Loading...
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