0 !~0%] ~OM 46969 01-~040-0000 HOFF, EUGENE 01-42~0-15] D HUDSON 46975 ............. Ol.- 2_0~ O~ OOO0. ,JOtINSON R. 46971 01-2040-0000 ROY ($524.91) 01-4140-1510 ~oY. A67~8 o?2_oj qmo.R~ o_ l(*,'..gU (I/ I 99 SHUKLE 46997 01-2040-0000 ,~t~ 42,',.01 U( I 99 5tIdKL£ CITY PAID 01-4040-1510 .............................................. 1~6. ,'0 UC 1_ ??__~_W.~t]j.~O9~6 _ 01~.S~.~ap_~?A~ 11.109199 11/07/99 11109199 '.J(JltNS!IN F~R(JS LI(~UOR CO J;-'SRS ';','] 004-A V[NDOI~, [lilAI. PRE-PAID J0/0(,/99 ] VLIII)IIF, I!ll ,.~t F'RE-P A I D 11/03/99 1]./0~/~9 JUN ',IITH~ IILANLI 029 ' ???S '~ .'., hT L Z F} ~! c. ]!I09/'77 J ] ~' ," -", L2g] ; ] "~ ? L2~.J 7 ](;5179 PRE-PAID , Ill[Al ~ :~ ~ ti t, S L J 0 U ii ri A L , I I t ,~! 1';4~LIHD ........................................... iq :,(.!iii { l(il,{ .................... ACC.OUN_I.$UHBER__ 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9510 lOlO 7].-7jf0-9520 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 HI t HbLjI~%EHE N'[_ M ED Ii: AL_E_X__P_[NSF_._____.0Z-_2050_-,0 O00 ....... l; HI -( D 1010 tq ~l!hP OH ESCPOW ACCOUNT 01-2300-1075 .II:i~L-({) ............................................... !~t!ilffd]NL( REIMBURSFHENT 70-4270-4120 :. ~L-;[) ....................................... 3_01_~ .... ,t, i '/.~ It [:VAI(~ft SE._RylCE_ ........... 0i.-4.~20-~A200 I. 'ii -, !> lOlu Nr,v u9 [LFV/'lg.~ SERVICE 01-4320-4200 H'tlt -'.b 1010 ,~3,II i:i At;I) I%JSIN£SS CARDS I;. ;,;1 -~ i) .................. 1 glo lINT METER 03-~,3 40-2300 1010 t,Li vV HC<INLD_Y .03_3 .................... 01-2..040'~0000 ...... l, I 9u Cd<AND 014 01-2040-0000 (i, I 79 fill, DX 045 O1-20Z, O-O00O ]0/2]/9? ] .1/09/?? iii{)'//,:': 12378 '/~; ~ ~04 PRE-PAID 10/06/99 10107/99 ] r., ~ ~ 99-A PRE-PAl D 10121199 J /4f) 0 37~8 PRE-PAIl) 11103/<:9 tlI'JVI?/ . ' -'; ~ ]./(iq/99 :: 11/09199' 11 /07/';'? i i,'" - JOURNAL ] 17.L:' ? ~ ~. '? ,', ..................... AC CP..UN T~tt,~U~E.B ..... 1010 ,i"¢ t~,*i ttll4E MAIN 10/24y-_11/0{. ..... 0t_-4140-21z, 0 _ ,: hi -~ !~ 1010 I t 1~: ['A'~H[NI F'kNALI'Y 01-4090-4100 I~-HL- f D ...................................... 1.010 __ rh I 79 HI(£UIt, DAN PAYMENT 01-2040-0000 ~: :a -,'.0 ................................... 1910_ _. :n J '~'~ t~I[CUH, DAN PAYM['HT 01-20~5-0000 I;':,!t -( D .......................... 1.010__ ~iL f Ii l'ER 98 CHEV LdHINA 01-4140-3810 (~I I. F! ~ ~ IR 98 ..DpDGE_._DUR__Atj_GO ........ 0_1-_4.!_40_%_3810 ~I ~I<H WOqK 98 CHEV LUMINA 0i-4140-3810 ~! z,l ,1RI K[:PAIR 97 ASTO VAN 01-4140-3810 01-4140-38~0 F-:~L -CD 1010 Zhl(! i;I.r AIR ......................... 01.%4~340-~810 I ~.~ -~.l: !010 li/U9/9¥ l]l'~r 11,'09/?? : 1/0'¢ ¢9 h 1010 ' :qt ilin IN_q ,CII[)H5 01-3254-0000 lOPS 01-4320-2300 -(D 1010 VLI4h()R ]NVO]CE [:UE tt'~[ h I,~r/. lqVOlCE NMOR DATE DA;E 3 IAld5 G I [ t'~]HNESu1A G]gfis LIFE uTILu000024 11/0o199 J. 1/t)9779 COURIY [;IJc~LIC WOE 001 !1/09t?9 11/09/~9 1i1')~ .'* 021 HOH[ l)i r'OI/GECF 12Jo] 1;~3199 I : !~ ( H A S E JOURNAL AC C_O UI~_ .J,'U g L~ E/i_ _ ],lkU 10-19-99 01-4090-3220 IIlRU i0-i9-99 01-4280-3220 TttRU 10-i9-99 73-7300-3220. ltIRU 10-19-99 ................. 78-7800-3220 10119/99 472-3711 01-4140-3220 5lANCE THRU 10719/99 01-4340-3220 blAHCE IHRU I0/19/99 01-4909-3220 51AN(E IttRU 10/19/99 01-4040-3220 3.1I).(~! n( 1 V9 %tttJKLE CITY PAID 01-2040-0000 9.~0 (~t 1 9't 51ILILLF ~lg.R1 ii ',q --~ I) 1010 j, (; (l . (j [) ti~ l! IIY PERMITS (2) 73-7300-4220 lO0.i~tl II, ri~ -LI) ..................................... ~ ! I'AIR LiHG 11IC 01-4140-3820 l; Il -{ l) 1010 .... ' ,',I,P ,ARD 5E_P._T_?9 ................. 01_-/d].0-_4250_ _ _ ; ::l , I~ 1010 ?L ti! :'HL V F:I I -( D NG FUND HAY-AUGUST99 16-2222-0000 ..................................... 101_0.__ ]1/09/79 111'v9199 ) ;,'~ 1]/09/99 I iIbV/ :~' I)R[-I'AID ]0/07/99 l!l i}ll:()'_,ll ~2200 54-5600-3100 h,!ll -~ P ........................................ 1010_ _ lhi~J ~ ',AW. 5]/~ND, BLADE 01-4340-5000 r: '~l -'~b 1010 10/07 D A.T E__P__AJ D__ _ ....... o ;-__-!PA C.-_ o 2o o 1010 PA(,[ 5 AP-(_ 02-(~1 Ur.~. i'.'~/',!ICE NI-ibR [)ATE i t i. tl ~', 5 E J O U R N A L ,.1 Y t~l HuUND. ................. ACCOU_NT_ NL;MBE~ . G1 ,%q (i 11109/99 22-4170-5150 ............................... lOlO__ GL! II,.,,(>t)) INGLEWOOD O},'?~,F 50o3,:,2 31109/99 <," I !;r,[;>S 11109/99 3.1109/99 PRE-PA] l) r: i< [ - [, .,', Zg/2j /gt- ~0 . ;'0 3[}. ,"0 ~,,t. fi I~ C.{)()t. ER 01-4020-2200 ,~'t llt~! ~ flUt_ER 01-4140-4100 J;. r~t. - ({) .................................... i010 1 ~ , ': (, 3 ~.,', ti [< (()UI_[R 01-4020-2200 Ct Il i< (_~IOLER_ ....................... 0~-.4140-_¢+100 .... ~..' ir R (rlUt ER 01-4320-2200 I~ ,~1 -~ D 1010 , ,'t-;i~ul~ b,l,:tJCH_ SEI ¢ /'Ri~Of,I PRtICH SET 73-7300-2250 { /,i<U(}l{ [~ld.ICH SET 78-7800-2250 ~! '4L -r:l) ............................. 1.q.~_O __ 01-4340-3820 1010 lO/O,:' PA_T_E PAiD ....... 1010 ?,,'~ -.,, ; '~) 20/21 DATE_PAI.D~ .......... 01-_2.040-_00G0_ ,', :,' .h:: i. :i --: {~ 1010 ~'[ bi LiFE ASSdHALrE[ ~'i. tJi,,~!( t.,{ ".L 1110919<,) 122306 11/U9/99 ] 71-7100-9510 ........................... 1010__ 71-7100-9520 ...... !ozQ_ 1?6319 1 / ', 318 ] 1/O<~/gV Ii/ :]"?/'~ 5 "2 . ',, p'rH. -, I) 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9520 ............................... 10!0 Ti ! [ PHONE !HRU 10-19-99 01-4320-3220 it I_~ PiIuHE THRU 10-19-99 01-4190-3220 I[.LEI'tIONE TttRU 10-19-99 01-4340-3220 · ~ ..... ',., ';" .... ~ f'T- '-' '~" . .... .. 73T PA(if 4 AP-( U2-nl VE N"~tlR Ih, VOICE hHBR [)ATE D,~IE 11/09/99 ] 1/uv/~"/ .t. P[ TERSON CO. E15] 5 v';1 025 E-Z i,,[ C.¥( I F157~ 9v! 201 F17] 0 9~1 025 Ff{Ah(.~ U~ CI. Af<K F1720 9~1001 G1750 11/0~/99 J ]1/09/99 VLHD[)r~ If~l Al PRE-PAID 10125/99 11/09/99 1 I/Ot,'/V9 ?{,c 75 11/09/'99 J i1( ',Iv': 'J I /0';/99 ] i / '~' / ~'- 11/09/99 I]t0~.//'~ G ,~. r S!I-:VlC£S G17ol 4,.gO ]1109/99 I ] 1:1'~,'';~ 11/09/99 J 0 U R N A L AF:O tll;} 7 ] ?. ': 0 0, i;'V. 3S 2S . ;$ d (, 0 . 00 £/0. HO 6 b. 10 ;; 5. ] 0 ."~ 5. ] 0 ', . ,! q 5.23 5.73 2 ] . 50 21 14.39 14 .',h7.16 I 3OO Ll':li ! I')N ........................... ACCOUNT NUt~BER. 1010 tut F'rJI .-I !1 1010 ,ti~*g~ ull, I jUN ONE YLAR 22-4170-4110 m ~ ~,uu'f~ s~Ae ~¥ ........................... o~-zoso-oooo i010 . ¥i('tS ?HR~ 09_~-_30-99 I:' i,q - ~ h 01-4399-4100 lOlO ", · i } 01-4280-2250 78-7800-2250 01-4280-2200 73-7300-2200 I010 1010 22-4170-2200 1010 01-4320-4210 1010 71-7109-4210 1010 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 01-4280-2200 73-7300-2200 ...................... Zgz.Z~gq-~ou 1010 %: ,~IL(HI~ICAL EVALUATION REPORT 30-5640-3100 Ar-( !.ltl. ] U ;01C[-_ IHVOICE :':~{ !t';tr' DAlE i:;If ,1Al 11/09/9u 11 /0'?/ ;7 i J /h',/ -PAir) $ ? '3g 7 5,', 3107 k/',31 SlbE BEVgF, AGE }[ 1,,71 791025 t1!'J91'79 I/i , '- ) j 1 lO 9/,.,r. 11/¢19IU~ il/n`. 11/09/99 i ].,il'-' )'.~ t [' ;~, : !! A 13 t J 0 U R N A L { I { ¥ ~)1 nf}UND .......................... t ! .I :; I I'l i~)tq ................ ACCOUH.T_ ,', ~ i~ 71-7100-0530 i, 'J --I [~ ...................... lOlO i~i i f~ ?1-7100-9530 J:~4~ -(1~ ............................. 1010 _. ,'1 ' !! I ~,Ni I)IIS 71-7100-9550 hi u 71-7100-9530 !i'Hl -<.l; ............................. lOlO_. :'. i i) 71-7100-9530 I)!- H T Al i~{ HI Al Otl iH tllAI ()CT {;[ t;l Al. OCT l,! :;I Al 021 id !i I AL [;i r,i/,.[ OCT ) ,v ~ J: tJ{ -I [) C)L T OBER 99 01-20~.0-0000 ('CT 99 ¢.ETHKE 66993 01-2040-0000 99 ROY CITY PAID 01-~,140-1510 99 ROY 46968 01-2040-0000 99 SHUKLE CiTY PAID 01-4040-1510 99 KRAUSE 01-4~80-1510 99 SCHERNAU 71-7100-1510 99 HOFF 01-4280-1510 ~9 S A ND[o_U 1 ST .......... 73_-_7. 300 _-_1 S ! 0 °9 S AND~UI ST 78-7800-1510 ?? SIUTSMAN 01-4190-!5!0 ~n~0 ' ,il AH::':jLI.% iAXAbLE 71-7]00-c~550 ; :~ -~ ,, lOlO ................ ii-:7-J-~ 8z 9 5-5 o ~o~o ~o~o ~010 ............. [OlO 7~-7~00-9530 ] 010 I'iJr~nt_{; IAHKS t,.75 fiRS @ 150.00 ..78-7800-4200 JOURNAL ION ................... AC.C 0 UN ]'_ _N U.~B £R 11109199 '/~ I .c', H:'il -, I) 101:0 Ct~RqILL bALl DIVISION VEHL~ }h 01-4340-3520 ............................................. 10~199-A ( lI¥ (sUNIY CREDIT UHIUN Pi{f~-PAI9 1§t07/99 ]0/07/v~ PRE-PA I O Z0/21/99 5,4? 7 11/09/~? 1 ). / 0 .~," ?',/ r I>',','O ';'.I'~;'5 Pi<[-PI,][> 1110319? ,Ii: l~tI~,'J[. {,)~1 BLDG PERMll. 13281 22-4170-5000 r, Nt.- i) ...................................... 101~ 11 11 09199 ,~t ii !,! t, HD SLWER 71-7100-3740 I! HL- D ....................................... 101.0 i!~!'i ; vH[N1 .AD 78-7800-3190 J!!uL-CD ............................................ ]_._01{ ] i IOqlUV ] I/n' ;,4 ] ] / 0 9 / u ~ (:ON([ ['1 LANDSCAPING, IN(. % [llO5 991921 11/09/99 71-7100-9540 101 71-~1(J0"9540 101 ,:,,,~"_:,;~ J !41 -{L) 101 Z,09,!.t.r) i:fH~)VAL oF DOCKS 01-4350-4200 2.o9z.0o Jf,'NL-CD ................................................... ;2('547 ~'"] q(,5 175g1700 ]11U91')9 1 1/~ .,' - V! !,[. I, iai 11/09/'79 ] i v ,':,"? 11/0,o/99 ] i 1091'¢9 ] 1/09199 I I ]1tO~,//9~,' ] 1/,: ';,.'::,~ (Hf;UL{)hl [S/[AL£-I fl'E': ;'i I:i;~!i,, 1"I !',L :1[ !!')LIND JOURNAL h,20 . i~ "I -"¢ ](,,/U7 DATE PAID 01-2040-0000 i' '!1 -,[) ............................... 1010 ..... {'ALE PAll) 01-2040-0000 . . 10lO 10-22 fr~~) 22-4170-22!0 10-22-99 75-7300-2210 ......................... 1010_._ ] ,i/,t, .OX !:~!4{ ' ?, :, ! . 0 I) '.' b , (I U 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9510 1010 71-7100-9S10 1010 ........................ 5_s_-_ 5.~.8 a_-_5.1.~ o ..... ] 010 5575830_-3.100 1010 .................. 55:5~82r!19o 1010 ',L!l'li~n~ SERVIEE SEPT ¢9 71-7100-4340 1010 01-4320-2300 1010 ir hL-- l) 1010 ~i PAIF: ,r}F RECEI[?TIU.N._IY_P_E.~'RI_T_E_ ...... 01---4320%2300 .... J~ t~l -'(D 1010 November 5, 1999 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX {612) 472-0620 Ferner E. Johnson 3018 Island View Drive Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT REQUEST FOR A NEW FOUNDATION @ 3018 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE. Dear Mr. Johnson: As we discussed on the phone, a building permit cannot be issued without the prior approval of a variance by the City Council based upon the nonconforming status of your dwelling and the city zoning ordinance section 350:420 (note the zoning sheet and ordinance attached). According to your survey dated 4-8-88, the dwelling is located 3.1 feet to the south side and 18.7 to the front where a 6 and a 20-foot setback is required. This is the same information that I originally gave to your contractor the first time we discussed the issue however, I was not aware at the time that we were discussing your property. Your foundation is in need of repairs which can be done without a variance, however if it is totally replaced and the crawl space is expanded into living space it is likely that staff would recommend to the councit tha. the house be moved to a conforming location. When you and ! met orLsite we discussed the fact that your application was incomplete and you would need to identify the proposed change in impervious surface and provide a proposed floor plan and cross section that details the existing and proposed work. To clarify, you stated you have about 6'-2" crawl space height and you intend to drop the floor to get about 8"-6" and create habitable space including a bathroom. I have also included a copy of the city attorneys correspondence confirming what I had initially informed your contractor. Restated, your alternatives are to appeal staff's decision to the council, apply for a variance, move the dwelling to a conforming location eliminating the need for a variance (pending conformance with other applicable regulations). Please contact me @ 472-0614 - or in my absence, Loren Gordon our City Planner @ 338-0800. I will be on vacation the week of November 8th. Respectfull~f.,.~- Building Official JS:br printed on recycled paper ORDINANCE NO.103-1999 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NONCONFORMING USE CRITERIA BY AMENDING SECTION 350:420 OF THE MOUND CODE OF ORDINANCES The City of Mound does ordain: Section 350:420 of the Mound Code of ordinances is amended by repealing existing Subd.9 and Subd. 10, and adding the following: 350:420 Subd. 9 Nonconforming principal and accessory structures may be expanded, enlarged, or modified, or conforming structures could be added provided that the use of the parcel is conforming to district regulations, and provided that the expansion, enlargement, or modification meets the current zoning regulations and no other nonconformities are created. In the event that a nonconforming structure is removed, razed, or demolished, all newly proposed construction must meet current zoning regulations. Mayor ATTEST: /~..~~~ (~, City Clerk Adopted by the City Council on July 27, 1999 Published in The Laker August 9, 1999 Enclosure CC: Fran Clark, Acting City Manager John Dean, City Attorney Loren Gordon, City Planner MEMORANDUM To: Fran Clark, acting city manager From: John Dean, city attorney Subject: 3018 Island View Drive The owner of the referenced property has applied for the issuance of a building permit to replace the existing walls and floor of the basement. The project will also include lowering the basement floor so that the basement ceiling height will be approximately 7 feet 6 inches high. The structure in wlfich the basement is located is a nonconforming structure. The nonconformity includes the front yard and the south side yard setbacks. Under these circumstances, work on the structure is permitted under certain limited circumstances, including: 1. Restoration of the structure to a safe condition when it is declared unsafe. 2. Normal maintenance including necessary non-structural repai;rs and incidental alterations. 3. Alterations wlfich improve livability of residential units (subject to the approval of the city council) 4. Expansions, enlargements or modifications which meet current zoning regulations and do not create nonconformities. My analysis of those circumstances, based on the information which has been provided to me is as follows. 1. I am informed by Jon Sutherlund that the building does not qualify as unsafe, and that it would not be accurate to refer to the work as a restoration to a safe condition. 2. It does not appear that the scope of the work would qualify as either normal maintenance or as non-structural repairs. 3. I am not sure that tlfis l~ravision was intended to apply to single family homes, but even if it does, council approval is required before the building permit could be issued. 4. The proposed work does not meet the current zoning regulations due to the fact that it encroaches into the setback areas. I understand that the city plmmer and the building official have reached similar conclusions. While it is entirely possible that the council may interpret the relevant ordinances differently, I must conclude that absent such direction from the council, it would not be proper for the staffto ignore what seems to be the clear meaning of the ordinance in order to issue the requested permit. JBD-170958 MU220-5 The applicant is entitled to request the council to overrule the interpretation of' staff, or to take other options available under the ordinance If either you or the applicant have any other information which may bear on this decision, I would encourage you to let me know. JBD-170958 MU220-5 FA X C 0 VER SNEE T CITY OF MOUND 5341 MA YWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 PHONE: 612-472-0600 FAX: 612-472-0620 TO: FAX: FROM: Jon Sul:herland, Building Official DATE: TOTAL PAGES PURPOSE: your information Take appropriate action __ As you requested Review and return As we discussed __ Reply to sender For your approval Other (see remarks) REMARKS: MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 350:420 .Section 350:420. Nonconforminq Uses. Subd. 1. Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Chapter may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date. Subd. 2. Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent restoring of a structure to safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the City, providing further that the necessary repairs shall not constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of such structure. Subd. 3. When any lawful non-conforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non- conforming use. Subd. 4. Whenever a lawful non-conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if it be reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity, unless the damage to the building or structure is 50 percent or more of its fair market value as shown on the assessor's records at the time of damage in which case the whole thereof shall be demolished and any construction thereafter shall be for a use in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Subd. 5. Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter. Subd. 6. A lawful non-conforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to a similar non-conforming use or to a more restrictive non-conforming use. Some non- conforming uses are permitted by conditional use permits. Once a structure or parcel of land has been placed in a more restrictive non-conforming use, it shall not return to a less restrictive ncn-conforming use. Subd. 7. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful non-conforming use is permitted, including necessary non-structural'repairs and incidental alterations which do not extend or intensify the non-conforming use. Subd. 8. Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful non-conforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units, with the recommendation and approval of the City Council. 21 3/15/93 MOUND CITY CODE SECTION 350:420, SUBD. 9 9. Nonconforming residential properties that have ' va~ ance approval within the past 15 years for principal cks and/or accessory structure setbacks (except ks), lot area, lot depth or width, hardcover, and/( e may be improved by adding a conforming additJ to the princi 1 structure, adding a conforming detache~ accessory bt or adding a conforming addition to a accessory buildinc provided that any nonconforming deta ed accessory building the principal structure are in condition as determined the Mound Building Official. Furt] , impervious cover on lots shall be compliant with Se~ 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. of e Mound Zoning Code or shall )t exceed the amount allowed under variance approval. Subd. 10. R condition may be principal stI building, or adding building, provided standards after appl properties hay' one (1) nonconforming · oved by adding forming addition to the by adding a ~ detached accessory conforming a, to a detached accessory .t the prop~ complies with the following of one nonconforming condition: ae B. C. D. E. .... F.-- Lot- Zon G. Imp Side Yard Mound Zoning Front Yard Setbac Mound Zoning Rear Yard Setb Mound Lot Area of Zoning C Lot 90% of the Zonin( - 90% of the Code 5% of the setback required by the 75% of the setback required by the 90% of the setback required by the lot area required by the Mound t area required by the Mound required by the Mound ved Street Frontage - of the improved street required by the Moun~ Zoning Code If the e F nonconformity is due to positioning of a principa accessory structure, said must be in sound conditi, as determined by the Building hal. Furthermore, imperv cover on the lot shall be in compl Lnce with Section 350:1~ , Subd. 6. B. 1. of the Mound Zoning Code. (ORD. 78-1996 - 8-31- 6) 0 Denotes Iron Monument set ,- I hereby ce~i~ that this is a true and correct representation of a su~e¥ of the boundaries of: '-' Lot 46,'Phelps Island Park, First Division and that portion of .... the private street lying between the low water line of Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota,'and LOt 46, in Phelps Island Park, First Division, Town of Excelsicr, which said portion ~ bounded on its four sides as follows, to-wit: On the northerly side by the lot line between said Lots 45 and 46 of said Division, extended easterly in. a ~straight line to the low water line of said Lake Minnetonka, on the easterly side by the low water line of said Lake Minnetonka; on the southerly side by the lot line between said Lots 46 and 47 of said Division, extended easterly in a straight line to the low water line of said Lake Minnetonka; on the westerly side'by the said Lot 46, /~nnepin County, Minnesota. , And of the Io~tion of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on ~id ~ land. As su~eyed by me this 4th day of McCombs Frank Roes A~sociates, Inc. 15050 23rd Ave, N, Englneera P~ymouth, MN 5544? Planners 612/476-6010 Surveyors August 19 88. ~' ~ '. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for SURV£Y ON FILF/! (I:.S~) I NO I.{11 Iii, RI:.CORD? YES NO I:RONr FRON'F REAR I AKE 'llJl, OF BLUFF L'IIY (~l: M{,)LJND I)lll I..( :I'H H,I J N S I: W N S 1~ w r~ S I~ W ZONING INFURMATION $liEET ZONING DISI RICF, LOT SIZE/WIDTII: -- Ri i0,000/60 BI 7,500/0 ~ 6.noo/4~. B2 2o,ooo/0o C2 6,000/40 03 10,000/60 ~2 14,OgO/O0 R3 S~ ORD. I1 30,0o0/100 IIEQI{IlIICI) J I<XI$'I'ING/i'ROI%)$ED le:7 I$' It)' ( )R 30' {{it 4' OR0' 4' OR 6' 4' I0' OR 30' EXISTING LO'r SIZE: YAItlANC~, Il'f; I'lnnnl.g l)cl,amncm ~l 472.00(X). oo BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION Business Name/Tennant ~ '~ /' /~' ~ /" ~' ~:~ ~1 4/~, ~ ~ The applicant is: ..~owner __contractor ~tanant LEGAL Lot ~/~ Block DESCRIPTION Subdk, ision PID* CONTRACTOR Company Name ~O ~ ~I~C t ~ Contac~ Person Add,ess CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-06Z0 Plat License # IM] ARCHITECT Name &JOR Address ENGINEER Phone {H) (W} (MI CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: /'~o p ~ t~q,~ [VALUATION y(~ VALUE APPROVED OF WORK ~ BY INSPECTOR $EPARA'eE PERA41T$ ARE REQUIRED FOR ~E~RICAL. ~UMB~. H~TING. ~I~TING OR AIR CONDITIONI~. ~ffS 6~OME NULL ANO VOID IF WO~ OR CON~CTION AUTHORIZED I~ NOT COMMENC~ W~HIN 180 DAY~. OR I~ CON~CTION OR WORK ~5 COMME~. Ct~UMSTANCES BEYONO THE CONTROL OF ~E ~M~ ~O COMPS)ON OF TH~ V~ORK FOR ~fllCH THE P~ WAS GR~ED. THE ~T~SION SHALL BE REQUESTED ~T ~SS TH~ THIRTY 1301 BUSINGS DAYS ~IOR TO ~E ~O OF ~E ONE-Y~ PERIOD. ~VI~O~S OF ~Y OTH~ STATE OR LOC~ ~W RE~TiNG CON,RUCTION ~R THE ~O~C~ (0~:FiCE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDI11ONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPA~aCY GPJ~JP / :)IV: MAX OCCUP~iT LOAD COPIED From-MOSS & BARNETT +4gO0 T-~5 P.OUO~ F-Un MOSS & BARNETT ~ ~ S~vz~ S~' ~INNE~OMs, ~N~A 5~2~129 September 17, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MA[[. Ms Francene Clark City of Mound 5341 Maywood P~ad Mound, MN 55364-1687 Re. Local Programming Facilities Agreement Dear Fran. I am in receipt of a memorandum dated August 24, 1999 directed to your aaemion from Ms. Sally Koenecke from the Lake Mianetonka Cable Commission {"LMCC") Ms. Koenecke's memorandum reviews the draft Local Programming Facilkies Agreement dated June 30, 1999 and provides LMCC's commems with respect thereto You have asked that I review LMCC's commems and provide you with a response regarding whether such terms may be acceptable I understand you will be revi~,ving this matter with City officials and will attempt to make policy decisions regarding the amoum of financial support the City chooses to dedicate toward local programming. I will review LMCC's comments 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 invcrnory within thirty (30) days of the acceptance of the agreement is acceptable. On Page l. 9~ Recital LMCC is proposing tha~ the City dedicate not only the $g4 per subscriber per month which the City receives for support of PEG access from Triax/Mediacom, but also a portion of the City's franchise fees to help offset the costs associated with the operation of the studio. This revision represents the most significant, substantive change LMCC is p:oposing to the agreement. This issue is obviously a policy decision for thc City as it relates to the benefits which the Ctty may receive from use of the LMCC studio versus the cost of such use. Issues which file City may wish to consider with respect to this matter include the number of Mound residents which will actually benefit from this rather large capiud contribution to LMCC It may be Oct-ZS-gg OZ:3Zpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T-B6$ P.03/06 F-STg MOSS & BARNETT Ms. Francene Clark September 17, 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 st,,dm is already cablecast on Channel 21 to all of the cities which Triax serves off of the Lake Minnetonka headend. Thus, Waconia, Chanhassen, 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 studio on Channel 21 as opposed to Channel 20 which was intended to be a Channel specific to the City of Mound. The fact that LMCC ha~ chosen to dedicate a large pmzion of its fi-anch~se fees and its $.50 per subscriber per month PEG access fee to support its studio operation does not necessarily mean that that is an appropriate amount of money for Mound to dedicate to such efforts. 1 suggest that .City 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 w~th respect to use of the studio there are other alternatives. For example, the City could use the $.f~4, together with the equipment that it has already acquired over the years and allow community programmers to use the equipment to produce programming which may then be cablecast on Channel 20 via playbac~ from the Mound City Hall This need not take up a significant amount of space nor would it affect the City's franchise fee revenue which is presently part of~he C~ty's general revenue fund Assuming 2,500 subscribers in the City of Mound, $2,100 will be collected each month for PEG access. This represents over 125,000 each year. To the ex'tent LMCC desires an amount over and above the $ 84 0 understand that figure may be an additional $ 40) the amount of revenue wNeh would be dedicated by Mound towards the LMCC studio would be approximately $35,000 If only a handful of Mound residents are using the facility m 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 amount of money in question the City clearly would have option to hire outside professionals to handle certain cablecasting responsibilities as independem contractors and may still come out with a lower expenditure overall. Finally, ~t appears from the comments submitted by LMCC that their preference would be for Mound to join flue LMCC thereby dedicating the City's entire five percen! (5%) franchise fees xo the studio effort While this cer~inly may be an option to consider, the City should reahze that it will be contribming over $75,000 toward the LMCC ii'it should become a member of~hat commission This would represent approximaely $50,000 of franchise fee revenue and another $25,000 of PEG access support revenue. While this would clearly be beneficml to the Oct-zs-gg 02:3Zpm From-MOSS & BARNETT MOSS & BARNETT +4go0 P.O4/OG Ms. Franccne Clark September ! 7, 1999 Page 3 LMCC, as it would help to offset the cost which LMCC has incurred to construct and equip its new studio facility, will the City of Mound receive appropriate benefits from ttus significant contribution? Page 2. Section I A.(2). LMCC's proposed revisions regarding ~quipment replacement are acceptable. pa~e 2. Section I A ¢71. LMCC is proposing to provide the City's public access programming on Channel 21 v~hich LMCC cun'ently cablecasts on Thus, the whole concept of having a channel dedicated solely for the City of Mound on Channel 20 ~ts in the past does not ~ppear acceptable to LMCC g. cmcmber that the City will receive programming on Channel 21 regardless of whether the City chooses to enter imo an agreement Nth LMCC Page 2. Section Il 1~.(1) LMCC is again proposing to require not only the $ g4 PEG access fee but an additional contribution from the City's franchise fees. See my comments above regarding this issue Page 3. Section I1 A. Again LMCC is seeking a contribution from the City's franchise fee as opposed to just the $ 84 PEG access fee Page 3. Section II B. LMCC's proposed revisions again relate to the funding to be provided m support the PEG access facility. LMCC has proposed adding language that would require that the City of Mound pay the exact same amoum on a per subscriber basis as subscribers residing within the LMCC franchise area. The objective of this amendment appears to be the potential increase in the amount of support which Mound would provide to LMCC. In other words, to the extent the LMCC 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 ofcontnbution This would be uae 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 to 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 is agreeing to integrate the equipment owned by the City into the studio operation and is asking for about $3g,000 in support yet will not c, over such equipmen~ under its insurance policies Moreover, LMCC has put in a provision that if anyone steals or damages the equipment it will be the City's responsibility to include the equipment under the City's own insurance pohcy and LMCC will not reimburse the City for any loses Isn't this an issue which should be covered by ',.he significant financial contribution which the City of Mound may be paying to LMCC? 0c~-Z5-9~ OZ:Hpm From-MOSS & BARNETT +4~00 T-BE5 P.05/05 F-57~ MOSS & BARNETT Ms. Francene Clark September 17, 1999 Page 4 Page 3. Section I1] C LMCC's proposed changes regarding the equipment invemor~ are acceptable. Page 3. Section tli D. LMCC's proposed revisions regarding City review of the inventory are acceptable. Page 3. Section III E Once again I do not understand the logic of the proposed revis,ons. LMCC is requiring that the City maintain insurance on its equipment and that the City name LMCC as an additional insured on its policies covering City equipment Since the City equipment is being located at the LMCC facility of which we have no control over, why woulcl we insure the equipmem and provide additional coverage to LMCC9 I suspect the City attorney will have serious concerns regarding this matter. Page 4. Seclion IV B LMCC's proposed changes regarding imeraction with educational institutions is acceptable Page 4. Section V A LMCC's proposed changes regarding monthly repons are acceptable P~ge 4, Section V C LMCC's elimination of annual report ,equirement is acceptable. ~ LMCC's modification of its address is acceptable Fran, I hope these comments are helpful to you as you consider these issues together with your elected officials. While I understand your concern that the City has very few options with respect to PEG access programming except m take the deal which LMCC is proposing, I urge you to consider the needs of a_!l of the residents of the City of Mound regarding PEG access programming and the level of contribution which the City is being asked 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 residems will impose a very minimal burden on the LMCC studio resuking in virtually no change in LMCC' s operations except a rather sizable fu~nci~ contribution to help minimize LMCC's operating expenses LMCC is not adding staff, space, extra equipment, additional hours or anything else to ~a,isfy the Agreement, all they are doing is allowing use which will cost aborn $38,000 under their proposal This seems very high. Oct-25-gg OZ:34pm From-MOSS & BARNETT MOSS & BARNETT +4000 P.06/06 Ms. Francene Clark September 17, 1999 Page 5 If I can provide ~ny additional reformation or assistance to you regarding th~s agreemenz, please free to contact me I will wait to hear from you before taking a~y further action on xh~s maker. BTG/tlh Very truly yo~s, Bria~ T Grogan ' ~ Enclosure Nav-QS-99 O2:45;m From-MOSS & BARNETT +4gO0 T-335 p.o;/06 F-aT4 G~KE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMIS$1ClN ~07 ! SUNSET ~RIVE · P.O. BOX 38S · SPRING PARK. MN SS384-~38S · ~ ! Z. 471-7125 · FAX 61Z. 471-9151 M EMO Fro: Augt~ 24, 1999 Fra.n Cl~k. City of Mound Sally Koenec~, LMCC Stuctio a&mement Tlank you for attending ~ LMCC Full Commissioa meeting on ~st 17 w~n8 Lo~ Pro~~8 ~es A~~. 1~ was v~ h~p~ w ~e ~ssion~s able w h~ ~om ~u ~ to ~u~'s ~est ~ n~ rcg~g ~e ~u~o. J'ua Otc[s, .]ah~ Weaver az~ [ met Oll Fcic[ay to go ove~ the agreement to ~e some r¢comme. Adafiom ~r changes. The cha~gcs we made (ia bold) aze J~cd:.. OItONO TONK~ IBA¥ Page 0~¢ Wherea~ the City has avaihble laE[G access equipment, outtL~¢d h~ ~Exhibit A ("City Equipme.at") w be iaveatarie~ by [be LMCC ,,ad [be City of Mound within 30 day~ of the acceplance of this agreement by both parties, wJ~ch it c[esi~es to locate at the Studio for PlUG access use; and Whereaa, LMCC desires the City's PEG access fee ~ed a pertialt of [be CitT's ~ ~) franchise tee to help offse~ the costs as$ocia~ with The operatiou of the ST~ctio. 0Z:45pm From-MOSS & B~RNETT +4g0O T-H$ P.D4/06 F-ON I~d(E MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SL~NSe'T DRIVE · P-O. 0OX 38S · SPRING PAJ~K. MN S5364-0385 · 612. 471-712S ,, FAX 612. 471-91SI MEMO DEEPi. e~V~Iq MiNNE'rONIO~ o.o~o ST. llONdr,~lU$ SPRING PARK TONKA MY VICTORIA D~e: To: Augus~ 24, 1999 Fran Clark, City ogMaund Sally Koenecke, IAVlCC Studio ~gr~mga~ P~ge two, Secdoa I A- 2. Ma~tain and repa/r, at LMCC's discretion and reasonable expense, the City Equipment. excluding replacement of' items that are deemed to have served their 7, delete (progr~ may go on Chapel 21) 1. Provide LMCC with the appropria~g PEG ace.s f~ and a ~nion of the Ci~'s Fran~e F~, ~ ~r~ ~ S~zion ~ ~r~ ~ w~ as ~e Ci~ Eq~pmea~ ~ a~ord~ ~ S~zion ~ ~; Page t~eg, Section A. ( a~ ~ same except th second stn.tence) The City hereby agrees w fun~sh LMCC wid~ the PEG aooets tee and a portion of the City's franchise fee it recgives ~.om Triax within thtrtT (30) clays of receipt from Triax, and LMCC hereby agrees to use said tees exclusively for support of'PEG teess obUptions required hereunder B. R~ t0 Ren~gct~iMe pl~(~ Access Fee If, at any time, LMCC ~ooses to remm a pomon of i~ ~~ f~ paid by T~ :o ~CC m ~y ~CC mum~p~, or r~u~ ~e S.S0 p~ ~b~ PEG ~ss f~ ~H~ by~ ~CC, ~e Ci~ ~, ~ i~ ~ di~on, ~c option to rcnegofi~tc ~c ~ou~ ~e PEG ~cess ~ ~ad ~e amount of the ~on of ~e fnnc~se fee to ~ ~ppU~ to ~CC. The ~CC ~ and the Ciw will provide fundingaccerding to a.per-subscriber amoul, based ~D--x~,,~f") upon the percentage of subscribers represented by the LMCC end the Cit~. This will be reviewed at 3 months and 6 months for accuracy of budget projections, / From-MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T-;35 P,O$/O; F-OT4 LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 4071 SUNS~I' DRIVE · tO. BOX 385 · SPRING PARK. MN 55384-058S · b12. 471-712S · FAX 612, 471-9151 MEMO iNDEPENDeNCE MmMETOt~IO~ MINNL~'RISTA V~'TOIIIA To~ August 24, 1999 FraA ChriL City of Mound. Sally Koenecke, LMCC Studio a~reemeat Page three, Section A, (keep the same except for second sent=ace) In thc event this Agreement is terminated or expires, LMCC shall return to the City/he City Equipment in its and in the same condition as when fus~ supplied lo LMCC, absent normal wear and teat and excluding equipment that wu deemed inoperable or had lived its useful life, If there is uny theft of equipment, uuezphined loss of equipment, or shortage disclosed upon taking inventory the LMCC wig 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. t"ondi~ioq ofCil~, F~kli~merlt ,an inventory of aU City equipment covered by thi~ 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 invenlory of equipment. (the rest of:he paragraph remains the same) D. Itwentory ofC. h~ l~q-~men.t LMCC shall, at all times, r~a~ an ~vcmoty ofzhe City F, quipment, which shall be available for :he City's review upon the City providing tweaU' {20) days notice ~o L.~CC. Thb reques~ no~ to exceed twice a year. E. The Clt~ shall, i~ accordance ....... (rest of thi s the saxae) (~cond sev. tence all the same ~e.~t) ...and it shall lis~the LMCC a/i aa a~ctizional i~sure, d From-MOSS & BARNETT +4000 I./kKe MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 40~21 SUNSET DRJV~ · P.O. 8OX 385 · SPRING PARK. MN 55584-0385 · 6;2 471-7125 · FAX 61,?.. 4;'i-9151 MEMO F.J[¢Et.~OR I,~NNE"ToN&A ~H OeONO SHOgEWOOD SPRING pAJ~K · 'tONKA ~Y To: Re: August 24, ~999 Fraa Cla'k, City et'~und Sally Koenecke, L~CC Studio agreement Page four, Section IV B. ~r~mmi.g: LMCC shaU work with ~ucationaJ ~~s ...... (~e r~ of ~~ re~ u it was.) (S~ond ~t~ as is b~ ~d) .... as a~a~le ~d ~ )~ prickle j~ u ~e ~ do~ for iU mmber co~uniti~ Page four, Section V A M~;,'~;,~ee ofp. ecoras ,'M R~or~ LMCC shall ma~ av~ble to ~e Cit% upon request, any re, queued financial information regarding ~e ~PEG access Studio and facilities. LMCC ~ ~lso maintain rocords including the CiW m the LMCC monthly program report identifying ~!1 programming originating from Mound sources. C. ddere Page saran t 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 LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Considerations regarding the sharing of studio/access costs. Equipment at Cost $120,000 Five Year Depreciation Annual Operating Budget Total Initial Investment $100,000 5% Annual Return on Investment $24,000 $114,746 $5,000 Total Annual Cost of Studio Facilities $143,746 Cost per Hour (Based on 2,080 Hours) $69 If we a~ee to share the studio facih~ with Mound for their entire PEG Fee collections which are estimated to be $27,690 per year, we could allocate 400 hours per year (just under 8 hours per week) for their use. Chanhassen's playback requirements require staffing, equiplng and maintenance of the facility. Assuming 10% of the annual cost for this activity results in $14,400 to be paid from theeir PEG Fees. This amount represents roughly .30 cents per month per Chanhassen subscriber. These figures are based on preliminary estimates of costs without the benefit of actual experience operating the new LMCC Studio Facility. LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1999 Budget Wages $85,600 Secretarial Service $855 Payroll Taxes/PERA $10,640 Travel Expense $2,400 Health Insurance $4,000 Insurance,~onds $5,900 Legal Fees $9,000 AccountingdAudits $2,100 Conference/Schools $7,400 Rep.Maint. Serv. Supplies $4,000 Dues/Subscriptions $1,500 Telephone/Voice Mail $2,330 Postage;P.O. Box $2,000 Miscellaneous $1,000 Advertising/Promo. News Let. $6,675 Office Equipment $0 Office Rent $11,500 Gas Utilities 0 Taxes 0 Electricity 0 Water/Sewer 0 Equip. Maint./Repair $20,700 Security 0 Sales Tax $1,000 1999 Revised Expenditures Additions Percentage 1999 Allocated Access Administration Revised To Access Assumption Assumption $85,600 45% $38,520 $47,080 $855 35% $299 $556 $10,640 45% $4,788 $5,852 $2,400 25% $600 $1,800 $4,000 45% $1,800 $2,200 $5,900 50% $2,950 $2,950 $9,000 35% $3,150 $5,850 $2,100 50% $1,050 $1,050 $7,400 20% $1,480 · $5,920 $480 $4,480 50% $2,240 $2,240 $1,500 40% $600 $900 $790 $3,120 50% $1,560 $1,56 $2,000 50% $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 50% $500 $500 $6,675 75% $5,006 $1,669 $0 0% $0 $0 $24,500 $36,000 75% $27,000 $9,000 $3,000 $3,000 75% $2,250 $750 $4,888 $4,888 75 % $3,666 $1,222 $2,400 $2,400 75 % $1,800 $600 $432 $432 50% $216 $216 $20,700 100% $20,700 $0 $642 $642 50% $321 $321 ($1,000) $0 $0 $0 Total Operating Expenses $178,600 $36132 $214,732 57% $121,49~ $93..2? LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Carfital Outlav (One Time Expenses) 1999 Budget Additions 1999 Revised Remodeling Moving/Leasehold Improvements (Telephone, Security, Etc.) Studio Equipment Special Funds * $37,600 $76,000 $76,000 $6,000 $6,000 $19,500 $19,500 ($37,600) $O Total Capital Outlay $37,60_________9_0 $63,900 $101.,500 Total 1999 Expenditures $216,200 $290,732 * Note Special Funds ex'penditures have been deleted or transfered into 1999 operating costs and capital outlay items. LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1999 Revised Revenues Franchise Fees PEG Fees Interest Triax Franchise Fee Settlement Triax Moving Settlement Landlord Contribution 1999 Franchise Fees (Paid Quarterly in 1999) 1999 Budget $160,000 $52,20O $4,000 1999 Additions RevVed $9,565 $169,565 $52,200 $4,O0O $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $180,000 $180,000 Total 1999 Revenues $216,200 $229,565 $445,765 LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 1999 Revised Budget Summary And Resulting Cash Balance 1999 Budget Additions 1999 Revised Total 1999 Revenues Operating Expense Capital Outlay Total 1999 E~enditures Beginning Cash Balance Increase (Decrease) to Cash 1999 Ending Cash Balance $216,200 $178,600 $37,600 $216.200 $104,031 $0 $104,031 $229,565 $36,132 $63,900 $100,032 $445,765 $_14,/~2 $101,500 $3_1.6,232 $104,031 $1_9,~.~ $233,564 Jun-3a-gg lZ:ZHpm From-~SS & BARNETT +4go0 T-1zg P.OZ/11 F-HT6 MOSS & BARNETT June 30, 1999 VIA I:aC.qlMI1 .~ Ms. Francene Clark-Lcisinger City Clerk 5341 May'wood Road Mound, .MN 55364-16t7 Re: Draft Agreement between the City of Mound, Minnesota and Lake Mirmeronka Cornm~kaions Commission with respect to PEG Access Programming Dear Fram Pursuant to our telephone conversations and fax:e-to-face meeting, enclosed here~,'kh please find a draft agreement for your review and consideration. This agreement concerns the provision of PEG access programming services by the Lake Mirmetonka Communications Commission CLMCC") m return for payment by the City of Mound of $.84 per subscriber per month as remitted by 'ir/ax. A£[¢r you have Md a ch~mce ro review, the enclosed ~grcem. ent, please cont~c~ me to discuss ~y proposed tensions or ~en~ems you believe neccss~. ~ereaRer, we can fo~ard the document on to Sally Koenecke at uhe LMCC for their renew ~d consideration. Ifyot~ should have any immediate questions or ifI can provide any addffional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Brian T. Grogan BTG/tlh Enclosures 1896 LOCAL PROGRAMMING FACILITIES AGREEMENT This Local Programming- Facilities Agreement ("Agreement"') is entered into this day of , 1999, between the City of Mound, Minnesota ("City") and the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission ("LMCC"). RECITALS WHEREAS, both LMCC and City have, through separate documents, granted to Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. ("Triax") fifteen (15) year non-exclusive cable television franchises; and WltEREAS, each franchise requires Triax to remit to both LMCC and The City a five percent (5%) franchise fee on Triax's Gross Revenues; and WHEREAS, each franchise further requires Triax to remit a separate public, educational, and governmental ("PEG") access fee to LMCC and the City in support of PEG programming; and WHEREAS, each franchise requires Triax to only provide the PEG access fee and dedicated channel capacity in support of PEG access programming, and Triax has no further PEG access responsibilities; and WHEREAS, the City collects a $.84 PEG access fee, while LMCC collects a $.50 PEG access fee, per subscriber, per billing period, which is paid by Triax on a quarterly basis; and WHEREAS, LMCC operates a 5,000 square foot equipped PEG access studio facility ("Studio"), which it pays for with its PEG access fee and with portions of its five percent (5%) franchise fee; and WHEREAS, the City has available PEG access equipment, outlined in Fxhibit A ("City Equipment"), which it desires to locate at the Studio for PEG access use; and WHEREAS, the City desires the use of The Studio as well as the professional assistance which LMCC PEG access staff can provide; and WHEREAS, LMCC desires the City's PEG access fee to help offset the costs associated ,with 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 which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: From-mSS & BARNETT +4900 T-IZ9 P.OU11 C. Force Majeure. If, by reason of Force Majeure, LMCC or the City are unable un whole or in part to carry out their obligations hereunder, neither parry shall be deemed in violation or default during the continuance of such inability. D. Separability. 1. If any law, ordinance or regulation shall require or permit an>, par%/to this Agreement to perform any service or shall prohibit any parry from performing any service which may be in conflict with the terms ofthis Agreement, as soon as possible following knowledge thereof, said party shall give notice to the other party of the point of conflict believed to exist between such law, ordinance or regulanon. 2. if any section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal, invalid, or tmconsrimtion-al by any court of competent jurisdiction or by any state or federal regulatory agency having jurisdiction thereof, such determination shall have no effect on the validity or' any other section, sentence, pa,'aSraph, tcrrn or provision hcreoll 3. In the event such decision, law, rule or regulation is subsequently reversed, repealed, rescinded, amended, or other,vise changed, so that the section, sentence, paragraph, term or provision hereof which had been mvahd or modified is no longer in conflict with the decisions, law, rules and regulations, said section, semence, paragraph, term or provision shall thereupon return to full force and effect and shall thereafter be binding on all parties, provided that the parry relying on the section, sentence, paragraph, form or provision shall give the other parry or parties thirty (30) days written nouce of such change before requiring comphance with said pro,,ision. 4. In the event state or federal law changes so as to substantially affect the authority o~ local governments over cubic television f'anchising, this Agreement shall be reopened for negofiauon. Captions. The captions throughout this A~cemen~ are intended solely m facilitate reading and merely reference the sections and provisions of thus Agreement. Such captions shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. F. ~ Interpretation This A~eement has been arrived at by negotiation and shall not be construed against any parry. G. Gnvemin~ [_aw. This Agreement shall be interpreted m accordance with Minnesota law. H. Notices. Unless otherwise provided for herein, all notices, reports or demands required to be ~ven m writing under this Agreement shall be deemed to he ~ven when delivered personally to the persons designated below, or when three (3) business days have elapsed after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, or on the next addressed business day if sent by express mail or overnight air courier addressed to the par~y to which nouce is being given, as follows: JunqO-99 1Z:Zg~m From-MOSS & BARNETT +4900 T-1Z9 P.09/I1 F-6T$ ifm LMCC: L~e Minnetonka Communications Commission 540 Second Srree~ P.O. Box 473 Excelsior, M'N 55331-0473 Ann: Ms. Sally Koenecke with copy to: Bermck and L~fson, P.A. 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Golden Valley, M'N 55416 Aim: Thomas Creighton, Esq. if to the City: City 5341 Ma) wood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Artn: Ms. Francene Clark-Leis/riser ,,vith copy Moss & Bameu i Professional Association 90 Sour. h 7th Street 4800 Norwesr Center Mkn.neapolis, .MN 55402-4129 Arm: Bt/an T. Grogan, Esq. Such addresses and phone numbers may be changed by either parry upon notice to the other party given as pro,~ided in ~is Section. I. l::ntire Agreement. Th~s~.~reemen[ constitutes The entire agreement and andersr~.nding between LMCC and the City. No oral modifications or addmons hereto unless specifically relkrenced herein shall be binding. No verbal or written statements of either LMCC or the City shall be considered a modification of this Agreemem except by written documents signed by both parries expressly stating that n is modifying this .agreement. J. No Joint Venture. Noda.ing in this Agreement shall create a joint venture or principal- agent relationship between LMCC and The City. Neither LMCC nor the City is authorized to act towards third parties or the public in any manner wluch would indicate such a relationship with the other. K. No Waiver. The failure of either LMCC or [he City to strictly enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or as excusing the other parry fi.om future performance. Jun-3a-gg 1z:zgpm From-mSS & BARNETT +4gOO T-1zg P.10/11 F-67; L. ^~.~i~nments. Tkis Agreement s~ll aat be assigned or performance of the duzies hereunder delegated without the express prior wrinen consent of thc parties to do so. Any consent of assignment shall not be unreasonably withheld. TI,ns Agreement is hereby accepted and we agree To be bound by ail of its terms and condk~ons. LAKE ~TONKA COMMUNICATIONS COM3~SSION By: Its: Dated: · 1999 CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By: Its: Dated: , I999 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me uhJs day of ,1999, by . the of~e Lake Mianetonka Communications Commissmn, on behalf of the Commission. Notary Public STATE OF ~SOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HEN'NEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , I999, by , the of the City of Mound, Minnesota, on behalf of the City. Nota~-y Public 26,4967/1 £.' E BXT A '~e~J~ ......... 4030 S1,~96.45 Jun-87 - Compuler ............ .~ '-~'~pe~laJJs~ Jne'-.~-. ....... 1987 Cable ~ ' - ' 4030 $2,738.44 J[in-Sl Geno~lor & Accessories- AV Wholesaler ..... 1987 Cnble ~ .... 4030 ' $6,00000 Ju~-88 Camera & Access & VCR ~ ...... AV Wholesaler ~-. 1988 Cable ~ 4~30 ~ ~3,770.D0 Ma~-89 Digital Time Base Correct AV Wholesaler 1989 Cable TV ' - 4030 $4.277 O0 Ma~-sg Panasonic Editing Deck .... AV Wholesaler- ' 1989 .... Cable~'V ~4030 $8,665.95 Fob-90 Pansonic VH$ Player/C0~tr .... AV Wbole~!e~ .......... 1990 Cable ~ ..... {4030._ $1,159.79 May-e5 Remote qab~e {~gMM~ ......... Blumgerg ............... 1995-~'-~ Cable ~V [4030 $2,343.00 ~y-g5 Se~o Zoom Lens ~{umgerg 1995 ~a~e'~'~-~._ -;403~-~ ' - ;_$2,~43.00 ~ May-95 Se~o~oo= ~m,s .... .~l~mgerg .... '1995 Cable ~ 4030 $4,342.01 M~y.95 ~oiO~ ~amera H~d Blun~gerg 1~95~ ~a~i~' ......... ~403~ ....... $4,34~.0~ -- ~y-g5~-~.~ol~,~era ~o~d Blum~erg 1995 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR OCTOBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Balance: Bought: Money Market Money Market Matured: Money Market CP Balance: October 1, 1999 $3,839,088 4M Plus 252,099 USBank 50,435 USBank (35,000) Norwest 5.20.% (350,509) October 31, 1999 $3,756,113 City Financial System On October 21st I attended the annual meeting of the City Financial System Users Group. We have been notified that the system is year 2000 compliant, but that we need some updates with the operating system and the payroll. In addition we need to update part of the payroll to meet the PERA reporting requirements. Meter Readin.cl Devices Upgrade The Sensus people have installed the meter reading software and activated the new hand held devices that will be used to read the 3,200 city meters. The training went well, but we have a few bugs with the equipment and the software. Joyce, Greg Bob and Dan have been good sports through the process. MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1999 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Frank Weiland; Council Liaison Bob Brown. Absent and excused' Commissioners Orv Burma and Jerry Clapsaddle. Staff present: City Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, and Secretary Sue McCulloch. Chair Michael called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE OCTOBER 11, 1999 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Glister referred to three spelling errors in the minutes. The words misspelled should be changed as follows throughout the document: Bob Steal to "Bob Steele", Seaton Channel to "Seton Channel", and Barlette to "Bartlett." MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister, to accept the October 11, 1999, Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended above. MOTION CARRIED: 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: None to be heard. DISCUSSION: 1. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. Mueller reported to the Planning Commission that a subcommittee had been formed to discuss the Surface Water Management Plan. The subcommittee met twice and they now have questions and would like some direction from staff before they give their recommendations. Staff was directed by the Planning Commission to have City Engineer John Cameron, and Public Works Superintendent Greg Skinner at the next Planning Commission meeting if there was going to be discussion regarding the Surface Water Management Plan. The Gordon discussed the process of approving the Surface Water Management Plan. He stated after the Planning Commission comes up with their changes to the goals and policies of the Plan, then those written changes should be forwarded on to Dan Parks. Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25, 1999 Arrangements could then be made to meet with Mr. Parks after he has reviewed and possibly implemented those changes into the Plan for the Planning Commission to review. Gordon recommended having the City Engineer and the City Public Works Superintendent present at this informal meeting also. Gordon stated there is a November 8, 1999, public hearing scheduled for the Comprehensive Plan and at this time there possibly could be a public hearing for the Storm Water Management Plan also. Mueller asked the Planning Commission if they would like to further comment concerning the Storm Water Management Plan and not just implement what the subcommittee's findings were regarding goals and policies. Weiland stated if the subcommittee has already reviewed the Surface Water Management Plan in detail, then this review should be efficient for all members of the Planning Commission. The consensus of this theory was true. Mueller and Brown expressed their concern with the Surface Water Management Plan on page 30, number 8, where it states the "City will encourage placement of a 20 foot wide, native, unmaintained buffer strips adjacent to wetlands to limit erosion and nutrient transportation to the wetlands." Voss expressed a concern with the Surface Water Management Plan on page 31, number 3, where it states the "City will require native, unmaintained 20 foot wide buffer zones around wetlands and ponding areas in new developments and restrictive easements for areas adjacent to the City waterbodies and streams." ~ Gordon stated the concerns of the Commissioners were legitimate, but this information relating to buffer strips and buffer zones should stay in the Plan to help mitigate pollution. Gordon and Sutherland agreed, although, that the information could be reworded to state "designated areas" or "feasible areas." Mueller stated his concern to enforce the prosperous-free fertilizer of lawn applications by the staff. This statement should be emphasized greatly to all citizens of Mound. Chair Michael expressed if there are questions that need to be addressed before the Planning Commission makes their recommendations to the Surface Water Management Plan, then they should be addressed by the appropriate individuals. Mueller stated a third request by the subcommittee to have included the Surface Water Management Plan is to have stenciling done on concrete curbs by each drain showing which direction the water flows. This would be beneficial to all citizens of Mound in an educational way. There was concern this project may entail more staff, but there was the suggestion of having volunteers help out. The stenciling may have to be redone approximately every two to three years. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25, 1999 Voss stated on page 30, numbers 1 and 2 appear to be "moot" in his eyes. Gordon agreed number 2 could be deleted, but number 1 maybe needs only some rewording. Voss stated on page 30, number 4, the word "not" should be deleted within the sentence. Mueller stated his biggest concerns and questions involved policies. Voss asked if the City of Mound could financially afford all of these changes. Gordon stated all of this planning does require more work by the Commissioners, the boards, staff and people who do work within the City. The City Manager will need to monitor efforts made by staff and also regulate the best policies that should be implemented. Mueller ended discussions of the Surface Water Management Plan by restating again his three concerns: (1) phosphorous-free fertilizer; (2) unmaintained buffer strips and buffer zones; and (3) stenciling on concrete curbs by drains. Mueller stated the Surface Water Management Plan subcommittee would meet with Mr. Parks to discuss their revisions. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Gordon started his presentation on the Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Culture Resource Section now includes the burial sites in Mound. The Social Economics Section's projections by Metropolitan Council were off so Gordon created a comparison chart that showed what projections he felt would be more realistic. Gordon stated the goals and policies within each section still need to be implemented. Brown stated he had been informed them are mom parks per capita in the City of Mound than any other city in the seven county metro area. Chair Michael strongly suggested improvements in the Housing Section. He questioned the wording of having the City of Mound "encourage maintenance." Sutherland stated currently maintenance is encouraged if another citizen has made a complaint. Mueller questioned the deadline of this project and stated strongly the Comprehensive Plan currently does not suit the City of Mound. Mueller stated the Planning Commission does not want to put this Plan into effect with the language it currently has in the Plan so he is encouraging a page-by-page review of the Comprehensive Plan tonight. 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25, 1999 Brown stated there is information about the community center that is stated incorrectly and out of context in the Comprehensive Plan. Brown also strongly stated the Comprehensive Plan will not be passed on November 8, 1999, as it reads to date. He is aware, although, of the end-of-the-year deadline for the Plan. Sutherland agreed with Mueller that the Comprehensive plan should be reviewed page- by-page. Weiland strongly stated there is information in the Comprehensive Plan that should be deleted and reinserted when the need arises. Gordon reiterated that this Draft contains all sections that have been reviewed by the Planning Commission over the last 9 months with some sections two and three times. Based on those review sessions, this draft represents the direction of the Planning Commission. Gordon asked who had read the Draft and what specific concerns exist as the draft reads. He stated the public hearing is scheduled for November 8, 1999 and those issues remaining need to be identified and addressed by the Commission so a recommendation can be forwarded to Council. Chair Michael agreed to a page-by-page review tonight of the Goals and Policies on pages 6-11. Mueller agreed with Chair Michael. Community Development The word "Goal" should be deleted following the subtitle. Natural Resources There was some disagreement regarding number 2, although, Gordon and Sutherland agree this item needs to be included in the Plan for situations that are forthcoming. Mueller stated some disagreement regarding number 4 because it is more extensive than what the City of Mound currently does. Gordon stated, and Sutherland agreed, this number needs to stay in the Plan to have something to fall back on when there is an incident of discussion by a citizen which could occur. The Planning Commission and staff agreed to restate number 6. They would like it to read as follows: Promote shoreland management practices consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan, providing they recognize LMCD and the DNR development guidelines and Mound's existing land use pattern. Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25, 1999 Land Use Mueller and Voss suggested number 2 to read as follows: Create suitable dwelling densities to accommodate changing development patterns, housing types and aesthetic values. Mueller suggested number 7 should eliminate the word "maintain" and insert the word "encourage." Sutherland stated we can maintain a mix of downtown by using SAC credits. Mueller suggested number 9 should eliminate the word "should" and replace it with the word "shall." Housing There was lengthy discussions of numbers 4 and 5. Staff stated an example of Maple Manor in support of number 4. Number 5 relates to truth and housing and the Commissioners, as well as staff, would like to see this enforced where applicable. The Commissioners, and staff agreed, to restate number 7 in the goal area of this section. Transportation It was agreed by the Commissioners and staff to restate number 5 to read as follows: Encourage the upgrading of all municipal, county and state roadways, full urban sections, i.e., curb gutter blacktop streets, with controlled driveways cuts, curbing, sidewalks, etc. Sutherland stated, and Gordon agreed, number 7 should be restated with the goal area of this section to read as follows: Promote increased development and interconnection with adjacent communities of the bikeways. Recreation In the goal section, the word "the" mentioned before "all Mound residents" should be deleted. There was agreement by those present to change number 6 to read as follows: Promote a balanced park system which includes neighborhood parks, community parks, nature conservation areas, special use facilities, schools and private developments. Gordon stated he will add a number 10 that will include appropriate language regarding a trail system for the City of Mound to be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mound Planning Commission Minutes - October 25. 1999 Public Communication/Information Access The Commissioners and staff agreed to remove the word "continue" at the beginning of the sentence in number 1. It was agreed that number 2 should be restated to read as follows: Continue to encourage and provide public participation at Council and Commission meetings. Number 3 should be restated to read: Ensure that elected and appointed officials are provided timely and accurate information to assist with decision making by having adequate staff. 3. RESOLUTION TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. This resolution will be on the Agenda for the Park and Open Space Advisory Commission Special Meeting on October 28, 1999. There was discussion by the Commissioners regarding the resolution that indicated the resolution contained false information. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Brown, to deny the Resolution as provided. MOTION CARRIED by a resounding aye. 7-0. INFORMATION 1. City Council Minutes from October 12, 1999. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland, to adjourn the meeting. MOTION CARRIED: 9-0. Chair Michael adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Page 1 of 1 FLEISINGER To.' Sent: Subject: <citymanager@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <chonchell@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <jgates@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <curtb@ci.brooklyn-park.mn.us>; <doranc~ci.brooklyn- park.mn.us>; <Michaelh(~ci.brooklyn-park.mn.us >; <crichtonc~aol.com>; <omalleys@ci.burnsville.mn.us>; <jkeinath@compuserve.com>; <publicworks@ci.columbia- heights.mn.us>; <dphnbob@aol.com>; <gdietz@edenpraide.org>; <RCase@edenpr. k12.mn.us>; <jwallin@ci.edina.mn.us>; <BurnsW@ci.fddley.mn.us>; <FloraJ@ci.fridley.mn.us>; <haukaasj@ci.fridley.mn.us>; <jandre@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; <jclancy(~ci.golden- valley.mn.us>; <bjoynes(~ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; <dosberg@ci.hastings.mn.us>; <jgessele(~hopkinsmn.com>; <smielke(~hopkinsmn.com>; <lakeland(~isd.net>; <lakeland@isd.net>; <RickG@rcmnet.org>; <jlynch@ci.long-lake.mn.u Wednesday, November 03, 1999 9:24 AM Metricom This is a supplement to the Metricom comments sent on November 1, 1999. There was no discussion on the rental rights of the city regarding placement of facilities on poles it owns. It is important as it relates to the Metricom proposal to pay $60.00 per pole. Assuming a requirement that the city make the ROW available to Metricom (not totally clear under the new ROW statute), the pole is a city-owned asset that should be rentable for market value. There should be no obligation on the city's part to allow use of a pole it owns, provided the city does not prevent a reasonable alternative ROW location to a ROW user who possesses a right to ROW access by law. The statutory limits on fees charged by the city for access to the ROW by a company providing data transmission services, should be distinguishable from a city's right to rent its own asset in the ROW. But, note, the ROW itself is not an asset the city may "rent" to statutorily authorized ROW users. Note also that this separation is untested in the courts under the new Minnesota ROW statute. If you have any questions, please call me at 612-337-9233 or email j strommen(~_~kennedy-graven, com. 11/04/1999 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: jstrommen~cennedy-graven, eom MEMORANDUM TO: SRA City Managers/Administrators/Delegates/Alternates Desyl L. Peterson, City Attorney, City of Minnetonka FROM: Jim Strommen DATE: November 1, 1999 Comments on Proposed Metricom Agreement At the October 20, 1999 SRA meeting, the board authorized me to review and comment on a document prepared by Metricom and submitted to a number of cities. The proposed "Right-of- Way Permit and Facility Use Agreement" would be between a city and Metricom for placement of radios as defined by Metricom using a network known as Ricochet®. The following are my comments to this document. If you have not yet received the proposal from Metricom, these comments will be of only general value. If you would like us to fax you a copy please call or email my secretary Shannon Stang at sstang~kennedy-graven.com Because these are attorney-client comments, I would ask that you keep these confidential to the extent possible. General Metricom appears to be employing a strategy of avoiding conflict with a city by offering more fights and more fees than might otherwise be recoverable using a strict management cost recovery approach. Metricom has an argument that it is a telecommunications right-of-way user that would be entitled to use the fight-of-way only at a strict city management cost and subject only to legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns. Metricom could further make the argument that the equipment to be installed on municipally owned and utility owned poles is a minimal cost to cities. This agreement does not take that approach. It uses a model employed by Metricom in many other states, most of them with franchise fights over Metricom's use of the ROW and thus greater fee requirements. Despite the numerous provisions preserving the rights of cities, there are some items that are important to change, as noted below. SRA Memo November 4, 1999 Page 2 1.1. Adjusted gross revenues. You should ask why Metricom seeks to calculate the adjusted gross revenues by excluding the right-of-way management reimbursement, which is defined as one percent of gross revenues. There are a number of other exclusions. Metricom should demonstrate how it would calculate the fee so there is no misunderstanding. It would also be important to determine what Metricom thinks it will gross from city customers to match up fees to the city and cost. Two or three percent of gross revenues may be more appropriate if the projected gross amount is low or uncertain. 1.9. Public right-of-Way. Metricom includes "places" in the definition of public right-of-way. This word should be deleted because it opens the door to placement fights on non-fight-of-way property that may be owned in fee. To the extent Metricom seeks to place its radios on water towers or other land held by the city outside of the ROW, the city is in the position of a landlord who can rent property for a market rate. As a trustee of the ROW, cities are limited to police powers, not landlord rights, unless the legislature has granted franchise authority. That is an important distinction. The fact that Metricom's ROW definition does not include county or state highways does not appear to make a difference regarding fees. The percentage of adjusted gross revenues would be the same whether there existed limited or significant county, state or federal thoroughfares in a city. Note, however, that cities have more significant management fights in county or county- state aid highways, than they do regarding state trunk highways. 1.8. Municipal facilities. The broad definition of facilities goes with the inclusion of "places" above. Metricom is seeking a broader right-of-presence than cities are obligated to provide. State law grants a right to use a more narrowly defined public ROW. It does not require permission to use non-ROW public land. Even if a "city-owned" structure is within the ROW, it may not be the type of structure cities would want to be adorned with the radios. 2. Term. The length of this term with the automatic renewals is similar to the water tower lease provisions insisted on by wireless providers. Their interest is having the assurance of a presence over a long period of time. Cities have legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns that should allow the city to terminate such an agreement if appropriate, however. Further, the "market" may change dramatically within the nine years and cities may want the right to terminate and renegotiate. This is a difficult issue because of the lack of authority cities arguably have to negotiate a better deal (cities arguably cannot simply exclude Metricom). Perhaps, one could add at the end of the third line after "herein" the term "or under rights granted by law", to preserve termination rights for police power concerns. 3.3. No interference. A city needs to be careful of any agreement that requires it to include a non-interference of Metricom's rights in other agreements that may be presented to the city by competitors. The more competitors and non-interference agreements, the more tangled the web JMS-171017vl SU160-45 SRA Memo November 4, 1999 Page 2 the city weaves. I do not' think any interference promises can be made where the city ultimately has the management responsibility between and among all right-of-way users. 3.5. Location and installation of radios. The cities should retain the right to consent to the location of the radios. This is an important power of cities that should not be waived. 4.4. Right-of-way management reimbursement. As you know, Metficom has entered into these agreements in many other states. States with greater ROW franchise rights given to cities require five or six percent as the fee. Cities do not enjoy franchise fights over providers like Metricom in Minnesota. Nevertheless, a higher percentage could be justified. Cities do not know what the actual gross revenues would be. If very small, the one percent is very small and maybe under the costs. Further, there is a lag period built into this agreement both in 4.1 and in 4.2 and 4.2.1. Metricom is paying the city necessarily after the results of the one year's worth of gross revenues are in. It is also paying the $60.00 annual fee per poll on a basis adjusted only every five years. Given the time value of money, the actual cost to Metricom goes down and the correlating value the money paid to the city goes down. In contrast, water tower lease agreements provide for prepayment by the water tower tenant, thus giving the city the benefit of the time value. There should also be some protection that the gross revenue fee will not become a line item on the customer's bill. IfMetricom is able to determine the gross revenues within a given city, it may have the ability to identi~ such a fee on its bill and pass it through. This then turns into a "franchise fee", and may become politically unpopular when such a fee is characterized as "city tax" or "city fee" on the bill. 4.1.1. Reduction and right-of-way management reimbursement. I am not aware that any city imposes the type of taxes described here. Please advise if any city has such authority. 4.1.2. Accounting matters. The city should require some obligation of Metricom to transmit the records for review here. As it reads, someone from the city would be required to fly out to Los Gatos to audit the accounts. 4.2. I understand that $60.00 is a standard fee used by Metricom throughout the country. Note, however, the CPI adjustment(4.2.1.) is only every five years. This is a significant lag that results in a catch-up to the standard rate only one out of the five years. The CPI should be applicable every year. 4.5 Municipal subscriber program. Because these subscription programs are not required as a condition by cities, it appears not to run afoul of the Minnesota right-of-way statute. Minn. Stat. 237.163 Sub. 7(d). Cities need to be careful, however, whenever extra services are thrown in to a fee agreement. Competitors may complain that the city is promoting the provider with the city- used units. 4.6 Most favored municipality clause. This excludes the percent of gross revenues provision. On the one hand, this frees up cities to negotiate a different percentage of gross revenue without JMS-171017vl SU 16045 JAMES M. STROMMEN AUomey a~ Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9233 email: j strommen~kennedy-graven, eom MEMORANDUM TO: SPA City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates Steve Devich, City of ~chfield/Craig Waldron City of Oakdale Tom Gmndhoefer, League of Cities FROM: Jim Strommen DATE: November 2, 1999 NSP Undergrounding Tariff-Location Surcharge Issue NSP-REQUESTED ADDITIONAL CITY SURCHARGE PROVISION FOR LOCATION RELATED EXCESS COSTS This is an update on an important issue that NSP has raised in connection with the undergrounding tariff negotiations. I am seeking feedback from you on the impact NSP's desired surcharge could have on city planning decisions. The issue involves utility location directives made by a city, typically in connection with zoning matters rather than location within the right-of-way. For example, a city might require a substation to be relocated within the city due to zoning considerations. Or it may direct the company to initially locate its facilities on or in a property that NSP regards as more expensive than its "preferred" location. NSP, seeks to acquire surcharge authority in as yet undefined circumstances when a city requires such a location or relocation. This surcharge authority would not prohibit the city's fight to require the location. Rather, it would establish a mechanism of surcharging of city customers to recover the excess cost of the location. Currently NSP has tariff authority to surcharge for relocation requirements that are not related to public improvement projects. This issue deals with initial location outside of the ROW, as NSP characterizes it, when only aesthetic considerations are driving the city decision. I have objected to inclusion of such a tariff provision in this proceeding. It is a far more complicated issue for surcharging than is undergrounding. Each circumstances of location disagreements between NSP and a city is unique. The question is whether such a cost, if greater SRA Memorandum November 4, 1999 Page 2 than NSP's standard cost, should be part of general rates or specific to the city, residents and businesses. Regardless of our objection, NSP is free to pursue such a provision, however, NSP intends to do so. To gain more information on this I am inviting comments from cities regarding the implications of any tariff provision creating a city non-right-of-way location requirement. As you know, the purpose of this tariff has been to establish a surcharge mechanism for the incremental excess cost to NSP to underground and similar special, non-standard facilities in the fight-of-way when ordered by the city. I am satisfied with the agreement we have on rate design and exceptions to city ratepayer surcharge, particularly now for county and state highway projects. The tariff, as now drafted, will give the city the fight to object to city or city ratepayer surcharge for state and county highway projects, and NSP will look exclusively to the state or county. In raising the location issue, NSP is not arguing that the police power could not be exercised by the city. Rather, it is attempting to add another surcharge scheduled through the tariff, to recover the incremental cost for this type of situation. My concern is with the difficulty in determine when a location is more costly to the company, the mounting, effect of additional surcharges on city's willingness to exercise legitimate police power decisions and a slippery slope of new surcharges for local regulatory matters that would create mounting exceptions to the general rule of pooling expenses incurred in different jurisdictions for general rates. For example, regulatory costs such as permit fees will very from city to city. These differences are not itemized and surcharged to city customers, but rather rolled into a pool of estimated expenses that are built into rates as established in a general rate case. NSP is moving towards a surcharge structure for a greater number of regulatory decisions made by a city. Please respond with any questions you have for issue clarification. I am also interested in examples of regular and routine location requirements cities make (not in the fight-of-way) regarding utilities that could be implicated by this tariff, or other concerns your city public works department would have were the surcharge structure to be expanded to matters of location. This will be an ongoing discussion matter over the next several weeks. I have I am receiving a draft copy of the other agreed upon tentatively agreed upon matters in the tariff I will share that document with anyone who requests it. JMS-171240vl SU160-45 SRA Memo November 4, 1999 Page 2 creating the problem of precedent for Metricom. On the other hand, it dilutes the most favored municipality clause if one city cuts a better deal, cities do not all benefit. 5. Relocation and displacement of radios and 5.1 Relocations at Metricom's Request. I would be more comfortable with "reasonable" efforts rather than "best" efforts. 6. Indemnification and waiver. The indemnification protection built into the ROW rules allows indemnification for the negligence of a city in issuing a permit or for failing to adequately inspect or enforce terms of any permit, including this agreement. Those cities would not be liable for such conduct under Minnesota law, but Metricom should undertake that defense, consistent with PUC rules. 7. Insurance. The League of Cities typically wants the right to review a copy of the actual insurance to ensure that the coverage is indeed as broad as represented in the certificate of insurance. 11.3. Severability of provisions. I am not comfortable with a clause that provides this agreement will be fully enforceable even if certain provisions from which the city benefits are declared illegal. In other words, if you removed the gross revenues fee, the poll annual fee and free subscriptions to the city, it is less likely that the city would have entered into the agreement. Absent the agreement the city will retain strong management rights but perhaps lose total fees. 11.6. Attorneys fees. The cost of attorneys fees incurred by Metricom in a dispute will inevitably be much higher than those incurred by a city. If it is not deleted there should be a limit on the fees, e.g., $5,000. 11.8. Representations and warranties. I do not know that a city can warrant that the obligations and rights of this agreement are fully enforceable. In the event that they are not, it is unclear whether there is some right to damages that Metricom would have from such a warranty. The only warranty that should be made is that the city and Metricom have the fight to execute this agreement and be bound by it as a matter of corporate authority. Possible Additional Provisions The following are some additional provisions that could be included: 1. A. Metricom representation that these units will be used exclusively for the described purposes. 2. Metricom will not materially change the size or color of the units. 3. Again, Metricom will not pass through the fees as a line item on the city customers' bills. JMS-171017vl SU160-45 SRA Memo November 4, 1999 Page 2 4. As an SRA member, your city incurs a pro-rated cost of review of this agreement (4.4) I can determine by city, the cost for reimbursement purposes. This pro-rata cost could then be provided to Metricom for reimbursement, together with other costs. 5. Some type of performance bond should be required to ensure Metricom's proper performance. 6. The city retains the right to require proof of compliance with FCC standards, at Metricom's expense. 7. The city may further develop rules, regulations or specifications for pole attachment or removal, following the execution of this agreement, and such rules shall be fully incorporated into the agreement. 8. The city is not a partner or associate of Metricom. These are matters that can be raised or negotiated as you see fit. Please advise regarding Metricom reactions to various proposals. Again, it is unlikely that any given city has the right to exclude Metricom from the public ROW. JMS-171017vl SU160-45 Page 1 of 1 FLEISINGER From: To: Sent: Subject: Stang, Shannon M. <sstang(~Kennedy-Graven.com> <citymanager@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <jgates@ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <chonchell(~ci.bloomington.mn.us>; <curtb~ci.brooklyn-park.mn.us>; <doranc~ci.brooklyn- park.mn.us>; <Michaelh@ci.brooklyn-park.mn.us >; <crichtonc~aol.com>; <omalleys@ci.burnsville.mn.us>; <jkeinath@compuserve.com>; <publicworks@ci.columbia- heights.mn.us>; <dphnbob@aol.com>; <RCase@edenpr.k12.mn.us>; <gdietz~_.edenpraide.org>; <jwallin(~ci.edina.mn.us>; <BurnsW(~ci.fridley.mn.us>; <FloraJ(~ci.fridley.mn.us>; <haukaasj@ci.fridley.mn.us>; <jandre@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; <jclancy@ci.golden- valley.mn.us>; <bjoynes@ci.golden-valley.mn.us>; <dosberg@ci.hastings.mn.us>; <jgessele@hopkinsmn.com>; <smielke@hopkinsmn.com>; <lakeland@isd.net>; <lakeland(~isd.net>; <RickG~rcmnet.org>; <jlynch@ci.long-lake.mn.u Friday, October 29, 1999 11:01 AM SPA Update I want to relate a couple of items of interest to the SIC/k: 1. I am pleased to report that Steve Minn, Commissioner of the Dept. of Public Service/Commerce has accepted our invitation to speak at the annual meeting at Edinburgh in Brooklyn Park. Please mark your calendars for January 19 at 6 pm. It will be very interesting. A large turnout is always of benefit when utility policy makers accept an invitation to an SRA function. Comm. Minn will be a strong policy proponent in energy/telecom matters during his tenure at the DPS. 2. I have reviewed the Metricom proposal and will be able to email or mail my comments later today or Monday. 3. Please add your email addresses to our system. If you give them to Shannon, that is your best bet they won't be lost in cyberspace. 11/01/1999 JAMES M. STROMMEN Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 33%9233 e~nail: j stronunen(~..kennedy-graven, corn MEMORANDUM TO: SRA City Managers/Administrators/Delegates/Alternates Desyl L. Peterson, City Attorney, City of Minnetonka FROM: Jim Strommen DATE: RE: November 1, 1999 Comments on Proposed Metricom Agreement At the October 20, 1999 SRA meeting, the board authorized me to review and comment on a document prepared by Metricom and submitted to a number of cities. The proposed "Right-of- Way Permit and Facility Use Agreement" would be between a city and Metricom for placement of radios as defined by Metricom using a network known as Ricochet®. The following are my comments to this document. If you have not yet received the proposal from Metricom, these comments will be of only general value. If you would like us to fax you a copy please call or email my secretary Shannon Stang at sstang~kennedy-graven.com Because these are attorney-client comments, I would ask that you keep these confidential to the extent possible. General Metricom appears to be employing a strategy of avoiding conflict with a city by offering more rights and more fees than might otherwise be recoverable using a strict management cost recovery approach. Metricom has an argument that it is a telecommunications right-of-way user that would be entitled to use the right-of-way only at a strict city management cost and subject only to legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns. Metricom could further make the argument that the equipment to be installed on municipally owned and utility owned poles is a minimal cost to cities. This agreement does not take that approach. It uses a model employed by Metricom in many other states, most of them with franchise rights over Metricom's use of the ROW and thus greater fee requirements. Despite the numerous provisions preserving the rights of cities, there are some items that are important to change, as noted below. SRA Memo November 1, 1999 Page 2 1.1. Adjusted gross revenues. You should ask why Metricom seeks to calculate the adjusted gross revenues by excluding the right-of-way management reimbursement, which is defined as one percent of gross revenues. There are a number of other exclusions. Metricom should demonstrate how it would calculate the fee so there is no misunderstanding. It would also be important to determine what Metricom thinks it will gross from city customers to match up fees to the city and cost. Two or three percent of gross revenues may be more appropriate if the projected gross amount is low or uncertain. 1.9. Public right-of-way. Metricom includes "places" in the definition of public right-of-way. This word should be deleted because it opens the door to placement rights on non-right-of-way property that may be owned in fee. To the extent Metricom seeks to place its radios on water towers or other land held by the city outside of the ROW, the city is in the position of a landlord who can rent property for a market rate. As a trustee of the ROW, cities are limited to police powers, not landlord fights, unless the legislature has granted franchise authority. That is an important distinction. The fact that Metricom's ROW definition does not include county or state highways does not appear to make a difference regarding fees. The percentage of adjusted gross revenues would be the same whether there existed limited or significant county, state or federal thoroughfares in a city. Note, however, that cities have more significant management rights in county or county- state aid highways, than they do regarding state trunk highways. 1.8. Municipal facilities. The broad definition of facilities goes with the inclusion of "places" above. Metricom is seeking a broader fight-of-presence than cities are obligated to provide. State law grants a right to use a more narrowly defined public ROW. It does not require permission to use non-ROW public land. Even if a "city-owned" structure is within the ROW, it may not be the type of structure cities would want to be adorned with the radios. 2. Term. The length of this term with the automatic renewals is similar to the water tower lease provisions insisted on by wireless providers. Their interest is having the assurance of a presence over a long period of time. Cities have legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns that should allow the city to terminate such an agreement if appropriate, however. Further, the "market" may change dramatically within the nine years and cities may want the right to terminate and renegotiate. This is a difficult issue because of the lack of authority cities arguably have to negotiate a better deal (cities arguably cannot simply exclude Metricom). Perhaps, one could add at the end of the third line after "herein" the term "or under rights granted by law", to preserve termination rights for police power concerns. 3.3. No interference. A city needs to be careful of any agreement that requires it to include a non-interference of Metricom's rights in other agreements that may be presented to the city by competitors. The more competitors and non-interference agreements, the more tangled the web JMS-171017vl SU 16045 SRA Memo November 1, 1999 Page 2 the city weaves. I do not' think any interference promises can be made where the city ultimately has the management responsibility between and among all right-of-way users. 3.5. Location and installation of radios. The cities should retain the right to consent to the location of the radios. This is an important power of cities that should not be waived. 4.4. Right-of-way management reimbursement. As you know, Metricom has entered into these agreements in many other states. States with greater ROW franchise rights given to cities require five or six percent as the fee. Cities do not enjoy franchise rights over providers like Metricom in Minnesota. Nevertheless, a higher percentage could be justified. Cities do not know what the actual gross revenues would be. If very small, the one percent is very small and maybe under the costs. Further, there is a lag period built into this agreement both in 4.1 and in 4.2 and 4.2.1. Metricom is paying the city necessarily after the results of the one year's worth of gross revenues are in. It is also paying the $60.00 annual fee per poll on a basis adjusted only every five years. Given the time value of money, the actual cost to Metricom goes down and the correlating value the money paid to the city goes down. In contrast, water tower lease agreements provide for prepayment by the water tower tenant, thus giving the city the benefit of the time value. There should also be some protection that the gross revenue fee will not become a line item on the customer's bill. IfMetricom is able to determine the gross revenues within a given city, it may have the ability to identify such a fee on its bill and pass it through. This then tums into a "franchise fee", and may become politically unpopular when such a fee is characterized as "city tax" or "city fee" on the bill. 4.1.1. Reduction and right-of-way management reimbursement. I am not aware that any city imposes the type of taxes described here. Please advise if any city has such authority. 4.1.2. Accounting matters. The city should require some obligation of Metricom to transmit the records for review here. As it reads, someone from the city would be required to fly out to Los Gatos to audit the accounts. 4.2. I understand that $60.00 is a standard fee used by Metricom throughout the country. Note, however, the CPI adjustment(4.2.1.) is only every five years. This is a significant lag that results in a catch-up to the standard rate only one out of the five years. The CPI should be applicable every year. 4.5 Municipal subscriber program. Because these subscription programs are not required as a condition by cities, it appears not to run afoul of the Minnesota right-of-way statute. Minn. Stat. 237.163 Sub. 7(d). Cities need to be careful, however, whenever extra services are thrown in to a fee agreement. Competitors may complain that the city is promoting the provider with the city- used units. 4.6 Most favored municipality clause. This excludes the percent of gross revenues provision. On the one hand, this frees up cities to negotiate a different percentage of gross revenue without JMS-171017vl SU 16045 SRA Memo November 1, 1999 Page 2 creating the problem of precedent for Metricom. On the other hand, it dilutes the most favored municipality clause if one city cuts a better deal, cities do not all benefit. 5. Relocation and displacement of radios and 5.1 Relocations at Metricom's Request. I would be more comfortable with "reasonable" efforts rather than "best" efforts. 6. Indemnification and waiver. The indemnification protection built into the ROW rules allows indemnification for the negligence of a city in issuing a permit or for failing to adequately inspect or enforce terms of any permit, including this agreement. Those cities would not be liable for such conduct under Minnesota law, but Metricom should undertake that defense, consistent with PUC rules. 7. Insurance. The League of Cities typically wants the right to review a copy of the actual insurance to ensure that the coverage is indeed as broad as represented in the certificate of insurance. 11.3. Severability of provisions. I am not comfortable with a clause that provides this agreement will be fully enforceable even if certain provisions from which the city benefits are declared illegal. In other words, if you removed the gross revenues fee, the poll annual fee and free subscriptions to the city, it is less likely that the city would have entered into the agreement. Absent the agreement the city will retain strong management rights but perhaps lose total fees. 11.6. Attorneys fees. The cost of attorneys fees incurred by Metricom in a dispute will inevitably be much higher than those incurred by a city. If it is not deleted there should be a limit on the fees, e.g., $5,000. 11.8. Representations and warranties. I do not know that a city can warrant that the obligations and rights of this agreement are fully enforceable. In the event that they are not, it is unclear whether there is some right to damages that Metricom would have from such a warranty. The only warranty that should be made is that the city and Metricom have the right to execute this agreement and be bound by it as a matter of corporate authority. Possible Additional Provisions The following are some additional provisions that could be included: 1. A. Metricom representation that these units will be used exclusively for the described purposes. 2. Metricom will not materially change the size or color of the units. 3. Again, Metricom will not pass through the fees as a line item on the city customers' bills. JMS-171017vl SU160-45 SRA Memo November 1, 1999 Page 2 4. As an SRA member, your city incurs a pro-rated cost of review of this agreement (4.4) I can determine by city, the cost for reimbursement purposes. This pro-rata cost could then be provided to Metricom for reimbursement, together with other costs. 5. Some type of performance bond should be required to ensure Metricom's proper performance. 6. The city retains the right to require proof of compliance with FCC standards, at Metricom's expense. 7. The city may further develop rules, regulations or specifications for pole attachment or removal, following the execution of this agreement, and such rules shall be fully incorporated into the agreement. 8. The city is not a partner or associate of Metricom. These are matters that can be raised or negotiated as you see fit. Please advise regarding Metricom reactions to various proposals. Again, it is unlikely that any given city has the right to exclude Metricom from the public ROW. JMS-171017vl WESTONKA Healthy Community Collaborative 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Suite D Mound, MN 55364 612-491--8058 Fax 612-491-8043 After School Activity Bus Community Hero Card Family Support Programs Health Advocate Outreach Parenting Support Police Chaplaincy Resource Directory Summer School Bus Student Retreats Take Five Skatepark Youth Center Big Buddy Mentoring Oct. 27, 1999 Dear City of Mound, We are writing to inform you of items generated from a discussion held after the presentation of the Westonka student survey data on June 29th, 1999. The Minnesota student survey is given to the same group of students while they are in 6, 9, and 12 grade. The survey offers a comprehensive glimpse into the lives and minds of adolescents by providing important comparative data related to at risk behavior. · lock down schools for safety · stress the importance of role modeling · make enjoyable places for kids to go · create fun things for kids to do in the Westonka area · talk to booster groups or coaches to make smoke free sporting events · publish assets for more people to see · teens mentoring teens · city banners promoting health · anger and stress management classes · parent information on how to deal with stress er anger in kids · "this isn't your dad's marijuana" campaign · adult mentoring/peer counseling · faith community agree on shared values and promote them · leadership training/support groups · smoke free public places/parks. We recognize your organizations contribution to our community. Your knowledge of this list is essential. Working together we can address the issues that confront our youth. By addressing one or more of these items, you will help our community to be a better place for adolescents to grow. The Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative (WHCC) is distributing this list and our work groups are addressing several of the items in the programs listed in our letterhead on the left. For additional information or assistance contact the Collaborative at 491-8058. Seeking to strengthen and connect our community in healthy creative ways. Sincerely, Leah Weycker, Coordinator Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative