The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04.05.99 Council Packet COUNCIL MEETING REGULAR April 5, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVEAGENDA 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS a) Open Board of Equalization Meeting b) Staff Introduction - Parks and Recreation c) Staff Introduction - Police Department d) Swearing In - Police Department e) Approve Proclamation Proclaiming Arbor Day/Month f) Receive Tree City USA Designation 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS (Open for Audience Comments) 7. CONSENT AGENDA a) Approve Council Minutes (3/15/99) (Regular) b) School and Conference - Administration c) School and Conference - Parks and Recreation d) School and Conference - Police Department e) Capital Outlay - Fire Hall Roof f) Capital Outlay - Fire Department g) Adopt Resolution - Labor Negotiations Settlement - AFSCME h) Adopt Resolution - Accepting Donations - Senior Center i) Adopt Resolution - Repeal of State Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases j) Customer Service Satisfaction Report k) Approve Bills 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Adopt Resolution - Downtown Streetscape Project b) Adopt Resolution - Downtown Sanitary Sewer Sliplining Project 9. AWARDOFCONTRACT a) Adopt Resolution - 1999 Sealcoat Project (Supplemental) ~o. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Snowmobiling Concerns - Mr. Dale Pettet b) Adopt Resolution - Approval of Submittal of 2020 Comprehensive Plan Update Action Taken c) Nelsen Hills 5th Addition Citizen Petition d) MnDOT Municipal Program - Trunk Hwy 3 and Willow Street Improvements e) Accept Resignation - Planning Commission 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Approve Joint Powers Agreement - Castle Rock Township b) Adopt Resolution - Framework for Cooperative Project Efforts c) Adopt Ordinance - Cable Franchise Agreement d) Adopt Resolution - Approving Transfer of Cable Ownership 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Train Whistle Blowing - Council Update 14. EXECUTIVE SESSION Easement Acquisition S. E. Sanitary Sewer Project 15. ADJOURN City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us 5c FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police TO: SUBJECT: Oath of Office DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The newest member of the Farmington Police Department is Officer Nicole Sack. Officer Sack was appointed on March 15 and began her employment with the City on March 29, 1999. Officer Sack will be introduced to the City Council and will take her Oath of Office at this meeting. ACTION REOUESTED The City Administrator will administer the Oath of Office. Respectfully submitted, ("""""'" \\ ...I~';1 ~ . ~~v-v-J",'i~~~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 5~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director FROM: SUBJECT: Proclaim Arbor Day and Month DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION The annual Arbor Day activities are scheduled for Friday, April 30, 1999. DISCUSSION The City is a Tree City USA designated community. To continue with this designation, the Council must proclaim an annual Arbor Day Celebration. Staff has scheduled April 30, 1999 at 10:00 A.M. as the City's annual celebration. The ceremony will take place at the Farmington Ice Arena. School District #192 will have students at the ceremony to help plant the trees. The City Council is invited to participate through its collective support of the attached proclamation. BUDGET IMPACT Expenditures for the Arbor Day Celebration are included in the 1999 Budget. ACTION REQUESTED Proclaim Friday, April 30, 1999 as Arbor Day in Farmington and Mayas Arbor month. Respectfully submitted, -L ~J9- James Bell Parks and Recreation Director arbor97 WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: WHEREAS: PROCL:A:M:ATION Native Minnesotans and early pioneers depended upon existing forests to survive in often harsh, yet beautiful land, as do Minnesota's current residents and landowners; and, The old-growth red and white pine forests in the North, the mature hardwood forests of the Southeast, and the oak savannahs bordering the prairies in the South and West continue to change; and, Trees in Minnesota continue to struggle due to insect pests, diseases, severe weather extremes, and human activities including pollution, construction damage, vandalism, and neglect; and, Citizens must become stewards of their own environment by planting, maintaining, and protecting trees, so that the benefits which trees provide throughout their life cycles continue to improve the quality of life that Minnesotans enjoy. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD RISTOW, Mayor of the City of Farmington, do hereby proclaim April 30, 1999 to be ARBOR DAY and the month of May 1999 to be ARBOR MONTH in the City of Farmington. Gerald Ristow, Mayor Sf City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Designation Tree City USA DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has been notified that it has been selected as a Tree City USA recipient. DISCUSSION Staff applied for the Tree City USA designation and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has informed the. City that it has again been selected as a Tree City USA recipient. Criteria for selection is as follows: . An active forestry program within the City. . A forestry budget that equals $2 per capita of the entire City population. . Hold an annual Arbor Day Celebration. The activities on the Arbor Day Celebration must be advertised in the City's official newspaper. . A City Council resolution proclaiming the Arbor Day Celebration. . A City Council resolution supporting the Tree City USA designation. ( previously adopted) This award clearly indicates the City Council's commitment to forestation efforts within the community. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, --L b-~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director treecity ~ COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR March 15, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ristow at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Ristow led the audience and Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Also Present: Ristow, Cordes, Soderberg, Strachan, Verch None City Administrator Erar, City Management Team. Attorney Joel Jamnik arrived at 8:00 p.m. 4. APPROVE A GENDA MOTION by Strachan, second by Verch to approve the Agenda. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. CITIZEN COMMENTS a) Mr. Henry Iwerks - Meeting Minutes Mr. Henry Iwerks, 1105 Sunnyside Drive, thanked staff for their assistance with Council Minutes and made several comments regarding the Fire Department. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Item 7a was pulled as Councilmembers Cordes and Verch had to abstain from voting on the Workshop Minutes of February 23, 1999. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Cordes to approve the Council Minutes of March 1, 1999. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Strachan, second by Soderberg to approve the Workshop Minutes of February 23, 1999. Voting for: Ristow, Soderberg, Strachan. Abstaining: Cordes, Verch. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to approve the Consent Agenda as follows: b) Approved appointment recommendation - Police Department c) Approved school and conference - Police Department d) Approved school and conference - Fire Department e) Approved private development street cleaning contract f) Adopted RESOLUTION R22-99 accepting lease agreement - Pilot Knob Liquor Store g) Adopted RESOLUTION R23-99 approving reimbursement of expenditures - 1999 projects Council Minutes (Regular) March 15, 1999 Page 2 h) i) Adopted RESOLUTION R24-99 accepting donation - Senior Center Adopted RESOLUTION R25-99 approving City donation to ISD 192 - fencing project j) Received information - gateway signage update k) Approved Cameron Woods senior living - preliminary plat time extension request I) Approved bills APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. AWARD OF CONTRACT 10. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a) Adopt Ordinance - Amend Zoning Ordinance With the approval of the B-4 Neighborhood Business District amendment, there is a need to provide additional definitions to Title 10 ofthe Farmington Zoning Ordinance. Changes to definitions for "Neighborhood Services," "Personal Health and Beauty Services," "Light Manufacturing and Assembly," "Straight Trucks," and "Hospitals" were presented to Council. Councilmember Strachan asked who is responsible for enforcement of the code. Staff replied enforcement is handled by the Planning Department and if necessary, by the City Attorney. MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to approve the amendments to Title 10 of the Farmington City Code, Zoning Ordinance, concerning the definitions of Neighborhood Services, Personal Health and Beauty Services, Light Manufacturing and Assembly, Straight Trucks and Hospitals. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) 1999 Legislative Session - Proposed Annexation Legislation Several bills have been introduced in the current legislative session that would propose to change present laws dealing with annexation. The Annexation Election bill would re-instate elections in contested case annexations. The Return of the Minnesota Municipal Board would repeal the sunset of the Municipal Board bill which is scheduled to take place at the end of this year. The Limiting Annexation by Ordinance bill would restrict cities abilities to annex property that is 60 acres or less and petitioned by the owner. MOTION by Verch, second by Cordes authorizing the preparation of letters to the authors of the bills indicating the City's concerns and need for clarification to their proposed legislation. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a) Adopt Resolution - Deer Meadows Project Feasibility The City Council held a workshop on February 23, 1999 to review the various issues related to the petition submitted by several residents in Deer Meadows 2nd Addition. The engineering staff presented information regarding improvements that could be installed to improve the drainage in the swale located in the backyards oflots 7-13, block 1. It is proposed that 8" perforated draintile pipe Council Minutes (Regular) March 15, 1999 Page 3 with inlet structures be placed within the City's easement located at the rear of lots 8 through 13, block 1. It is proposed that the draintile be installed beyond lot 11 to lot 8, so that as much water as possible can be intercepted by the proposed inlets and conveyed by the draintile before the runoff gets to lot 11. The proposed improvements will help transfer runoff to the storm sewer more efficiently and generally should help the area to dry out sooner after a rain event than currently occurs. However, water will still flow through the swale. All areas disturbed by construction would be restored and turf established with sod. All resident items such as fences, bushes, or other landscaping items that are in the drainage easement would need to be removed by the residents before construction and replaced by the residents when the project is complete. The total estimated cost of the project is $29,500. These costs would be funded from the Storm Water Utility fund. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the less than 1 % grade could be corrected with the draintile. Staff replied there may be some local areas where the grade might be improved between the inlets, but not significantly. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUTION R26-99 ordering the proposed improvements for Deer Meadows 2nd Addition. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. b) Appointment Recommendation - Fire Department At the February 16, 1999 Council meeting, Council deferred action on ratifying the appointment of Fire Chief Kuchera for a three-year term, pending the preparation of an approved job description. A job description identifying the essential functions and responsibilities for the Fire Chief has been prepared and approved by Administration. Relative to Council's adoption of the resolution of support regarding management expectations and position responsibilities identified within the position description, Administration is prepared to recommend Mr. Kuchera's appointment subject to his continued observance of the job description. Councilmember Soderberg stated in reviewing the job description and reconciling in his mind what the Council wanted, and listening to the tape of the February 16, 1999 Council Meeting, there was some concern about how the job description would impact the by-laws of the Fire Department. He stated at that time, as a point of clarification, the main purpose of the proposal that Councilmember Cordes made was to clarify the relationship between the Fire Chief, the Administrator, and the City Council, clarifying the Fire Chiefs responsibilities to the Administrator. He also added that is the purpose of the job description, not to impact the Fire Chiefs relationship to the Fire Department. Councilmember Soderberg felt the job description has gone beyond what Council's intended purpose was. Councilmember Cordes asked for examples of where the job description has gone beyond the intended purpose. Councilmember Soderberg stated Council's intended purpose was to clarify the relationship between the Fire Chief and the Administrator, not to have an impact on the Fire Chiefs relationship to the Fire Department. He identified several lines in the job description that are already addressed in the by-laws and the constitution. There are a number of things that also address the relationship between the Fire Chief and the Administrator. Councilmember Soderberg stated the sections containing Council Minutes (Regular) March 15, 1999 Page 4 responsibilities, qualifications, and education and experience go above and beyond what Council asked for initially, and that was a clarification of the relationship between the Administrator and the Fire Chief. Councilmember Cordes stated she also read the job description, the by-laws, the constitution, the code that the Council establishes, and as a Council they do have a right to develop, recommend and oversee the Fire Department's by-laws. She did not think the job description goes against the by-laws, but adds to it. The by-laws do not have to be amended by the adoption of the job description. The Council's policies supersede Fire Department by-laws. She stated she would like to see the by-laws amended to incorporate the job description, but they do not have to be. The Mayor asked if it would be confusing to the Fire Department to have two sets of orders. Councilmember Cordes stated when it says supervisory responsibilities it compliments the by-laws. When she discussed with the Fire Chief what it takes to be a Fire Chief, he expressed he would like to see some qualifications put on that position. Councilmember Soderberg stated he is not arguing that point. What Council asked for was to clarify and identify the relationship. While it does do that, it also adds to the by-laws. For example, under education and experience, what if in future years the Fire Department elects a Chief that has not been with the department for five years or does not have seven years experience, and brings that to the Council for ratification. Councilmember Cordes replied, according to the job description, before he can seek election he needs to have this education and experience. Councilmember Soderberg replied this requires an amendment to the by-laws, because the by-laws are the overall governing policy of the Fire Department. Councilmember Strachan stated the police department has a set of policy statements and the Council has something else. Not everything is in one document. This job description is something else that needs to be followed. He was not sure this job description supersedes anything. The Attorney stated to the extent the job description is inconsistent with the by- laws, then an expression of Council support, and through the City Administrator as his job is to develop job descriptions, it would require a change in the by-laws. Councilmember Strachan asked if any ofthis was inconsistent with the by-laws. The Attorney replied, the only thing that is inconsistent with the by-laws is the by-laws are silent on what number of years of experience the Fire Chief must have. The education and experience requirements are also in the by-laws. The by-laws do not state a number of years for experience. Fire Chief Kuchera stated he is not disagreeing with the job description. However, he was not in support ofthe education and experience portion, and feels this should be a part of the by-laws, not in the job description. Councilmember Strachan asked if the Executive Board would then make the determination on education and experience required to be a Fire Chief. Fire Chief Kuchera replied Council Minutes (Regular) March 15, 1999 Page 5 the board would have some input on it, but it would ultimately be the decision of the 36 members of the Fire Department. Councilmember Strachan asked what if a six-month probationary firefighter runs for Fire Chief. Fire Chief Kuchera replied they do not have any voting rights for one year. After that time, they are eligible. City Administrator Erar stated it would be inconsistent with all the City's other job descriptions not to include years of experience and education in the job description. While the Fire Department is free to add this to their by-laws, City Administration personnel requires that job descriptions contain this information. Councilmember Cordes stated the job description states 7+ years, and asked what the Fire Department is looking for. Fire Chief Kuchera stated the department has not addressed it. There have been a number of questions from the firefighters about this portion. Councilmember Strachan asked if it was possible to make this part of the job description issued by the City to read, education and experience as determined by the board. Fire Chief Kuchera stated there is more to it than just putting it in the by-laws. The Human Resources Coordinator stated she and the Fire Chief did work on the job description and thought they came up with an accurate job description. One of the things she cautioned when looking at qualifications, and part of the reason she has a concern leaving the qualifications up to the Executive Board, is the employment laws that can be affected. Especially with the Americans with Disabilities Act and also Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. Qualifications are needed to determine who is eligible for the position. If the qualifications are made too strict and adversely discriminate against a protected class, that is not appropriate either. She and the Fire Chief discussed the 7+ years to see if it would exclude anyone in the future who might want to be a chief. The Executive Board would need to make sure the qualifications are legally compliant with the employment laws. Councilmember Soderberg asked if the by-laws and the constitution the way they are now with this job description, comply with the employment laws. The Human Resources Coordinator replied the by-laws and constitution do not have specific qualifications. She stated she and Fire Chief Kuchera worked very hard on the job description to be accurate and to take into consideration what the Fire Department's needs were and what City Administration needs were. Councilmember Soderberg stated his earlier comments were not meant to say he is in disagreement with the job description. It is much more than Council asked for. Councilmember Strachan asked if both bases could be covered by saying education and experience in this job description is determined through the by- laws of the Fire Department, which they can do through their process, but then how do we make sure it is legally a good job description? At the review point once the by-laws have been passed? Someone has to author the by-laws change. Should the Human Resources Coordinator review it at that point? He feels the Council Minutes (Regular) March 15, 1999 Page 6 Fire Department can determine education and experience that is legally defensible. He wants to make sure the City is covered legally through the Human Resources Coordinator. Perhaps after authorship, Human Resources can review the by-laws amendment to make sure it is consistent with goals. Councilmember Cordes stated, so after the Fire Department votes on the by-law amendment, whatever they vote on, if it meets state and federal labor laws, would then be incorporated. But the education and experience would remain in the job description as stated in the by-laws. City Administrator Erar stated the job description has already been approved administratively per the City Code per the City Administrator Ordinance. He cautioned Council they are essentially turning over the development of a job description to a City department to make a determination on education qualifications. That is highly irregular. It sets a stage for other departments to make that same determination relative to what they want in terms of specific criteria. That is why you have personnel and Administration to make those judgements. The action was to adopt a resolution of support of the approved job description. The job description has already been approved through Administration. That is the way it works for all job descriptions throughout the City. He does not object to allowing the Fire Department to amend their by-laws consistently with the job description. If the amendment is different, it can be brought back to Council and if Council makes that determination as an ordinance, that can be written into the job description. Fire Chief Kuchera stated the job description has been prepared for Council's review. What he was hearing was that Council has no input on the job description. It was his understanding Council has a right to input on the job description. City Administrator Erar replied the job descriptions are administratively developed consistent with state and federal employment laws and the requirements of the organization and City ordinances. That is the process that is followed by every other City position within the organization. Fire Chief Kuchera then asked if Council does not have the authority to make any changes to the job description. The City Administrator replied Council has the authority through the by-laws that would come back to have that effect on the job description. The Fire Chief stated what he was understanding that if the Fire Department chooses a different number of years in education and experience, that is brought back in the form of a by-laws amendment that would be in the job description. City Administrator Erar stated the job description presented was the product of conversations between the Fire Chief and Human Resources. He did not change anything relative to years or anything. If the by-laws come back and they meet with the administrative approval of Human Resources and in review of employment laws they can be incorporated in the job description if Council approves the by-laws amendment. Council Minutes (Regular) March 15, 1999 Page 7 Councilmember Cordes stated Human Resources has done research in accordance with state and federal labor laws and if a recommendation comes back from the Fire Department and if Human Resources cannot substantiate those years, it may remain as is. MOTION by Soderberg, second by Strachan to adopt RESOLUTION R27-99 in support of the Fire Chief job description regarding position expectations and responsibilities. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Cordes, second by Verch to ratify the appointment of Mr. Kuchera as Fire Chief subject to position expectations and responsibilities as identified within the approved job description. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE a) Council Meeting Minutes - Transcription Process Council agreed to contact Administration prior to the Council meeting regarding any questions on the meeting minutes. b) MUSA Application - County Road 72 Project During the public hearing that was held on the County Road 72 project, a question was raised about the houses that currently are in the City but are on private septic that would possibly be served by the new sewer line as well as the vacant lots. Met Council suggested staff file a Comprehensive Plan/MUSA expansion application with them. Staff proposed to schedule a Planning Commission hearing in April to make a recommendation. This would be forwarded to Council in May. If Council approval is received, it would be forwarded to the Met Council. The Mayor asked if the two properties not in the City would be stubbed in later? Staff recommended stubs be made for those properties as the City cannot petition for MUSA as the properties are outside of the City. Councilmember Soderberg: Asked when the Council Goal Setting Workshop will be held. Staff replied it was scheduled for April 10, 1999. The workshop was rescheduled for April 24, 1999, from 9:00 - 3:30 p.m. City Administrator Erar: The Cable TV Franchise Agreement will be brought to Council at the next meeting. The capital grant issues have been worked out. The grant is for $60,000 for the first year for the underwriting of camera and video equipment for live broadcast. The equipment should be in late July, early August. Finance Director Roland: With the new equipment, the budget would be on video to the community as well as the preliminary tax levy hearings. Community Development Director Olson: Reminder of the Joint Planning Commission workshop Wednesday at 7 p.m. Council Minutes (Regular) March 15, 1999 Page 8 Mayor Ristow: A fax was received from Congressman Luther's office that Farmington has been awarded $75,000 to fund an additional officer as part of the COPS program. The Mayor received a letter from Mr. Dale Pettet of Pine Knoll regarding concerns about the pond by his house. He asks Council amend the ordinance to not allow any motorized vehicles on the pond. In the past, Council has met with state representatives and other community people to keep in communication with them. He would like to invite them to hear their input. Staff asked if the Mayor would like them to come to a communications workshop or a Council Meeting. Councilmember Strachan suggested staff find out available dates for all three representatives to attend a workshop. Calls are starting to come in regarding train whistles. Staff replied Council adopted the ordinance and the railroad said they would not comply with respect to FRA rules. City Attorney Jamnik stated the railroads have decided industry-wide not to comply with the ordinance. Staff suggested the item be put on the Council agenda as a legal opinion from the City Attorney and invite the FRA to the meeting. Council can make a determination on how to enforce the ordinance. 14. ADJOURN MOTION by Cordes, second by Strachan to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. APIF, MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, (t}~J~ h/~ Cynthia Muller Executive Assistant 76 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Schools and Conferences - Administration Department DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION Attendance at the annual Minnesota City Management Association (MCMA) conference scheduled to be held on Wednesday, May 12 through Friday, May 14, 1999 in Brainerd, Minnesota is being planned. DISCUSSION As a professional municipal administrator and member of the MCMA, I am required to maintain at least 40 hours per year in continuing professional education in order to keep abreast of changing local government management dynamics in the profession. This conference will provide a variety of professional development opportunities and dialogue on changes within local government nationally and regionally on a wide range of relevant public management issues. During my absence from the City, Finance Director Roland will be designated as acting City Administrator. Should Council members need to contact me during this absence, I will be checking voice mail periodically. BUDGET IMPACT The 1999 Budget provides adequate funding for this purpose. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, V~ ( ohn F. Erar City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?c TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: School and Conference Request - Parks and Recreation Department DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION Attendance at a Pagemaker computer class held April 20, 1999 in Bloomington is being planned. DISCUSSION This school will give the Recreation Program Supervisor advanced training in Pagemaker. This program allows staff to design the many brochures that are distributed to the City's residents throughout the year. BUDGET IMPACT The adopted 1999 Recreation budget includes funding for this school. ACTION REQUESTED For information only. Respectfully submitted, ~~.~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?c! TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administratortp'r- FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: School and conference request DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION / DISCUSSION The Police Chief will be attending the annual Executive Training Institute in St. Cloud, April 19 through April 22, 1999. This Training Institute is one of two annual training opportunities available to Police Chiefs in the State of Minnesota. The Training Institute combines a valuable educational opportunity with the largest Public Safety trade show in the upper Midwest. BUDGET IMPACT The total cost of registration and lodging for the conference is $451.00. This amount has been approved in the 1999 Budget. ACTION REOUESTED Information only. Respectfully submitted, -----I ........ ~,/ 5" i l' , /} /' :'''. ,'" / ;:/' '] --,/ ~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.d.farmington.mn.us /e FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director TO: SUBJECT: Approve Capital Outlay - Fire Hall Roof DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION The 1999 City Budget provides for the repair of the Fire Department facility roof. DISCUSSION Staff prepared and transmitted roof specification packets to six contractors. Two valid quotations were returned and reviewed by staff. The work to be performed is to repair the edges of the roofing material where it has pulled away from the building edge. The following is the list of quotations: Contractor Base Bid 1. All Systems Roofing $ 4,140.00 2. Atlast Roofing $ 4,475.00 Alternate A $ 3,420.00 $ 3,400.00 Total Bid $ 7,560.00 $ 7,875.00 The contractor has indicated that the work would begin in May. Due to the favorable quotations received, the work would include both the office and bay roof area of the Fire Hall. BUDGET IMPACT The funding for this work is within the $12,000 amount that was budgeted for in 1999. The 1999 budget originally reflected doing only the office portion of the building this year with the remaining bays to be completed in the year 2000. However after researching the project further, it was determined that the entire roof could be repaired in one year, well within approved budget. RECOMMENDATION For information only. Respectfully SUbmi~~d., . . ,~~V' ',> ,:~.-9-Q~ James Bell Parks and Recreation Director cc: Dwight Bjerke, Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief fire 1 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrato~ FROM: Ken Kuchera, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Capital Outlay Purchase - Fire Department DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Fire Department is requesting to purchase an AIM #4601 Air Monitor. DISCUSSION The new AIM #4601 Air Monitor will replace the existing obsolete AIM #250 three-gas monitor. The new monitor will provide monitoring of combustible gas, oxygen, carbon monoxide and hydrogen sulphide. This unit comes complete with sampling pump. The Fire Department is also requesting to purchase the four-gas calibration kit for routine calibration of the new unit. This will allow us to calibrate in-house and eliminate sending the unit out for calibration. BUDGET IMPACT The existing AIM #250 monitor will be traded in on the new unit. The total cost does reflect a slight increase over the budgeted amount of approximately $40.00. This additional cost should be offset by expenditures which would come in under budget throughout the fiscal year. ACTION REOUESTED FOz:ti\Z:L-- Respectfully submitted, Ken Kuchera Fire Chief City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ FROM: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ Brenda Wendlandt, Human Resources Coordinator TO: SUBJECT: Labor Negotiation Settlements - 1999 Wage Re-opener Maintenance Unit Clerical, Technical Professional Unit DATE: AprilS, 1999 INTRODUCTION This memorandum has been prepared to update Council on the status of the City's labor settlement with the organized groups in Public Works, Parks & Recreation, Administration, Liquor Store, and clerical employees in the Police Department. DISCUSSION The City has reached a Wage Re-opener settlement with bargaining units in the above-mentioned departments retroactive to January 1, 1999. This agreement provides for a three percent (3%) wage adjustment and a re-alignment of job classifications based on the Comparable Worth Study. The negotiated cost of living adjustment is consistent with other labor units within the City. A financial analysis is attached regarding the settlement with the units, which will need to be transmitted to the Bureau of Mediation Services. The attached Uniform Settlement Form (USF) must be presented to Council whenever it ratifies a new labor contract settlement. Copies of the USF will also be sent to the Legislative Commission on Employee Relations. BUDGET IMPACT Settlement costs negotiated with both bargaining units are within the financial guidelines adopted in the 1999 City Budget. ACTION REOUESTED Adopt the attached separate resolutions ratifying labor contract wage settlements for the Maintenance and Clerical unit and the Technical and Professional unit, respectively. Respectfully submitted, ~~ ~~ef7 (/>0 Brenda Wendlandt Human Resources Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING WAGE INCREASES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES OF THE CLERICAL, TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL UNIT FOR CONTRACT YEAR 1999. Pursuant to due call and notice, thereof, a regular meeting of the City council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of April, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington recognizes Council 14 as the exclusive bargaining representative under M. S. Chapter 179A, for the clerical, technical, and professional personnel classifications identified in the collective bargaining agreement; WHEREAS, the City has negotiated in good faith with representatives of Council 14 for the purpose of reaching a collective bargaining agreement on wages for contract year 1999; and WHEREAS, M.S. 179A, Subd. 3, paragraph (n) requires completion and submittal of a Uniform Settlement Form to the governing body at the time a collective bargaining agreement is ratified, and where it is further the intent of this legislation to provide a standard basis for public employers and the public to compare the economic elements of the collective bargaining agreement; and WHEREAS, wage re-opener settlement terms have been successfully negotiated between the City and the membership of Council 14, Local 3815 in accordance with procedures established by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota approves the following: 1) a three percent (3%) wage adjustment retroactive to the 1st day of January, 1999 in the collective bargaining agreement wage re-opener. 2) Acceptance of the attached Uniform Settlement Form for contract year 1999, and further direct that this form be made available for public inspection during normal City business hours. Adopted by the Farmington City Council this 5th day of April, 1999. Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: John F. Erar, City Administrator RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING WAGE INCREASES BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS AND PARKS AND RECREATION UNIT FOR CONTRACT YEAR 1999. Pursuant to due call and notice, thereof, a regular meeting of the City council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of April, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: WHEREAS, the City of Farmington recognizes Council 14 as the exclusive bargaining representative under M. S. Chapter 179A, for the public works and parks and recreation personnel classifications identified in the collective bargaining agreement; WHEREAS, the City has negotiated in good faith with representatives of Council 14 for the purpose of reaching a collective bargaining agreement on wages for contract year 1999; and WHEREAS, M.S. 179A, Subd. 3, paragraph (n) requires completion and submittal of a Uniform Settlement Form to the governing body at the time a collective bargaining agreement is ratified, and where it is further the intent of this legislation to provide a standard basis for public employers and the public to compare the economic elements of the collective bargaining agreement; and WHEREAS, wage re-opener settlement terms have been successfully negotiated between the City and the membership of Council 14, Local 3815 in accordance with procedures established by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington, Minnesota approves the following: 1) a three percent (3%) wage adjustment retroactive to the 1st day of January, 1999 in the collective bargaining agreement wage re-opener. 2) Acceptance of the attached Uniform Settlement Form for contract year 1999, and further direct that this form be made available for public inspection during normal City business hours. Adopted by the Farmington City Council this 5th day of April, 1999. Gerald G. Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: John F. Erar, City Administrator .-i ltl U 'H "'" .... .-i 'H U l:: ::l o U ~ ~ U Ul ~ l:: o +J 0> !:: 'H f;; l-l ltl Ii< 4-l o >t +J 'H U ~ Clc= o I.L. t- Z IoU ~ IoU S V) ~ o I.L. Z :J l-l <lJ !:: OJ P, o <lJ ~ w > ~ I-' 'z w Vl W co: c.. w co: ~ Vi ::> -' U x w ~ Iii w > 9 0.. ~ U :::; a:l ::> 0.. ~ S II ! I~ j ~ C --.. 8 .... ... o .. to ~ ;;0 '" !l .. Cl II Xl = .. to ~ 1! '" ~ ! 'C ~ 8 os I'll ~ ;;:; l! .. Cl ; = S " C N I U OS .. to ~ N l! .. o !l to Cl .. f 51 .. a:l N .... N "I"- '3.... 11 "5s Vl.o .. oo ~~ >-E .0.. "'e ~ '" .. E z_ ~ I"- o (Xl l"- I"- Vi .. oo ~ 3l .. a:l .. '3 11 ;Xi:; g>" ~~ ~~ ...> ~~ Z.E co .... g>" ~ 51 .. co .. :; 11 '5;;0 Vl_ g>" ~~ >-E .0.. ...~ ~ .. .. '" Z.E U'l ~~ -0;::- Vl.o g>" ~ >-c .0 .. ...E ~ ~ .. 0 Z::!: .. '3 11 .::- .x~ g>" ~ ~~ ...~ ~ ~ Z::!: ~1 '5- Vl~ g>" ~ >-c .o~ ..... l~ ~ lt1 M N ,~~ :;.0 U .. Vl ~ g o '," Vl ::> ....,.:9 ~ E z8 c .. .. ~ E c: ..... ~ 0 ~ "w "5 ....,.Q!:9 ~ --; .b QJ u g z.su ~ < cVl .;: ::> u .. Vl c: ru .2 'u :; 0.0 ~ .~ .. 0 a:lU c .. o ~ 15 * 'ii 'g V;0!:9 Sf G ~ ~.98 c< ._ co r~ c .. .. ~ E c: - I!! 0 .9l 'iJ '5 V't-0!:9 ~;;;l: z.98 ~6 o '';; Vl ::> .0 i~ z8 < t~ ::> u .. Vl c: 1! .g u ::> 0.0 Vl 'r: ..- '" c: ~8 c .. .. E c ~ Jg .S! Ea;~ Vl~~ .. cu- ~ g 15 co-,u c< ,_ Vl :;- u .. Vl ~g c5l 'g ....,.:9 ~E z8 c .. .. ~ E c: ~ .~ .S! c7i'Q;'$ ....,.0=:::9 ~;;;l: Zg15 -'U ,~~ :; ~ Vl c: t; .2 ~~ <11- '" c: .. 0 a:lU c .. .. E.c: o I!! 0 ~ ~ .~ V'}0!:9 ~;;;l: .. g 6 ",,-,u I"- ~ lt1 .... co :0 ~I co Vi co co '" co co N co 11'1 - co 11'1 ~ G~ 1i ~ ~~ ...c: ~ ~ Z.E ~ N 11'1 G ] ~ ~ ~ ~ iX ~.5 ~~ l sB ...:; ~ a Z.E g, N G 1i eJ ~ c: .. I! .. ::l ~.E -\0" j- .S IS .... c: ~ ~ Z.E \0" ~ 19 I! ~ ~ a:l_ 19 c: eJ ~c: I! , ~ Gl a:l.E o ;;:; ].0 c: .. Cl .2 ~ ...:; ~ i Z.E "'" ~ M ~ ;;:; 11'1 ] c: .. .. u Cl ~ ~ ::> ~.5 -~ l!l c: <II Cl .g G.I ...l:! I! ~ Gl Z.E 6 '" ] ~ g I! ~ 51 ~.5 R ]- c: .. Cl ~fj ...c: I! ~ a Z.E R o ;;0 .0 ~ ::; .2 ~ ...c: ~ ~ ZE I"- '!) M ;;0 Vl ~~ -' c: ~ I! .. Gl a:lE :;;: ~ ::; .2e ...:; ~ i ZE - '" Jl~ ~ ~ .. ::> ~.E co - ~ ::; .2~ ...:; ~ a ZE co Jl f: .- c: -' I! s: 51 ~.5 o U'l .0 4:< 1: Vl_ .. .. o '," ~ c: "'I!! ~~ ZCl U'l Vl .t:::]i :cc Vl I!! ~~ .. .- coO N ..... 4:< :c Vl_ .. cu 0''; ~ c: "'I!! ~~ ZCl N .... ~] .:: c: Vl I!! ..~ ~ .- coO g, 4:< 1: Vl_ .. .. ..e '';:; c: "'I!! ~~ .. '- ZCl g, .t:::~ :2c Vl I!! ~~ a:lCl o \&) ~R ~ \C t:..o ~ x '"i g -s w Cl '," 0 .. ..e ~ "'8- ~ E z8 .2~ "'0 ~ 'E <II ::> ZU \0 11'1 o . .. .. ~~ w 0 ~ 'E .. ::l a:lU ;;:; 0..... ~ Jl .. .. .g~ "'0 ~ 'E .. ::> zu ;;:; .... o . cu .. l:.!!! " ::> w u 51 .~ ~u 6 0.... I! x w o ;a ~a ~ 'E .. ::> zu 6 '\. I! cu ><3 w u ~ 'E cu ::> a:lU o R 11'1 "C c: ~ .g .S!Cf <II c: Cl .. '" .. E ~8 ]; ~5 Cl .- .. .. s ~ "'8- ~ E z8 Iii .:: c: 5 .S! .. fR J20ij .....'" ~ E g z~U ;:j' '" ~ .~ ~m <II c: 0" '" ~ g a:lU in .... c: o ... 'oW .. cu -=o~ o..l!i 51 E E .. 0 0 a:lu-U ]~ ~ 5 Cl ,- .. .. ..e ~ ..... '" ~ E z8 Iii .:: c: 5 ,S! 0... fR ~~!. ~ E g z.Eu ::: 19 ~lJl <II c: Cl8- 51 E ~8 c: o ~ ''::; .. .. .::- .. - 0 c: O..l!i 51 E E ~~8 c: :8 .. -E '0 ~ .....'" ~ E E z~8 co Vl c: o ... '; .. cu .s '0 ~ O..l!i 51 E E .. 0 0 a:lu-U o co .0 o lt1 "'" U'l ..... N N N N M o (Xl M g>,,- c:a-. ...0 .:: U .. 4A- .5 ~~ z~ ] g ~.::: ..- 00.0 c:..... cu .:: U.. vt .5 ~Qj .. .. z~ sg .2.:: ..- oo.... c:.... cu -<= U .. fA .5 ~~ Z~ 199 ,2.:: ~ lt1 ~ M 6 .... .. c: g>"ij c: .. "a:l is E cse.E g, 11'1 <II .S :0] ~a:l ~"! ~t!2 ::.I! o R ..... co .:...... .. ~ "C- c: c: o .. u E .. .. ~il ~: ~ ~~ c: cu cuco is E ~,g \0" .... .. .S :;'* ~a:l ~19 a:lt!2 ~ ;:j' N .. c: g>"ij c: cu "CO is E ~g .. .. ~li i! E u:~ -= cu .. - Vl t!2... .. .S :;'* ~co ~~ ~,g ~ ~ ;;:; .... .... .... t:: :; ~- "C c: ,!:: ~ .:: .. ~il - Vl .2_ t ~ ~ E 51 ~ ~ ~ ~ u:.:: j ~! '" E ::l -' ~ ~ a-. ..... 6 U'l C <II E >- cu 0.. E ::> Vl '" E ::l -' ~ ~ ~ ~ u:.: .5 ~ ~JJ I ~ U'l .... R .0 .... .... Iii C > .. 0 E ill ~ m ~ ~ v= E .E ill ~ ~~ '" E ::> -' ;;:; .9C:>" m .2"2 ~ ~G~~ Q. :3"_ _ ::alsui f': o .jJ f': 'M S H III JL. 4-< o .jJ OM U .;,: w > o ... D- ~ U ::; m :J D- ~ ~ o u. ... Z LI.I ~ LI.I ... ~ LI.I (I) ~ ~ o u. - z ::> I~~ ~~"" ~j G ~ <Xl <Xl \0 = "- N <Xl N ~ J!:!... r-I :=..... ]~ i" ~< ti 156 -5;:: .~~ l! VI", VI", U C 0'\ :0 ~ ~ o~ ~c~ tac: ur-;L: >ClI>_'uO 'lS .. E~ E~ ~''5 Ji ~>eytt4A~ ~ 1J ~ ~>~E c3 ~~~~~8 "" ..... .-! 'M tJ f': ::l o U I'il ~ U tI) JL. r:t: w > ~ I-' 'Z w VI w eo: D- w eo: w > Vi ::l ... U x w i ; "" .. II ~ "E '" ~ ! ~ i U 'lS .. II ~ ~ J ~ "ll C N ti l! C! o U 'lS .. II ~ ~ .. II ~ I "" r;:; 1J II o N !l II o ~ !l c3 ~1 ~ u:; ClI 00 ~ 3l II m ClI :; 11 "5r;:: VI.., 3l, ~~ EE ....~ ~ e>- Z.E <D N 3l, ~ 3l II m ClI :; 11 -5. VI_ 3l, ~~ >-E .0 ClI ....> ~ e ~~ ii'l 3l, ~ 3l II m ClI :; 11 -0&3 VI.., 3l, ~ >-c: .oCll ....E ~ ~ z~ ClI :; 11 -ou:; VI_ 3l, ~ >-E .oCll ....E ~ ~ z~ E ~ ClI ~ E c: ~ ~ 0 ~ ti 'g ytO!::9 ~ r; .:: ~.98 ~ < ~VI .~ u ClI VI c: fa .9 '0 :; ~~ ~~ mu c ClI 6 ~ 6 QJ .- .- Eii5 V)~~ ClI 11- '" U c: II 0 0 al...U ~< ,_ o:l ~.., U ClI VI ~ .~ 0- VI :> 4A:-9 ~~ z8 c .. ClI ~ E c: - l!! 0 ~.~~ 4A0!:~ ~ n; l::l ZClI g 5 ...u < ,~~ ~ ~ VI c: -; .2 '0 :; ~,e ~~ II 0 mu E ClI o ~ 5 Q.I .- .- E~] VI ,- QJ n; .:: '" u c: II 0 0 m...u ~< .~ ~ u ClI VI ~ .~ 0- VI :> ~:9 ~~ z8 c ~ ClI o E !! l!! 5 ~"ii 'g Ma::~ ~..l::l Z g 5 ...u ,~~ ~ ~ c: .. ,2 'g] ~ '~ II 0 alU c ClI 6 ~ 6 E 'ii 'g V') 01:::9 IV fa .b :n:6 m...u ~ "" .-! ..... co :;; ~ ..... N ..... N co - I/') co o:l .., co o:l N co I/') co I/') o N lf1 N G~ ] ~ J2 ~ ....c: ~ l!! ClI iil Z.E ~ N I/') .. u ~ ~ ~ c: 3l ~ ~.5 ~~ l ~ ~ ....c: l!! ~ iil Z.E 0;- N ~ 19 ~ ~ ~.5 -;0 rl- '5 ClI ~ .-~ ~ ....c: ~ l!! ClI iil Z.E ;0 ~ 19 'i fl ~ fl ~ c: 0 c: ClI l!! ClI l!! ;Q5l,~iil m.5 "CD.E J J~ J: ;~j as ~a;- ...... \0 :a \0 6 cu ~ 4A .~ ~ ~ ~ Qj 1;.;g ~~ DE sEal! ,g ,sag r:t: "- Z r;:; 19'" c: ClI o s ~ ....1; ~ ~ Z.E \0 o M r-- r;:; I/') s c: ClI ~ g &f ~ ~.E -~ B c: ClI o s fJ ....c: l!! ~ iil Z.E 6 .., 19 c: ClI ClI g o l! ~ iil m.E R s- c: ClI o ~ ~ ....c: l! ~ iil Z.E R ~ '" J! :::; .2 ~ ....1; ~ a ZE \0 <Xl N ~ I/') ~~ ,- c: ... II ~ ~ m.E ; J! :::; .Si fJ 4Ae ~ :> ClI '" Z.E ;:;; ~B ,- c: ... l! 3l :> II '" m.E <D J! :::; .2 B 4A~ ~ :> ClI .. Z.E <D ~ fJ :,:j ; 3l ~ ~.E ii'l '" .t:< :E VI _ ~ II o '0:; ~ c: ....l!! ~~ ZD ~ ~ J Vi" \D R '" I/') '" ] .~ ~~ ClI c: 08- ~ ~ mu 4::3 :2c I/') l!! ~~ II ,- alO N .. .t:< :E VI _ ~ II o '';:; ~ c: ....l!! ~~ ClI ,_ zo N .., ~~ :cc VI l!! ~:! II ,- mO 0;- .t:< :E "'- ~ II 0.. ~ c: ....l!! ~~ ClI ._ zo 0;- ~3 ~~ ~~ II ,- mO ;0 l!!'" x w o n; :a ~ 'E zO , . II ~ .::~ )( :> w u QJ "i: '" ~ II :> mu r;:; '0 ~ ," ~ ~ ~ a w 0.. II J2 ~ ....8- ~ E ClI 0 zu ~ ~ ..9~ ....0 ~ 'E: ~8 r;:; .., , . II ~ ~ II X "'5 w u Q) "C :g ~ mU 6 11 ~ . N t: [! ..S! c .E ~ .g ~ II ..E~ ....8- ~ E ClI 0 zu ~ ~ J2J:! ....0 ~ 'E z8 6 - , . II ~ l::l.!!! ~ 0 r~ alU l1R t:'" J! e ClI 0 o '0:; ~ II .g ~ ....8- ~ ~ zu ~ .c e o ,g ~ II .g '0 ~ ...."'e>- ~ E ~ z tf LI N r-- "" lf1 <D '" c: o ... '';; ClI II -5'O~ o"'~ ~ g ~ lDU.U ~ .c c: o .2 ~ 1;; .g '0 ~ ......e>- ~ E E ~.E8 ~ .., ].~ ~~ 08- 3l ~ .;gu ii'l .., c: o ~~- .~ o c: ClI .. e>- 3l E ~ ~~u ~ .c e o ,g ~ II J2 '0 ~ ...."'8- ~ E E ~.E8 :: l.g J!lll ClI c: 08- 3l E II 0 mu c: o. ~-~ - 0 e 0",8- 3l E E II 0 0 alu.U i:tl .. N N N ClI- 00'" C.. II .c: U ClI 4A- .: ~Qj ClI .. z.;g ]j ClI- 00'" eN II .c: U ClI M.: ~Si z.;g .. E ;g.g al! ;; ~- 1? fi1 ,- E .c: ClI ~~ - VI ~.... M "" It)..; '" '" ClI .= tal ~al 3119 .;gt2 al! R .. co ~.. II ~ '0- c: c: o ClI ~~ -= J!J: t2.... ClI C ~~ C II 11m DE i!.E ;0 .., ClI .= ;;Si ~~ ~g mt2 :.l! o ~ N ClI c: g:,s: e II 11m DE i!] ~ II :,!!'C ~ ~ i.i:~ -= II ClI - VI t2... ClI .= ;;~ :,!!"CO i] ~t9 "" ~ \0 <Xl \0 lf1 - " ..... ..... N ii'l N r;:; - :.l! o N " r;:; " E ClI E >- II D- E :> VI e>- E :> ... ~ ClI > o 3l II ClI l!! e u:.: .5 ~ cse,;g al! '" .. 6 VI c ClI E >- II D- E :> Vl e>- E :> ... '- ~ o 3l II ClI l!! c: u= c: ClI - '" al!J!l , al! '" N R N c ClI E >- II D- E :> VI e>- E :> ... ~ > o 3l II ClI l!! c: u= .E 3l ae~ gc>. ;J .2"E '" =1ao~ B:~.!!~ ::l1sJ, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ?~ TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: James Bell, Parks and Recreation Director SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Accepting Donations - Senior Center DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION Donations have been received at the Senior Center from the First National Bank and Dakota County Abstract. DISCUSSION . The First National Bank has donated $500 and Dakota County Abstract has donated $100 to the Senior Center Pancake Breakfast Fund-raiser. Staff will communicate the City's appreciation on behalf of the Council to the First National Bank and Dakota County Abstract for their generous donations. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution accepting the donation of $500 from the First National Bank and $100 from Dakota County Abstract to the Senior Center Pancake Breakfast Respectfully submitted, ~o \:SA James Bell Parks and Recreation Director RESOLUTION No. R -99 ACCEPTING DONATIONS TO THE SENIOR CENTER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of April, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: Member ------ introduced and Member ----- seconded the following: WHEREAS, the First National Bank has donated $500 and Dakota County Abstract has donated $100 to the pancake breakfast fund-raiser; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to accept such donations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Farmington hereby accepts the generous donation of$500 from the First National Bank and $100 from Dakota County Abstract to be used as stated above. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of April, 1999. Mayor Attested to the _day of April, 1999. City Administrator SEAL --- ---- --- --- - ---------------- ---- -- ---- ----- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us ;j. TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Repeal of State Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases DATE: AprilS, 1999 INTRODUCTION For several years, municipalities throughout Minnesota have advocated the repeal of the state sales tax on local government purchases. The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has worked with member cities to lobby the legislature to repeal the state sales tax on local government. In addition, cities within Dakota County have formally petitioned key legislators to repeal this law as well. DISCUSSION The LMC is again requesting the assistance of member cities through the adoption of the attached resolution calling for the repeal of the state sales tax on municipal purchases. It was projected that-in 1999 state sales taxes would cost local government approximately $89 million in additional expenditures. Essentially, the state sales tax on city purchases provides for one level of government, in this case the state, to tax another. In effect, local government is collecting a state tax revenue that is virtually hidden to local property tax payers. Accordingly, cities are collecting a state tax through local property tax levies for the benefit of state government that add unnecessarily to the cost of local government operations. It is expected that with a state budget surplus of over $2 billion, the legislature will eliminate this costly provision through the repeal of existing law. A position paper (attached) on the repeal of the state sales tax on local government purchases was submitted to the legislature last year, on behalf of the Dakota County League of Governments, and was approved by Council in 1998. The LMC is hopeful that this year's efforts will culminate in the repeal of this unnecessary and onerous state law. ACTIONREOUESTED Adopt the attached resolution supporting the repeal of the state sales tax for local government purchases. 4li!;r:mitted. /0:::: F~. Erar - ---~------------- RESOLUTION NO. R_-99 SUPPORTING REPEAL OF THE STATE SALES TAX FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of April 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the Legislature imposed the sales tax on local governments in 1992 when facing a significant state budget deficit; and, WHEREAS, the state government has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax since 1992 on local government purchases of items such as road maintenance equipment, wastewater treatment facilities, and building materials; and, WHEREAS, the sales tax on local government purchases is passed on to residents in the form of higher property taxes and fees; and, WHEREAS, the state's financial picture has improved dramatically and the need for the sales tax no longer exists; and, WHEREAS, Minnesota is one of only seven states which impose sales tax on local government purchases; and, WHEREAS, imposing the sales tax on local government purchases is an inefficient way to raise state revenues, especially where sales tax is paid for bonding projects with accompanying interest costs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council encourages its state legislators to support the repeal of the sales tax on local governments. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of April 1999. Mayor Attested to the 5th day of April 1999. City Administrator SEAL DAKOTA COUNTY LEAGUE OF GOVERNMENTS LEGISLATIVE POSITION PAPER STATE SALES TAX ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES LEGISLATIVE SUMMARY The Dakota County League of Governments (DCLG) believes that the state sales tax on local government is essentially a State imposed property tax. As the Legislature contemplates methods for property tax relief, elimination of this sales tax on local government would achieve two objectives. First, reduction of the property tax burden on residential and commercial property owners who actually pay this tax as a "pass through" from local government. And secondly, preserving local government accountability for levies it actually imposes and uses for its own purposes versus acting as a collection arm for a disguised state government tax. BACKGROUND In 1992, the Legislature repealed the sales tax exemption for local government purchases, (excluding Fire Services capital outlay purchases), that included all cities and counties, with the exception of school districts. This action increased the cost of local government by an estimated $77.5 million in fiscal year 1998 and a projected $89 million in 1999. As no additional state aids were introduced to offset this additional cost to local governments, this repeal has effectively increased local property taxes to finance state operations by forcing local governments to increase local tax levies. In addition, other states that have imposed sales tax on local government purchases, have indicated it is costing 5% to 7% of gross receipts in administration costs. The League of Minnesota Cities and Association of Minnesota Counties has adopted a similar legislative position calling for the reinstatement of the sales tax exemption for local government purchases. DISCUSSION The chart below reflects capital outlay purchases, excluding project construction materials and non- capital operating expenses, for IDakota County and selected 2cities between 1994-1997, with 1998 budgeted expenditures. , , 1,705,342 2,708,319 1,370,647 1 ,367,467 $ 554,214 652,488 607,950 484,423 624,854 $ 213,012 719,727 1,116,528 1,384,330 1,278,324 $ 376,282 445,100 549,083 376,962 599,293 $ 263,927 145,234 327,521 409,935 163,347 110,806 Not Available 65,755 787,460 865,070 476,901 884,977 $ 820,188 249,249 217,495 613,394 717,228 380,282 $ 224,920 139,966 As the reader can easily see, total sales tax payments to the State are significant and present continuing fiscal challenges to local government units attempting to reduce costs. Total sales tax paid by the 1 Dakota County capital outlay figures and sales tax paid are inclusive of all categories of direct capital expenditures. 2City figures do not include sales tax paid on City construction project materials and non-capital operating expenses. above local government units over this period of time is almost $5 million. This figure does not include sales tax paid by cities on materials used in city constructed public improvements. It should also be noted that the sales tax paid by contractors directly on construction materials contained within construction bids are also not included in the chart's figures for either Dakota County or Dakota County cities. Ostensibly, sales tax paid directly by contractors to purchase materials in privately awarded public improvement projects are passed through to local government in the form of higher construction costs. Kev Points Supporting the Dakota County League of Government's Position . Sales tax paid by local governments through General Fund operations is raised through the property tax effectively increasing the local tax burden for property owners and raising the cost of local government. Accountability to taxpayers is lost when one level of government taxes another level of government. Sales tax collected by local units of governments is essentially a state imposed tax levy. The State of Minnesota should exclude the collection of sales tax from levy limits on City/County levies as this is a state tax revenue source. The establishment of the Local Government Trust Fund provided for local units of governments, including Counties, to be the recipient of 1/2 percent of the sales tax revenue collected. The State has not met this commitment and is effectively using this source of revenue to fund its own operations. It should be noted that the State threatened to reduce state aid to cities and counties who did not "voluntarily" chose to support the 1/2 percent sales tax option increase. The State Legislature did not impose sales tax upon all levels of government specifically excluding school districts from this tax. This type of state policy is discriminatory, inconsistent and punitive in its application as it treats one level of local government differently without legislatively articulating the reasons for this disparate treatment. Finally, the State continues to realize huge budget surpluses on its general tax collections. The collection of sales tax should be limited to goods and services produced by the private sector, exempting the provision of public services that are in essence paid through property taxes, state and federal aids and targeted user fees. . . . . . LEGISLATIVE ACTION REQUESTED Dakota County and the Cities of Dakota County support full exemption from Minnesota Sales tax on all purchases by local government. In addition, as there was no increase in state aids to cities and counties when the sales tax was imposed, there should be no corresponding reductions in state aids upon its repeal. Accordingly, this exemption must not be coupled with any reductions in Local Government Aid or HACA. We request that Dakota County's legislative representatives support this position during the 1998 Legislative Session. On Behalf of the Dakota County League of Governments, Brandt Richardson County Administrator Dakota County Thomas Burt City Administrator City of Rosemount John Erar City Administrator City of Farmington LMC 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 phone: (651) 281-1200. (800) 925-1122 Fax: (651) 281-1299 · TDD (651) 281-1290 League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence March 8, 1999 Dear Administrator/Clerk: As you may know, the League of Minnesota Cities has been working for the past three years to build legislative support for the repeal of the sales tax on local government purchases. This year a record number of bills have been introduced to repeal the tax and committees in both the House and Senate have held hearings on the topic. Although we have raised awareness and have gained support, legislators need to hear from you and other city officials about how important these bills are for your community. While most legislators agree that taxing local government purchases doesn't make sense, the repeal would permanently reduce annual state sales tax revenues by an estimated $80 million. Given the new February budget forecast that includes an additional $730 million in surplus state revenues through the end of the next biennium, the state can certainly afford to eliminate the sales tax on local purchases. Legislators need to know that repealing the sales tax on local government purchases is good tax policy and means savings to your residents. Please contact your representative or senator to encourage them to support the repeal of the sales tax on local government purchases. Attached is a sample council resolution to encourage legislative support and a sample letter that you can modify and send to your legislators. Thank you for your time and effort. Sincerely, (JAhrAM~ Gary Carlson Director, Intergovernmental Relations AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMA TIVE ACTION EMPLOYER RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REPEAL OF THE STATE SALES TAX FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES WHEREAS the Legislature imposed the sales tax on local governments in 1992 when facing a significant state budget deficit; and WHEREAS the state government has collected hundreds of millions of dollars in sales tax since 1992 on local government purchases of items such as road maintenance equipment, wastewater treatment facilities, and building materials; and WHEREAS the sales tax on local government purchases is passed on to residents in the form of higher property taxes and fees; and WHEREAS the state's financial picture has improved dramatically and the need for the sales tax no longer exists; and WHEREAS Minnesota is one of only seven states which impose sales tax on local government purchases; and WHEREAS imposing the sales tax on local government purchases is an inefficient way to raise state revenues, especially where sales tax is paid for bonding projects with accompanying interest costs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City Council encourages its state legislators to support the repeal of the sales tax on local governments. DATED Mayor ATTEST City Clerk Date The Honorable (Fname) (Lname) Minnesota House of Representatives *** State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Dear Representative/Senator (Lname): The City of encourages you to support H.F. 52 (Haas)/S.F. 330 (Stevens) and other bills that would re-exempt local government purchases from the sales tax. The sales tax on local government purchases was extended by the legislature in 1992 at a time when the state was experiencing a severe budget shortfall. With recent budget forecasts that indicate a substantial state budget surplus in the foreseeable future, the state can afford to eliminate the sales tax on local purchases. Exempting local government purchases would save cities, counties and townships an estimated $80 million per year that ultimately results in higher property taxes and user fees. [If your city has the actual or estimate of the sales tax paid last year, you should include that figure in the letter). We encourage state legislators to support the repeal of the sales tax on local governments. Sincerely, City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 7- ~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Customer Satisfaction Report DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION . In an effort to meet and understand our citizen's needs and concerns, the City has adopted a customer service satisfaction program. This program is designed to ascertain and measure the level of customer satisfaction during service-related interactions. All citizen contacts with the City are documented in terms of complaint type, referring department, priority of service request and service outcomes. Responses are typically anonymous ensuring that citizens with negative experiences are just as likely to respond as those with positive service experiences. Accordingly, it is the City's intent to use this information as a customer service tool to improve and promote the importance of excellence in customer service. DISCUSSION The table below reflects summary statistics generated by Customer Action Request forms over the months of September through December 1998. Summary response percentages are generated through the analysis of monthly reports and include response data from all operating City departments. On average, over ninety-five percent (95%) of citizen requests for service are handled and addressed within a 1-3 day period. Typically, from that point it requires approximately 90 days to receive, process, compile and analyze the survey response data into monthly reports. In terms of how "promptly the City reacted to citizen requests", the degree of "how personally satisfied citizens were with service outcomes", and was City staff "courteous and helpful" in responding to citizen requests, response data suggests a very high level of customer satisfaction in all three categories. In terms of core customer service skills, City staff have achieved an impressive 96% rating in "courteous and helpful service" and a 91 % in prompt service regardless of how personally satisfied a resident was with service outcomes. This underscores the organization's commitment to treat each resident contact as a highly valued customer relations opportunity. In terms of how personally satisfied a resident is with a specific service outcome, staff responses are, in most cases, controlled by State Statutes, City ordinances, available staff resources and/or service priorities. In some cases, responses are a function of a third party who must respond to a given situation at the insistence of City staff. Overall, a summary rating of 82% over the four month period for how satisfied a resident was with a City service response is a very respectable response ratio given the range of resident concerns. In review of survey comments, residents commented on a variety of environmental concerns such as weeds, construction debris and brush piles. In response, the City will emphasize these issues in upcoming City newsletter articles regarding City ordinances and private property maintenance issues. BUDGET IMP ACT None. ACTION REQUESTED Acknowledge the Customer Service Satisfaction reports for September through December 1998. Staff will continue to present customer service satisfaction data to Council as it becomes available. Monthly report data with department breakdowns are available for Council review upon request. file Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R -99 ORDERING PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 98-04 and 98-05, DOWNTOWN STREETS CAPE PROJECT Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of April 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 1 st day of March 1999, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed Downtown Streetscape Project. WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the 5th day of April 1999, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED by the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 11 th day of November, 1998. 3. Lee Mann is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of April 1999. Mayor Attested to the 5th day of April, 1999. SEAL City Administrator \\F ARM]S 1 \CITYWIDE\resolutions\order streetscape 98-04,98-05.rtf DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK AND STREET LIGHTING PROJECT * PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS INCLUDES 2ND STREET SIDEWALK CONNECTION ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT PER FRONT FOOTAGE AREA OWNER ADDRESS FRONT FOOTAGE (FT) ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT ASSESSABLE AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT FOOTAGE (OPTION A) (OPTION B) (OPTION C) 1 Leslie Kotval 310 3rd Street 170 170 $ 17,957.10 $ 19.079.10 $ 20,197.70 2 Heillila Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 40 40 $ 4,225.20 $ 4,489.20 $ 4,752.40 3 Corinthian Lodge 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 40 40 $ 4,225.20 $ 4,489.20 $ 4,752.40 4 James Gerster 332, 3403rd Street 22 22 $ 2,323.86 $ 2,469.06 $ 2,613.82 5 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 23 23 $ 2,429.49 $ 2,581.29 $ 2,732.63 6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 45,70 80 $ 8,450.40 $ 8,978.40 $ 9,504.80 7 William Storlie 400 3rd Street / 408 3rd Street 60, 170.5 145.25 $ 15,342.76 $ 16,301.41 $ 17,257.15 8 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 28 28 $ 2,957.64 $ 3,142.44 $ 3,326.68 9 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 28.5 28.5 $ 3,010.46 $ 3,198.56 $ 3,386.09 10 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 66 66 $ 6,971.58 $ 7,407.18 $ 7,841.46 11 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 48 48 $ 5,070.24 $ 5,387.04 $ 5,702.88 12 City of Farmington 431 Oak Street 51 51 $ 5,387.13 $ 5,723.73 $ 6,059.31 13 Gary & Margaret Ziegler 427 3rd Street 32 32 $ 3,380.16 $ 3,591.36 $ 3,801.92 14 David & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 20 20 $ 2,112.60 $ 2,244.60 $ 2,376.20 15 G Roger & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 16 16 $ 1,690.08 $ 1,795.68 $ 1,900.96 16 Sypal-Lundgren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 30 30 $ 3,168.90 $ 3,366.90 $ 3,564.30 17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 22 22 $ 2,323.86 $ 2,469.06 $ 2,613.82 18 Harvey & Ma;;;'Snyder 409 3rd Street 50.5 50.5 $ 5,334.32 $ 5,667.62 $ 5,999.91 19 Patricia Jane Murphy 302 Oak Street 18 - 3rd, 24 - Oak 42 $ 4,436.46 $ 4,713.66 $ 4,990.02 20 Thomas Trevis 405 3rd Street/300 Oak Street 102,24 75 $ 7,922.25 $ 8,417.25 $ 8,910.75 21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 34,70 69 $ 7,288.47 $ 7,743.87 $ 8,197.89 22 Stanley & Marilyn Overby 341 & 343 3rd Street 38 38 $ 4,013.94 $ 4,264.74 $ 4,514.78 23 Glenn & Kimberly Friedrich 331 3rd Street 30 30 $ 3,168.90 $ 3,366.90 $ 3,564.30 24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 38.5 38.5 $ 4,066.76 $ 4,320.86 $ 4,574.19 25 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 40 40 $ 4,225.20 $ 4,489.20 $ 4,752.40 26 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 30 30 $ 3,168.90 $ 3,366.90 $ 3,564.30 27 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 22 22 $ 2,323.86 $ 2,469.06 $ 2,613.82 28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 25 25 $ 2,640.75 $ 2,805.75 $ 2,970.25 29 City of Farmington 305 3rd Street 52 52 $ 5,492.76 $ 5,835.96 $ 6,178.12 30 David & Karen Finnegan 300 Elm Street 51 51 $ 5,387.13 $ 5,723.73 $ 6,059.31 31 Nor1hem States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 65 65 $ 6,865.95 $ 7,294.95 $ 7,722.65 32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 20 20 $ 2,112.60 $ 2,244.60 $ 2,376.20 33 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 211 Oak Street 20 20 $ 2,112.60 $ 2,244.60 $ 2,376.20 34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 30 30 $ 3,168.90 $ 3,366.90 $ 3,564.30 35 Patricia A Darflinger 309 Oak Street 25 25 $ 2,640.75 $ 2,805.75 $ 2,970.25 36 Patricia A Darflinger 311 Oak Street 15 15 $ 1,564.45 $ 1,683.45 $ 1,782.15 37 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 10 10 $ 1,056.30 $ 1,122.30 $ 1,188.10 38 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 50 50 $ 5,281.50 $ 5,611.50 $ 5,940.50 39 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 120 120 $ 12,675.60 $ 13,467.60 $ 14,257.20 40 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 60 60 $ 6,337.80 $ 6,733.80 $ 7,128.60 41 1 st National Bank of Farmin 324 Oak Street 120 120 $ 12,675.60 $ 13,467.60 $ 14,257.20 42 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 60 60 $ 6,337.80 $ 6,733.80 $ 7,128.60 43 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 25 25 $ 2,640.75 $ 2,805.75 $ 2,970.25 44 Marvin & Bemeice Wier 314 Oak Street 35 35 $ 3,697.05 $ 3,928.05 $ 4,158.35 45 Michael Heise 306 Oak Street 72 72 $ 7,605.36 $ 8,080.56 $ 8,554.32 46 Lee & Marlene Palmer 216 Oak Street 28 28 $ 2,957.64 $ 3,142.44 $ 3,326.68 47 Carroll Westenberg 212 Oak Street 25 25 $ 2,640.75 $ 2,805.75 $ 2,970.25 48 Gary & Bonnie Van Erp 210 Oak Street 54.5 54.5 $ 5,756.84 $ 6,116.54 $ 6,475.15 49 P H Feely & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 54 54 $ 5,704.02 $ 6,060.42 $ 6,415.74 50 Walkway to 2nd Street 325 Oak Street 20 20 $ 2,112.60 $ 2,244.60 $ 2,376.20 51 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 10 10 $ 1,056.30 $ 1,122.30 $ 1,188.10 * Project costs based on feasibility study estimates dated 11/16/98 TOTAL (LF) 2343.25 $ 247,517.50 $ 262,982.95 $ 278,401.53 COST PER FOOT $ 105.63 $ 112.23 $ 118.81 65% ofT otal Project Cost $ 459,680.00 $ 488,410.00 $ 517,010.00 35% of Total Project Cost $ 247,520.00 $ 262,990.00 $ 278,390.00 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 707,200.00 $ 751,400.00 $ 795,400.00 NOTE: OPTION A - Plain Concrete OPTION B - Concrete With Pavers (50/50) OPTION C - All Pavers DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE NECKOUT AND CITY LOGO OPTION * PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT PER FRONT FOOTAGE AREA OWNER ADDRESS FRONT FOOTAGE (FT) NECKOUT CITY LOGO ASSESSABLE ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FOOTAGE AMOUNT AMOUNT 1 Leslie Kotval 310 3rd Street 170 170 $ 2,322.20 $ 547.40 2 Heillila Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 40 40 $ 546.40 $ 128.80 3 Corinthian Lodge 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 40 40 $ 546.40 $ 128.80 4 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 22 22 $ 300.52 $ 70.84 5 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 23 23 $ 314.18 $ 74.06 6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 45, 70 80 $ 1,092.80 $ 257.60 7 William Storlie 400 3rd Street I 408 3rd Street 60, 170.5 145.25 $ 1,984.12 $ 467.71 8 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 28 28 $ 382.48 $ 90.16 9 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 28.5 28.5 $ 389.31 $ 91.77 10 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 66 66 $ 901.56 $ 212.52 11 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 48 48 $ 655.68 $ 154.56 12 City of Farmington 431 Oak Street 51 51 $ 696.66 $ 164.22 13 Gary & Margaret Ziegler 427 3rd Street 32 32 $ 437.12 $ 103.04 14 David & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40 15 G Roger & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 16 16 $ 218.56 $ 51.52 16 Sypal-Lundgren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60 17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 22 22 $ 300.52 $ 70.84 18 Harvey & Mary Snyder 409 3rd Street 50.5 50.5 $ 689.83 $ 162.61 19 Patricia Jane Murphy 302 Oak Street 18 - 3rd, 24 - Oak 42 $ 573.72 $ 135.24 20 Thomas Trevis 405 3rd Street I 300 Oak Street 102,24 75 $ 1,024.50 $ 241.50 21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 34, 70 69 $ 942.54 $ 222.18 22 Stanley & Marilyn Overby 341 & 343 3rd Street 38 38 $ 519.08 $ 122.36 23 Glenn & Kimberly Friedrich 331 3rd Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60 24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 38.5 38.5 $ 525.91 $ 123.97 25 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 40 40 $ 546.40 $ 128.80 26 Farmington HRA 325 Oak Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60 27 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 22 22 $ 300.52 $ 70.84 28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50 29 City of Farmington 305 3rd Street 52 52 $ 710.32 $ 167.44 30 David & Karen Finnegan 300 Elm Street 51 51 $ 696.66 $ 164.22 31 Northem States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 65 65 $ 887.90 $ 209.30 32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40 33 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 211 Oak Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40 34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 30 30 $ 409.80 $ 96.60 35 Patricia A Darflinger 309 Oak Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50 36 Patricia A Darflinger 311 Oak Street 15 15 $ 204.90 $ 48.30 37 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 10 10 $ 136.60 $ 32.20 38 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 50 50 $ 683.00 $ 161.00 39 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 120 120 $ 1,639.20 $ 386.40 40 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 60 60 $ 819.60 $ 193.20 41 1 st National Bank of Farmin 324 Oak Street 120 120 $ 1,639.20 $ 386.40 42 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 60 60 $ 819.60 $ 193.20 43 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50 44 Marvin & Bemeice Wier 314 Oak Street 35 35 $ 478.10 $ 112.70 45 Michael Heise 306 Oak Street 72 72 $ 983.52 $ 231.84 46 Lee & Marlene Palmer 216 Oak Street 28 28 $ 382.48 $ 90.16 47 Carroll Westenbero 212 Oak Street 25 25 $ 341.50 $ 80.50 48 Gary & Bonnie Van Erp 210 Oak Street 54.5 54.5 $ 744.47 $ 175.49 49 P H Feely & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 54 54 $ 737.64 $ 173.88 50 Walkway to 2nd Street 325 Oak Street 20 20 $ 273.20 $ 64.40 51 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street 10 10 $ 136.60 $ 32.20 * Project costs based on memo dated February 3, 1999 TOTAL (LF) 2343.25 $ 32,008.80 $ 7,545.27 COST PER FOOT $ 13.66 $ 3.22 65% of Total Project Cost $ 59,455.50 $ 14,020.50 35% of Total Project Cost $ 32,014.50 $ 7,549.50 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 91,470.00 $ 21,570.00 ... .......... 1~<,..'~lcl ...~.... :.... ...... . .... ... ...1..... Iii I..... ..... ....... .<.. 1< ..... ... I t..t I- ... ~liJ ... Ii U) !:. ... ~.J L<.<. ~ I..... .. ~ ......... - '"" . ~ ~.-..... 0 I~ .., E ~;~ . .>.. .. .. ... ~-'-"-----~ .. .. . ----- ~~ ----------- ~ ~I~-- f ~ ~J I I I U) Lo- cuO) 0) c: Lo- 3= <(0 O~ 0)"1::= .~ 0) 0 L- a. - 0 Lo- --=0.. ~ C) 0 c: +-' .- c: ~ ~ ij: 0) 0 c: 0) OJ IS HI\7 ~ , III . . I~ it ... ... .fZ'-= , I ~ ., - . - ~ J. ....~, I ~ flf _ ;..,=.., I L o . , ~ ~ . if ~ ::f . - I g ~ - ..== ;'O,~ . I. .!, ....J / .. I \ III I r ~ - . 1'_ I ' 1 . I : ~ . j I I I i it I I ill 'I !! ; i ..1 \P. j I ~II ~ I &. I ~ . II I IS a~E ~ I . :E ill . . . . . 1 ~ z~ J ~ c .9 .. '> o '" c 'c c .. a: ~ o ~ i o - ~i I It! .. . ill . II I · ~ I; ..... I ~- . <<>1 0> ..... ". l- .' . . . .' U) L . ". W ~I !........ u I , .'. ::> . ~ a:: 0- U) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us Z/;; TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator1Jf. FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Downtown Sanitary Sewer Sliplining Project - Public Hearing DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the March 1, 1999 City Council meeting, the Council scheduled a public hearing for April 5th, 1999, on the Downtown Sanitary Sewer Sliplining project. DISCUSSION The Council accepted the feasibility report for the Downtown Sanitary Sewer Sliplining improvements at the February 16th, 1999 City Council meeting. The project consists of rehabilitating the existing clay sewer pipes on Third Street between Spruce and Elm and on Oak Street between Second and Fourth. The rehabilitation of the sewer pipes will address significant structural and infiltration problems. City staff held a neighborhood meeting for the project on Thursday March 25, 1999. Staff answered questions from the property owners in attendance regarding the trenchless construction technology that is proposed for the rehabilitation and the estimated assessments. BUDGET IMP ACT The total estimated project cost is $194,000. Under the City's Special Assessment policy, 35% of the costs of reconstruction of sanitary sewer is assessed to the benefiting properties and the City funds the remaining 65% of the costs. The benefiting properties' share of the costs is $67,900. The City's share of the costs is $126,000 and would be funded through the Sanitary Sewer fund. It is recommended that the benefiting properties be assessed for the proposed improvements based on an equivalent unit method. This is the method set forth in the City's Special Assessment policy. Under this approach, the benefiting properties would pay for the improvements based on relative lot size, which relates to each individual . properties' potential for discharge to the sewer system. A larger lot will pay more than a smaller lot. This method is defensible because a larger lot has the potential for more employees and customers and thus the potential for more sewer discharge. Attached is a spreadsheet that outlines the preliminary estimated assessments to the benefiting property owners for the proposed improvements. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution ordering the project and authorizing staff to prepare plans and specifications. Respectfully submitted, ';z: /?1 ~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R -99 ORDERING PROJECT, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, PROJECT 99-13, SLIPLINING OF DOWNTOWN SANITARY SEWERS Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the sth day of April 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, a resolution of the City Council adopted the 1 st day of March 1999, fixed a date for a council hearing on the proposed Sliplining of Downtown Sanitary Sewers. WHEREAS, ten days' mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held thereon on the sth day of Apri11999, at which all persons desiring to be heard were given the opportunity to be heard thereon. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of Farmington, Minnesota, 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted the 16th day of February, 1999. 3. Frederic J. Stenborg is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the sth day of April 1999. Mayor Attested to the sth day of April, 1999. SEAL City Administrator \\F ARM]S 1 \CITYWIDE\resolutions\order slip line 99-13.rtf DOWNTOWN SLlPLlNING PROJECT * PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT AMOUNT PER EQUIVALENT UNIT AREA OWNER ADDRESS PROPOSED LOT EQUIVALENT ASSESSMENT AREA (SF) UNITS AMOUNT 1 Leslie Kotval 310 3rd Street 25781 4.65 $ 6,191.69 2 Heillila Publications Inc. 320 3rd Street 4806 0.87 $ 1,154.23 3 Corinthian Lodlle 67 324 - 328 3rd Street 7448 1.34 $ 1,788.75 4 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1720 0.31 $ 413.08 5 James Gerster 332, 340 3rd Street 1928 0.35 $ 463.04 6 Hosmer Brown 340 3rd Street 3108 0.56 $ 746.43 7 William Storlie 400 3rd Street I 408 3rd Street 10327 1.86 $ 2,480.18 8 HRA of Farmington 325 Oak Street 3365 0.61 $ 808.15 9 HRA of Farminllton 325 Oak Street 3425 0.62 $ 822.56 10 HRA of Farmincton 325 Oak Street 7927 1.43 $ 1,903.79 11 HRA of Farmincton 325 Oak Street 5770 1.04 $ 1,385.75 12 CitY of F armincton 431 Oak Street 6209 1.12 $ 1,491.18 13 Garv & Maroaret Ziegler 427 3rd Street 3684 0.66 $ 884.77 14 David & Kathleen Thelen 425 3rd Street 2400 0.43 $ 576.40 15 G Rooer & Janet Cook 423 3rd Street 1880 0.34 $ 451.51 16 SVDal-Lundcren Post 7662 421 3rd Street 4366 0.79 $ 1,048.56 17 Souheil E Ailabouni 417 3rd Street 1913 0.35 $ 459.44 18 Harvev & Mary Snyder 409 3rd Street 5045 0.91 $ 1,211.63 19 Patricia Jane Murphy 302 Oak Street 3756 0.68 $ 902.06 20 Thomas Trevis 405 3rd Street I 300 Oak Street 2439 0.44 $ 585.76 21 Thomas D Quam 345 3rd Street 2380 0.43 $ 571.59 22 Stan lev & Marilvn Overby 341 & 343 3rd Street 4179 0.75 $ 1,003.65 23 Glenn & Kimberly Friedrich 331 3rd Street 3299 0.60 $ 792.30 24 Peter & Aristea Kontinakis 329 3rd Street 4228 0.76 $ 1,015.42 25 Farminaton HRA 325 Oak Street 4399 0.79 $ 1,056.48 26 Farmiilcton HRA 325 Oak Street 3299 0.60 $ 792.30 27 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2436 0.44 $ 585.04 28 Kenneth M Labeau 313 3rd Street 2727 0.49 $ 654.93 29 Citv of Farmington 305 3rd Street 5774 1.04 $ 1,386.71 30 David & Karen Finnegan 300 Elm Street 5609 1.01 $ 1,347.08 31 Northern States Power Co 201 & 205 Oak Street 5039 0.91 $ 1,210.19 32 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 209 Oak Street 1890 0.34 $ 453.91 33 Dennis & Ladonna Riste 211 Oak Street 2213 0.40 $ 531 .48 34 Hosmer Brown 217 Oak Street 1845 0.33 $ 443.10 35 Patricia A Darflinger 309 Oak Street 839 0.15 $ 201.50 36 Patricia A Darflincer 311 Oak Street 521 0.09 $ 125.13 37 Citv of Farmincton 325 Oak Street 7023 1.27 $ 1,686.68 38 cilV of Farmincton 325 Oak Street 3199 0.58 $ 768.29 39 Citv of Farmington 325 Oak Street 20439 3.69 $ 4,908.73 40 Citv of Farminoton 325 Oak Street 10217 1.84 $ 2,453.76 41 1 st National Bank of Farminllton 324 Oak Street 20437 3.69 $ 4,908.25 42 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 10221 1.84 $ 2,454.72 43 Premier Bank 316 Oak Street 2542 0.46 $ 610.50 44 Marvin & Bemeice Wier 314 Oak Street 5908 1.07 $ 1,418.89 45 Michael Heise 306 Oak Street 9211 1.66 $ 2,212.16 46 Lee & Marlene Palmer 216 Oak Street 4702 0.85 $ 1,129.25 47 Carroll Westenberc 212 Oak Street 4317 0.78 $ 1,036.79 48 Gary & Bonnie Van Erp 210 Oak Street 9317 1.68 $ 2,237.61 49 P H Feelv & Sons Inc. 204 Oak Street 12093 2.18 $ 2,904.31 50 Walkwav to 2nd Street 325 Oak Street 3418 0.62 $ 820.88 51 C~v of Farminllton 325 Oak Street 1704 0.31 $ 409.24 * Project costs based on feasibility report dated February 16, 1999 65% of Total Project Cost 35% of Total Project Cost TOTAL PROJECT COST 282722 51.00 $ 67,899.85 5543.57 $ 1,331.37 $ 126,100.00 $ 67,900.00 $ 194,000.00 TOTAL AVERAGE SF PER LOT COST PER UNIT o~ Q)Q) .~ c e~ 0..0 O)~ .~ 1::: CQ) :.:::: a. 'Lo . '- ",a.. cO) ~.~ o~ ~ .- CQj ~ C o Q) Om IS HIv IS a~E I- en ~ ...J W z~ g N c: .Il .. ':E o "" c: .c c: It 0: >- .. o >- J:l '0 i 13 I- en w (,) ::::> 0:: Q.. en City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor & Councilmembers FROM: John. F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Supplemental Agenda DATE: April 5, 1999 It is requested that the April 5, 1999 agenda be amended as follows: AWARD OF CONTRACT 9 (a) Adopt Resolution - 1999 Sealcoat Project (Supplemental Information) Staff is requesting Council adopt a resolution accepting the base bid and awarding the project, and directing staff to prepare the proposed final assessment roll. .' ohn F. Erar City Administrator 9a., City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: 1999 Seal Coat Project DATE: AprilS, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City Council approved the plans and specifications for the 1999 Seal Coat Project at the March 1 st Council meeting. Four bids were received for the 1999 Seal Coat Project. DISCUSSION Allied Blacktop Co. has submitted the low bid in the amount of $44,901. Based on this bid and including a 10% contingency and 27% for legal, engineering and administration costs, the total estimated project cost is $62,800. The estimate from the feasibility study was $81,000. Streets in Deer Meadows 1 st Addition and Deer Meadows 2nd Addition will all be seal coated for the first time with this year's project. Dakota County Estates 1st Addition and several downtown streets and parking lots have not been seal coated in over seven years and are proposed to be included in the project this year. The downtown areas include: Oak Street between Division and 2nd Street, Spruce Street between DenmarklCSAH 31 and 2nd Street, Walnut Street between Division and Sth Street, Locust Street west of 3rd Street, Maple Street between 1st and 4th, Beech Street between 2nd and 3rd, Hickory Street between 2nd and 3rd, Division Street south of CSAH SO/Elm Street, 1st Street north of Ash Street/CR. 74, Honeysuckle Lane, 2nd Street between Ash Street/CR. 74 and Walnut, 3rd Street between Ash Street/CR. 74 and Walnut, and 4th Street between Maple and Walnut. The parking lots include the Rambling River ballfie1ds parking lot off of Denmark, the Ice Arena parking lot and the Fire Station parking lot. BUDGET IMP ACT The 1999 Seal Coat Project is included in the 1999 Capital Improvement Plan. Several streets in the project area have already been assessed seal coating costs through their respective development contracts. The property owners benefiting from the improvements to the remaining streets would be assessed for the project costs pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429 and the City's Special Assessment Policy. The remainder of the costs would be funded through the Road and Bridge Fund. The total estimated project cost for the 1999 Seal Coat project based on the low bid received is $62,800. The Council indicated at the public hearing on the project their intent to assess the benefiting property owners 50% of the project costs not to exceed $60.48 per residential equivalent unit. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution: 1. Accepting the base bid of Allied Blacktop Co. for $44,901.00 and awarding the project; 2. Directing staff to prepare the proposed final assessment roll allocating SO% of the project costs to the benefiting properties not to exceed $60.48 per residential equivalent unit. Respectfully submitted, O;t m~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Proposed RESOLUTION NO. R -99 AWARD BIDS FOR PROJECT NO. 99-12 1999 SEAL COAT PROJECT PREPARE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Civic Center of said City on the 5th day of April, 1999 at 7:00 P.M.. The following members were present: The following members were absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following resolution: WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the 1999 Seal Coat project (in the streets shown on Attachment A), bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law, and the following bids were received complying with the advertisement: Contractor Total Base Bid Allied Blacktop Company.................$44,901.00 Caldwell Asphalt Company..............$46,951.50 Astech Corporation ................... ........$50,335 .00 Bituminous Roadways, Inc. ..............$51,624.00 ; and WHEREAS, it appears the firm of Allied Blacktop Company is the lowest responsible bidder. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The base bid of Allied Blacktop Company, a Minnesota corporation, for $44,901.00 is hereby accepted and awarded and the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract therefore. 2. Staff is hereby directed to prepare the proposed final assessment roll allocating 50% of the project costs to the benefiting properties not to exceed a unit price of $60.48 per buildable lot. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of April 1999. Mayor Attested to the day of ,1999. SEAL Clerk! Administrator ATTACHMENT A Streets Exeter Court Exeter Place Everglade Court 180th Street West 180th Street West Eventide Way Euclid Avenue Empire Trail Emerald Trail Upper 182nd Street West 180th Court Embers Embers Ely Avenue Oak Street Spruce Street Walnut Street Locust Street Maple Street Beech Street Hickory Street Division Street 1 st Street Honeysuckle Lane 2nd Street 3rd Street 4th Street Location West ofCSAH 31/Pilot Knob Between CSAH 31/Pilot Knob and Ellice Lane Between 180th Street West and Eventide Way Between Embers and 180th Street West Between 180th Street West and Emerald Circle Between CSAH 31/Pilot Knob and Ellice Lane North of 180th Street West From 183rd Street West to Emerald Trail Between Upper 182nd Street West and 180th Street West Between Division and 2nd Street Between DenmarklCSAH 31 and 2nd Street Between Division and Sth Street West of3rd Street Between 1 st and 4th Between 2nd and 3rd Between 2nd and 3rd South of CSAH SO/Elm Street North of Ash StreetlCR. 74 Between Ash StreetlCR. 74 and Walnut Between Ash StreetlCR. 74 and Walnut Between Maple and Walnut Rambling River Ballfields Parking Lot off of Denmark Ice Arena Parking Lot Fire Station Parking Lot N '7~ ~..:l ~.... t)~ aZ ~o ~t:I.:l E-4~ <= o~ Uo :2Z ~S t:I.:lE-4 ~< ~S ~ E-4 tl ~ ~ ;> .~ ~ {j :<:; 'So S ~ ~ "B '" ~ ~ ~ " ... .., .... " " .::1 .::1 ..;: <l ..;: ~ ~ ~ ~ z o tii "'",z ::>>-tIl 0<.... z~:>< SiotIl ::>< ....0 iXjl>:: z o ztii OZ :r:E=:~ u<:>< tIll>::tIl !;;2 <I>:: o u.... Z ::> z o tii -l....ffi -l-l.... tIl<:>< ~:r:tIl -l"" <~ u.... z o tii ""z ootIl tIl........ :ltl~ -l< <-l CQ ~~ tIlQl 888 8~~ r--""", 0\ 0\ N~ N- "" "" "" .... Z ::> ~~~ O;~~ o "" "" "" 888 ~g~ <l(-N r-:ON NN "" "" "" g88 a- . . ..... "" 0-'" "" "" "" 000 Ooor-- o\Ci~ 00 '" '" "'ON lrl~ 0\ N N - "" "" "" .... Z ::> "'NOO "" N '" ~M~ 0-", "" "" "" 888 g 8~~ ...; ""N_ ~ ~:iN 'i {oil'} ~ ~ ill'} .... Z :=> 5':~8 a- . . . a- '" o '" "" "" "" ~~:B o -~ '" .... Z :=> = ..9: c c c; .9 .9 "" ;;; " " g <.) 0 '" u a: a: -;;; .5 .5 " ~ ~ ~ ::E ~ e e tIl 3 ~ ~ !::: !1<< Cl:S ~ 13 Q ~8!5 = ;::S-'O o '" 0 ~ .5 ~::E ~NN .... ._..1: ..I: ~ CQ~~ g ~ ... III c1i~ " "" ;::S"" ~5z~o -;;;~::E~~ :I: """ .. N co a-B~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 111 ~ .~ N::E "" g iii .., .., ... III 8l '" 8:8!:g8o ci:-z~z . ><::E '" 0 -l t:8 . '" CQ Co1l61l'< ~p.;O~"" Vi "" <= III ...; III 0- ~ ~n~ (IJ....~~o ~~z~z 1>::",,::E~g ,g r-- . N "u - ~ 0 ~ ::.: ~.- N "" ~ ~ '" N:r: "" a- '" ~~fri ~ \U lI") ~ 's. ..( z ~ ~ J,g::E""o 0'1 .. N CQ :;;oo"':1'1l'< ...~O~lr) ~~-a\C ""-~ .a .l!! '0 :0 0> 0> City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us /OQ., TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and City Administrator ~ FROM: Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police SUBJECT: Response to Citizen's Request DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION Staff has received a request from a resident to study the possibility of restricting all motor vehicles, including snowmobiles, from any lake or pond in the City. DISCUSSION In 1995 it was proposed that an amendment to Chapter 6-9-9 of the City Code to prohibit the operation of any motor powered vehicle on any lake or pond in the City be adopted. At the request of a citizen, an exception was made in the ordinance to allow the operation of snowmobiles on lakes and ponds. It should be noted that the current ordinance, in the interest of preventing a public nuisance, prohibits other motorized vehicles, such as motor boats and jet skis from operating on public lakes and ponds. Since the ordinance amendment was adopted the City has received only two complaints regarding motor vehicles operating on lakes and ponds. Both have been complaints against snowmobiles, including a complaint in August regarding a snowmobile "water skipping" on Lake Julia. Those concerns raised in the Citizen's Request regarding the safety of residents and snowmobile operators, noise nuisance as well as interference with wildlife and surface water quality in the area, are important community and public safety concerns. As it is currently written, City Code gives preferential treatment to one form of recreational motor vehicle over all others. It is suggested that Council review the implications associated with restricting all motor vehicles, including snowmobiles, from operating on public lakes and ponds in the City. ACTION REOUESTED Consider authorizing the preparation of an amendment to Chapter 6-9-9 of the City Code to eliminate the exception for the operation of snowmobiles on lakes and ponds. . .~:spect!llIlY. su~~r' \1 \1 A;/') -~ l/ ",~~''--~Y/~--~~ Daniel M. Siebenaler Chief of Police or t" ~~-- cc: Dale Pettet, 20155 Dunbar Ave Dale Pettet 2()(55 Duubor Avenue FnrJllington, MN 55024 Fmmington Mayor mId City COIUlcil I mn very concellled about the environmental impact Ihat snowmobiles m'e having on Ihe wildlife mId Imbitat ofEnves Pond, located 1I011h of203rd Street and West of DWlbnr Avellue, SmowlIlobilers m"e destroying the nesting m'ea ofwnterfowl mid binJs as w~1I ~IN ~a;:,ucillg WiUl~Jcillg hintN amI };JlluH g;'Jllt: jj:UJII ih~ Hr~~a. :J.l.iN iN ~ily Jll:fIck hunl wnl should be as refilge for wildlife, not n plnygrowld for snowmobilers. Illlhe Willter of 1997 Ihere were no slIowlllobiles on tJle pond mid ml abundance of wildlife. JJllhe Winler 01'1998 mid 1999 there was heavy snowmobile trallie in the welJand areas and it resulted in a decline mId almost absence ofwildlife. this destruction cannot be pennilled tn conlinue. I illn requestjng that the CHy CouncH do the followjng: 1. Change motor vehicle onlinmlce 6-9-9 Pm'ngraph C to "prohibit tbe use oraJllIlot~r powered vehicles including snowmobiles fi-olll all lakes, ponds and wethUlds. 2. Post signs at Eaves Pond to read "no motor powered vehicles or snowmobiles" or llppropriate signage to prevent all vehicles on the pond. OHler related concerns ifthe ordinmlce is not chmrged: · Personal i1~iUlY lawsuits to the City ofFmmington · aUler motorized vehicles (,1 wheelers, etc.) will also WillIt to be allowed on the pond · 'llle area is a safety hazru-d, especially at night - have seen snowmobiles flip in the tall grassy areas · With population increasing Ole problem will just get worse ifnot addressed as SOOI1 as possible. Sincerely Dale E. I'eUet 6-9-9: ~IOTOR VEHICLES: (A) No vehicle shall be operated on any City park or trail exceot in the designated parking or travel areas. (Ord. 087-193. 11-2-87) (8) No vehicles shall be parkea In the parKing areas later than or oetore the hours of operation. (Ord. 077-56. 6-6-77) (e) No person shall operate any type of motor oowerea vehicle upon anv lake or pond within the City, with the exceptIOn ot snowmooiles. (0) Exceotion: This Section shall not aoply to City maintenance r;r emergency vehicles or to work being performea in City DarKS ana under City control or direction. (Ord. 095-352. 3-20-95) City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us 106 TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator~ Lee Smick, AICP ^ () Planning Coordinator J.)P FROM: SUBJECT: 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update - Final Draft DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Final Draft of the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update is being presented for Council's comments and recommendations. DISCUSSION The plan was submitted to Council on March 28, 1999 to allow additional time to review the document before the April 5, 1999 City Council meeting. The Planning Commission reviewed the document on March 23, 1999 and made minor revision recommendations that are reflected in the Final Draft. The revisions include the following: 1. Revisions to the text for clarification purposes and minor revisions to residential density requirements. 2. Revision to the high-density residential shown along the newly aligned CSAH 31 in the Charleswood development. The minor revisions to the residential density requirements were discussed at the staff level to ensure that the medium and high-density categories overlapped since the City does not provide a category for medium/high-density residential. The high-density residential category has been revised to provide a density of 10 units or more per acre rather than the 14 units or more per acre as originally proposed. The medium-density residential category provides for a density range of 5.5 to 14.0 units per acre. With this revision, the overlap between medium and high-density will allow for a more varied choice of land uses. The second revision involved the re-designation of the high-density land use to medium-density along the west side of the newly aligned CSAH 31 within the Charleswood development. The Project Manager of the property, Mr. Steve Juetten of Genstar Land Company addressed the Planning Commission about his concerns for illustrating the 35 acres as high-density. His concerns dealt with the large amount of acreage required to be high-density and the need to develop the 35 acres at 14 units or more per acre. This would require a large number of apartment complexes to meet the proposed density requirements and would be difficult to achieve. In the attached matrix from Genstar, the Developer illustrates the proposed density calculations for each land use category. As stated in this letter, Genstar will determine the type of residential (townhomes, twin homes, quad homes, etc.) for the high/medium-density category. At this time, Genstrar proposed that high/medium-density range from 5 to 18 units per acre. On the Schematic Plan approved by the City Council on July 6, 1998 the plan showed high/medium density for the 35 acres. The MUSA Expansion approved by the Met Council in February 1998 also showed this area as high-density residential. Although the MUSA Expansion shows the 35 acres as high-density, the Planning Commission has recommended that the 35 acres be re-designated to medium-density residential to allow various land uses from townhomes, twin homes, quad homes or apartments and allow the Developer the opportunity to respond to market forces at the time of development. Upon review of the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update, staff is recommending that the City Council accept the Final Draft of the Comprehensive Plan and direct the City Administrator to distribute copies of the plan to adjacent jurisdictions for their review. A sixty-day review period is allowed for adjacent jurisdictions including Dakota County, Lakeville, Independent School District #192, Empire Township, Castle Rock Township and Eureka Township. After the review period, comments will be addressed and the Council will be requested to authorize the Final Draft to be sent to the Metropolitan Council for their review and approval. ACTION REQUESTED Accept the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update and direct the City Administrator to distribute copies of the plan to adjacent jurisdictions for their review. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Lee Smick, AICP Planning Coordinator RESOLUTION NO. ACCEPTANCE OF THE 2020 FARMINGTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of April, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Members Absent: introduced and Member _ seconded the following: Member WHEREAS, a public hearing to review the Final Draft of the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update was held on the 23rd day of March, 1999 after notice of the same was published in the official newspaper of the City; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended favorable action by the Council to accept the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update and direct the City Administrator to distribute copies of the plan to surrounding jurisdictions for a sixty-day review; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a public hearing held on March 23, 1999, recommended the acceptance of the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update contingent on the following: 1. Revisions to the text for clarification purposes and minor revisions to residential density requirements. 2. Revision to the high-density residential shown along the newly aligned CSAH 31 in the Charleswood development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Farmington hereby accepts the 2020 Farmington Comprehensive Plan Update and directs the City Administrator to distribute copies of the plan to surrounding jurisdictions for a sixty-day review. This resolution adopted by recorded vote ofthe Farmington City Council in open session on the 5th day of April, 1999. Mayor Attested to the _ day of April, 1999. City Administrator CHARLESWOOD DENSITY CALCULATIONS Land Use Acres Dwelling Estimated Category Units Per Total Units Acre Commercial! 11.5 15 to 18 o to 207 High Density (if high density) Residential * High/ 34.5 5 to 18 172 to 621 Medium Density Residential ** Medium Density 14.7 4 to 7 58 to 103 Residential ** Low/ 105.9 2 to 7 211 to 741 Medium Density Residential ** Total all Land Use 166.6 2.6 to 10 441 to 1,672 Categories * The Commercial/High Density Residential designation allows the City and Astra Genstar the opportunity to respond to market forces at the time the property is available for development. With this mixed designation, there is the potential for the site to be developed solely as commercial, high density residential, or a combination of both. Based on this, if the property is developed as commercial, no residential units will be constructed on the site. * * Similar to the first land use designation, the remaining three land use designations allow the City and Astra Genstar the opportunity to respond to market forces at the time of development. The property will develop as residential. What is not known today is what type of residential. Given the ever changing demographics and consumer preferences, the higher density residential developments continue to change in character and appearance. Today we can see detached townhouses, twin homes, quad homes, attached townhouses, etc. As we proceed with development of this area, the type of residential will become better defined . Attention: Lee Mann City Engineer Public Works Director cc: Tom Bisch - Heritage Development Farmington City Attorneys Office We the undersigned, owners of the lots located in Nelson Hills Farms Fifth Addition with the description of Block Five; lots one through five; and neighboring houses are petitioning the holding pond, labeled as Pond Two, for reasons concerning the normal and high water levels. We would like immediate action taken to address normal and high water currently not within the five foot lot easement specified for drainage and utilities. We are demanding all proposed development of Addition Seven to be put on hold until this matter is reviewed and resolved. We request that any pending and future issues regarding development and watershed pertaining to this pond and surrounding area be made known by written document to all undersigned parties. ClfO ( ~ 1A/,'PTr 51/ItIl.,,~ !I;,rrT I ADDRESS I SIGNATURE I DATE I 19ba3 tX(kV-tfWcy ~/~ S' ~'-9<1 ilOO~ 3-~,-qq ~lWl,,/Y-o.-l!-S jYG)./ EY~r/ ~~~I lYicWi B4~)/IQF /86/1 Px/trv- wo<y ~~ 1/6/7~hj)~ 1/10/ ~.7J1.%d ~-;L1-19 " ~ '-' ~ J-1 /<7I..,;t r ..1 Jt~h" ~ 1 .1-.tj-9? 6~V~ ~~0rq w~ ~~~ I NAME (print) '1) ~ "<.. /evil ~ "it' u \ e. \< l.l\ \ ~ '5 - aJ ~q q 3-2/-99 ~onf/ e'L w.e -UL City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lOr:! TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrator~ FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: MnDOT Municipal Agreement Program - TH 3 and Willow Street Improvements DATE: AprilS, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has applied for MnDOT funding of improvements to the east frontage road of Trunk Highway 3 at Willow Street. DISCUSSION The City has received notification that the frontage road project has been selected for the Fiscal Year 2000 Municipal Agreement Program (see attached). This project has been initiated to mitigate traffic issues relative to the Glenview Townhomes project. BUDGET IMPACT The State has agreed to fund $75,000 of the project costs and $6,000 of the construction engineering and inspection costs. In return for the State's participation, the City will need to accept the turnback of the frontage road. ACTION REQUESTED No action is requested at this time. The feasibility report for this project is scheduled to be brought before the Council at the April 19th meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~>>1~ Lee M. Mann, P .E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Tim Giles !'...\....ElsO~. \ · Ii ~> ...l 0, T.... Minnesota Department of Transportation MAR 2 5 /999 -582-1351 Metropolitan Division Waters Edge 1500 West County Road 82 Roseville, MN 55113 March 12, 1999 TO: Fiscal Year 2000 Municipal Agreement Program Project Candidates Subject: MnlDOT Fiscal Year 2000 (FY '(0) Municipal Agreement (AM) Program (7/1199 - 6/30/(0) Project Selection Results Attached please fmd the results of the selection process for projects requesting Trunk Highway (TH) funding in the State Fiscal Year 2000 (FY 2(00) Municipal Agreement (AM) Program. The list is broken into 3.categories as follows: - Successful Projects Receiving FY 2000 Cooperative Agreement Funding - Successful Projects Receiving FY 2001 Access Management Funding - Unsuccessful Projects The Project Selection Committee that evaluated and made funding recommendations for this year's AM Program consisted of the following: - 3 City Engineers - 1 City Community Development Director - 1 Assistant County Engineer - 5 MnlDOT Representatives. from various Metro Division Functional Groups providing project information. The committee placed each of the projects within a project category based on MnlDOT's Transportation System Plan. The group also detennined whether the Trunk Highway benefit vs. cost ratio was low, medium or high. Using this information, the projects were ranked. After this ranking, the Metro Division detennined how many projects were selected based on the available funding. This year it was detennined that all of the projects that fell within the Preservation and Management categories and had a benefit vs. cost ratio that was either medium or high would be included in the Metro Division Municipal Agreement Program. However, due to funding constraints, some of these projects will receive funding from MnlDOT's FY 2001 Access Management setaside. The funding for the FY 2000 projects will be available July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. The funding for the FY 2001 projects will be available July 1,2000 through June 30,2001. Please refer to the attached list to detennine which projects were selected to be programmed. For these projects, comments have been provided that outline specific requirements, MnlDOT's contribution limit, or other issues that must be addressed prior to receiving the funding. We will be holding a design seminar on April 15, 1999 for the selected projects. Additional seminar information will be mailed out shortly . We strongly encourage your designers or project managers to attend and share information with us about how the entire process can better serve the local agencies. Please contact Kevin Hoglund, Cooperative Agreement Engineer (651-582-1370) if you have any questions or need additional information. We look forward to working with you. Robert S. B own, P.E. Metro Division State Aid Engineer Enclosures: An equal opportunity employer --~---- ~-- J Municipal Agreement Program Fiscal Year 2000 Successful Projects Prj. Local Agency and Project Location Category and Rank Contact Person. and Description Comments Funding I City of Jordan TH21 @TH282 Preservation Project = $30,000 Carol Caron 42" RCP Installation - MnIOOT contribution Local Agency = $10,000 Bolton & Menle, Inc. replaces old CMP based on contributing Mn/DOT = $20,000 1-507-625-4171 flow. 2 City of St. Paul St. Peter Street Preservation Proj~t = $600,00 S.P.6201-77 Stonn Sewer Outlet - MnIOOT contribution Local Agency = $500,000 EdWam Replacement based on contributing Mn/DOT = $100,000 651-266-6142 Previously funded flow. 3 South St. Paul TH 52 at Simon's Ravine Preservation Project = $600,000 John Sachi Stonn Sewer System - MnIOOT to contribute Local Agency = $135,000 651-450-8704 lump sum of $65,000 State Legis. = $400,000 Pete Willenbring, WSB which includes 8% CE Mn/DOT = $65,000 612-541-4800 (possible FY '99 funding) 4 City of Richfield 1-35 @ Wood Lake Preservation Project = $84,000 Mike Eastling Pedestrian Trail Correction - MnIOOT to contribute Local Agency = $30,00Q 612-861-9792 Due to increased flow from lump sum of $54,000 MnIDOT = $54,000 Pete Willenbring, WSB 1-35W which includes 8% CE 612-541-4800 - Payment is for pennanent grading & aggregate for trail. No funding for boardwalks or bridges. 5 City of Eagan TH 55 S. Frontage Rd. east Preservation Project = $190,000 Tom Colbert ofTH 149 @ Random Road Management/Safety Local Agency = $20,000 651-681-4646 Access Closure and - Also attempt to close Mn/DOT = $170,000 Jim Dvorak, SRF Frontage Road Release median on TH 55 at 612-475-0010 the east end of the project - City must pay for C&G on one side of road. 'Yt6 City of Farmington TH 3 Frontage Road Preservation Project = $75,000 Lee Mann Close access next to TH 3 Management/Safety Local Agency = $0 651,.463-1601 at Co. Rd. 72. - Frontage road to be Mn/DOT = $75,000 Set back frontage road released to the City. at Willow St. Note: 8% will be added to each of the above listed AM funding totals for construction engineering and inspection. Date 3-12-99 N:\STATEAID\COOPAGR\FYOO\FYOOPRJ.LST 1 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us fOe, TO: Mayor, Councilmembers, City Administrato~ FROM: Karen Finstuen, Administrative Services Manager SUBJECT: Resignation - Planning Commission Member DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION Mr. Rob Schwing, whose seat on the Planning Commission does not expire untill/31/00, has resigned effective March 16,1999. DISCUSSION Pursuant to Council Policy, the procedure for filling a vacated seat states any applications on file be reviewed and any interested citizen aware of the existing vacancy be considered. The file contains one application from a citizen who was unable to be interviewed at the process held in January. Also, an interested citizen has submitted his name for consideration to Community Development Staff. ACTION REQUESTED Accept the resignation of Rob Schwing as Planning Commission member and set a date and time for interviews of the two interested applicants. It is suggested that the interview dates and times be scheduled prior to a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Karen Finstuen Administrative Services Manager COUNCIL POLICY - 101-05-1997 CITY COMMISSION APPOINTMENT PROCESS Policy Purpose The purpose of this policy is to set forth the procedures to be used in appointing interested citizens to the City Commissions. The appointment of citizens to City advisory commissions and boards shall be made by the City Council on an annual basis to fill all expired terms. The Council shall conduct interviews of all qualified candidates to consider relevant qualifications and interests, and appoint such members as the Council deems in the best interest of the City. Commission seats vacated by resignation and/or removal shall be appointed by first reviewing any applications on file and/or any requests to be appointed by interested citizens having taken notice of an existing vacancy. If no applications are on file, the City shall solicit applications for appointment by advertisement in the legal newspaper and other public mediums as appropriate. Appointments to fill seats vacated by resignation and/or removal shall coincide with the normal expiration date of the seat and shall be made as soon as practical. Appointments to fill vacated seats during an unexpired term shall be in accordance with the City Code. Wednesday. Much 31. 1999 Mr. Jerry Ristow Mayor, City ofFannington 32S Oak Streer Farmington. MN 55024 Mr. Roben J. Sc:hwine. Jr. Chairman, Planning Commission City of Farmington 18534 Elk River Trail Farmington. MN 55024 Dear Mayor Ris[ow and Members of City Council: Bffective 16, March 1999 I am resigning my position as Chairman of the city Planning Commission as well as my appointed seat as a member of the Commission. I have an opportUnity to make a significant l;lU'eer move that benetits me on both a professional and personal basis. That move will necessitate reloc:ating to Sbeboygan Wisconsin in mid April. I have enjoyed the opportunity to serve the City far the past 4 years and wor.k cJosely with both the elected officials and city staff. In my career, J l1llVe had the cba"ce to meet and work with professional staffa all over the world and have found few that rival the professionalism and quality of the staff of the city of Farmington. They are 3 tremendous resource to the Planning Ccnnmission and the city residents and a pleasure to work with. I wish the Staff. you, the other members of the Council the very besr of luck as you continue co manage end plan for the future of Fannington. It has been a great plac:e to live and raise a fam i1y! Rey44. ~ J. Schwing. Jt. CC: Mr. Dave Olson, Community Development Director Ms. Lee Smick, City Planner Mr. Michael Shctl1~ Assodate Planner Mr. John Enar. city Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us //~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Approve Joint Powers Agreement - Castle Rock Township DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION At the March 10, 1999 joint project sub-committee meeting with Castle Rock Township representatives, substantial agreement was reached concerning the approval of the draft Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) presented to Council on January 19, 1999. As Council is aware, the JP A will authorize the commission of a new feasibility study for the reconstruction of Ash Street and construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway. DISCUSSION The attached JP A represents final committee discussions and thoughts and, with the exception of one provisional change, does not materially affect the scope of the original draft of the agreement. The one issue that was discussed at length by committee members focused on feasibility cost allocations contained within Section 5 of the JPA. Essentially, this provision was changed to allocate the cost of the feasibility study on an equal percentage basis to each jurisdiction, unless the project is ordered. If the project is ordered, then feasibility study costs will be allocated according to project construction cost percentages. Committee members felt that this change represented the most equitable cost position for both jurisdictions. It is my understanding that Committee members Cordes and Soderberg support the JP A as amended and recommend full Council adoption at this time. The Joint Project Committee discussed the need for ~dditional information on cost estimates and time frame for the feasibility study. Committee members requested that City Engineer Mann and Township engineering consultant Foertsch, of Rieke Carroll Muller Associates, Inc., meet to more fully discuss the scope of feasibility study. Attached, please find copies of correspondence from City Engineer Mann and Mr. Foertsch which will be discussed at this evening's meeting. Township representatives indicated their support for the JP A as amended and stated that they would bring the agreement back to their full Board on March 23, 1999 for approval. No other issues were discussed or raised by the Township representatives regarding 1P A issues or any other concerns at that time. ACTION REQUESTED It is my understanding that the Castle Rock Township Board did not approve the 1P A at their March 23, 1999 Board meeting, and that a certain issue remains unresolved from the Township Board's perspective regarding annexation of properties on the east side of Highway 3 along State Highway SO. This issue, however, was never raised or discussed with City representatives at the project committee meeting on March 10, 1999. Council may wish to discuss this issue at the April S, 1999 Council meeting and identify potential options regarding an appropriate City response. In review of past documentation, Council did take a formal public position on requiring any non- municipal properties served with municipal services to be brought into the City. This position was one of several project principles discussed and, in my understanding, accepted by the Township in meetings last year regarding fundamental City project principles. Approve the attached 1P A as presented. While Council action approving the 1P A will not authorize the commissioning of a new joint project feasibility study until formally approved by Castle Rock Township, it will satisfy the terms and conditions the Council has publicly agreed to regarding the City's commitment to commission a new feasibility study. Council may wish to have a letter transmitted to the Castle Rock Township Board informing them of the Council action approving the 1P A, and requesting information on the status of the anticipated Township Board action on the 1P A. Respectfully Submitted, /iL/~-<.J vIZ:~~ 0..J 10hn F. Erar Cc: Castle Rock Township Board JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FEASIBILITY REPORT, AND POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND FINANCING OF IMPROVEMENTS TO ASH STREETIPHASE III OF PRAIRIE WATER WAY AND SURROUNDING AREAS IN THE SOUTHEAST AREA OF THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND PORTIONS OF CASTLE ROCK TOWNSIllP BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND THE TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK THIS IS A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT entered into under Minnesota Statutes S 471.S9, by and between the CITY OF FARMINGTON, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Farmington") and the Town of Castle Rock ("Castle Rock") for the purpose of planning, constructing, and financing improvements to Ash Street and surrounding areas within the City and Town, including street, sanitary and storm sewers, and related improvements. RECITALS WHEREAS, Farmington is a statutory city of the State of Minnesota and can exercise all of the powers of a statutory city; and WHEREAS, Castle Rock is a town of the State of Minnesota and can exercise all of the powers of a town, and; WHEREAS, Farmington and Castle Rock have been actively involved in the study and review of certain potential public improvement projects including reconstructing Ash Street, the construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway, correcting or improving storm water management in the project area, providing sanitary sewer and water service to property owners within the benefiting area, and other related improvements; and WHEREAS, the public improvement projects involve areas within both jurisdictions to varying degrees and the construction of the necessary and beneficial public improvements may be best accomplished through the cooperation of Farmington and Castle Rock by studying, financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the public improvement projects; and WHEREAS, Castle Rock and Farmington are entering into this joint powers agreement to study and provide a feasibility report addressing the financing, construction, operation, and maintenance of these public improvements in order to: (1) reduce, to the greatest practical extent, the public capital expenditures necessary for the identified improvements, (2) abate pollution, (3) control excessive rates and volume of runoff; (4) improve water quality; (S) prevent flooding and erosion from surface flows; (6) provide a reliable and safe source of drinking water; (7) enhance the public transportation and road system serving the area; and (8) secure all other benefits associated with the identified potential public improvements; and WHEREAS, Castle Rock Township and the City of Farmington agree to jointly share in the costs of preparing a new feasibility report with each jurisdiction agreeing to underwrite an equal share of the cost of preparing, reviewing and developing a new project feasibility report. AGREEMENTS OF THE PARTIES NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, Castle Rock and Farmington agree as follows: Section 1. Project Description. The Project to be studied includes the reconstruction of Ash Street and the construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway by the parties in cooperation with Dakota County, sanitary sewer improvements to properties in the immediate vicinity of Ash Street both within and outside the City as necessary, storm water improvements in the drainage area within the hydrogeologic boundaries of the area, the provision of publicly supplied drinking water to properties within the area, and other necessary or related improvements identified as part of the preparation of the feasibility report. Section 2. Feasibility Report. Castle Rock and Farmington shall cause to be prepared by their respective professional engineers registered in the State of Minnesota a feasibility report for the Project. The parties may approve, reject, or require amendments or modifications to the report as appropriate. Section 3. Response to Feasibility Report. After preparation of the Report, Castle Rock and Farmington hereby agree to hold such public hearings or meetings either jointly or separately to discuss the construction and financing of the improvements identified in the report, and jointly may order the preparation of Plans and Specifications or other documents prior to jointly ordering any improvements identified in the report. The execution of this agreement between the two parties does not commit either party at this time to the stated improvements. Section 4. Delegation of Authority and Further Assurances. Castle Rock and Farmington hereby delegate to their respective engineers all of the powers and authority available to the parties under this Joint Powers Agreement which are necessary for the engineers to carry out their obligations under this Agreement. The parties agree that they will in good faith execute the documents or take other actions as may reasonably be necessary for each party to carry out their respective obligations to cooperatively prepare the Feasibility Report. Section S. Feasibility Report Cost Allocation. Both parties agree to coordinate preparation of the Feasibility Report through each jurisdiction's engineering representatives. Both parties agree to share equally in the cost of preparing an updated Feasibility Report to the most practical extent possible. It is the intent of this cost allocation approach to equitably distribute the costs of preparing the report between both jurisdictions. Upon completion and acceptance of the updated Feasibility Report by both jurisdictions, a total cost accounting shall be performed and shall be presented to each jurisdiction for review and final payment. Each party agrees to pay SO% of the cost of preparing the updated feasibility study, however, if the project is ordered, the cost of the feasibility report preparation will be allocated according to project construction allocations. Section 6. Right to Terminate. Either party may, at its sole discretion, elect to terminate this Agreement by providing written notice of termination to the other party. If a party terminates this Agreement as provided in this paragraph, the terminating party shall be obligated to reimburse the non-terminating party for any costs or liability it may have incurred pursuant to this Agreement up to the date of the termination notice. Failure to order the project does not subject either party to reimburse any loss to the other party Section 7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties and supersedes all prior written and oral understandings. Section 8. Amendments. Any amendment to this Agreement or waiver or modifications of its provisions must be in writing and signed by both parties. Section 9. Effective Date. This Agreement is effective when it has been executed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date(s) shown. CITY OF FARMINGTON TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK BY: BY: Its Its ATTEST: ATTEST: Its Its Date: Date: City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us TO: John Erar, City Administrator FROM: Lee M. Mann, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Prairie Waterway, Ash Street Utilities and Storm Sewer project DATE: March 31, 1999 Mr. Mike Foertsch, the engineer for Castle Rock Township and I met on March 16, 1999 to discuss the assignment of responsibilities in regards to the feasibility report for the Ash Street/Prairie Waterway III project. At that meeting, we agreed on the following allocation of duties: Prairie Waterway III Castle Rock will complete the portion of the feasibility report for the Prairie Waterway III (PW III). All field work, design and generation of report text for PW III will be the responsibility of Castle Rock's engineer. Farmington's engineer will supply Castle Rock's engineer with the storm water flows coming from the storm sewer system in Ash Street from the west. Farmington's engineer will review Castle Rock's design of the PW III. Ash Street Utilities and Storm Sewer Farmington will complete the portion of the feasibility report for the utilities and storm sewer in Ash Street. All field work, design and generation of the report text for the sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer for Ash Street will be the responsibility of Farmington's Engineer. Castle Rock's engineer will supply Farmington's engineer with the land uses for areas in the Township that drain into the Ash Street storm sewer system. Castle Rock's engineer will review Farmington's design of the utilities and storm sewer in Ash Street. Ash Street Improvements Farmington will incorporate the County's design of Ash Street in the feasibility report. All coordination with Dakota County and generation of the report text for the improvements for Ash Street will be the responsibility of Farmington's Engineer. Feasibility Report Preparation Estimates It had been estimated in the past that the cost to produce a new feasibility report for the Ash Street project would cost between $30,000 and $40,000. I telephoned Mr. Foertsch on Monday, March 29, to find out what the estimated engineering costs are associated with completing the portion of the feasibility report for which Castle Rock is responsible. Mr. Foertsch indicated he had not yet received a request from Castle Rock Township to provide that information, however, he indicated he would forward his estimate as soon as possible. The estimated engineering costs for the City to complete it's portion of the feasibility report for which Farmington would be responsible is $29,SOO. It is estimated that the cost to review the Castle Rock's part of the feasibility report would not exceed $3,500, and could be less. It should be noted that the work and costs to complete the report are significantly greater for Farmington versus the duties that have been allocated to Castle Rock by mutual agreement. It is anticipated that the total cost to complete the report (not including Farmington's review of Castle Rock and vice versa) will not exceed $40,000. The Joint Powers Agreement stipulates that this cost would be split evenly between the City and the Township in the event that the project is not ordered. If the project is ordered, then feasibility study costs will be allocated the same as the construction costs for the project. Respectfully submitted, ~m~ Lee M. Mann, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer cc: file Mike Foertsch, SEHlRCM City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us ~ TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Framework for Cooperative Efforts DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION The Ash Street Reconstruction/Prairie Waterway III Project sub-committee met on March 10, 1999 to discuss issues relating to jointly authorizing a new project feasibility study. DISCUSSION Representatives from Castle Rock Township and Council members Cordes and Soderberg discussed and agreed to forward the attached resolution to their respective legislative bodies for adoption. The resolution, once adopted, creates a practical political framework for mutual cooperation during the feasibility phase of project development. Framework principles call upon each jurisdiction to establish and observe some basic protocols associated with Council and Township Board project communications. The purpose and intent of adopting these framework principles as a resolution formally commits each jurisdiction to work together in an agreed upon fashion to minimize conflict, preserve the integrity of the process, and build mutual trust and credibility. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution establishing a framework for cooperative efforts between the City of Farmington and Castle Rock Township relative to the reconstruction of Ash Street and construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway. Cc: Castle Rock Township Board RESOLUTION NO. R -99 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FRAMEWORK FOR COOPERATIVE EFFORTS BETWEEN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON AND CASTLE ROCK TOWNSHIP RELATIVE TO THE RECONSTRUCTION OF ASH STREET AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE III OF THE PRAIRIE WATERWAY Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting ofthe City Council of the City of Farmington, Minnesota, was held in the Council Chambers of said City on the 5th day of April 1999 at 7:00 p.m. Members Present: Members Absent: Member introduced and Member seconded the following: WHEREAS, the City Council agrees that any public or private discussions regarding the progress and/or implications of the new feasibility study for the reconstruction of Ash Street and construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway be limited to minimize any misinformation, misperceptions or inaccuracies to the general public; and, WHEREAS, the City Council agrees to limit any public discussions regarding the outcome of the feasibility study until both jurisdictions have formally met to discuss the completed feasibility study; and, WHEREAS, the City Council agrees to limit any negative comments, remarks or criticisms of the process, the other jurisdiction and/or other project related factors to the media and to affected residents until the completed feasibility study has been jointly reviewed by both legislative bodies; and, WHEREAS, the City Council agrees not to politically interfere with the preparation of the feasibility study by city and township engineering representatives; and, WHEREAS, the City Council agrees to accept the findings of the new feasibility study without recriminations, criticisms or "finger pointing" of the other jurisdiction regarding past project issues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Farmington City Council agrees to this framework for cooperative efforts with Castle Rock Township for the purposes of developing a new project feasibility study associated with the reconstruction of Ash Street and the construction of Phase III of the Prairie Waterway. This resolution adopted by recorded vote of the Farmington City Council in open session on the Sth day of April 1999. Mayor Attested to the Sth day of April 1999. SEAL City Administrator City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.ci.farmington.mn.us lie TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance - Cable Franchise Agreement DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION My office has received confirmation that Marcus Cable has accepted the terms and conditions for the renewal of the City's Cable Franchise Agreement. As Council is aware, negotiations with Marcus Cable proved to be very challenging relative to issues brought forward by Farmington, Apple Valley and Rosemount regarding capital grants. Capital grant requests were finally approved by Marcus Cable allowing the final agreement to progress to Council for final adoption. DISCUSSION Mr. Thomas Creighton, the City's franchise negotiator, will be in attendance at tonight's meeting (/ to make a brief presentation to Council relative to final terms and conditions of the agreement. The inclusion of capital grants is a significant accomplishment for the three cities, and, in particular, Farmington which will be able to utilize those funds for the purchase of audio-video equipment for the Council Chambers. In terms of the capital grants, the City will receive $60,000 during the first year of the agreement which Marcus Cable will recover, as allowed under federal law, through a Public-Educational- Government (PEG) fee. The PEG fee is provided for under federal law, and under the terms of the new agreement is accounted for separately and will be designated directly to the City. Under the new agreement, the PEG fee will amount to .50 per month, with the City having the option of increasing the PEG fee over the life of the agreement to $1.25 per month along with inflationary increases indexed to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Any increases over the original PEG fee of .50 would need to be approved by Council. In review of PEG fees already in place in other communities, these fees are typically between $1.50 up to $2.60 per subscriber per month to underwrite costs associated with community programming. Under the old agreement, this fee was actually part of general subscriber rates that was used to underwrite the cost of community programming by Marcus Cable. One substantial change under the new agreement provides for the three cities to manage community programming as opposed to Marcus Cable. This should lead to substantial improvement in the quality, accountability of PEG fees collected and expended, and accessibility of public programming by cable subscribers in Farmington. My office will be working with the cities of Apple Valley and Rosemount to develop a separate proposal on the provision of community programming. This will be a separate, but cooperative effort and will be presented to Council for individual action. It is anticipated that this effort should be completed in late Fall of this year. BUDGET IMPACT As a result of the new Cable Franchise Agreement, the City will receive a $60,000 capital grant that will be used to underwrite capital equipment acquisitions, and other physical enhancements to the Council Chambers for purposes relating to the public broadcasting of public and local government programming. As new funding sources have been identified in the franchise agreement specifically for communications, the City will designate these funds to a special revenue fund to underwrite the costs associated with public communication activities. ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached ordinance Granting a Franchise to Marcus Cable Partners, L.L.C., to Construct, Operate, and Maintain a Cable System in the City of Farmington. Respectfully Submitted, /1 (' ohn F. Erar ORDINANCE NO. 099-427 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO MARCUS CABLE PARTNERS, L.L.C., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A CABLE SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS HEREIN; The City Council ofthe City of Farmington ("City") hereby ordains: STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE The City intends, by the adoption of this Franchise, to bring about the further development of a Cable System, and the continued operation of it. Such a development can contribute significantly to the communication needs and desires of residents of the City. Further, the City may achieve better utilization and improvement of public services with the development and operation of a Cable System. Past studies by the City have led the way for organizing a means of procuring and securing a Cable System which, in the judgment of the City, is best suited to meet the needs of the community. This has resulted in the preparation and adoption of this Franchise. FINDINGS In the review of the request and proposal for renewal by Marcus Cable Partners, L.LC., ("Grantee") and negotiations related thereto, and as a result of a public hearing, the City makes the following findings: 1. The Grantee's technical, fmandal, legal qualifications and ability, and character were considered and approved in a full public proceeding after due notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard; 2. Grantee's plans for constructing, upgrading, and operating the System were considered and found adequate and feasible in a full public proceeding after due notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard; 3. The Franchise granted to Grantee by the City complies with the existing applicable Minnesota Statutes, federallaws and regulations; and 4. The Franchise granted to Grantee is nonexclusive. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND DEFINITIONS 1. Short Title. This Franchise Ordinance shall be known and cited as the Cable Communications Ordinance. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this Franchise, the following terms, phrases, words, and their derivations shall have the meaning given herein. When not inconsistent with the context, words in the singular number include the plural number. The word "shall" or "must" are always mandatory and not merely directory. The word "may" is directory and discretionary and not mandatory. a. "Basic Cable Service" means any service tier which includes the lawful retransmission of local television broadcast signals and any public, educational, and governmental access programming required by the Franchise to be carried on the basic tier. Basic Cable Service as defined herein shall not be inconsistent with 47 D.S.C. S 543(b)(7). b. "Cable System" or "System" means a system of antennas, cables, wires, lines, towers, waveguides, or other conductors, Converters, equipment, or facilities located in the City and designed and constructed for the purpose of producing, receiving, transmitting, amplifying, or distributing audio, video, and data. System as defined herein shall not be inconsistent with the definitions set forth in Minn. Stat. S 238.02, subd. 3 and 47 D.S.C. S 522(7). c. "Cable Programming Service" means any video programming provided over a cable system, regardless of service tier, including installation or rental of equipment used for the receipt of such video programming, other than: 1. Basic Cable Service; 11. Video programming offered on a pay-per-channel or pay-per-program basis; or 111. A combination of multiple channels of pay-per-channel or pay-per-program video programming offered on a multiplexed or time-shifted basis so long as the combined service: (1) consists of commonly-identified video programming; and (2) is not bundled with any regulated tier of service. Cable Programming Service as defined herein shall not be inconsistent with the 2. definition as set forth in 47 U.S.C. S 543(1)(2) and 47 C.F.R.S 76.901(b). d. "Cable Service" or "Service" means the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i) video programming, or (ii) other programming service, and subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or use of such video programming or other programming service pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 238.01 et seq. and 47 U.S.C S 521 et seq., as may be amended from time to time. e. "City" means the City of Farmington, Minnesota. f. "Class IV Channel" means a signaling path provided by a Cable System to transmit signals of any type from a Subscriber terminal to another point in the System. g. "Converter" means an electronic device which converts signals to a frequency acceptable to a television receiver of a Subscriber and by an appropriate selector permits a Subscriber to view all Subscriber signals included in the servIce. h. "Drop" means the cable that connects the ground block on the Subscriber's residence to the nearest feeder cable of the System. 1. "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission and any legally appointed, designated or elected agent or successor. J. "Franchise" or "Cable Franchise" means this ordinance and the contractual relationship established hereby. k. "Franchise Fee" includes any tax, fee, or assessment of any kind imposed by a franchising authority or other governmental entity on a cable operator or cable subscriber, or both, solely because of their status as such; The term "Franchise Fee" does not include: (A) any tax, fee, or assessment of general applicability (including any such tax, fee, or assessment imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services but not including a tax, fee, or assessment which is unduly discriminatory against cable operators or cable subscribers); (B) in the case of any franchise granted after October 30, 1984, any payments which are required by the franchise to be incurred by the cable operator for public, educational, or governmental access facilities; 3. (C) requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or enforcing of the franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit, insurance, indemnification, penalties, or liquidated damages; or (D) any fee imposed under Title 17. 1. "Grantee" is Marcus Cable Partners, L.L.c., its agents and employees, lawful successors, transferees or assignees. m. "Gross Revenues" means all revenue received directly or indirectly by the Grantee, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent, or person in which Grantee has financial interest of five percent (5%) or more, from the operation of its System, including but not limited to Cable Service fees, interest, Installation and reconnection fees, upgrade and downgrade fees, advertising revenue, Franchise Fee receipts, revenues generated by sales on home shopping channel(s), leased channel fees, Converter rental fees, Lockout Device fees or fees for any other Cable Services provided via the System. The term Gross Revenues shall not include bad debt, or any taxes on services furnished by Grantee which are imposed by any municipality, state, or other governmental unit and collected by Grantee for such governmental unit. n. "Installation" means the connection of the System from feeder cable to the point of connection with the ground block. o. "Lockout Device" means an optional mechanical or electrical accessory which inhibits the viewing of a certain program, certain channel, or certain channels provided by way of the Cable Communication System. p. "Node" means the demarcation point in the System where fiber optic components and signals are converted to coaxial or non-optical components, and all related equipment. q. "Normal business hours" means at least 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. In all cases, "normal business hours" must include some evening hours at least one night per week and/or some weekend hours. r. "Normal operating conditions" means those service conditions which are within the control of Grantee. Those conditions which are typically not within the control of Grantee include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or unusual weather conditions. Those conditions which are typically within the control of Grantee include, but are not limited to, special promotions, pay-per-view events, rate increases, regular peak or seasonal demand periods, and maintenance or upgrade of the System. 4. s. "PEG Access" or "PEG" means public, educational and governmental programming channels, equipment, facilities, funding, or operations as the context may require. t. "PEG Fee" means a fee to subscribers for support of PEG Access. u. "Pay Television" means the delivery over the System of pay-per-channel or pay-per-program audio-visual signals to Subscribers for a fee or charge, in addition to the charge for Basic Cable Service or Cable Programming Services. v. "Person" is any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or other legal entity. w. "Right-of-Way" or "Rights-of-Way" means the area on, below, or above any real property in the City in which the City has an interest including, but not limited to any street, road, highway, alley, sidewalk, parkway, park, skyway, or any other place, area, or real property owned by or under the control of the City, including any other Rights-of-Way dedicated for travel purposes and utility easements. x. "Right-of- Way Ordinance" means such ordinance adopted by the City creating requirements regarding regulation, management and use of Rights- of-Way, including registration and permitting requirements. y. "Service interruption" means the loss of picture or sound on one or more cable channels (for longer than a momentary period). z. "Standard Installation" means any residential installation which can be completed using a Drop of 200 feet or less. aa. "Subscriber" means any Person who lawfully receives service via the System. SECTION 2. GRANT OF AUTHORITY AND GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Grant of Franchise. This Franchise is granted pursuant to the terms and conditions contained herein. 2. Franchise Required. It shall be unlawful for any Person to construct, operate or maintain a System or provide Service in City unless such Person shall first obtain and hold a valid Franchise. 5. 3. Grant of Nonexclusive Authoritv. a. The Grantee shall have the right and privilege pursuant to this Franchise, subject to the requirements of any applicable ordinance, rule or procedure, to construct, erect, maintain, and operate a Cable System in, upon, along, across, above, over and under the Rights-of-Way in the City and shall have the right and privilege to provide Cable Service. The System constructed and maintained by Grantee or its agents shall not interfere with other uses of the Rights-of-Way. Grantee shall make use of existing poles and other above and below-ground facilities available to Grantee to the extent it is technically and economically feasible to do so. b. Notwithstanding the above grant to use Rights-of-Way, use of such Rights-of- Way shall not be inconsistent with the terms and conditions by which such Rights-of- Way were created or dedicated and with all legal requirements related to the use of such Rights-of-Way, including the terms and conditions of any applicable Right-of-Way Ordinance. This provision in no way limits Grantee's rights pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 238.35. c. This Franchise shall be nonexclusive. Additional Cable Franchises granted by the City shall be granted the substantially similar substantive terms and conditions. . 4. Lease or Assignment Prohibited. No Person may lease Grantee's System for the purpose of providing Service until and unless such Person shall have first obtained and shall currently hold a valid Franchise. 5. Franchise Term. This Franchise shall be in effect for a period of 15 years from the date of acceptance by Grantee. 6. Previous Franchises. Upon acceptance by Grantee as required by Section 13 herein, this Franchise shall supersede and replace the previous Ordinance granting a Franchise to Grantee. 7. Compliance with Applicable Laws. Resolutions and Ordinances. The Grantee shall at all times during the term of this Franchise be subject to all lawful exercise of the police power, statutory rights, local ordinance-making authority, and eminent domain rights ofthe City. This Franchise shall comply with Minnesota franchise standards contained in Minn. Stat. S 238.01 et seq. 8. Territorial Area Involved. This Franchise is granted for the corporate boundaries of the City as it exists from time to time. In the event of annexation by City or as development occurs, any new territory shall become part of the territory for which this Franchise is granted provided, however, that Grantee shall not be required to extend Service beyond its present System boundaries unless there is a minimum of 6. thirty (30) homes per cable mile. Grantee shall extend Service to any other areas or Persons requesting Service at a cost equal to the construction costs, including material, labor and any necessary easements, per mile multiplied by a fraction whose numerator equals the actual number of homes per mile, and whose denominator equals thirty (30) homes. Those Persons wishing to become Subscribers and requesting Service will bear the remainder of the construction costs on a pro rata basis. The Grantee may require that the payment of these costs by such potential Subscribers be made in advance. Access to Cable Service shall not be denied to any group of potential residential cable Subscribers because of the income of the residents of the area in which such group resides. Grantee shall be given a reasonable period of time to construct and activate cable plant to service annexed or newly developed areas but in no event not to exceed twelve (12) months from notice thereof by City to Grantee. 9. Written Notice. All notices, reports, or demands required to be given in writing under this Franchise shall be deemed to be given when delivered personally to any officer of Grantee or City's Administrator of this Franchise or forty-eight (48) hours after it is deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or certified mail postage prepaid thereon, addressed to the party to whom notice is being given, as follows: If to City: With copies to: Ifto Grantee: With copies to: City of Farmington c/o City Administrator 325 Oak Street Farmington, MN 55024 Thomas D. Creighton, Esq. Robert 1. V. Vose, Esq. Bernick and Lifson Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis MN 55416 Marcus Cable Partners, L.L.C. 16900 Cedar Avenue South Rosemount, MN 55068 Jane E. Bremer, Esq. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 7. Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as provided in this Section. 10. Drops to Public Buildings. Grantee shall provide, free of charge, Installation of one (1) two-way activated cable Drop which does not include upstream transmission equipment, one (1) cable outlet, and monthly Basic Cable Service without charge to the institutions identified in Exhibit A attached and such other public or educational institutions within the cable service territory which the City may designate and which are within 200 feet of the System. Redistribution of the free Basic Cable Service provided pursuant to this Section shall be allowed with the Grantee's prior written consent or for educational purposes. Additional Drops and/or outlets in any of the above locations shall be provided by Grantee at the cost of Grantee's time and material. Alternatively, at the City or institution's request, said institution may add outlets at its own expense, as long as such Installation meets applicable FCC technical standards. Drops to subsequently designated institutions in excess of 200 feet shall be provided by the Grantee at the cost of Grantee's time and materials less the cost of the 200 feet closest to the building. Grantee shall have one (1) year from the date of the City designation of additional institution(s) to complete construction of the Drop and outlet. SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS 1. Registration. Permits and Construction Codes. a. Grantee shall strictly adhere to all state and local laws and building and zoning codes currently or hereafter applicable to location, construction, installation, operation or maintenance of the System in the City. b. The City shall have the right to inspect all construction or installation work performed pursuant to the provisions of the Franchise and to make such tests as it shall fmd necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of the Franchise and applicable provisions of local, state and federal law. 2. Repair of Rights-of-Way and Property. Any and all Rights-of-Way or public property or private property, which are disturbed or damaged during the construction, repair, replacement, relocation, operation, maintenance or reconstruction of the System shall be promptly and fully restored by Grantee, at its expense, to the same condition as that prevailing prior to Grantee's work, as approved by City in the case of Rights-of-Way and other public property. If, after reasonable notice, Grantee fails to promptly perform the restoration required herein, City may perform the restoration of the Rights-of-Way, public, or private property as required herein at Grantee's expense. 8. 3. Conditions on Right-of-Way Use. a. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to prevent the City from adopting and enforcing requirements for the usage of Rights-of-Way or from constructing, maintaining, repairing or relocating sewers; grading, paving, maintaining, repairing, relocating and/or altering any Right-of-Way; constructing, laying down, repairing, maintaining or relocating any water mains; or constructing, maintaining, relocating, or repairing any sidewalk or other public work. b. All System transmission and distribution structures, lines and equipment erected by the Grantee shall be located so as not to obstruct or interfere with the use of Right-of-Way and to cause minimum interference with the rights of property owners who abut any of said Right-of-Way and not to interfere with existing public utility installations. The Grantee shall furnish to and file with the City the maps, plats, and permanent records of the location and character of all facilities constructed, including underground facilities, and Grantee shall file with the City updates of such maps, plats and permanent records annually if changes have been made in the System. c. If at any time during the period of this Franchise City shall elect to alter or change the grade or location of any Right-of-Way, the Grantee shall, upon reasonable notice in a manner consistent with applicable ordinances, remove and relocate its poles, wires, cables, conduits, manholes and other fixtures of the System. If the City enters into an agreement to reimburse other occupants of the Right -of-Way for such relocation or removal, Grantee shall be likewise reimbursed. d. The Grantee shall not place poles, conduits, or other fixtures of System above or below ground where the same will interfere with any gas, electric, telephone, water or other utility fixtures and all such poles, conduits, or other fixtures placed in any Right-of-Way shall be so placed as to comply with all requirements of the City. Grantee shall utilize existing poles, conduits, or other wire-holding structures of existing utilities to the extent technically and economically feasible. City shall have no obligation to assist Grantee in obtaining the consent for use of existing facilities from any utility company. e. The Grantee shall, upon request of any Person holding a moving permit issued by the City, temporarily move its wires or fixtures to permit the moving of buildings with the expense of such temporary removal to be paid in advance by the Person requesting the same, and the Grantee shall be given not less than ten (10) days advance notice to arrange for such temporary changes. 9. . f. The Grantee shall have the authority to trim any trees upon and overhanging the Rights-of-Way only to the extent necessary to prevent the branches of such trees from coming in contact with the wires and cables of the Grantee. g. Nothing contained in this Franchise shall relieve any person from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring Grantee's facilities. 4. Undergroundinf?: of Cable. Grantee must place newly constructed facilities underground in areas of the City where all other utility lines are placed underground. Amplifier boxes and pedestal mounted terminal boxes may be placed above ground if existing technology reasonably requires, but shall be of such size and design and shall be so located as not to be unsightly or unsafe, all as may be approved by the City in accordance with applicable requirements. 5. Drop Burial. Grantee shall bury all Drops in a reasonable time period which shall not exceed ten (10) business days, subject to weather conditions and the completion of required utility locates. In the event the ground is frozen, Grantee shall be permitted to delay burial until the ground is suitable for burial which in no event shall be later than June 30th. 6. Erection. Removal and Joint Use of Poles. No poles, conduits, amplifier boxes, pedestal mounted terminal boxes, similar structures, or other wire-holding structures shall be erected or installed by the Grantee without prior approval of the City with regard to location, height, type and other pertinent aspects. 7. Safety Requirements. a. The Grantee shall at all times employ ordinary and reasonable care and shall install and maintain in use nothing less than commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents which are likely to cause damage, injuries, or nuisances to the public. b. The Grantee shall install and maintain its System and other equipment in accordance with all federal, state and local laws and regulations, and the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and in such manner that they will not interfere with private radio, police and fire communications or any installations of the City or of any public utility serving the City. c. All System structures, and lines, equipment and connections in, over, under and upon the Rights-of-Way, wherever situated or located, shall at all times be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair so that the same shall not menace or endanger the life or property of the City or any Person. 8. Emergency Use of Facilities. In the case of any emergency or disaster, the Grantee 10. shall upon request ofthe City, make available its facilities to City during the period of emergency or disaster. SECTION 4. DESIGN PROVISIONS 1. System Upgrade: Minimum Channel Capacity. a. Grantee shall develop, construct and continue for the term of this Franchise to provide a 750 Mhz fiber/coaxial hybrid System which is engineered and activated so as to be capable of delivering a minimum of 80 video programmed channels. The System shall be designed with an average five hundred (500) homes per fiber node configuration as more fully detailed in Exhibit B attached. b. All programming decisions remain the discretion of Grantee; provided, however, that any change in the broad catagories of video programming or other information services shall require the approval of the City consistent with 47 U.S.C. S 544(b), which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and further provided that Grantee notifies the City and Subscribers in writing thirty (30) days prior to any channel additions, deletions, or realignments, and further subject to Grantee's signal carriage obligations hereunder and pursuant to 47 U.S.c. S 531-536, and further provided that Grantee may not eliminate, move or renumber any PEG access or other community programming channel required hereunder without prior approval of the City. Grantee shall conduct programming surveys from time to time to obtain input on programming decisions from Subscribers. c. Grantee shall interconnect with any adjoining Cable System at such time as consent from the adjoining operator is received. Nothing herein shall require Grantee to interconnect unless the operator of the adjoining System agrees to pay a pro rata share of the interconnection costs. 2. Reserved Capacitv for Institutional Services. In the event public institutions within the City elect to utilize the System for non-commercial applications, they shall be offered service on terms and conditions substantially similar to those contained in the Agreement between Marcus Fiberlink and the City ofLakeville, dated November 1, 1998. Grantee shall not be required to provide any particular service or application which Grantee lacks technological ability or regulatory approval to provide. A requesting institution may provide equipment or seek regulatory approval independent of Granee in order to provide such service or application via reserved capacity. 3. Construction Timetable. Grantee shall complete construction related to the System 11. upgrade required herein and activate such upgrade within 18 months of the effective date of this Franchise. Failure to timely complete such construction shall be a violation of this Franchise. 4. Operation and Maintenance of System. The Grantee shall render effective service, make repairs promptly, and interrupt service only for good cause and for the shortest time possible. Such interruption, to the extent feasible, shall be preceded by notice in accordance with Section 2.9 herein and shall occur during periods of minimum use of the System. 5. Technical Standards. The technical standards used in the operation of the System shall comply, at minimum, with the technical standards promulgated by the FCC relating to Cable Systems pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations Title 47, Section 76.601 to 76.617, as may be amended or modified from time to time, which regulations are expressly incorporated herein by reference. 6. Special Testing. a. The City may require testing of a location or locations within the System or the System as a whole. Demand for such special tests may be made on the basis of complaints received or other evidence indicating an unresolved controversy or noncompliance. The City shall endeavor to so arrange its request for such special testing so as to minimize hardship or inconvenience to Grantee or to the Subscribers caused by such testing. b. Before ordering such tests, Grantee shall be afforded thirty (30) days to correct problems or complaints upon which tests were ordered. If the thirty (30) days have elapsed without correction of the matter in controversy or unresolved complaints, the tests shall be conducted by a qualified engineer selected by City. c. In the event that special testing determines that the System or Grantee is the source of technical difficulties in violation of the FCC technical specifications as required by this Franchise, the cost of said testing shall be reimbursed by the Grantee. 7. FCC Reports. The results of any tests required to be filed by Grantee with the FCC shall also be filed with the City or its designee within ten (10) days of the conduct of such tests. 8. Nonvoice Return Capability. Grantee is required to use cable having the technical capacity for nonvoice return communications. 9. Lockout Device. Upon the request of a Subscriber, Grantee shall provide a Lockout Device. 12. SECTION 5. SERVICES PROVISIONS 1. Regulation of Service Rates. a. The City may regulate rates for the provision of Cable Service, equipment, or any other communications service provided over the System to the extent allowed under federal or state law(s). The City reserves the right to regulate rates for any future services to the extent permitted by law. b. A list of Grantee's current Subscriber rates and charges shall be maintained on file with the City and shall be available for public inspection. Grantee shall give the City and Subscribers written notice of any change in a rate or charge no less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date ofthe change. 2. Non-Standard Installations. Grantee shall install and provide Cable Service to any Person requesting other than a Standard Installation provided that said Cable Service can meet FCC technical specifications. In such case, Grantee may charge for the incremental increase in material and labor costs incurred beyond the Standard Installation. 3. Sales Procedures. Grantee shall not exercise deceptive sales procedures when marketing any of its services within City. Grantee shall have the right to market door-to-door during reasonable hours consistent with local ordinances and regulation. 1. Telephone Inquiries and Complaints. a. Availabilitv Grantee will maintain an adequate number oflocal, toll-free or collect call telephone access lines which will be available to its Subscribers 24 hours a day, seven days a week so as to receive Subscriber complaints, requests, and inquiries. During normal business hours, trained representatives of Grantee shall be available to respond to Subscriber inquiries. Grantee will ensure that: (1) an adequate number of trained company representatives will be available to respond to customer telephone inquiries during normal business hours, and; (2) after normal business hours, the access line may be answered by a service or an automated response system, including an answering machine. Further, inquiries received after normal business hours must be responded to by a trained company representative on the next business day. b. Telephone Answer Time and Busy Signals Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time by a customer representative, including wait time, shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds after the connection is made. If the call needs to be transferred, transfer time shall not exceed thirty (30) 13. seconds. These standards shall be met no less than ninety (90) percent of the time under normal operating conditions, measured on a quarterly basis. Under normal operating conditions, the customer will receive a busy signal less than three (3) percent of the time. 2. Installation. Outage and Service Calls. Under normal operating conditions, each of the following four standards will be met no less than ninety five (9S) percent of the time measured on a quarterly basis: (1) Installations will be performed within seven (7) business days after an order has been placed; (2) Grantee will begin working on service interruptions promptly, in no event later than twenty-four (24) hours after the interruption becomes known, and Subscriber requests for repairs shall be performed within twenty-four (24) hours of the request unless conditions beyond the control of Grantee prevent such performance; (3) The "appointment window" alternatives for Installations, service calls, and other installation activities will be either a specific time or, at maximum, a four-hour time block during normal business hours. The Grantee may schedule service calls and other installation activities outside of normal business hours for the convenience of the customer; (4) Grantee may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment; (S) If a representative of Grantee is running late for an appointment with a customer and will not be able to keep the appointment as scheduled, the customer will be contacted. The appointment will be rescheduled, as necessary, at a time which is convenient for the customer. 3 Complaint and Other Service Records Subject to Grantee's to maintain the privacy of certain information, Grantee shall prepare and maintain written records of all complaints received and the resolution of such complaints, including the date of such resolution. Such written records shall be on file at the office of Grantee. Grantee shall provide the City with a written summary of such complaints and their resolution on a quarterly basis. Grantee will also provide detailed compliance reports on a quarterly basis with respect to the objectively measurable service standards herein in a form mutually agreed upon. 4 Billing and Subscriber Communications. Grantee must give Subscribers thirty (30) days advance written notice with copy to City before any changes in rates, programming services, or channel positions. Bills must be clear, concise, and understandable, with itemization of all charges for Services, equipment charges, and any optional services, charges, and other activity during the billing period. In case of a billing dispute, the cable operator must respond to a written complaint from a subscriber within 30 days. S Subscriber Contracts. Grantee shall file with the City any standard form Subscriber contract utilized by Grantee. If no such written contract exists, Grantee shall file with the City a document completely and concisely stating the length and terms of the Subscriber contract offered to customers. The length and terms of any Subscriber contract(s) shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours. 14. 6 Refunds and Credits. In the event a Subscriber establishes or terminates Service and receives less than a full month's Service, Grantee shall prorate the monthly rate on the basis of the number of days in the period for which Service was rendered to the number of days in the billing. Refund checks will be issued promptly, but no later than the return of the equipment supplied by the Grantee if Service is terminated. If Service is interrupted or discontinued for a total of more than 48 hours in any 30 day period, Subscribers shall be credited pro rata for such interruption beginning with the date of interruption. Credits for will be issued no later than the Subscriber's next billing cycle following the determination that a credit is warranted. 7 Late Fees. Fees for the late payment of bills shall not accrue until the normal billing cut-off for the next month's service and in no event less than one (1) month after the unpaid bill in question was sent to the Subscriber customer service center and bill payment locations will be open at least during normal business hours. Payments at the cable operator's drop-box location shall be deemed received on the date such payments are picked up by the cable operator which shall occur within 24 hours after every due date. The cable operators shall continue to provide a "grace period" of at least five (S) days after each due date. Late fees shall not exceed the Grantee's actual and demonstrable costs associated with collection of late payments as may be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 8 Drop Box. Grantee shall maintain a local drop box for receiving Subscriber payments after hours. 9 Additional Customer Service Requirements. The City expressly reserves authority to adopt additional or modified customer service requirements to address Subscriber concerns or complaints in accordance with law. SECTION 6. ACCESS CHANNEL(S) PROVISIONS I. Public. Educational and Government Access. a. The City is hereby designated to operate, administer, promote, and manage community programming (public, education, and government programming) (hereinafter "PEG access") in the Cable System. b. Grantee shall dedicate five (5) channe1(s), with channel defined as a six (6) MHz spectrum allocation, for PEG access and community programming use. All residential Subscribers who receive all or any part of the total services offered on the System shall be eligible to receive such channels at no additional charge. The channe1(s) shall be activated upon the effective date 15. of this Franchise and thereafter maintained. The City may rename, reprogram, or otherwise change the use of these channels in its sole discretion, provided such use is non-commercial and retains the general purpose of the provision of community programming. Nothing herein shall diminish the City's rights to secure additional channels pursuant to Minn. Stat. 9238.084, which is expressly incorporated herein by reference. The City shall provide ninety (90) days prior written notice to Grantee of City's intent to activate access channels and shall allow Grantee reasonable time to vacate said channel(s). b. The VHF spectrum must be used for the PEG access channel(s) required in this Section. Grantee shall designate the channel locations of any other access channel(s) but may not move or otherwise change the channel number or location of any PEG access or community program channel without the written approval of the City. 2. Charges for Use. Channel time and playback of prerecorded programming on the PEG access and community program channel(s) must be provided without charge to the City and the public. 3. Access Rules. City, or its designee, shall implement rules for use of any access channel(s). 4. Access Support. a. Grantee shall collect from Subscribers and quarterly pay to the City in support of PEG operations the full amount of revenues generated by a $.25 per month, per Subscriber fee beginning upon the Effective Date of this Franchise. This fee may be separately itemized as a "PEG Fee" and passed through to Subscribers independent from rates regulated pursuant to FCC regulations. The City may require increases in the PEG Fee up to a limit of $1.25 increased annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or three percent (3%), whichever is less. The City may not increase the PEG Fee by more than twenty-five cents ($.25) in any given year. The City shall notify Grantee of any such increase on or before September 30, assuming a January 1 implementation. Should Grantee change the date of any annual rate change from January 1, and so notify the City, then the City shall notify Grantee of any PEG increase at least ninety (90) days prior to the new Grantee rate change date. Such payment shall be separate from and in addition to the Franchise Fee. b. Grantee shall transfer title to any PEG equipment which it owns currently to provide PEG programming to the City and repair or replace such other PEG equipment as the City deems necessary, as is indicated on attached Exhibit C. 16. c. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Franchise, Grantee shall pay City ($90,000.OO/Apple Valley, $60,000.00/Rosemount, $60,OOO.OOlFarmington) as a capital equipment grant. Grantee may recoup said grant by an addition of up to twenty-five cents ($.25) to the PEG Fee. Such additional PEG Fee shall be retained by Grantee until such time as the capital grant above is recouped. Upon such recoupment, Grantee shall notify the City. The City shall have the option of leaving the recoupment addition as part of the PEG Fee on a going forward basis. Grantee shall pay this additional amount to the City in its regular PEG Fee payment to the City. In the year of recoupment, the City may not increase the PEG Fee an additional amount. SECTION 7. OPERATION AND ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS 1. Administration of Franchise. The City shall have continuing regulatory jurisdiction and supervision over the System and the Grantee's operation under the Franchise. 2. Delegated Authoritv. The City may delegate to any other body or Person authority to administer the Franchise and to monitor the performance of the Grantee pursuant to the Franchise; provided, however, the City shall not delegate any enforcement power it may have pursuant to this Franchise or any applicable laws. 3. Franchise Fee. a. During the term of the Franchise, Grantee shall pay to the City a Franchise Fee in an annual amount equal to five percent (5%) of its Gross Revenues. b. Any payments due under this provision shall be payable quarterly. The payment shall be made within sixty (60) days of the end of each of Grantee's current fiscal quarters together with a report in form reasonably acceptable to City and Grantee and which shows the basis for the computation. c. All amounts paid shall be subject to audit and recomputation by the City and acceptance of any payment shall not be construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the correct amount. 4. Access to Records. The City shall have the right to inspect, upon reasonable notice and during normal business hours, any records maintained by Grantee which relate to this Franchise or System operations including specifically Grantee's accounting 17. and financial records, subject to the privacy provisions of 47 V.S.C. 9 521 et seq. In addition or alternatively, Grantee shall provide copies of any such records upon request by City. 5. Reoorts and Maps to be Filed with the City. a. Grantee shall file with the City, at the time of payment of the Franchise Fee, a report of all Gross Revenues certified by an officer of the Grantee. b. Grantee shall prepare and furnish to the City, at the times and in the form prescribed, such other reports with respect to the operations, affairs, transactions or property, as they relate to the System, which Grantee and the City may agree upon. c. Grantee shall furnish to and file with the City upon request the maps, plats, and permanent records of the location and character of all facilities constructed, including underground facilities. 6. Periodic Evaluation. a. The City may require evaluation sessions at any time during the term of this Franchise, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Grantee. b. All evaluation sessions shall be open to the public. Grantee shall notify its Subscribers of all evaluation sessions by announcement of at least sixty (60) seconds in duration on at least one (I)-Basic Service channel of the System between the hours of7:00 p.m. and 9 00 p.m. for five (5) consecutive days preceding each session. c. Topics which may be discussed at any evaluation session may include, but are not limited to, application of new technologies, System performance, programming offered, access channels, facilities and support, municipal uses of cable, customer complaints, amendments to this Franchise, judicial rulings, FCC rulings, line extension policies and any other topics the City and Grantee deem relevant. d. As a result of a periodic review or evaluation session, the City may request Grantee to amend the Franchise to provide additional services or facilities as are mutually agreed upon and which are both economically and technically feasible. SECTION 8. GENERAL FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE PROVISIONS 18. 1. Performance Bond. a. At the time the Franchise becomes effective and at all times thereafter, until the Grantee has liquidated all of its obligations with the City, the Grantee shall furnish a bond to the City in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) in a form and with such sureties as are reasonably acceptable to the City. This bond will be conditioned upon the faithful performance of the Grantee according to the terms of the Franchise and upon the further condition that in the event the Grantee shall fail to comply with any law, ordinance or regulation governing the Franchise, there shall be recoverable jointly and severally from the principal and surety of the bond any damages or loss suffered by the City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation, indemnification or cost of removal or abandonment of any property of the Grantee, plus a reasonable allowance for attorneys' fees and costs, up to the full amount of the bond, and further guaranteeing payment by the Grantee of claims, liens and taxes due the City which arise by reason of the construction, operation, or maintenance of the System. The rights reserved by the City with respect to the bond are in addition to all other rights the City may have under the Franchise or any other law. The City may, from year to year, in its sole discretion, reduce the amount of the bond. b. In the event this Franchise is canceled by reason of default of Grantee or revoked, the City shall be entitled to collect from the performance bond that amount which is attributable to any damages sustained by the City pursuant to said default or revocation. Grantee, however, shall be entitled to the return of such performance bond, or portion thereof, as remains at the expiration of the term of the Franchise. c. The rights reserved to the City with respect to the performance bond shall not be deemed an exclusive remedy and are in addition to all other rights of the City whether reserved by this Franchise or authorized by law, and no action, proceeding or exercise of a right with respect to the performance bond shall affect any other right the City may have. 2. Construction Bond. Upon Grantee's initiation of construction and System upgrade in City as required by this Franchise, Grantee shall provide an additional construction bond to City in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) or shall increase the performance bond to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00). Grantee shall maintain such bond(s) during the term of the construction upon the terms and conditions provided above. Upon completion of such construction, Grantee shall provide written notice to City. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of said notice, City shall indicate in writing its agreement or specify those items of construction which City determines are incomplete. At such time as City and Grantee mutually agree that said construction is complete, Grantee shall be required to provide City only with a performance bond as required above. 19. 3. Letter of Credit. a. At the time of acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall deliver to the City an irrevocable and unconditional Letter of Credit, in form and substance acceptable to the City, from a National or State bank approved by the City, in the amount ofTen Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). b. The Letter of Credit shall provide that funds will be paid to the City, upon written demand of the City, and in an amount solely determined by the City in payment for penalties charged pursuant to this section, in payment for any monies owed by Grantee pursuant to its obligations under this Franchise, or in payment for any damage incurred as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to this Franchise. c. In addition to recovery of any monies owed by Grantee to the City or damages to the City as a result of any acts or omissions by Grantee pursuant to the Franchise, the City, in its sole discretion, may charge to and collect from the Letter of Credit the following penalties: 1. F or failure to complete system upgrade as provided herein, unless the City approves the delay, the penalty shall be Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. II. For failure to provide data, documents, reports or information required herein or for failure to cooperate with the City during an application process or system review or as otherwise provided herein, the penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. Ill. For failure to comply with construction, operation or customer service, or maintenance and technical standards, including the customer service requirements herein, the penalty shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. IV. For failure to provide the services Grantee has proposed, including, but not limited to, the implementation and the utilization of the access channels and the maintenance and/or replacement of the equipment and other facilities, the penalty shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such failure occurs or continues. v. For violation of any other provision of this Franchise or applicable 20. federal, state, or local law or regulation, the penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day for each day, or part thereof, such violation continues. d. Each violation of any provision of this Franchise shall be considered a separate violation for which a separate penalty can be imposed. e. Whenever the City finds that Grantee has violated one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, a written notice shall be given to Grantee informing it of such violation. At any time after thirty (30) days following receipt of notice, provided Grantee remains in violation of one or more terms, conditions or provisions of this Franchise, in the sole opinion of the City, the City may draw from the Letter of Credit all penalties or monies due the City from the date of the local receipt of notice. The City may grant additional time beyond the initial thirty (30) days in the event the City determines such additional time is necessary to cure the alleged violation. f. Grantee may, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of such notice, notify the City in writing that there is a dispute as to whether a violation or failure has in fact occurred. Such written notice by Grantee to the City shall specify with particularity the matters disputed by Grantee. All penalties shall continue to accrue and the City may draw from the Letter of Credit at the end of the thirty (30) day cure period notwithstanding Grantee's dispute regarding the violation. i. The City shall hear Grantee's dispute at the next regularly scheduled meeting or within sixty (60) days, whichever period is longer. 11. Upon determination by the City that no violation has taken place, the City shall rescind the notice of violation and refund to Grantee, without interest, all monies drawn from the Letter of Credit by reason of the alleged violation. g. If said Letter of Credit or any subsequent Letter of Credit delivered pursuant thereto expires prior to five (5) months after the expiration of the term of this Franchise, it shall be renewed or replaced during the term of this Franchise to provide that it will not expire earlier than five (5) months after the expiration of this Franchise. The renewed or replaced Letter of Credit shall be of the same form and amount and with a bank authorized herein. h. If the City draws upon the Letter of Credit or any subsequent Letter of Credit delivered pursuant hereto, in whole or in part, Grantee shall replace the same within ten (10) days and shall deliver to the City a like replacement Letter of Credit for the full amount required herein as a substitution of the previous Letter of Credit. 21. 1. If any Letter of Credit is not so replaced, the City may draw on said Letter of Credit for the whole amount thereof and use the proceeds as the City determines in its sole discretion. The failure to replace any Letter of Credit may also, at the option of the City, be deemed a default by Grantee under this Franchise. The drawing on the Letter of Credit by the City, and use of the money so obtained for payment or performance of the obligations, duties and responsibilities of Grantee which are in default, shall not be a waiver or release of such default. J. The collection by the City of any damages, monies or penalties from the Letter of Credit shall not be deemed an exclusive remedy and shall not affect any other right or remedy available to the City, nor shall any act, or failure to act, by the City pursuant to the Letter of Credit, be deemed a waiver of any right of the City pursuant to this Franchise or otherwise. 4 Indemnification of the City. a. The City, its officers, boards, committees, commissions, elected officials, employees and agents shall not be liable for any loss or damage to any real or personal property of any Person, or for any injury to or death of any Person, arising out of or in connection with the construction, operation, maintenance, repair or removal of, or other action or event with respect to the System or as to any other action or event with respect to this Franchise. b. Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, boards, committees, commissions, elected officials, employees and agents, from and against all liability , damages, and penalties which they may legally be required to pay as a result of the exercise, administration, or enforcement of the Franchise including, but not limited to, the reimbursement to City of any insurance deductible paid by City. c. Nothing in this Franchise relieves a Person, except the City, from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring the Grantee's facilities while performing work connected with grading, regrading, or changing the line of a Right-of-Way or public place or with the construction or reconstruction of a sewer or water system. 5 Insurance. a. Grantee shall file with its acceptance of this Franchise, and at all times thereafter maintain in full force and effect at its sole expense, a comprehensive general liability insurance policy, including broadcaster's/cablecaster's liability and contractual liability coverage, in protection of the Grantee, and the City, its officers, elected officials, boards, commissions, agents and employees for any and all damages and penalties 22. which may arise as a result of this Franchise. The policy or policies shall name the City as an additional insured, and in their capacity as such, the City officers, elected officials, boards, commissions, agents and employees. b. The policies of insurance shall be in the sum of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for personal injury or death of anyone Person, and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) for personal injury or death of two or more Persons in anyone occurrence, One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property damage to anyone person and Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) for property damage resulting from anyone act or occurrence. c. The policy or policies of insurance shall be maintained by Grantee in full force and effect during the entire term of the Franchise. Each policy of insurance shall contain a statement on its face that the insurer will not cancel the policy or fail to renew the policy, whether for nonpayment of premium, or otherwise, and whether at the request of Grantee or for other reasons, except after sixty (60) days advance written notice have been provided to the City. SECTION 9. SALE, ABANDONMENT, TRANSFER AND REVOCATION OF FRANCHISE 1. City's Right to Revoke. a. In addition to all other rights which the City has pursuant to law or equity, the City reserves the right to revoke, terminate or cancel this Franchise, and all rights and privileges pertaining thereto, if after the hearing required by 9.2(b) herein, it is determined that: 1. Grantee has violated any material provision of this Franchise; or 11. Grantee has attempted to evade any of the material provisions of the Franchise; or 111. Grantee has practiced fraud or deceit upon the City or Subscriber; or IV. Grantee is adjudged a bankrupt. 2. Procedures for Revocation. a. The City shall provide Grantee with written notice of a cause for revocation 23. and the intent to revoke and shall allow Grantee sixty (60) days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to correct the violation or to provide adequate assurance of performance in compliance with the Franchise. b. Grantee shall be provided the right to a public hearing affording due process before the City prior to revocation, which public hearing shall follow the sixty (60) day notice provided in subparagraph (a) above. The City shall provide Grantee with written notice of its decision together with written findings of fact supplementing said decision. c. Only after the public hearing and upon written notice of the determination by the City to revoke the Franchise may Grantee appeal said decision with an appropriate state or federal court or agency. d. During the appeal period, the Grantee may continue to operate the System pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Franchise, unless the term thereof sooner expIres. 3. Abandonment of Service. Grantee may not abandon the System or any portion thereof without having first given three (3) months written notice to the City. Grantee may not abandon the System or any portion thereof without compensating the City for damages resulting from the abandonment. 4. Removal After Abandonment. Termination or Forfeiture. a. In the event of termination or forfeiture of the Franchise or abandonment of the System, the City shall have the right to require Grantee to remove all or any portion of the System from all Rights-of-Way and public property within the City provided, however, that the Grantee shall not be required to remove the System if it is authorized to provide telecommunications service pursuant to state or federal law. b. If Grantee has failed to commence removal of System, or such part thereof as was designated by the City, within one hundred twenty (120) days after written notice of the City demand for removal is given, or if Grantee has failed to complete such removal within twelve (12) months after written notice of the City demand for removal is given, the City shall have the right to apply funds secured by the Letter of Credit and Performance Bond toward removal and/or declare all right, title, and interest to the System to be in the City with all rights of ownership including, but not limited to, the right to operate the System or transfer the System to another for operation by it pursuant to the provisions of 47 D.S.C. S 547. 5. Sale or Transfer of Franchise. 24. a. No sale, transfer, or corporate change of or in Grantee, including, but not limited to, the sale of a majority ofthe entity's assets, a merger including the merger of a subsidiary and parent entity, consolidation, or the creation of a subsidiary or affiliate entity, shall take place until the parties to the sale, transfer, or corporate change file a written request with the City for its approval and such approval is granted by the City, provided, however, that said approval shall not be required where Grantee grants a security interest in its Franchise and assets to secure an indebtedness. b. Any sale, transfer, exchange or assignment of stock in Grantee so as to create a new controlling interest in the System shall be subject to the requirements of this Section 9.05. The term "controlling interest" as used herein is not limited to majority stock ownership, but includes actual working control in whatever manner exercised. As a minimum, "control" or "controlling interest" as used herein, means a legal or beneficial interest (even though actual working control does not exist) of at least five percent (5%). c. The City shall have such time as is permitted by applicable law in which to review a transfer request. d. The Grantee shall reimburse City for all reasonable legal, administrative, and consulting costs and fees associated with the City's review of any request to transfer. Nothing herein shall prevent Grantee from negotiating partial or complete payment of such costs and fees by the transferee. e. In no event shall a sale, transfer, corporate change, or assignment of ownership or control pursuant to Subparagraph (a) or (b) ofthis Section be approved without the transferee becoming a signatory to this Franchise and assuming all rights and obligations hereunder, and assuming all other rights and obligations of the transferor to the City. f. In the event of any proposed sale, transfer, corporate change, or assignment pursuant to subparagraph (a) or (b) of this Section, the City shall have the right of first refusal of any bona fide offer to purchase the System. Bona fide offer, as used in this Section, means an offer received by the Grantee which it intends to accept subject to the City rights under this Section. This written offer must be conveyed to the City along with the Grantee's written acceptance of the offer contingent upon the rights of the City provided for in this Section. The City shall be deemed to have waived its rights under this Section in the following circumstances: 1. If it does not indicate to Grantee in writing, within ninety (90) days of notice of a proposed sale or assignment, its intention to exercise its 25. right of purchase; or II. It approves the assignment or sale of the Franchise as provided within this Section. SECTION 10. PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 1. Discriminatory Practices Prohibited. Grantee shall not deny service, deny access, or otherwise discriminate against Subscribers or general citizens on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, status as to public assistance, affectional preference, or disability. Grantee shall comply at all times with all other applicable federal, state, and local laws, and all executive and administrative orders relating to nondiscrimination. 2. Subscriber Privacy. a. Grantee shall comply with the subscriber privacy-related requirements of 47 D.S.C. 9 551. No signals including signals ofa Class IV Channel may be transmitted from a Subscriber terminal for purposes of monitoring individual viewing patterns or practices without the express written permission ofthe Subscriber. Such written permission shall be for a limited period of time not to exceed one (1) year which may be renewed at the option of the Subscriber. No penalty shall be invoked for a Subscriber's failure to provide or renew such authorization. The authorization shall be revocable at any time by the Subscriber without penalty of any kind whatsoever. Such permission shall be required for each type or classification of Class IV Channel activity planned for the purpose of monitoring individual viewing patterns or practices. b. No lists of the names and addresses of Subscribers or any lists that identify the viewing habits of Subscribers shall be sold or otherwise made available to any party other than to Grantee and its employees for internal business use, and also to the Subscriber subject of that information, unless Grantee has received specific written authorization from the Subscriber to make such data available. Such written permission shall be for a limited period of time not to exceed one (1) year which may be renewed at the option of the Subscriber. No penalty shall be invoked for a Subscriber's failure to provide or renew such authorization. The authorization shall be revocable at any time by the Subscriber without penalty of any kind whatsoever. c. Written permission from the Subscriber shall not be required for the conducting of System wide or individually addressed electronic sweeps for the purpose of verifying System integrity or monitoring for the purpose of 26. billing. Confidentiality of such information shall be subject to the provision set forth in Subparagraph (b) of this Section. SECTION 11. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 1. Franchise Renewal. Any renewal of this Franchise shall be performed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. The term of any renewed Franchise shall be limited to a period not to exceed fifteen (15) years. 2. Work Performed bv Others. All obligations of this Franchise shall apply to any subcontractor or others performing any work or services pursuant to the provisions of this Franchise, however, in no event shall any such subcontractor or other Person performing work obtain any rights to maintain and operate a System or provide Cable Service. Grantee shall provide notice to the City of the name(s) and addressees) of any entity, other than Grantee, which performs substantial services (in excess of $70,000.00) pursuant to this Franchise. 3. Amendment of Franchise Ordinance. Grantee and the City may agree, from time to time, to amend this Franchise. Such written amendments may be made subsequent to a review session pursuant to Section 7.5 or at any other time if the City and Grantee agree that such an amendment will be in the public interest or if such an amendment is required due to changes in federal, state or local laws, provided, however, nothing herein shall restrict the City's exercise of its police powers. 4. Compliance with Federal. State and Local Laws. a. If any federal or state law or regulation shall require or permit the City or Grantee to perform any service or act or shall prohibit the City or Grantee from performing any service or act which may be in conflict with the terms of this Franchise, then as soon as possible following knowledge thereof, either party shall notify the other of the point in conflict believed to exist between such law or regulation. Grantee and the City shall conform to state laws and rules regarding cable communications not later than one year after they become effective, unless otherwise stated, and to conform to federal laws and regulations regarding cable as they become effective. b. If any term, condition or provision of this Franchise or the application thereof to any Person or circumstance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder hereof and the application of such term, condition or provision to Persons or circumstances other than those as to whom it shall be held invalid or unenforceable shall not be affected thereby, and this Franchise and all the terms, provisions and conditions hereof shall, in all other respects, continue to be effective and complied with provided the 27. loss of the invalid or unenforceable clause does not substantially alter the agreement between the parties. In the event such law, rule or regulation is subsequently repealed, rescinded, amended or otherwise changed so that the provision which had been held invalid or modified is no longer in conflict with the law, rules and regulations then in effect, said provision shall thereupon return to full force and effect and shall thereafter be binding on Grantee and the City. 5. Nonenforcement bv City. Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligations to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise by reason of any failure or delay of the City to enforce prompt compliance. The City may only waive its rights hereunder by expressly so stating in writing. Any such written waiver by the City of a breach or violation of any provision of this Franchise shall not operate as or be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation. 6. Rights Cumulative. All rights and remedies given to the City by this Franchise shall be in addition to and cumulative with any and all other rights and remedies, existing or implied, now or hereafter available to the City at law or in equity, and such rights and remedies shall not be exclusive, but each and every right and remedy specifically given by this Franchise or otherwise existing or given may be exercised from time to time and as often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and the exercise of one or more rights or remedies shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to exercise at the same time or thereafter any other right or remedy. 7. Grantee Acknowledgment of Valid it v of Franchise. Grantee acknowledges that it has had an opportunity to review the terms and conditions of this Franchise and that under current law Grantee believes that said terms and conditions are not unreasonable or arbitrary, and that Grantee believes the City has the power to make the terms and conditions contained in this Franchise. SECTION 12. PUBLICATION EFFECTIVE DATE; ACCEPTANCE AND EXHIBITS 1. Publication: Effective Date. This Franchise shall be published in accordance with applicable local and Minnesota law. The Effective Date of this Franchise shall be the date of acceptance by Grantee in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.2. 2. Acceptance. a. Grantee shall accept this Franchise within sixty (60) days of its enactment by the City, unless the time for acceptance is extended by the City. Such acceptance by the Grantee shall be deemed the grant ofthis Franchise for all purposes provided. In the event acceptance does not take place, or should all ordinance adoption procedures and timelines not be completed, this Franchise 28. and any and all rights previously granted to Grantee shall be null and void. b. Upon acceptance of this Franchise, Grantee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions contained herein c. Grantee shall accept this Franchise in the following manner: I. This Franchise will be properly executed and acknowledged by Grantee and delivered to the City. II. With its acceptance, Grantee shall also deliver any grant payments, performance bond and insurance certificates required herein that have not previously been delivered. Passed and adopted this 5 -II; day of April, 1999. CITY OF FARMINGTON ATTEST: By: By: Its: Its: ACCEPTED: This Franchise is accepted and the undersigned agrees to be bound by its terms and conditions. MARCUS CABLE PARTNERS, L.L.C. Dated: By: Its: 29, CORPORATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF DAKOTA ) On this _ day of , 1999, before me , the undersigned officer, personally appeared (Name of Notary) , known personally to me to be the of Marcus Cable Partners, L.L.C., and that he, as such officers, being authorized so to do, executed the foregoing City of Farmington, Ordinance No. _, for the purposes therein contained, by signing the name of the corporation by himself as such officers. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Public My Commission expires: (NOTARIAL SEAL) The "foregoing instrument" referred to above is City of Farmington Ordinance No._. / EXHIBIT A (Assuming all necessary permits and Right-of-Way clearances) Government Buildings in Farmine:ton Farmington Senior Center Farmington Ice Arena Farmington Municipal Pool Farmington Library Facility 325 Oak Street 512 Division Street 325 Oak Street 305 - 3rd Street 18320 Pilot Knob Road Northeast comer new Pilot Knob Road and 195th Street 431 - 3rd Street 114 Spruce Street 626 Heritage Way 508 - 3rd Street City Hall FAA Center Fire Station Farmington Liquor Store Farmington Liquor Store I Future Central Maintenance Site 2 Educational Buildings in Farmington Farmington Idea Program Farmington Kindergarten Akin Road Elementary School Farmington Elementary School Farmington Middle School Farmington Middle School Farmington High School 304 Spruce Street 51 0 Walnut Street W. 195th Street 500 Mafle Street W. 208t Street (New facility on 208th Street) 800 Denmark Avenue 1 If commercial establishment otherwise is wired, the Grantee will pay for location of cable plant. . 2 Grantee will provide connection at no charge to City, if conduit is available from building to easement (street). EXHIBIT B SYSTEM UPGRADE OVERVIEW System Capacity The upgraded HFC (hybrid fiber/coax) network required pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Agreement will be designed to operate with a bandwidth of 5 MHz to 750 MHz, with 50 MHz to 550 MHz being allocated for video services. The remaining upper 200 MHz of bandwidth will be reserved for compressed digital signals. The network will have return capability utilizing spectrums from 5 MHz to 40 MHz and will be activated on both the coaxial and optical systems. The return system can be used to transmit both data and video, and will have the capacity to be used for insertion of locally-originated programming consistent with Exhibit E2, monitoring of certain key components in the network, and transmission of data from set-top terminals used for pay-per-view and other customer servIces. Fiber optic transmitters, cable, and optical receivers will be used to transport the signals from the origination site to at least one receiving location, or "node," in each community. There will be an average of 500 homes served from each node. After each node is installed, the number of active electronics, or amplifiers, will be reduced to the minimum required to reach the limits ofthe community, while still maintaining measurable picture quality better than current FCC requirements. "Standby" power supplies will automatically provide battery power to the coaxial system for several hours in the event of a commercial power interruption. The batteries will be automatically recharged after power is restored. Customers will have the option of an "addressable" set-top terminal to access programming carried on the network. Through the set-top terminal the customer can purchase special programming, such as "pay-per-view." Fiber Optics and Coaxial Plant in the Network The optical transmission system is the backbone of the new network. At the origination site, all programming to be carried on the system will be converted to optical signals, and transmitted out into the system by a network of fiber optic cables. The optical network will provide six (6) individual fibers to each node location. Each node will serve an average of 500 homes via coaxial cable. The coaxial portion of the plant will begin at the node itself, where signals will be distributed over a short coax network, consisting of network amplifiers. The amplifiers are designed to accommodate return transmission capability, surge protection, and remote monitoring capability. The Upgrade Process The first step will be to install the fiber optic network alongside the existing coaxial system. In areas where the cables are already carried on utility poles, the new fiber will be attached to the existing cables. In areas where existing cables are underground, additional construction will be required to install the new fiber optic cables. Any new coaxial cable required by the network design, in the path of the fiber optic cable, will be installed at the same time. When testing of the optical network is complete, then the second phase, upgrading of the coaxial plant, will begin. When the coaxial plant is upgraded, each existing amplifier and distribution device will be removed and replaced with a new 750 MHz device. The new equipment will be activated and any customers served from that equipment will be switched to the new equipment. This process begins at the node, branching out through each leg of the coaxial plant. It is this portion of the upgrade that causes several brief interruptions in service. As the upgrade crews move further out into the coaxial system, fewer and fewer customers will experience interruptions in service. When the upgrade of a node is finally complete, all customers served from the node are now receiving service from the new network. After the primary upgrade of each node is complete, installation upgrade crews will sweep through the same area inspecting each of the service lines that connect customers' homes to the distribution system. Connections will be checked, updated splitting equipment will be installed, if necessary, and in some cases, the entire line will be replaced. At this point, the upgrade of that node will be complete and work will move on to the next node area. ITEM EXHIBIT C MODEL NUMBER Quasar Video Camera Adaptor Battery Charger Lens Camera Mike Carrying Case Panasonic 7150 SVHS Deck Control Cord Panasonic High Performance Recorder Panasonic Edit Controller (2) JVC 9" Monitors Panasonic 7 pin cable JVC Cable ACME Location Light Pack Bogan Tripod WK93550021 CK93520095 J5TC00077 AG 7500A AGA 750 AGC65 VGC3030 LP333 3140 CITY OF FARMINGTON DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 099-427, AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO MARCUS CABLE PARTNERS, L.L.C., A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A CABLE SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF FARMINGTON, SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF THE FRANCmSE; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS HEREIN This is a summary of an ordinance adopted by the City Council on April 5, 1999, which creates and awards a cable communications franchise in the City of Farmington, to Marcus Cable Partners, L.L.C. The ordinance, which is available for inspection at City Hall, contains the following articles: Section 1. the Franchise. Short Title and Definitions. This section defInes the relevant terms used in Section 2. Grant of Authority and General Provisions. This section grants to Grantee a nonexclusive right to use City Right-of-Way to provide cable service for a period of 15 years from the date of acceptance by the Grantee. Service will be provided throughout the City including areas subsequently annexed to the City provided there is a minimum of thirty homes per cable mile. This section also requires Grantee to provide cable Drops and monthly cable service at no charge to certain public and educational institutions within the City. Section 3. Construction Standards. This section requires Grantee to repair and restore Rights-of-Way and private property disturbed or damaged in construction and maintenance of the System. This section states the conditions of Grantee's use of the Right -of- Way and requires Grantee to place all newly constructed facilities underground in areas of the City where all other utility lines are placed underground. This section provides the safety requirements under which Grantee must operate and requires Grantee to make available its facilities to the City during periods of emergency or disaster. Section 4. Design Provisions. This section specifies the System upgrade requirements, requires a minimum capacity of 80 channels, and requires reservation of capacity for public institutions. This section provides the construction timetable for the System, requires Grantee to effectively operate and maintain the System and to use technical standards in compliance with applicable Federal Regulations. This section permits the City to require special testing of the System to be paid for by Grantee in the event the System or Grantee is determined to be the source of technical difficulties in violation of the FCC technical specifications. 71672 Section 5. Services Provisions. This section permits the City to regulate rates for the provision of Cable Service, equipment, or any other communications service provided under the System as allowed by law. This section specifies how the Grantee must handle telephone inquiries and complaints and provides time constraints. This section sets forth standards Grantee must meet in handling installations, outages and service calls and requires Grantee to maintain records on complaints. This section also addresses billing issues, subscriber contracts, refunds and credits, late fees, and drop box availability. The City reserves authority under this section to adopt additional customer service requirements. Section 6. Access Channel(s) Provisions. This section designates the City as operator, administrator, promoter and manager of community programming in the Cable System and provides for the dedication of five channels therefore. The cost for these public, educational, and governmental channels, as well as a capital equipment grant of $60,000, will be recovered by imposing a separate PEG fee against subscribers. The initial PEG fee shall be fifty cents, and provision is made in the ordinance for future increases based on a cost of living index and other actions. Section 7. Operation and Administration Provisions. This section provides that the City has regulatory jurisdiction and supervision over the System and Grantee's operation under the Franchise, which authority the City may delegate to another body or Person. This section sets forth the franchise fee payable by Grantee in an annual amount of 5% of its Gross Revenues. Section 8. General Financial and Insurance Provisions. This section requires Grantee to furnish a Performance Bond, Construction Bond, and Letter of Credit to secure performance of the terms of the Agreement, and specifies the terms under which the City may collect or draw upon the foregoing security. This section also requires indemnification of the City by the Grantee and specifies the type and amount of insurance required to be provided and maintained by Grantee. Section 9. Sale. Abandonment. Transfer and Revocation of Franchise. This section provides the basis for revocation of the Franchise by the City and the procedures for revocation. This section prohibits abandonment of the Service without proper notice to the City and provides the System removal requirements upon abandonment, termination of forfeiture of the Franchise. This section also provides the requirements for a sale or transfer of the Franchise. Section 10. Protection of Individual Rights. This section prohibits discrimination against Subscribers by Grantee and provides the Subscriber privacy-related requirements. Section 11. Miscellaneous Provisions. This section addresses Franchise renewal, work performed by others, amendments of the Franchise Ordinance, compliance with federal, state, and local laws, nonenforcement by the City, the City's cumulative rights, Grantee acknowledgment of the validity of the Franchise. Section 12. Publication Effective Date: Acceptance and Exhibits. This section 71672 requires publication of the Ordinance as provided by law and that states the effective date is the date of acceptance by Grantee as provided under the Ordinance. A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City I S regular office hours and at the City Hall during regularly scheduled City Council meetings. APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Farmington this 5th day of April, 1999. CITY OF FARMINGTON By: Gerald Ristow, Mayor ATTEST: John Erar, City Administrator Approved as to form the 5th day of April, 1999. City Attorney Published in the Farmington Independent the 15th day of April, 1999. 71672 City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.c:i.farmington.mn.us lie! TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: John F. Erar, City Administrator SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution - Approving Transfer of Cable Ownership DATE: April5, 1999 INTRODUCTION Under the terms and conditions of the City's Cable Franchise Agreement, the Council is required to formally approve changes in local cable company ownership. The City was notified in late 1998 by Marcus Cable, the local cable company, that an ownership change was in the process of being negotiated with Mr. Paul Allen, owner of Vulcan Cable Company, Inc. Mr. Allen was one of several original founders of Microsoft Corporation, and he is in the process of expanding his business holdings in the cable television and telecommunication markets. DISCUSSION A review of the transfer of ownership document has been completed by Mr. Tom Creighton, the City's cable franchise negotiator and advisor, to determine the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the new franchisee, Vulcan Cable Company. These requirements are established under the terms of the Franchise Agreement and federal law relative to technical, financial and legal compliance issues. Under federal law, the Councilor granting authority is required to focus on specific criteria that would either support or deny the requested change in ownership. An Executive Summary of these factors is provided below as prepared and submitted by Mr. Creighton in his February 16, 1999 Memorandum entitled Reoort. Analvsis and Conclusions. Executive Summary 1. Legal and character qualifications of Vulcan and its equity partners; In review of submitted documentation, Vulcan Cable Company appears to be fully qualified to transact business in Minnesota, and the proposed transactions do not violate federal, state or local laws. 2. Technical ability of Vulcan and its operational staff; In review of the technical qualifications, Mr. Allen's acquisition of Marcus Cable, combined with his recent acquisition of Charter Communications of St. Louis, Missouri, will result in the creation of the seventh largest Multiple System Operator in the country. Local management is expected to remain as is, and the combined network under Mr. Allen's control will serve approximately 2,200,000 customers in 32 states. Technical upgrades by Marcus have included the installation of fiber optic cabling which will allow Vulcan to offer expanded multimedia and telecommunication services such as voice, data and video services through the Internet and other related telecommunication mediums. Based on this review, Vulcan appears to have the necessary technical ability to properly administer local cable company operations subject to the terms and conditions of the cable franchise agreement 3. Financial stability and qualifications of Vulcan and its equity partners; and The financial stability of Vulcan Cable Company, according to a review of operating statements and independent auditor's reports submitted by Vulcan, does not provide the City with adequate information to ascertain the "reasonable and economically viable" status of the new operator. As a result, Mr. Creighton is recommending and has required a guarantee of performance from Vulcan to ensure the fulfillment of franchise agreement obligations. This performance guarantee will ensure that Vulcan assumes total responsibility for all necessary franchise obligations. Guarantee of performance requirements are incorporated within the Corporate Guaranty of Vulcan Cable, Inc. which is referenced and attached to the Resolution "Conditionally Consenting To The Transfer of Control of and Certain Ownership Interests in a Cable Television Franchisee to Vulcan Cable, Inc." Subject to Council adoption and Vulcan's acceptance and execution of the Corporate Guaranty, this aspect of the supporting criteria guiding the approval of the transfer of ownership to Vulcan Cable Company would legally comply with stated financial compliance requirements . 4. Other appropriate factors Other factors reviewed in this transfer of ownership transaction suggest that Vulcan is able and willing to comply with the obligations and responsibilities as established under the Franchise Agreement. Further, there has been no adverse finding or adverse final action taken by any court or administrative body against Vulcan in a civil, criminal or administrative proceeding. Finally, on behalf of the City, a demand has been made by Mr. Creighton regarding the reimbursement of any fees, including attorney fees, as a result of the transfer of ownership application. The attached resolution stipulates this requirement be met as a condition of ownership transfer. BUDGET IMP ACT Relative to the transfer of ownership transaction between Marcus Cable and Vulcan Cable, and the stipulation that any costs incurred by the City in the administrative and legal review of this transaction be reimbursed to the municipality, there should be no budget impact to the City. ACTION REQUESTED Subject to the recommendation of the City's telecommunications legal advisor, adopt the attached resolution approving the conditional transfer of ownership interest from Marcus Cable Company to Vulcan Cable Company. Attached, please find a copy of Section VII. Conclusions of the February 16, 1999 Memorandum entitled Report, Analysis and Conclusions finding no reasonable basis to withhold approval of the proposed transfer of ownership. Respectfully Submitted, LY~~ J~ F.' Erar Cc: John Gretz, Apple Valley City Administrator Tom Burt, Rosemount City Administrator VIII. CONCLUSION As a result of the above analysis, we have concluded that the Authority lacks any reasonable basis to withhold approval of the proposed transfer. Therefore, the Authority should approve the transfer conditioned upon: 1. The willingness of Vulcan to acknowledge and accept current cable franchise; 2. Receipt of any and all state and federal approvals; 3. Actual closing of the transaction; 4. Receipt of a corporate guarantee from Vulcan and Charter; 5. Non-waiver by Authority of any unknown yet existing franchise non-compliance issues; 6. Non-waiver by Authority of any right to dispute here-to-date unaudited franchise fee payments; 7. Non-waiver by Authority of any right to require franchise fee payments on future services delivered by the Grantee via the cable system; and , 8. Payment of all fees incurred in this analysis. U:\cable\3-CITIES\Apple Valley Vulcan Transfer report#2.wpd 18 Resolution No. RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF AND CERTAIN OWNERSIDP INTERESTS IN A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISEE TO VULCAN CABLE, INC. WHEREAS, the cable television franchise (the Franchise") of the City of farmington, Minnesota (the "Authority") is currently owned and operated by Marcus Cable Partners, LLC ("Marcus Cable"); and WHEREAS, Marcus Cable is owned by Marcus Cable Properties, LLC (MCP); and WHEREAS, MCP intends to transfer the Authority's cable system to Vulcan Cable, Inc. ("Vulcan") pursuant to that certain First Amendment to Operating Agreement dated August 25, 1998 (the "MCPNulcan Agreement"); and WHEREAS, Vulcan and MCP have represented and agreed that the MCPNulcan Agreement will not alter any existing title, asset ownership, or management agreement of Marcus Cable and Marcus Cable will continue to hold the Franchise; and WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request for consent to the transfer of MCP and Vulcan (the "MCPNulcan Transfer"); and WHEREAS, no notice of breach or default under the franchise has been issued by Authority within the past 12 months and none is outstanding; and WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that subject to certain conditions which must be met, Vulcan possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial qualifications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the MCPNulcan Transfer is hereby consented to by the Authority and permitted conditioned upon: 1. Execution and delivery of a Corporate Guaranty of Vulcan in the form attached hereto and other suitable instrument acceptable to the Authority of Charter; and 2. Securing all necessary federal, state, and local government waivers, authorizations, or approvals relating to Vulcan's acquisition and operation of the system to the extent provided by law; and 3. The successful closing of the Transaction described in the MCPNulcan Agreement; and 4. The willingness of Vulcan to accept the current cable franchise; and 1 5. Non-waiver by City of any unknown yet existing franchise non-compliance issues; and 6. Non-waiver by City of any right to dispute here-to-date unaudited franchise fee payments; and 7. Non-waiver by City of any right to require franchise fee payments lawfully imposed on services delivered by the Grantee via the cable system. 8. Reimbursement of all reasonable fees incurred in the Authority's review of the proposed transaction. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that nothing herein shall be construed or interpreted to constitute any approval of, consent to or support for any proceeding currently pending before the FCC, or any other federal, state, or local government waivers, authorizations or approvals, other than that transaction described above. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that Vulcan may, from time to time, assign, grant or otherwise convey one or more liens or security interests in its assets, including its rights, obligations and benefits in and to the Franchise (the "Collateral") to any lender providing financing to Vulcan ("Secured Party"), from time to time. Secured Party shall have no duty to preserve the confidentiality of the information provided in the Franchise with respect to any disclosure (a) to Secured Party's regulators, auditors or attorneys, (b) made pursuant to the order of any governmental authority, (c) consented to by the Authority or (d) any of such information which was, prior to the date of such disclosure, disclosed by the Authority to any third party and such party is not subject to any confidentiality or similar disclosure restriction with respect to such information subject, however, to each of the terms and conditions of the Franchise. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that following the MCPNulcan Transfer, Vulcan may undergo additional transfers of control which assign or grant or otherwise convey its assets to a person or entity in which Paul G. Allen holds majority ownership, which is primarily in the cable communications business and which is affiliated with and operated by Charter Communications; provided that Vulcan shall no less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such transfer inform the Municipality in writing of any such change. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that this Resolution amends by replacement and supercedes any prior Resolution concerning these matters. ADOPTED this _ day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator\Clerk 2 CORPORATE GUARANTY OF VULCAN CABLE, INC. This Corporate Guaranty ("Guaranty") is executed as of , 1999, by Vulcan Cable, Inc. ("Guarantor"), for the benefit of the City of Farmington, Minnesota ("Authority"). WITNESSETH: ~ ..: WHEREAS, pursuant to the cable television franchise (the Franchise") between the Authority and Marcus Cable Partners, LLC ("Marcus"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Marcus Cable Properties, LLC ("MCP"), and certain agreements, understandings and Franchise amendments related thereto, Marcus has certain obligations related to the provision of cable television and related services for the Authority's citizens; and WHEREAS, Guarantor has proposed a transfer whereby the cable television systems operated and managed by MCP will be transferred to Guarantor or a subsidiary thereof and the transfer will result in Guarantor or a subsidiary thereof owning and controlling Marcus; and WHEREAS, the Authority's consent to the change of control of Marcus which will result from the transfer is required; and WHEREAS, the Authority is not willing to consent to the change of control of MCP which will result from the transfer unless the Guarantor unconditionally guarantees the payment, obligations and performance of Marcus pursuant to the terms of the Franchise and certain agreements, understandings and Franchise amendments related thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, as a condition of the Authority's consent to the change of control of MCP, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Guarantor irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees to the Authority or its successor and assigns prompt and satisfactory payment and performance by Marcus of the Franchise and those certain agreements, understandings and Franchise amendments related thereto, and all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations. 2. This Guaranty shall be effective upon the opening of business on the date when the transfer ofMCP and Guarantor or a subsidiary thereof is closed, and shall run throughout the term of the Franchise and any renewal or extension thereof, except that this Guaranty shall terminate at such earlier time that Guarantor lawfully transfers ownership or control of Marcus or the franchise- holding entity in accordance with the Franchise and applicable federal, state and local law, including receipt of consent from Authority for such transfer. 1 3. In the event that Guarantor should breach or fail to timely perform any of the obligations required by this Guaranty, Guarantor shall pay Authority all costs and expenses (including court costs and attorney's fees) incurred by Authority in the successful enforcement hereof. 4. Guarantor represents and warrants that the execution, delivery and performance by Guarantor of this Guaranty and the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereunder do not, and will not, contravene or conflict with any law, statute or regulation whatsoever to which Guarantor is subject or constitute a default (or an event which with notice or lapse oftime or both would constitute a default) under, or result in the breach of, any indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, charge, lien, or any contract, agreement or other instrument to which Guarantor is a party or which may be applicable to Guarantor. This Guaranty is a legal and binding obligation of Guarantor and is enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as limited by bankruptcy, insolvency or other laws of general application relating to the enforcement of creditors' rights. 5. The Guarantor agrees that no failure to exercise, and no delay in exercising, on the part of the Authority, any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall any single or partial exercise thereof preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the exercise of any other right. The rights of the Authority hereunder shall be in addition to all other rights provided by law. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Guaranty, nor consent to departure therefrom, shall be effective unless in writing and no such consent or waiver shall extend beyond the particular case and purpose involved. No notice or demand given in any case shall constitute a waiver of the right to take other action in the same, similar or other instances without such notice or demand. 6. This Guaranty shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota and the applicable laws of the United States of America. 7. This Guaranty may be amended only by an instrument in writing executed by the party or an authorized representative of the party against whom such amendment is sought to be enforced. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Guarantor has caused this Guaranty to be duly executed by its authorized officers as of the day and year first above written. VULCAN CABLE, INC. By Title 2 EXHIBIT II - 1 Corporate Structure of Transferee Following Transfer Paul G. Allen 100% Marcus Cable Properties. LLC Vulcan Cable, Inc. 4"1. (non-managing) 96% (managing) TRANSFEROR TRANSF Marcus Cable Company, LLC 100% Marcus Cable Operating Company, LLC 100% I . ,. I * * Marcus Cable of Alabama. LLC Marcus Cable Partners, LLC Marcus .cable Associates. LLC EREE * 100% 100% fOO% ... Designates Franchisee Company /3a- City of Farmington 325 Oak Street, Farmington, MN 55024 (651) 463-7111 Fax (651) 463-2591 www.cLfarmington.mn.us TO: Mayor, City Council and City Administrator~ FROM: Joel J. Jamnik, City Attorney SUBJECT: Enforcement of Train Whistle Ordinance DATE: April 5, 1999 INTRODUCTION The City has adopted an ordinance limiting the routine sounding of train whistles within the City during nighttime hours. Several other Minnesota communities have adopted similar ordinances, including the City of St. Paul. The railroad companies have indicated that they will not comply with the local ordinances. The City has several optional courses of action to consider as responses to the rail companies' position, ranging from accepting the status quo to seeking judicial enforcement of its ordinance. DISCUSSION Options for Council consideration include repealing the ordinance, choosing to not seek compliance with the existing ordinance, or seeking to actively enforce the ordinance. Each of these broad options have subordinate options, which include political or legal action. For instance, a decision to repeal the ordinance could be combined with requests for state or federal intervention. Similarly, a decision to postpone active judicial enforcement of the ordinance, or the decision to seek judicial enforcement of the ordinance, could also be combined with a state or federal legislative initiative. At this time, the train whistle issue remains pending at the federal level. Federal action will eventually determine the local role in regulating rail activities. Of course, federal action has been pending for almost three years, and there is no guarantee that a decision will be forthcoming anytime soon. Given the possible federal action, seeking immediate judicial action to enforce the ordinance may not be prudent. Any action would be extremely expensive to pursue. Any criminal or civil action initiated by the City would likely be appealed through the courts. Initial discussions with other cities offer some hope of organizing a concerted enforcement action that could reduce the City's direct costs and increase the likelihood of success. BUDGET IMP ACT The impact to the City budget is extremely variable depending on which option the Council selects. Judicial enforcement actions could approach six figures given the nature of the issue and the parties involved. ACTION REQUESTED No specific option is requested or recommended at this time. However, Council may want to consider designating a member to replace former Councilmember Gamer on the League of Minnesota Cities Railroad Task Force. The next meeting of that task force is scheduled for April 22 from 1:30-3:30 p.m. at the League of Minnesota Cities offices. Respectfully submitted, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: ~~~:L c:7 J . nik e-,,) City Attorney