HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-13-2004 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 13, 2004
5:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Review Surface Water Fee and Pond Cleaning
3. Consider City Manager Contract
4. Set future Study Session topics
5. Adjourn
Agenda Number: t
DATE: January 9, 2004 for the Special City Council Meeting of January 13, 2004
TO: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
FROM: & 1Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. Director of Public Works and Mike Kohn,
Financial Analyst
SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY PONDS UNDER
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
ACTION REQUESTED: Select an appropriate alternative to maintain water quality
ponds under pond maintenance agreements.
BACKGROUND: This is the third special study session within the past year addressing
the issue of water quality pond maintenance for those ponds covered by Pond Maintenance
Agreements (NURP ponds). The previous study sessions were held on April 8, 2003 and
May 20, 2003. More recently at the November 25, 2003 Council meeting, Financial
Analyst, Mike Kohn, presented a request to increase the Storm Water Utility Fee
approximately 5% to cover inflation, or hold off on any rate increase until the City Council
could decide how they would like to address pond maintenance for ponds covered by
maintenance agreements (possible 15%+ rate increase). After some discussion, a Council
motion was approved postponing a decision on a fee increase until the issues could be
discussed further at a special study meeting which would be noticed City-wide to give all
affected residents an opportunity to voice their opinion. Subsequently, a news release was
issued on December 23rd, 2003 and individual letters were sent to all homeowner
association presidents on December 24, 2003, a copy of both of these items are attached.
Information was also publicized in the Plymouth News and on the City website.
DISCUSSION: As of December 31, 2003, we have record of 150 signed Pond
Maintenance Agreements covering a total of 214 water quality ponds, 24 of which are
older than ten years. It is expected that approximately 10 ponds, covered by maintenance
agreements, will be added each year for the next 10 years. In addition, there are
approximately 520 other ponds, drainage basin areas, and wetlands which the City is
responsible for maintaining.
The following are three alternatives for the Council to consider in determining how to
proceed with future maintenance of water quality treatment ponds covered in maintenance
SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY PONDS UNDER
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Page 2
agreements. Selection of any of the following alternatives does not eliminate the need to
address funding for additional water quality work in ponds, drainage basins and wetlands
not covered by pond maintenance agreements.
Alternative 1 - Enforce the existing pond maintenance agreements. This would mean that
water quality ponds under maintenance agreements would have to be maintained and
cleaned by the responsible party for each pond maintenance agreement.
Issues regarding this alternative are as follows:
It will be difficult to enforce the current maintenance agreements. There may be
extensive legal and administrative costs involved and some responsible
organizations under the pond maintenance agreements no longer formally exist.
The current pond maintenance agreements have a clause which states that if the
City develops a policy and program to clean any water quality ponds in the City
with general tax funding or a utility, then the parties to the pond maintenance
agreements may petition to have maintenance of their ponds taken over by the City
see attached). In order not to invoke this clause, the City would have to either, not
maintain its ponds, drainage basins, and wetlands for water quality purposes, or
create a special taxing district to pay the costs of maintaining each one.
Persons who have pond maintenance agreements don't feel it is fair that they
should have to pay to construct the water quality treatment ponds, pay to maintain
their surface water pond, and pay a surface water fee, while the rest of the City
benefits from the increased water quality provided by their pond.
Homeowner's associations and other responsible parties do not generally have the
expertise to judge the condition of their pond and to administer contractors.
The City could likely maintain the water quality treatment ponds at a lower cost
due to the availability of a City disposal site and the economies of scale of doing
multiple ponds per year.
It is likely that ponds would be kept in a better and more functional condition if the
City were responsible.
Surface water fees would have to increase 5% in 2004 to cover inflation.
Alternative 2 - Have the City assume the responsibility for maintaining and cleaning water
quality treatment ponds currently under pond maintenance agreements.
Issues regarding this alternative are as follows:
The City would avoid the difficulty and legal and administrative costs of enforcing
the pond maintenance agreements.
The City would not have to create any special taxing districts in order to pay for the
maintenance of its other ponds, drainage basins, and wetlands.
C\Documents and Settings\phillstr\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK124\Council Pond Cleaning Options 1-13-04.doc
SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY PONDS UNDER
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Page 3
On a cost/benefit/equity basis it would seem more fair to have all developed
properties pay for the cost of maintaining ponds since the property owners under
the pond maintenance agreements have already paid to construct the water quality
treatment ponds, pay the surface water fee, and provide the benefit of increased
water quality which all residents share.
It does not seem feasible to assess the costs of maintaining a pond back to the
responsible parties because it would be difficult to show any commensurate benefit
and identify the benefiting parties.
The City has the expertise to judge the condition of water quality treatment ponds
and would likely keep the ponds in a better operating conditions than if it were left
up to the responsible parties contained in the pond maintenance agreements.
The City could likely maintain the water quality treatment ponds at a lower cost
due to the availability of a City disposal site and the economies of scale of doing
multiple ponds per year.
Surface water fees would have to increase 20% in 2004 to cover inflation and the
cost to the City for maintaining water quality ponds currently covered by
maintenance agreements.
The residents of the City of Plymouth would be assuming costs currently owed via
existing legal agreements.
Alternative 3 - Defer the matter of maintaining and cleaning water quality ponds under
maintenance agreements for a specified or indefinite period of time. Under this option, the
City could choose not to enforce the existing maintenance agreements.
Issues regarding this alternative are as follows:
The longer this issue is deferred, the greater the potential rate increase if the City
does decide to take over pond cleaning. This cost would probably not be
significant if a decision is made in the next 2 years. In addition, the condition of
the ponds under maintenance agreements will continue to decline and affect
downstream water quality.
Surface water fees would have to increase 5% in 2004 to cover inflation.
During this period of time the City could not maintain its ponds, drainage basins,
and wetlands for water quality purposes without establishing special taxing districts
to pay for the maintenance.
With the new equipment and additional staff authorized in the 2004 budget,
maintenance staff can begin to address the backlog of drainage maintenance work
for storm water conveyance, and to reduce the potential for flooding.
CONCLUSIONS: This is a very complex issue which mixes legal, practical, economic
and contractual responsibility issues. In its most basic sense, it comes down to whether the
City Council believes that it is better for all residents of Plymouth to shoulder the burden
CADocurnents and Settings\phillstr\LocaI Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK124\Council Pond Cleaning Options 1-13-04.doc
SUBJECT: MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY PONDS UNDER
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS
Page 4
City Council believes that it is better for all residents of Plymouth to shoulder the burden
of a 20% surface water rate increase ($3.90 per month), versus a 5% rate increase ($3.41
per month), to avoid the practical difficulties of enforcing existing contracts.
A 20% fee increase only adjusts for inflation and provides funding for maintenance of
ponds under pond maintenance agreements. The ponds, drainage basins, and wetlands not
covered under the agreements will need additional funding in the future.
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
Director of Public Works
attachments: December 23, 2003 News Release
December 24, 2003 letter to HONs
Citizen responses to news release
Special Council meeting report April 8, 2003
Special Council meeting report May 20, 2003
Language of Pond Maintenance Agreements
C\Documents and Settings\phi IIstr\Local SettingsJernpo ,uy Internet Files`,OLK124,Council Pond Cleaning Options 1-13-04, doc
City of Plymouth
News Release
For Immediate Release Contact:
December 23, 2003 Mike Kohn, 763-509-5327
Surface water fee, pond cleaning to be subject of Jan. 13 meeting
The Plymouth City Council will hold a public information meeting on Tues., Jan. 13,
5 p.m., at City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., to discuss the City's surface water fee and
whether it should be used for cleaning ponds throughout Plymouth.
The City adopted a surface water fee 2'/2 years ago to help fund projects that address
water quality and drainage issues. The $3.25 fee for the typical single family home has
not increased since its adoption. Without undertaking any pond cleaning, the City
Council is considering a 5% inflationary increase in the fee, raising the rate to $3.41 per
month. Property owners pay the fee on their bimonthly utility bills.
If the City begins cleaning ponds, the increase in the fee would be significantly more — a
minimum of 15% more or 49 cents, which includes the cost of inflation. This increase
would only address water quality ponds constructed by developers since 1992. That
percentage could be larger depending upon the ultimate scope of the project and whether
a City -owned location can be found to store dirt and sediment dredged from the ponds. If
a site cannot be found, the City would need to plan for the cost of transportation and
disposal, according to Financial Analyst Mike Kohn.
In 1992, the City began requiring developers to build water quality ponds in new
developments. Since that time, about 200 ponds have been added to Plymouth. All of
those ponds need to be cleaned every 10 to 15 years at an average cost of about $15,000
per pond, according to Public Works Director Dan Faulkner.
Faulkner notes that in addition to the water quality ponds, many other natural wetlands
and sediment ponds also serve similar purposes — holding water to filter sediment and
pollutants from it before they flow to larger water bodies like Medicine, Parkers, Bass,
Schmidt and Gleason Lakes. Those ponds also need to be cleaned so that they can do
their jobs.
Developers were originally responsible for pond cleaning. But, most, if not all, signed the
responsibility over to homeowner associations. The problem is that many homeowner
associations exist on paper only, according to Faulkner.
Many residents may technically be part of a homeowners association and they may have
a financial burden and responsibility that they don't even realize they have," said
Faulkner.
A large number of ponds are due for cleaning within the next few years, according to
Faulkner. "We need to look at the issue now to determine how this issue will be
addressed. If it is not addressed by either the City or homeowners, the water flowing from
these could undo some of the progress we've made in recent years in improving the water
quality of our lakes," he said.
The ponds would be cleaned to maintain their ability to improve water quality — not
merely to improve aesthetics. Ponds must have sufficient depth to function correctly.
Cleaning the ponds largely consists of dredging sediment that has accumulated and
reduced the capacity of the pond. With diminished capacity, the ponds are unable to hold
the water as long as they should. This allows the water to prematurely flow into the larger
lakes that are used for swimming and boating — where it deposits the sediment,
phosphorus and pollutants.
Voice Your Opinion
The City Council is interested in hearing thoughts from members of the public on
whether the City should undertake a pond cleaning initiative. The public is encouraged to
attend the Jan. 13 meeting or send written comments to Engineering Division, City of
Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., Plymouth, MN 55447. You can also email comments
via the City of Plymouth's web site, www.ci.plymouth.mn.us.
December 24, 2003
SUBJECT: Information on Jan. 13 Meeting on Pond Cleaning, Surface Water Fee
Dear Homeowner Association President:
The City Council will hold a meeting on Jan. 13, 5 p.m., at Plymouth City Hall, 3400
Plymouth Boulevard, to discuss the surface water fee and a potential pond cleaning
program. This meeting will be featured in the January city newsletter, Plymouth News.
We've also shared information about the meeting with local media.
The City Council is very interested in hearing feedback from residents. I have attached a
copy of the newsletter story/press release. Please use whatever means you have available
to share this information with members of your association.
Thanks for your help in raising awareness of this issue.
Sincerely,
Helen LaFave
Communications Manager
From: Lawrence Marofsky[SMTP:LARRY@MULTICORP. NET]
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 5:38:43 PM
To: Web Contact Administration
Subject: Surface Water fee
Auto forwarded by a Rule
I would like to take a minute for some thoughts about the proposed shift of financial responsibility
for the ponds from the local area to city wide payment.
1. All of the ponds need to be maintained.
2. prior to 1992, all ponds were the City's responsibility
3. In 1992 changes were made which altered the responsibility to the developer and then the
development"
4. Had the city not changed this cost to the developer, then the city could have increased fees to
the developer to defray the future cost of the maintenance.
5. Because the City did not increase the fees, presumably, the homeowners were charged less
than they otherwise would have paid, and became liable for the maintenance costs of the ponds.
6. By the City's assumption of this cost, the individual homeowners who were to pay for
maintenance will be relieved of their obligations.
7. i only wish the City would relieve me of my obligations to maintain my home.
8. If the homeowners do not maintain the ponds, the City can assess the "benefited Owners"
being the same persons who were obligated to pay for the maintenance to begin with.
Lets keep the costs where they belong. For the lakes, streams, creeks and ponds created prior to
1992 or part of a City project, the City as a whole should pay whatever is necessary to keep them
in good condition. For the other ponds, the owners who are responsible should not be relieved of
liability.
Lawrence Marofsky
City of Plymouth
Dews Release
For Immediate Release
December 23, 2003
til yti•ti
Contact:
Mike Kohn, 763-509-5327
Surface water fee, pond cleaning to be subject of Jan. 13 meeting
The Plymouth City Council will hold a public information meeting on Tues., Jan. 13, 5 p.m., at City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., to discuss the City's surface water fee andwhetheritshouldbeusedforcleaningpondsthroughoutPlymouth.
The City adopted a surface water fee 2 % years ago to help fund projects that addresswaterqualityanddrainageissues. The $325 fee for the typical single family home hasnotincreasedsinceitsadotion. , r
L -- Option. u :thou. undertal.:ing any P,M2 cler. i,_._ .1j r . Council is considering a 5% inflationary increase in the fee, raisin,. the rateto $3.41 permonth. Property, owners pay the fee on their bimonthly utility bills.
If the City, begins cleaning ponds, the increase in the fee would be significantly more — aminimumof15% more or 49 cents, which includes the cost of inflation. This increasewouldonlyaddresswiterqualitypondsconstructedbydeveloperssince1992. ThatpercentagecouldbeL'gel depending upon the ultimate scope of the project and whetheraCity -owned location can be found to store dirt and sediment dredged from the ponds. Ifasitecannotbefound, the C! --,Y would need to plan for the cost of tdisposal, according to Financial Analyst N11ke Kohn. ransportation and
In 1992,
elope the City began requiring developers to build water quality ponds in newdeiclopments. Since that time, about 200 ponds have been added to P11 -Mouth. All ofthosepondsneedtobecleanedevery10to15yearsatanaveragecostofaboutS15.000perpond, according to Public Works Director Dan Faulkner.
Faulkner notes that in addition to the water quality, ponds, many ot(W.r natural wetlandsandsedimentpondsalsoserveSirn.lar TJ) PS — , 1put, s__ Lc ,ding "'at" to f"` c'-din:ent andPollutantsfromitbeforetheyflowtolargerwaterbodieslikeP,1edic1ne. Parkers. Bass, Schmidt and Gleason Lakes. Those ponds aiso need to be cleaned so til.- i,cy can dorjobs.
Developers were originally responsible for pond cleaning. But, most, if not all, signed theresponsibilityovertohomeownerassociations. The problem is that matey homeownerassociationsexistonpaperonly, according to Faulkner.
Many residents may technically bepart of a homeowners association and they may haveafinancialburdenandresponsibilitythatthendon't even realize they have," saidFaulkner.
A large number of ponds are due for cleaning within the next few years, according to
Faulkner. "We need to look at the issue now to determine how this issue will be
addressed. If it is not addressed by either the City or homeowners, the water flowing from
these could undo some of the progress we've made in recent years in improving the water
quality of our lakes," he said.
The ponds would be cleaned to maintain their ability to improve water quality — not
merely to improve aesthetics. Ponds must have sufficient depth to function correctly.
Cleaning the ponds largely consists of dredging sediment that has accumulated andreducedthecapacityofthepond. With diminished capacity, the ponds are unable to hold
the water as long as they should. This allows the water to prematurely flow into the larger
lakes that are used for swimming and boating — where it deposits the sediment,
phosphorus and pollutants.
Voice Your Opinion
The City Councill is interested in hearing thoughts frnm members of the public on
whether the City should undertake a pond cleaning initiative. The public is encouraged to
attend the Jan. 13 meeting or send written comments to Engineering Division, City of
Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., Plymouth, N N 5 5447. You can also email comments
via the City of Plymouth's web site, w-vvw.ci.plymouth.mn.us.
ev
M
r 70
z)
4-1Iez---Z- a cye{
Q_
DATE: April 4, 2003 for the City Council Meeting of April 8, 2003
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: 4aniel L. Faulkner, P.E. Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Plymouth City Council and staff have been discussing storm sewer system maintenance for some time. This
report provides a brief discussion on the City's storm sewer system and some of the issues involved. The
report includes a brief history, problems, and some proposed options.
BACKGROUND: The design and maintenance of the City's storm drainage system is an integral part of
preventing flooding, reducing damage to the City's infrastructure and maintaining the health of the City's
water resources. Storm sewer system maintenance and management has always been an integral part of the
Public Works Department. The first major storm drainage improvements were undertaken in the mid 1960s.
This initial Storm Drainage Program was subsequently updated with the 1973 Storm Drainage Plan which
presented an overall layout of major drainage facilities in Plymouth, including trunk storm sewers, ponding
areas, and major drainageways. The main purpose of the 1973 plan was to provide an adequate and
economical means of conveying stormwater runoff through Plymouth. This plan was revised and updated in
1980 to reflect recent platting and development proposals, storm drainage improvements, and the Land Use
Guide Plan. The plan provided information on storm sewer and open channel sizes, storm water flows, pond
storage volumes, water levels, and costs. In 1995 the City began a major up -date to its storm sewer plan by
incorporating water quality management into the City's first Plymouth Water Resources Management Plan.
This plan was based on an integrated resource management concept. The 1980 Storm Drainage Plan
addressed stormwater quantity while the new Plymouth Water Resources Management Plan largely focused
on quality as well as updating City Goals and Policies for both quantity and quality.
The City has just completed a digital (GIS) map of the storm sewer system. According to this map the
Plymouth storm sewer system infrastructure has 117 miles of pipes, 4,910 catch basins and manholes, 1,165
outfalls, and 708 outlets. Some sections of the system are over forty years old with others constructed as the
City developed. Much of the system is within public easements, however portions are on private property
without easements. Since 1991, the City has tracked all constructed water quality (NURP) ponds and
required an agreement that specifies the property owners are responsible for maintaining the pond. In
addition, the agreements require the property owners to have an engineer annually certify that the pond does
not need maintenance and is operating as it was designed. Prior to 1991 the primary function of ponds
constructed was for water quantity with water quality a secondary benefit. As of 2002, there were 135
maintenance agreements covering 190 water quality ponds. In addition Plymouth has 8 major lakes, over
800 wetland basins, along with various number of dry ponds, wet ponds and the designated ponding areas.
Drainage system maintenance generally consists of repair of system failures or removal of sediment. System
failure may include pipe separation, catch basin or manhole repair or replacement. Sediment removal is a
continuous effort to remove accumulated sediments. Sedimentation creates a number of problems such as:
SUBJECT: STORM SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Page 2
impedes flow and drainage,
increases flooding potential,
degrades downstream water resources,
impacts aesthetics,
damages storm sewer pipes by increasing water pressure or trapping water in the pipes ad structure
during freeze and thaw cycles,
damages the roadbed by preventing the draintile from draining into plugged structures.
Sedimentation greatly impacts both the water quality and quantity function of ponds and basins by reducing
their volume by filling them. Sedimentation is a major problem in maintenance of our drainage system.
Erosion is the basic source of sedimentation in the storm sewer system. Erosion is a natural process that will
occur in all drainage systems. The City practice of limiting discharge rates from developments has helped
reduce this affect. Many older areas of the City were constructed before this requirement for the construction
of water quality ponds was instituted and locations are often not available to retrofit ponds. Since, the
sedimentation is accumulated continuously, the problem becomes more severe and more evident the older the
system gets.
The City has been addressing the sedimentation issue through an aggressive construction erosion control
program, inspections, inventories, Capital Improvements Program (CIP) flood and drainage projects,
drainageway cleaning, and system repair. The City's storm sewer system maintenance has increased
significantly since 2001, after additional funds became available through Storm Water Utility Fee. For
example in 2002-03, approximately 20,000 cubic yards of sediment was removed from fourteen drainage
basins at an average cost of about $6,000 per site (not including disposal cost). The 2002-03 winter was an
unusually suitable year for this type of maintenance work. Lack of snowfall allowed staff time and the cold
weather made working in ponds more suitable. However, typically the City manages to maintain about eight
to ten areas per year. The City also has provided $100,000 per year in the CIP for projects larger then the
Maintenance Division is generally able to address.
As stated before, the City also has water quality agreements on about 190 water quality (NURP) ponds. Of
these 190 ponds, about 15 are 10 years old. This type of pond typically needs to be cleaned out every 15 to
20 years although it varies greatly depending on the surrounding area. Only one of these 15 ponds has been
inspected as required by the agreement. In late 2001, City staff surveyed 14 metro cities on their storm
drainage management programs. Shorewood, Minnetonka, Golden Valley, and Burnsville had from 1 to 20
water quality agreements for their newer developments. None of the cities contacted had enforced any pond
maintenance. In general, most cities are in the same situation as Plymouth, needing to expand their program
to take care of the aging NURP ponds.
The agreements for maintenance of water quality ponds constructed by developers from 1991 until 2002
include a clause that allows the property owners to petition the City to take over maintenance of the ponds if
the City implements a program to clean out similar water quality ponds. The City has not had such a
program to date. Some property owners have requested that the City take responsibility for the ponds based
on this clause. If a City program to maintain water quality ponds is instituted by the City it is expected that a
significant number of the property owners with this clause in their agreement would petition the City.
In addition to sedimentation the storm sewer infrastructure is aging. The Street Maintenance Division
currently rebuilds 30 to 40 catch basins each year and has estimated that it would need to rebuild about twice
N:\pw\Engineering\WTRRESRC\phase 11\Pond Management\S3 Main April 8 memo.doc
SUBJECT: STORM SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Page 3
that many to keep up. In addition, problems with storm sewer pipes are periodically identified that also need
repair.
Although, the City street crews have been working on these problems the City has not been able to keep up
with the work load for the past several years. With ongoing development coupled with an aging system, the
maintenance backlog of the City's drainage system is accumulating faster than ever before. Under the
expanded drainage maintenance program, for the past few years the City has been maintaining about 8 to 10
sites per year. However, 520 drainage basin areas and 190 constructed water quality (NURP) ponds have
been identified for a total of 710 drainage facilities. An average of 47 basins would need to be inspected,
evaluated, or maintained annually to meet a 15 -year cycle. The on going development and the aging system
has also led to an increase in the number of system failure incidents which is becoming difficult to keep up
with.
There are many options for the City to consider. Whichever option is chosen, in the near future it is possible
that the material will need to be disposed of outside the City greatly increasing costs. At an estimated
disposal cost of $5.00 per cubic yard, an additional $100,000 would have been spent for hauling excavated
material from the 14 sites this Winter.
Option 1. Continue existing program; This would involve addressing only top priority or "urgent"
drainage issues as they arise within the current budget constraints. As noted above the need for maintenance
of the drainage system continues to grow faster then the ability to address it.
This approach would not impact the existing budget. However, the backlog of work would grow and only
very high priority work would be addressed. As NURP ponds age the pond maintenance agreements would
be enforced which would require staff time and potentially legal costs. This process would likely need to
begin in the next 5 years.
Option 2. Contract out NURP pond cleaning; Although the entire drainage system is developing a
backlog of maintenance work, one option is to hire contractors to remove sediment from the water quality
ponds that are currently subject to pond maintenance agreements. Contracting the work out would not
require the capital investment to purchase equipment or the need to hire new personnel. This program would
relieve property owners with pond maintenance agreements of responsibility for maintaining their ponds.
Should this occur the Council may wish to establish parameters for taking over the ponds such as requiring
the property owners bring them to their original design condition or requiring them to pay the prorated cost
of the initial pond cleaning.
To maintain the 190 existing ponds on a 15 year cycle would require working on about 13 ponds per year.
The estimated cost of hiring a contractor to remove sediment is $13,000 per site or $169,000 per year. This
cost assumes the City provides a disposal site located in the City of Plymouth. A $0.35 per residential
equivalent factor (REF) per month increase (just over 10%) in the Surface Water Fee would be required for
this program. This would need to be increased if the City does not provide a convenient disposal site.
Option 3. Provide incentive for property owners with pond maintenance agreements; A concern
expressed by property owners with pond maintenance agreements is that they need to pay the Surface Water
Fee as well as pay for maintaining their ponds. The City could reduce the fee for these property owners if
they show they are inspecting and accumulating funds to provide the maintenance. The fee would not be
eliminated completely since many activities are undertaken with the fee for the overall public benefit besides
simple pond cleaning. A reduction of $1.00 per (REF) per month in the $3.25 per month fee would provide
N:\pw\Engineering\WTRRESRC\phase II\Pond Management\S3 Main April 8 memo.doc
SUBJECT: STORM SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Page 4
some incentive to these homeowners. One concern with this approach is that the City may still need to take
difficult actions to enforce the pond maintenance agreements.
Option 4. Clean ponds by expanding City capability; The current drainage system maintenance program
could be expanded within the City. An additional crew of 4 employees and capital equipment would be
required. An additional supervisor would also be required to avoid overloading the existing Street
Maintenance Supervisor. This is similar to the budget proposal made last year. This option would also
relieve property owners with pond maintenance agreements of responsibility for maintaining their ponds.
The cost as outlined in our 2003 budget submittal has been updated to reflect a full year program cost in the
initial year and an additional cost for tractor and trailer to haul the excavator. These updated costs do not
reflect disposal cost for the materials taken from the ponds.
The current cost of 4.0 full time equivalent positions (FTE), a supervisor and equipment for this crew is
716,313 for the initial year and $431,213 for the ongoing cost. This would be split between the General
Fund and the Water Resource Fund as indicated below.
This provides significantly more capability then is needed simply to maintain the ponds. A smaller
expansion of City staff and equipment would not be able to maintain the ponds in the limited time period the
work can be done. Generally, maintenance or sediment excavation of ponds is a winter activity, when frozen
ground is more suitable to heavy equipment traffic. This more comprehensive approach would also reduce
other drainage related backlog such as infrastructure repairs e.g. pipe or catch basin repair and replacement,
and drainage issues that can be addressed during the summer months. In addition it would enhance snow
plowing capability and address an emerging supervisory problem in the Street Maintenance Division where
one supervisor currently has 16 employees reporting directly to him. The supervisor provided by this option
would reduce this number.
SUMMARY:
The Finance Department has updated the 10 year cash flow model. The model was adjusted for 2002 actual
expenditures and revenue. Actual revenue from fees in 2002 were $57,604 more than budget. The ten year
plan also assumes a 5% increase in fees every other year. The effect on the Water Resources fund balance is
noted on the attached cash flow model. It should be noted that a one dollar per (REF) per month increase in
the fee will generate approximately $480,000 per year.
Another issue that has been raised concerns the possibility of a special assessment for properties adjacent to
ponds. Special assessments are required to be less than or equal to the benefit to the property generally
measured in the increase in property value. Demonstrating an increase in value from cleaning the pond
N:\pw\Engineering\WTRRESRC\phase ll\Pond Management\S3 Main April 8 memo.doc
GENERAL WATER TOTAL
FUND RESOURCES
FUND
643-688----$716;313
s$
72,625
ON-GOING 59,825 371,388 431,213
This provides significantly more capability then is needed simply to maintain the ponds. A smaller
expansion of City staff and equipment would not be able to maintain the ponds in the limited time period the
work can be done. Generally, maintenance or sediment excavation of ponds is a winter activity, when frozen
ground is more suitable to heavy equipment traffic. This more comprehensive approach would also reduce
other drainage related backlog such as infrastructure repairs e.g. pipe or catch basin repair and replacement,
and drainage issues that can be addressed during the summer months. In addition it would enhance snow
plowing capability and address an emerging supervisory problem in the Street Maintenance Division where
one supervisor currently has 16 employees reporting directly to him. The supervisor provided by this option
would reduce this number.
SUMMARY:
The Finance Department has updated the 10 year cash flow model. The model was adjusted for 2002 actual
expenditures and revenue. Actual revenue from fees in 2002 were $57,604 more than budget. The ten year
plan also assumes a 5% increase in fees every other year. The effect on the Water Resources fund balance is
noted on the attached cash flow model. It should be noted that a one dollar per (REF) per month increase in
the fee will generate approximately $480,000 per year.
Another issue that has been raised concerns the possibility of a special assessment for properties adjacent to
ponds. Special assessments are required to be less than or equal to the benefit to the property generally
measured in the increase in property value. Demonstrating an increase in value from cleaning the pond
N:\pw\Engineering\WTRRESRC\phase ll\Pond Management\S3 Main April 8 memo.doc
SUBJECT: STORM SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
Page 5
would be difficult especially when most of the work is below the water. The revenue generated would likely
pay for a relatively small percentage of the project cost.
If the City Council wishes to take over maintenance responsibility for the property owners with pond
maintenance agreements staff recommends implementing Option 2 and hiring contractors to do the work.
This would require an increase in the Surface Water Fee. The maintenance backlog in the City's drainage
system will also need to be addressed. Option 4 would provide some benefit in this, however more research
to establish the impact of this option on the backlog is recommended before moving ahead with it. This
research could be part of the upcoming budget process.
66
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
Director of Public Works
attachments: Harrison Place on Bass Creek Pond Maintenance Agreement
In-house Pond Cleaning Option — First Year
In-house Pond Cleaning Option — Ongoing
Water Resources Fund 10 Year Financial Analysis
N:\pw\Engineering\WTRRESRC\phase ll\Pond Management\S? Main April 8 memo.doc
Water Resources Fund - Pond Cleaning Option
First Year
4 FTE's Maintenance Worker (1/1 -12/31) 199,763 100% Water Resources 199,763
Overtime - Maintenance Workers (9/1 -12/31) 25,200 100% Snow and Ice 25,200
Supervisor (1/1 - 12/31) 69,250 50% Water Resources 34,625
50% Street Maintenance 34,625
Supervisor Pick -Up 20,000 50% Water Resources 10,000
50% Street Maintenance 10,000
Supervisor Workstation & PC 5,600 50% Water Resources 2,800
50% Street Maintenance 2,800
One -Ton Truck 52,500 100% Water Resources 52,500
Pick -Up 29,000 100% Water Resources 29,000
Tandem Dump 140,000 100% Water Resources 140,000
Excavator 125,000 100% Water Resources 125,000
J
Tractor 8 Trailer 120,000
Contractual Sweeping 50,000 100% Water Resources 50,000
TOTAL 836,313 716;313
Water Resources
General Fund 72,625
7-46;313 L
Pond Cleaning Year 1_03_26_03.xls
4/1/2003
Water Resources Fund - Pond Cleaning Option
Ongoing
4 FTE's Maintenance Worker (1/1 - 12/31) 199,763 100% Water Resources 199,763
Overtime - Maintenance Workers (1/1 - 12/31) 25,200 100% Snow and Ice 25,200
Supervisor (1/1 - 12/31) 69,250 50% Water Resources 34,625
50% Street Maintenance 34,625
Supervisor Workstation & PC 0 50% Water Resources 0
50% Street Maintenance 0
One -Ton Truck 7,000 100% Water Resources 7,000
Pick -Up 5,000 100% Water Resources 5,000
Tandem Dump 25,000 100% Water Resources 25,000
Excavator 25,000 100% Water Resources 25,000
Tractor & Trailer 25,000 100% Water Resources 25,000
Contractual Sweeping 50.000 100% Water Resources 50.000
TOTAL 431,213 431,213
Water Resources 371,388
General Fund 59.825
431,213
Pond Cleaning Option 3-26-03.xis
4/1/2003
Esocnses
Operating
Personal Services 0.05 172,612 184,204 193,414 203,085 213,239 223,901 275,096 246,851 259,194 272,153 285,761
0.05 40,000 50,000 52,500 55,125 57,881 60,775 67,814 67,005 70,355 73,873
Materials & Supplies 0.03 39,817 36,250 37,338 78,458 39,611 40,800 42,024 43,284 44,583 45,920 47,298
Incentive Program 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Capital Improvements
Lake
Wates
CIP - Pond & Drainage Improvements
Water Resources Fund, 505-1750
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
10 Year Financial Analysis
100,000 100,000
Other Capital 32,471
Cashnory Projection 4.25% Base Plus Street Cleaning & Drainage Maintenance Shift
Investment Return
7,700 7,700 7,700
Inflators 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Beeinnine Balance 1,795,275 2,775,274 1,546,202 1,298,573 891,013 555,145 805,718 1,019,487 1,083,379 1,432,947 1,752,486
Revenue
31,178 33,360 35,696
Transfers 0.03 15,000 20,450
Stormwater Utility Fees 0.015 1,557,604 1,580,968 1,684,917 1,710,190 1,922,635 1,849,975 1,971,611 2,001,185 2,132,763 2,164,754 2,307,087
Transfer ln/Misc 23,855
500,000
Interest Earnings IDO 723 99,920 59,194 45,561 30,091 28,317 37,979 43,756 52,359 66,292 81,197
Total Revenue -> 1,682,182 1,670,888 1,744,110 1,755,751 1,852,727 1,878,292 2,009,589 2,044,941 2,185,122 2,231,036 2,388,284
Esocnses
Operating
Personal Services 0.05 172,612 184,204 193,414 203,085 213,239 223,901 275,096 246,851 259,194 272,153 285,761
0.05 40,000 50,000 52,500 55,125 57,881 60,775 67,814 67,005 70,355 73,873
Materials & Supplies 0.03 39,817 36,250 37,338 78,458 39,611 40,800 42,024 43,284 44,583 45,920 47,298
Incentive Program 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Capital Improvements
Lake
Wates
CIP - Pond & Drainage Improvements 94,666 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Other Capital 32,471
7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700 7,700
Allocations 0.07 18,517 19,416 20,775 22,229 27,785 25,450 27,232 29,138 31,178 33,360 35,696
Transfers 0.03 15,000 20,450 21,064 21,695 22,346 27,017 23,707 24,418 25,151 25,905 26,683
Deferred Expenditures From 2002 500,000
Street Cleaning 0.05 203,650 217,873 224,524 235,750 247,578 259,915 272,910 286,556 300,884 315,928
Drainage Maintenance 0.05 283,866 298,059 312,962 329,610 345,041 362 293 380,408 399.428 419,399 440,369
Total Expenses ----> 704,472 2,899,920 1,991,739 2,167,712 2,188,594 1,627,718 1,795,821 1,981,049 1,835,554 1,911,497 1,991,045
EndineBalance 2,777,025 1,546,202 1,298,577 891,017 555,145 805,718 1,019,487 1087,779 1,432,947 1,752,486 2,149,725
Note - 2002 has been updated to actual.
Note - 2003 menue has been revised.
Note - Assumes a 5% rate increase every two years beginning in 2004.
Water Resources Base Projections (3-26-03).xls
4/12003
9:53 AM
AGREEMENT REGARDING
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT POND
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 19 by and among the City of
Plymouth, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and, McHunter
Co LLC and Bruggeman Properties, LLC, with reference to the following facts and circumstances:
A. Bruggeman Properties, LLC is the fee owner of certain real property situated in the City of
Plymouth, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows:
HARRISON PLACE AT BASS CREEK (9405 1)
BLOCKS ONE THROUGH 17
more specifically described on the attached Exhibit "A"
hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property").
McHunter Co. LLC is responsible for construction and maintenance of the water quality pond.
B. As a condition of its approval of the development for the Subject Property, the City of
Plymouth has required that the parties hereto enter into an agreement, which makes provision
for the maintenance of the water quality treatment pond ("Water Quality Treatment Pond")
located within the boundaries of the Subject Property as the same is described and depicted in
those certain construction plans drawn by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. and approved
by the City and constructed by McHunter Co. LLC. The Water Quality Treatment Pond is
located in the platted drainage and utility easement in Outlots A and B.
C. The parties hereto desire to set forth their agreement with respect to the maintenance of the
Water Quality Treatment Pond and the costs of such maintenance.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows:
1. For the purposes of this Agreement, maintenance of the Water Quality Treatment Pond shall
mean the annual inspection and certification by a professional engineer that the pond is
functioning in accordance with the approved plans and, if necessary, the periodic dredging of
the silt buildup in the Water Quality Treatment Pond as necessary to maintain the Water
Quality Treatment Capacity, as established for the Water Quality Treatment Pond in the
construction plans and to maintain the proper operation of the treatment function of the Water
Quality Treatment Pond.
2. McHunter Co. LLC shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the Water Quality
Treatment Pond, and shall bear all costs of such maintenance, until such time as Harrison Place
at Bass Lake (the "Association") is activated whereupon the Association shall bear the sole
responsibility for such maintenance and shall bear all costs of such maintenance. If McHunter
Co., LLC, or after its incorporation, the Association, does not undertake the necessary
maintenance within 30 days of notification by the City, or within 30 days provide the City with
a schedule for undertaking the necessary maintenance, the City may undertake such
AGM94051. DOC
maintenance, and the costs reasonably incurred by the City for performing such maintenance
shall be reimbursed to the City within 30 days by the party responsible for such maintenance
and, if the responsible party does not timely reimburse the City, then the City may recover its
costs by levying a special assessment against all single family house lots in the Subject
Property, each lotto bear an equal share.
3. Brug`geman Properties, LLC, as present owner of the Subject Property, for itself and respective
successors and assigns, hereby waives any statutory right which it may have to contest any such
assessment by the City of its maintenance costs on the basis of the benefit to portions of the
Subject Property.
4. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, in the event the City
shall establish a policy for maintenance by the City of storm water quality treatment ponds
located elsewhere in the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, under which policy the costs of such
maintenance are to be paid either out of general City revenues or by collection of utility or
service fees or charges, then any owner of any portion of the Subject Property shall be entitled
to petition the City for the inclusion of the Water Quality treatment Pond under such
maintenance program, and the City shall consent to such request and thereupon authorize the
termination of this Agreement. The recording of a certified copy of the Resolution of the City
Council of the City which sets forth the consent and authorization described in the foregoing
sentence shall serve to terminate this Agreement, without further action on the part of any party
hereto.
5. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit
of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this document to be executed as of
the day and year first above written.
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
BRUGGEMAN PROPERTIES, LLC CITY OF PLYMOUTH
By: By:
McHUNTER CO., LLC
By: By:
Mayor
City Manager
2-
AGM9405 LDOC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was executed and acknowledged before me on this
day of , by and
Mayor and , respectively, of the
City of Plymouth, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing was acknowledge before me this day of ,
by , the
a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the
of ,
Notary Public
3-
AGM94051.DOC
EXHIBIT A
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 1
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 2
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 3
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 4
Lots 1 and 2 Block 5
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 6
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 7
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 8
Lots 1 and 2 Block 9
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 10
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 11
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 12
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 13
Lots 1 and 2 Block 14
Lots 1 and 2 Block 15
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 16
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 17
4-
AG M94051. DOC
Agenda Number:
DATE: May 14, 2003 for the City Council Meeting of May 20, 2003
TO: wight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: POND AND DRAINAGE ISSUES
BACKGROUND: At the Special Council Meeting of April 8, 2003, the City Council
received a report entitled Drainage System Maintenance which included a brief historical
perspective on the development of the City's stone drainage system. Included in this
report were many system wide statistics, including the number of water quality treatment
ponds that are covered by maintenance agreements. Since 1991, the City has required
Pond Maintenance Agreements for all constricted water quality (NURP) ponds which
specifies that the property owners are responsible for maintaining the ponds within their
development. From 1991 through 2002, the City has entered into 135 Pond Maintenance
Agreements covering 190 water quality ponds. In addition there are approximately 520
other drainage basin areas which the City is responsible for maintaining.
The April 8 report also included four options for the City Council to consider.
1. Continue existing program; this would involve addressing only top
priority or "urgent" drainage issues as they arise within the current
budget constraints.
2. Contract out NURP pond cleaning; contractors would be hired to
remove sediment from the water quality ponds that are currently subject
to Pond Maintenance Agreements.
3. Provide incentive for property owners with Pond Maintenance
Agreements; the City could reduce the surface water fee for those
property owners with Pond Maintenance Agreements that are able to
document inspections as required and the accumulation of funds to
provide future pond maintenance.
4. Clean ponds by expanding City capability; add four additional City
employees and the necessary capital equipment to enable City forces to
C:\Documents and SettingsVkholm.CITYCENTER\Local Settings\Temporary Intemet Fi1es\0LK212\Pond cleaning funding.doc
SUBJECT: POND AND DRAINAGE ISSUES
Page 2
maintain all water quality ponds at an initial total cost of $836,000 and
an ongoing cost of $431,000 per year.
At the Special Council Meeting there was much discussion regarding the four options.
Staff was directed by Council to prepare a report for a future study session on this topic.
Information should be provided on the cost to dispose of sediment removed from ponds as
well as staff's approximate cost for inspection and assessments for pond cleaning projects
likely needed within the next five to ten years.
Staff has completed additional research and financial analysis. A significant variable in the
financial analysis is how capital improvement projects will be funded by the Bassett Creek
Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). Recent discussions indicate they will
likely be funded by an ad valorem tax across the watershed and therefore not be funded by
the City's Water Resources Fund. These projects include the water quality ponds for
Medicine Lake that were originally projected to come from this fund.
Another important variable that staff has researched further is the timing of the needed
pond maintenance. The new analysis in this report takes into account when all of the
ponds were built and places them on a 1.5 year maintenance cycle. The majority of the
pond maintenance needs will be some years into the future -a factor that benefits the City
financially. This delayed cost also allows the City to save money in the early years by
contracting for needed maintenance rather than hire additional staff. In later years, in-
house cleaning of ponds may still be the best option.
Based on the likelihood that the BCWMC would fund the Medicine Lake capital projects
and the new information on the timing of the needed pond maintenance, an updated
financial analysis, "Contract Pond Cleaning — No Rate Increase" has been prepared by our
Finance Department. This financial analysis includes the cost for cleaning the 190 water
quality ponds covered by maintenance agreements at an estimated cost of $15,000 per
pond, but does not include the capital improvement projects for Medicine Lake, assuming
that these will be covered by BCWMC capital funds. It does include the costs in the City's
Water Resource Management Plan for the other lake studies as well as identified watershed
activities and non -capital efforts on Medicine Lake.
This analysis shows that the City could contract out the cleaning of all 190 water quality
ponds on a 15 year cycle with no increase in the storm water utility fee. It should be noted
that the financial analysis has not included any fee increase for inflation which will be
necessary since projected costs were not adjusted for inflation. An "inflater" of 1% for
future growth has been included through 2018. Beginning in year 2007 there would be
approximately $200,000 available on an annual basis for unspecified capital projects to
improve the water quality of lakes throughout the City.
An additional financial analysis, "Contractual Pond Cleaning — 2004 Rate Increase of
4.6%", is attached which includes a one-time increase in the Surface Water Fee of 4.6% in
2004. This increase of $.15 to a monthly rate of $3.40, which approximates the rate of
CADocuments and SettingsUcholm.CITYCENTER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK212\Pond cleaning Cunding.doc
SUBJECT: POND AND DRAINAGE ISSUES
Page 3
inflation since the fee was enacted in 2001, would provide $200,000 annually for future
projects to improve lake quality beginning in 2007. This results in a much improved
minimum fund balance of $1,254,000 versus $54,000 without this increase. It should be
noted that this alternative financial analysis also has not included any fee increase for
inflation which will be necessary since projected costs were not adjusted for inflation.
This analysis at $15,000 per pond cleaning does not include disposal costs outside of
Plymouth. Staff feels there is a reasonably good possibility that a disposal site or sites
could be available for disposal within the City for the next 10-15 years. This includes the
existing City park site south of Schmidt Lake Road and west of I-494 adjacent to the AES
property (Fluidyne). This site is very low in certain areas and a significant amount of
disposal material could be deposited in these low areas. Some of the problems involved
with this site include access and existing trees. Negotiations with the property owner for
joint access use of their drive would significantly alleviate the access problem and further
analysis of tree loss would need to be completed. The site abuts a portion of the Savannah
neighborhood, but the filling would be a considerable distance from any homes. It would
be visible from I-494. The City site where filling would occur is also much lower than the
homes to the west and there may be potential to construct berms to screen the
neighborhood from either the filling operation or perhaps from I-494.
Another potential disposal site is the 40 acre Begin parcel at approximately 5300
Vicksburg Lane which has been identified as a future City playfield/park site. The
undeveloped portion of the Villages at Bass Creek plat between 10th Avenue and Highway
55, which is apparently undevelopable due to the extensive soil contamination may also be
a potential disposal site although significant buffering and berms would be necessary due
to the adjacent residential development. Property rights would need to be acquired for
both these sites.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Under the current Pond Maintenance
Agreements, if pond inspection and maintenance is not completed by the property owners,
the City can have the ponds cleaned and assess the property owners. We are beginning a
pilot program this summer to inspect and evaluate some of the older water quality ponds
and detennine the cost of this activity. We will be using a college intern and one staff
person to assist as needed. At this time, we are estimating that the necessary field and
office work will take approximately 8 to 10 staff hours, at a cost of $160 to $200 per pond.
Staff feels that assessing pond cleaning costs would be a very difficult process and legally
questionable. Many homeowner associations (HOA) were never formalized or individuals
do not realize their contractual pond maintenance responsibility. At this point in time we
are not aware of any HOA that has used collected funds to pay for any private pond
maintenance. Staff does not recommend proceeding in this manner.
Staff has also further considered the equity issues regarding who should pay for pond
maintenance. A good argument can be made that abutting owners would get a special
benefit from a cleaner pond and therefore should pay some of the cost. But it is also a
CADocumeents and Settings\kholm. CITYCENTER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK212\Pond cleaning funding.doc
SUBJECT: POND AND DRAINAGE ISSUES
Page 4
good argument that homeowners in subdivisions with water quality ponds have already
invested extra in water quality when they purchased their homes compared to other City
residents. Staff finds that these equity arguments are both valid and tend to counterbalance
one another. This leaves the main question of whether or not there will be a significant
city-wide benefit to the City's overall surface water system from regular maintenance of
the water quality treatment ponds. Staff believes the benefits to overall water quality will
justify the projected expenditures.
Since it seems likely that the BCWMC will develop a policy to fund capital projects within
the watershed through an ad valorem tax and would thereby fund approximately
1,160,000 in Medicine Lake capital improvements and $31,000 for Parkers Lake, it
appears feasible for the City to assume the future maintenance of the 190 water quality
treatment ponds covered by pond agreements. Staff therefore recommends that the City
assume maintenance of the existing water quality treatment ponds within the City covered
by Pond Maintenance Agreements as well as future water quality ponds required of
developments. This must be contingent on the BCWMC agreeing to fully fund the cost of
capital improvement projects throughout the watershed and that a disposal site can be
obtained within the City limits. It is further recommended that the surface water fee be
increased to $3.40 to provide additional unspecified funds and keep the fund balance at a
more acceptable level. If one or both of the above contingencies cannot be met, then the
City will need to strongly consider a larger increase in the surface water fee to take over
the Pond Maintenance Agreement pond cleaning responsibility.
Also, as previously discussed, there is currently a significant backlog of other drainage
maintenance needs not being met with this proposal. Staff will be reviewing budget
options over the next several years to help prioritize and address this backlog. In five to
six years, when the 15 year pond cleaning cycle shows several ponds will need to be
cleaned, the Council may want to consider adding staff and equipment to do the necessary
pond cleaning and drainage maintenance to either replace or supplement the contract
cleaning.
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
Director of Public Works
attachments Contract Pond Cleaning — No Rate Increase spreadsheet
Contractual Pond Cleaning — 2004 Rate Increase of 4.6% spreadsheet
CADocurnents and Settings\kholm.CITYCENTER\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK212\Pond cleaning funding. doc
AGREEMENT REGARDING
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT POND
THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 19 by and among the City of
Plymouth, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City") and, McHunter
Co LLC and Bruggeman Properties, LLC, with reference to the following facts and circumstances:
A. Bruggeman Properties, LLC is the fee owner of certain real property situated in the City of
Plymouth, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as follows:
HARRISON PLACE AT BASS CREEK (9405 1)
BLOCKS ONE THROUGH 17
more specifically described on the attached Exhibit "A"
hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property").
McHunter Co. LLC is responsible for construction and maintenance of the water quality pond.
B. As a condition of its approval of the development for the Subject Property, the City of
Plymouth has required that the parties hereto enter into an agreement, which makes provision
for the maintenance of the water quality treatment pond ("Water Quality Treatment Pond")
located within the boundaries of the Subject Property as the same is described and depicted in
those certain construction plans drawn by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. and approved
by the City and constructed by McHunter Co. LLC. The Water Quality Treatment Pond is
located in the platted drainage and utility easement in Outlots A and B.
C. The parties hereto desire to set forth their agreement with respect to the maintenance of the
Water Quality Treatment Pond and the costs of such maintenance.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing facts and circumstances, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows:
1. For the purposes of this Agreement, maintenance of the Water Quality Treatment Pond shall
mean the annual inspection and certification by a professional engineer that the pond is
functioning in accordance with the approved plans and, if necessary, the periodic dredging of
the silt buildup in the Water Quality Treatment Pond as necessary to maintain the Water
Quality Treatment Capacity, as established for the Water Quality Treatment Pond in the
construction plans and to maintain the proper operation of the treatment function of the Water
Quality Treatment Pond.
2. McHunter Co. LLC shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the Water Quality
Treatment Pond, and shall bear all costs of such maintenance, until such time as Harrison Place
at Bass Lake (the "Association") is activated whereupon the Association shall bear the sole
responsibility for such maintenance and shall bear all costs of such maintenance. If McHunter
Co., LLC, or after its incorporation, the Association, does not undertake the necessary
maintenance within 30 days of notification by the City, or within 30 days provide the City with
a schedule for undertaking the necessary maintenance, the City may undertake such
AG M94051. DOC
maintenance, and the costs reasonably incurred by the City for performing such maintenance
shall be reimbursed to the City within 30 days by the party responsible for such maintenance
and, if the responsible party does not timely reimburse the City, then the City may recover its
costs by levying a special assessment against all single family house lots in the Subject
Property, each lot to bear an equal share.
3. Bruggeman Properties, LLC, as present owner of the Subject Property, for itself and respective
successors and assigns, hereby waives any statutory right which it may have to contest any such
assessment by the City of its maintenance costs on the basis of the benefit to portions of the
Subject Property.
4. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, in the event the City
shall establish a policy for maintenance by the City of storm water quality treatment ponds
located elsewhere in the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, under which policy the costs of such
maintenance are to be paid either out of general City revenues or by collection of utility or
service fees or charges, then any owner of any portion of the Subject Property shall be entitled
to petition the City for the inclusion of the Water Quality treatment Pond under such
maintenance program, and the City shall consent to such request and thereupon authorize the
termination of this Agreement. The recording of a certified copy of the Resolution of the City
Council of the City which sets forth the consent and authorization described in the foregoing
sentence shall serve to terminate this Agreement, without further action on the part of any party
hereto.
5. The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit
of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this document to be executed as of
the day and year first above written.
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
City Engineer
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
LIN
BRUGGEMAN PROPERTIES, LLC CITY OF PLYMOUTH
McHUNTER CO., LLC
In
Mayor
City Manager
AGM94051.DOC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was executed and acknowledged before me on this
day of , by and
Mayor
City of Plymouth, a Minnesota municipal corporation.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
and , respectively, of the
Notary Public
The foregoing was acknowledge before me this day of
by , the of
a corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the
Notary Public
3-
AGM94051. DOC
EXHIBIT A
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 1
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 2
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 3
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 4
Lots 1 and 2 Block 5
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 6
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 7
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 8
Lots 1 and 2 Block 9
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 10
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 11
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 12
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 13
Lots 1 and 2 Block 14
Lots 1 and 2 Block 15
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 16
Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 Block 17
4-
AGM9i0S 1. DOC
Agenda Number: q
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
SUBJECT: Set Future Study Sessions
DATE: January 8, 2004, for City Council study session of January 13, 2004
1. ACTION REQUESTED: Review the pending study session topics list and, if desired,
establish future special meetings or amend the topics list.
2. BACKGROUND: Attached is the list of pending study session topics, as well as calendars
to assist in scheduling.
Pending Study Session Topics
at least 3 Council members have approved the following study items on the list)
Pond and Drainage Issues and Creek Cleaning (Council)
Flood Claims (Hewitt, Slavik, Black)
Discuss redevelopment options in City Center area (Hewitt)
Other requests for study session topics:
Request of Trigve Svard to give presentation on public helistops
Meeting with Hennepin County Commissioners (Hewitt)
Review Transportation Studies for Vicksburg Lane and Medina
Road
Review Lighting Regulations
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
January 2004
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
Feb 2004
1 2 3
Dec 2003
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
City Offices
closed
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEW YEAR'S
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DAY
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
28 29 30 31 29
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
6:30 PM MEDICINE
LAKE WATER QUALITY
PONDS PUBLIC
MEETING, Plymouth
Creek Center
7:00 PM PARK & REC
ADVISORY
COMMISSION (PRAC),
Council Chambers
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
7:30 AM MLC REGIONAL
LEGISLATIVE MEETING,
Plymouth Radisson, 3131
Campus Drive
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Plymouth Creek
Center
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
5:00 PM SPECIAL
COUNCIL MEETING:
SURFACE WATER FEE,
Council Chambers
Room
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
MARTIN
LUTHER KING
JR. BIRTHDAY
Observed) -
City Offices
Closed
6:00 PM BASSETT
CREEK WATERSHED
COMMISSION'S 2ND
GENERATION PLAN &
UPDATE ON FLOOD
ANALYSIS -Public
Safety Training Room
5:30 PM SPECIAL CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
WITH PLYMOUTH
AREA LEGISLATORS;
Plymouth Creek Center
7:00 PM JOINT
MEETING w/ HRA
SALE OF
CITY -OWNED
PROPERTY (NW
BLVD & SCHMIDT
LAKE RD) TO
7:00 PM PLANNING
COMMISSION, Council
Chambers
HRA, Public Safety
Training Room
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
000NCIL, Council
Chambers
11:45 AM
PLYMOUTH-MTKA
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
BORN Conference
Room, 301
Carlson Parkway, 4th
floor
4:00 PM MEDICINE
LAKE WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT
SUBCOMMITTEE, Bass
Lake Room
7:110 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake Room
10:00 AM
COUNCIL GOALS
AND PRIORITIES -
Fireside Room,
Plymouth Creek
Center
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
modified on 1/8/2004
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
February 2004
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake Room
2:00 PM -7:00
PM FIRE &ICE
FESTIVAL,
Parkers Lake
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
6:45 PM YOUTH 7:00 PM 11:30 AM TWIN
ADVISORY REGULAR WEST STATE OF
COUNCIL, Council COUNCIL THE CITY -
Chambers MEETING, Council Plymouth Creek
Chambers Center
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
ECC), Plymouth Creek
Center
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
PRESIDENTS
DAY - City
Offices Closed
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
6:00 PM BOARD & 7:00 PM 4:00 PM MEDICINE LAKE
COMMISSION REGULAR WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT
RECOGNITION
EVENT - Plymouth
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
SUBCOMMITTEE, Bass
Lake Room
Creek Center Chambers
7:00 PM PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake Room
Ash Wednesday (First Day
of Lent)
2"
Jan 2004 Mar 2004
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
25 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31
modified on 1/8/2004
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
March 2004
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1
5:00 PM
YOUTH TOWN
FOR UM,
Plymouth Creek
Center
2
Caucus Night
3
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
4
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
COMMISSION -
Medicine Lake
Room
5 6
7 8 9
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
Chambers
10
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Plymouth Creek
Center
11
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
12 13
14 15
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
16 17
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
18
7:00 PM HOUSING &
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
19 20
21 22 23
11:45 AM
PLYMOUTH-MTKA
BUSINESS COUNCIL,
BORN Conference
Room, 301
Carlson Parkway, 4th
noor
7:00 PM REGULAR
COUNCIL MEETING,
Council Chambers
24
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT) -
Medicine Lake
Room
25 26 27
28 29
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Council
Chambers
30 31 Feb 2004
S M T W T F S
Apr 2004
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
modified on 1/8/2004
OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS
April 2004
Sunday I Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
May 2004
S M T W T F S
1
7:00 PM HUMAN
RIGHTS
2 3
Mar 2004
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 COMMISSION -
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Medicine Lake
Room
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DAYLIGHT
SAVINGS
COMMENCES-
set clocks ahead 1
hour
Passover
begins at sunset
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION,
Council Chambers
7:00 PM PARK &
REC ADVISORY
COMMISSION
PRAC), Council
Chambers
Good Friday
Palm Sunday
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Easter 6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Public
Safety Training Room
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
7:00 PM
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
EQC), Plymouth Creek
center
7:00 PM HOUSING 8
REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (HRA),
Medicine Lake Room
Chambers
7:00 PM BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION,
Council Chambers
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
7:00 PM8:00 AM -1:00 PM
HUMAN RIGHTS PLANNING
COMMISSION COMMISSION,
STUDENT Council Chambers
WORKSHOP,
Plymouth Ice
Center
25 26 27 28 29 30
6:45 PM YOUTH
ADVISORY
COUNCIL, Public
Safety Training Room
7:00 PM
REGULAR
COUNCIL
MEETING, Council
7:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
ADVISORY
COMMITTEE ON
Chambers TRANSIT (PACT) -
7:00 PM BOARD OF
Medicine Lake
Room
EQUALIZATION
RECONVENED),
Council Chambers
modified on 1/8/2004