Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
November 8, 1999 Regular
Gar~ L. Pe~erson CiTY Of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Donald G. Jolly 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 MarlaineSzurek Julienne Wyckoff Walt~ IL Feint NOVEMBER 5, 1999 The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 PM on Monday, November 8, 1999 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota. The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs, and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are av~lable upon request when the request is made~ i~ 96h°uts in advice,~ Please ~1 the City CoUncil Secretary at 782-2800, Extension 209, to make arrangements. [TDD/782-2806 for deaf or hearing impaired only) CALL TO ORDER/APPOINTING OF SECRETARY PR° TEM,/ROLL CALL MOTION: Move to appoint Carole Blowers as Secretary Pro Tern. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA (The Council, upon majority vote of its members, may make additions and deletions to the agenda. These may be items brought to the attention of the Council under the Citizen Forum or items submitted at, er the agenda preparation deadline.) CONSENT AGENDA (These items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted as part of the Consent Agenda by one motion. Items removed from consent agenda approval will be taken up as next order of business.) A. MOTION: Move to approve Consent Agenda items as follows: l) Minutes for Approval MOTION: MoVe to apProve the minutes of the October 25, 1999, Regular Council Meeting as presented. 2) Approve Transfer of Funds to Re0ay Fire Department Budaet MOTION: Move to transfer $1,878.19 received from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for the May 3, 1999, grass fire from the General Fund to account 101-42200-1020; and further, to transfer $2,950.00 received from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Raikoad for the May 3, 1999, grass fire from the General Fund to account 101-42200-2282. 3) Authorize Purchase of One Unmarked, Downsized Vehicle for the Police Department MOTION: Move to authorize the purchase of one 1999 Ford Taurus unmarked mid-size vehicle from the State of Minnesota bid ~/424587, in the amount of $15,726.86 including tax, funding to come from 431-42100-4150; and that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to enter into a contract for same. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOE~'. NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Agenda fo~ the November 8, 1999 c~ coun~ M~t/ng P~e 2 4) S) 6) 7) S) 9) lO) 11) Approve Budget Appropriation for Community_ Center Promotions MOTION: Move to appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Fund balance to the Recognition/Special Events Department in the General Fund for activities related to the proposed community center and referendum, and to appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund under Fund Balance to the Election Department in the General Fund to cover the cost of the referendum election. Authorize a Public Meeting Regarding_ the Multi-Use Center Referendum MOTION: Move to authorize staff to hold a public meeting regarding the Multi-Use Center Referendum on Tuesday, November 30,: 1999; at 7:00 p.m. at Murzyn HaH. Adopt Resolution Opposing_ Legislation Revoking the City's Authority_ to Negotiate. Award. and Regulate Cable Television Franchises MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 99-90, being a resolution opposing any legislation that would revoke the city's authority to negotiate, award, and regulate cable television franchises. Authorize Amendment of the 1999 Police Department Budget MOTION: Move to amend the 1999 Police Department budget by reappropriating the $6,00,0 that was budgeted for Project Safety Net to be used for other general youth activity programs to bring the city into compliance with the State of Minnesota Grant Agreement #90478. Approve Correction to the October 11, 1999, City_ Council Minutes MOTION: Move to approve correction to page three of the October 11, 1999, city council minutes as noted on the council letter. Authorize Purchase of a Wood Chiooer MOTION: Move to authorize staffto seek bids from the State of Minnesota Purchasing Contract for the replacement of Unit #38: Vermeer BrUsh Chipper. Authorize Desi_mzafi0n of Two-Hour Parkina in Front of 3844 Central Avenue MOTION: Move to designate two-hour parking in front of 3844 Central Avenue based on a recommendation of the Traffic Commission. Accept Proposal for Subsurface Expl0rati0n/Geotechnical Review Services for Central Avenue MOTION: Move to accept a proposal for subsurface exploration and geotechnical review services for the Central Avenue improvement project from American Engineering Testing~ Inc. in an .amount not-to-exceed $$,000; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. Resolution Cert' _fi'ring Special Assessments MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 99-88, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 99-88, being a Resolution to certify additional assessments to Anoka County fund #82958 for collection with the property taxes payable in 2000. 13.) Resolution Desi_n~mt.~g Election Jud_~es MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available for the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 99-89, being a resolution Designating Election Judges for the 1999 Special Election. 14) .Approval of License Applications MOTION: ,Move to approve the.items as listed on the business license agenda for November 8, 1999. Payment of Bills MOTION: Move to pay the bills as listed out of proper funds. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS Proclamations 1) November is Epilepsy Month in the City of Columbia Heights 2) November 14-20 is American Education Week Introdu~i0n 0fNew EmploYees 1) Lan Vu- Assistant Liquor Operations Manager 2) Barb Kelzenberg, Accounting Clerk II C. Recognition PUBLIC HEARINGS Rental' License R~vocation He. ring for1407-09 Circlo :Terrace MOTION: Move to dose the public hearing and waive the reading of Resolution No. 99-77, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 99-77, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights approving revocation pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5 A.408(1) of the rental license of Susan Lowenthal at 1407-09 Circle Terrace. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions 1) Resolution 99-91, Approving Transfer of Ownership MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 99-91, being a resolution consenting to the transfer of control of and certain ownership interests in a cable television franchise to AT & T Corporation, or affiliates thereof. Algu~daf~Novembor& 1999 C~yCouaoaM~g P~4 2) First Re, dlng of Ordinance Re~m~_!ating Consumption in Public MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the ordinance, there being ample copies available for the public. MOTION: Move to schedule a second reading of Ordinance No. 1401, being an ordinance Regulating Consumption in Public for November 22, 1999. 3) First Re~ding of Ordi~an _ce Regulating Loitering in Possession of Open Bottle MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the ordinance, there being ample copies available for the public. MOTION: Move to schedule a second reading of Ordinance No. 1402, being an ordinance .regulating:Loitering in Possession of Open Bottle for November 22, 1999. Bid Considerations Other Business 1) Report 0fFinal Storm Water Utility by SEH MOTION: Move to accept Storm Water Utility Report as prepared by Engineering Consultant, SEH. 2) Acq0i~ition of Railroad Right-of-Way Along 39~ Avenue MOTION: Move to authorize the acquisition of CP Railway land as described in the Purchase and Sale Agreement at a cost of $39,500; and, furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. 3) Condition~ US* Permit, 4022 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION: Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow a wine license at 4022 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval with conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Commission; 2) The liquor license shall not be issued until after the Early Childhood Family Center has moved out of the Columbia Heights Mall. ALTERNATE MOTION: Move to deny the Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer license at 4022 Central Avenue NE subject to a final determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 4) Conditional. Use Permit, 508 40~ Avenue N.E. MOTION: Move to approve the Conditional use Permit to allow the construction of a 1,920 square foot accessory building in the Retail Business zoning district at 508 40~ Avenue NE, subject to approval with conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 5) Conditional Use Permit, 4005 Central Avenue N.E. MOTION: Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of The StarBar and Grill at 4029 Central Avenue NE, subject to approval with conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Commission. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Report of the City Manager Report of the City Attorney Agenda for the November $, 1999 c~ co~l M~ing Page $ GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS A. l~nutes of Boards and Commissi0n~ 1) Meeting of the October 21, 1999, Telecommunications Commission 2) Meeting of the November 1, 1999, Traffic Commission 10. 11. CITIZENS FORUM (At this time, citizens have an opportunity to discuss with the Council items not on the regular agenda. The citizen is requested to limit their comments to five minutes. Please note, the public may address the Council regarding specific agenda items at the time the item is being discussed.) Walter Fehst, City Manager WF/cb OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING oCTOBER 25, 1999 CALL TO ORDER/APPOINTING OF SECRETARY PRO TEM,/ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Mayor Gary Peterson. Motion by Councilmember Jolly, seconded by Councilmember Szurek to appoint Carole Blowers as Secretary Pro Tern. Motion passed unanimously. Roll Call: Mayor Peterson, Councilmembers Hunter, Jolly, Szurek, and Wyckoff all present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA - None. CONSENT AGENDA A. Motion by Councilmember Szurek, seconded by Councilmember Jolly, to approve the Consent Agenda items as follows: 1) Minutes for Aporoval The Council approved the minutes of the October 11, 1999, Regular Council Meeting as presented. 2) Authorize R~placement of Unit #167 Tractor/Backhoe The Council authorized the purchase of a Caterpillar Tractor/Backhoe Model 426 C IT at a cost of $68,018 with trade-in, plus tax, from Ziegler Equipment of Minneapolis, with funding split equally between the Sewer and Water Capital Equipment Replacement Funds: 432-49450-5150 and 433-49430-5150. z) Authorize Installation of Electrical Generator C onnectionfrransfer Switch at Mu ~rz~ Hall The Council awarded the bid for the installation of an electrical generator connection and transfer switch at Murzyn Hall to Aid Electric in the amount not to exceed $5,880; and, furthermore, and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. 4) Authorize Installation of Electrical Power and Controls for Silver Lake Aeration System The Council awarded the bid for the installation of electrical power and controls for the Silver Lake Aeration System to Aid Electric in an amount not to exceed $5,815; and fiffthermOre, and authorized the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. Minutes of~ Regular City Council Mee6n__g of October 25, 1999 Page 2 s) Resolution NO. 99-83, C10ssification 0fTax Forfeit Parc,Is The reading of the resolution was waived, there being ample copies available for the public: RESOLUTION 99-83 BEING A RESOLUTION OF ~ COLUMBIA I~EIGHTS CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE CLASSIFICATION AND SALE OF FORFEIT PARCELS AT 4250 McLEOD STREET NE AND 4236 CLEVELAND STREET NE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights has researched and analyzed potential uses for 4250 McLeod Street NE'and 4236 Cleveland Street NE; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that because of issues pertaining to topography of the property and building setback requirements, 4250 McLeod Street NE is essentially unbuildable and has no public use; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that 4236 Cleveland Street NE has no public use and it does not currently have access to an improved public street; and, WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that 4236 Cleveland Street NE would become a buildable residential lot if the remaining portion of the platted public right-of-way for Cleveland Street NE is constructed in the future; and, WHEREAS, the City Council determines that neither property has a public use and that the City does not have a desire to acquire either parcel. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Columbia Heights City Council hereby approves the classification and sale of forfeit parcels at 4250 McLeod Street NE and 4236 Cleveland Street NE. Passed this 25th day of October, 1999. Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Jolly Roll Call: All Ayes William Elrite, City Clerk Mayor Crary L. Peterson Minut~ ofthe R~gul~x City Cous~il M~ting of Ootob~ 25, 1999 P~ge 3 6) Accept Written ProP0S~I for Pre-Placement Medical Examinations-Columbia Park Medical Group The Council accepted the written proposal for pre-placement medical examinations as made by Columbia Park Medical Group, and authorized the Mayor and City- Manager to enter into an agreement for same. 7) Authgrize Staff to Enter Into an Agr~ment with NetLink International For a City_ Web Site The Council authorized staffto enter into an agreement with NetLink International of St. Paul to create, develop, and implement a city web site based on quotes received by staff, and for NetLink to provide instructions to enable staffto update and modify the city- web site at a cost between $7,225 and $9,775. s) Approve Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Powers A4~reement Establishing the Northstar Corridor Development Authority_ The Council adopted the proposed amendments to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Northstar Corridor Development Authority- and authorized the same be forwarded to the Northstar Corridor Development Authority-. 9) Recommend An0ka CounW Transfers the Tax Foffdt Parcel at 4501 Madison Street NE to the Columbia Heights EDA The City- Council requested Anoka County- to transfer the tax forfeit parcel at 4501 Madison Street NE to the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority- for $1.00. 10) Approval of License A~plications The Council approved the items as listed on the business license agenda for October 25, 1999. 11) Payment of Bills The Council approved the payment of the bills as listed out of proper funds. Motion on consent agenda passed unanimously. 5__. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS~ RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS Ao Proclamations Mayor Peterson read the proclamation and proclaimed October 25-29 as Minnesota Manufacturers Week. Be Introduction of New Employees The City- Manager introduced Charlie Thompson, new Fire Chief. Mr. Thompson previously worked at the City- of St. Michael. Mr. Thompson will start on November Meeling ofOotober 25, 1999 Page 4 9~'. Mayor Peterson welcomed him to our staff, and thanked all the members of the Fire Department who attended tonight's meeting in support of the new Fire Chief. Lan Vu, Assistant Liquor Operations Manager, was unable to attend tonight, as he was working. The City Manager introduced Tom Brokmeier, new Assistant Liquor Operations Manager. C. Reco~nition Mayor Peterson recognized lohn Murzyn, Ir. for his five years of service on the Charter Commission. John served on the Charter Commission from 1995 to 1999. The Mayor also acknowledged that John is a valued employee. At this time in the meeting, JeffBahe and Bobby Williams' daughter from Jeff's Bobby's & Steve's AutoWorld presented a $20,000 check to the City which is to be used for a monument in the city's gateway at the comer of37~ and Central. Mr. Bahe thanked councilmembers for their support on their new business here in Columbia Heights. He also stated that they have opened a Police Sub-Station at AutoWorld to be used by our Police Department, the Transit Police, and the City of Minneapolis Police Department, and that they appreciate their presence there. Mr. Bahe also stated that their business is supportive of the proposed multi-use community center. PUBLIC HEARINGS ge Rental License Revocation Heating- 4007 Moin Street The Mayor closed the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Marcea Mariani regarding rental property at 4007 Main Street, in that the property is in compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code. Be Rental License Revocation Hearing - 681 51 ~ Avenue The Mayor dosed the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Gary Stockwell regarding rental property at 681 51't Avenue in that the property is in compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code. Ce Rental Licer~e Revocation He~ing - 981 43 Vi Avenue The Mayor dosed the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Mohammed Khan regarding rental property at 981 43 ~ Avenue in that the Enforcement Officer is granting more time to complete the work at the property to bring it into compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code. Meeting of O~4~r 25, 1999 Pnge 5 Rental License Revocation Hearing at 1206=08 and 1407-09 Circle Terrace The Mayor closed the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Susan Loewenthal at 1206-08 Circle Terrace, in that the property is in substantial compliance with the Housing Maintenance Code. Discussion was held on the property at 1407-09 Circle Terrace. The current renters from both 1407 Circle Terrace and 1409 Circle Terrace were present and spoke. Both indicated it has taken a long time for the landlord to respond to the issues. Both also felt it was very stressful not knowing whether or not they would have to move if the rental license was revoked, especially with winter coming on. Acting Fire Chief Dana Alexon was present to discuss items not completed at this particular address. There had a number of outstanding issues (scraping/painting of the exterior; landscaping; damaged screen windows; missing storm windows), but it was felt that the issue of missing storm windows was the most crucial with winter approaching. Mr. Loewenthal, Susan Loewenthal's son, was also present. Mr. Loewenthal discussed the difficulties he has had in completing the items for compliance. Aider much discussion and consideration of options available (fining the owner, granting an extension, revoking the license, tabling the item), motion was made by Councilmem- bet Hunter, seconded by Councilmember Jolly, to table the public hearing regarding the revocation or suspension of the rental license held by Susan Loewenthal regarding property at 1407-09 Circle Terrace until the next regular city council meeting, whereby the landlord will be requested to come into compliance with the necessary items. Motion passed unanimously. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions Motion by Councilmember Jolly, seconded by Councilmember Szurek, to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available for the public. Motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 99-82 BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISII~IG AMOUNT OF CITY SHARE AND AMOUNT OF :~PECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROJI~CTS TO BE LEVIED WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights by motion on the 1 lth day of October, 1999, ordered a special assessment hearing to levy the cost of improvements and Minutes ~fthe Regular City Council Mzefin__g of October 25, 1999 Page 6 WHEREAS, the following projects will be specially assessed on November 15, 1999, and a portion of the costs may be borne by the City, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.061, and City Code 4.103, that the breakdown is as follows: ESTIMATED ASSESSED ESTIMATED 'CITY PORTION PORTION TOTAL PROJECT CONCRETE ALLEY CONSTRUCTION $651,793.37' $212,676.00 $864,469.37* BITUIVlINOUS ALLEY CONSTRUCTION $ 16,590.63 $ 14,005.00 $ 30,595.63 ALLEY SEAL COAT $ 3,343.60 $104,324.80 $107,668.40 * Includes utility funds Passed this 25th day of October, 1999. Offered by: Jolly Seconded by: Szurek Roll Call: All Ayes Gary L. Peterson, Mayor William Elrite, City Clerk B. Bid Considerations - None. C. Other Business Councilmember Wyckoff stated that the Fire Department's dalmation mascot- Hooper-will be on local Channel 56 on October 30t at 10:30 a.m. and again at 2 p.m. She asked about the deadline for yardwaste, which is November 27~, unless we have a major snowstorm before that date. Councilmember Wyckoff asked the Public Works Director if the slots in the manhole at Tyler and 40t~ ran parallel to the curb or not, as a young person had a bicycle accident at that location recently. ADMINISTRATIV~ REPORTS Ae Report of the City_ Manager: The City Manager stated there is a Police/Fire Budget Work Session on Tuesday, October 26~ at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Conference Room; a Recreation Budget Work Session on Wednesday, October 27~ at 7:00 p.m. at Murzyn Hall; and a Master Minut~ of the Regular City Council Meeting of October 25, 1999 P~ge ? Redevelopment Task Force Meeting on Thursday, October 28~ at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall. Two other budget work session dates have been set for Tuesday, November 9~ and Wednesday, November 17~, and no other ones for regular Monday nights have been set for November. The next issue of the Heights Happenings will be coming out in November. It will contain information on the upcoming referendum item on the proposed multi-use community center and the special election for it which will be held on December 14~. This week's edition of the Focus News will have general information on the proposed multi-use community center, and in the November 2~ issue of the NorthEast Newspaper, there will be an article as well. Flu shots will be available at Murzyn Hall on Thursday, October 28~, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. A Remodeling Handbook for Post-World War II Homes is available in the Community Development Department for $10. It is geared to Cape Cod/rambler type homes, which is about 95% of our housing stock. This plan book won a 1999 award from the National League of Cities. The 1999 Congress of Cities & Exposition (November 30~-December 4t~) will be attended by Councilmembers Hunter and Szurek. The Public Works Director stated that the no parking ban goes into effective from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. on all city streets for winter hours starting November 1", going through March 31st. Report of the Ci~ Attorney: Nothing to report. GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS A. The following minutes of various boards/commissions were acknowledged: the Library Board Meeting of October 5, 1999; the Library Board/City Council Budget Meeting of October 5, 1999; and the Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 28, 1999. 10. CITIZENS FORUM The Mayor and Council acknowledged the presence of Boy Scout Troop #119 from Immaculate Conception Church. Several students from Mr. Galuska's class were present at tonight's meeting. They all introduced themselves to the Mayor and Council. M~6ng o~O~to~r 25, 1999 Page g Some of the students had specific questions for the council, such as questions about the multi- use community center and the ballfields, and problems encountered in building a garage on a relative's property. The Council provided the students with information and advice and thanked them for coming to tonight's meeting. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carole J. Blowers Secretary Pro Tem CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER t~ Fire APPROVAL NO: ITEM: Transfer of Funds to Repay Fire Dept. BY: Dana Alexon BY: Budget NO: ~ - Background: On May 3, 1999, the Fire Department responded to a request for assistance from the Coon Rapids and Andover Fire Departments. These departments, along with numerous other fire departments, were fighting a major grass and brush fire along a 10-mile front following the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad tracks through these cities. The BNSF Railroad was billed by all responding agencies for the cost of services rendered to extinguish the grass fire. The total bill submitted by the City of Columbia Heights was $4,828.19; this total consisted of $1,878.19 in labor costs, including fringe along with $2,950.00 in vehicle costs. On August 20, 1999, the city received payment in full from BNSF Railroad. According to the City Finance Director this money is considered revenue and had to be placed in the City General Fund. Analysis/Conclusion: The Fire Department is requesting that the City Council pass a motion requiring the $4,828.19 received from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to cover the cost of extinguishing the Coon Rapids/Andover grass fire be returned to the 1999 Fire Department budget. The specific accounts to receive the transfer are 101- 42200-1020 in the amount of $1,878.19 and 101-42200-2282 in the amount of $2,950.00. Recommended Motion: Move to transfer $1,878.19 received from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for the May 3, 1999 grass fire from the General Fund to account 101-42200-1020; and further, to transfer $2,950.00 received from Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad for the May 3, 1999 grass fire from the General Fund to account 101- 42200-2282. COUNCIL ACTION: AGENDA SECTION: Consent NO. CITY COUNCIL LETTER POLICE BY: Thomas M. Johns~)[ DATE: October 26, 1999 ITEM: Authorization to Purchase One Unmarked, I NO. Downsized Vehicle ~/~. ,~,., ~) Meeting of November 8, 1999 CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: BY: DATE: BACKGROUND The State of Minnesota has awarded the contract for the delivery of mid-sized unmarked police vehicles for 1999. This award is to Superior Ford, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota. The base vehicle price listed in the award for the mid-sized sedan is $14,767. Included in this price is 3.0L 2V. Engine, air, cruise, tilt, upgraded cloth seats, engine block heater, .4&UFM cassette stereo, power windows, defroster, power locks, remote entry, 5-spoke PTD aluminum wheels, color keyed remote mirrors. 1999 Ford Taurus SE, 4-door, base price: + 6.5% sales tax $14,767.00 959.86 $15,726.86 Grand Total $15,726.86 ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION The Police Department has reviewed both the Hennepin County bid and the State of Minnesota bid for police vehicles and has found that the costs are the same on both bids. It is our recommendation to the Council that a new mid-size administrative vehicle be purchased from the State of Minnesota bid, which has been awarded to Superior Ford of Plymouth, Minnesota. The Police Department will reduce its department fleet by one vehicle upon receipt of the new vehicle. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the purchase of one 1999 Ford Taurus unmarked mid-size vehicle from the State of Minnesota bid #424587, in the amount of $15,726.86 including tax, funding to come from 431-42100-4150; and that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to enter into a contract for same. TMJ:mld 99-352 COUNCIL ACTION: DCT-22-199~ FAX TO: -~ t OF PAGES SENT 10:31 FRI~ .%PERIC~ FORD TO I.J ! I I I I I I I I II II III I I ~LEET.& GOVERNMENTSALES DEPARTMENT 9?822842 P. 01 I II I IIII I IIIII II ~LI_ III mi I I DATE ATTN PHONE FAX 9700 56TT! AVE. ~0. PLYMOUTFI, IdN 5,6442 PHONE 612-559-g111 FAX 612-519-$336 YEAJ~ 2000 MODEL TAURUS 4 DOOR SEDAN ~/ J~Tr/k~7 COLOR-£XT LX / 3.0L ZV ENG / AUTO 0O / AIR / CRUISE / TiLT / CLOTH SEATS EHGXNE BL~'CK HEATER / AMI/FM STEREo / POHER WINOOW~'/ DEFROSTER _~LACK ~TE MIRRORS GRP 1SA $ 14111.~ GRAY INT TAN", SE / SAME AS ABOVE PLUS THE FOLLOHING: POWER ~OCKS, REMOTE ENTRY, CASSETTE, 5 SPOKE PTD ALUM WI'EELS COLOR KEYED RBq:~ I~RI~RS, ~ CLO1H GRP 15B $ 14767.00 POgER SEAT ADD $ 352.00 ABS BRAKES ADD $ 534.OO FRONT '& REAR FLOOR MATS ADD $ 50.00 W!N ,WS LX ADD $ 594.00 COL S: TS SILVER FROST CC ~ ENGINE CHOICE: REGULAR UNLEADED FUEL OR NO O. IN~ FI. EXIBLE FUEL VEHICLE - REG I~GAS~i)'/CREBSElI'iOH[ N00,fq~ - TO I~C~IV~ THIS GOV'T PRICING YOU MUST HAVE A FOlff)_FLEET IOE)ITIFICATIOli ~ (FIN) - FIN COOE ~ALL 1-400-343-~'33~ OPTI1 - TO ASK FOI~ YOUR CITY/COUNTY/ AGENCY'S FIN C0(~ - MI)/OR TO APPLY FOR OIE. IF ANY Pii~EgS, CALL CAROL HEli~ICI~. 612-51g,4351. PAYMEXl', ,IS 0UE Off OLi'LP~RY - LET US ICNOH tir AOVA/~£ IIU. IN rS NLTDL'D TRA~S o AK ACCEPTED - SUB3ECT TO REAPPRAI~ AT TIIqE Otr BILL STUART OR CAROL HENDRICKSON T~ & L.'C NOT INCL~ TOTAL P.01 CITY COUNCIL LETTER MEETING OF: Nqvember 8~ 1999 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ti ORIGINATING DEPT: CITY MANAGER NO:~" RECREATION , APPROVAL ITEM: BUDGET APPROPRIATION FOR BY: KEITH WINDSCHITI~/~ BY: COMMUNITY CENTER PROMOTIONS DATE: 11/2/99 Whereas the City Council has decided to have a referendum election in relationship to construction of a community center, and whereas funds are necessary to provide information regarding the community center and other activities related to the proposed construction, it is the desire of the City Council to appropriate the money from the City's Undesignated Fund balance for these activities. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund Undesignated Fund balance to the Recognition/Special Events Department in the General Fund for activities related to the proposed community center and referendum, and to appropriate $10,000 from the General Fund under Fund Balance to the Election Department in the General Fund to cover the cost of the referendum election. COUNCIL ACTION: Admin\CC-Referenduml CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ~., ORIGINATING DEPT.: ] CITY MANAGER NO: Recreation APPROVAL ITEM: AUTHORIZE MULTI-USE CENTER PUBLIC BY: Keith Windsehit~ BY: MEETING ON NOVEMBER 30, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M. AT DATE: 11/2/99 BACKGROLrND: With thc Multi-Use Center Referendum election to be held on December 14, 1999, staffhas received phone calls regarding concerns and questions from the public on this issue. Staff feels that we need to hold a public meeting which will address community concerns and answer questions related to the Referendum. We have scheduled Murzyn Hall on Tuesday, November 30, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. for this meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize staff to hold a public meeting regarding the MuM-Use Center Referendum on Tuesday, November 30, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. at Murzyn Hall. COUNCIL ACTION: Admin\CC-Publiemeeting CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ,! ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO:~ CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY LEGISLATION BY: LINDA L. MAGEE_~,j~ BY: ITEM: THAT WOULD REVOKE THE CITY'S AUTHORITY DATE: 11-1-99 ~ll %~Y ~m ~ /DATE: TO NEGOTIATE, AWARD, AND REGULATE CABLE NO: TELEVISION FRANCHISES ~. /~. &~ Minnesota's cities have regulated cable franchises for twenty years. Cities have had the authority to negotiate and oversee non-exclusive cable franchises to suit each community. During the 2000 legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature plans to consider a number of proposals which would change the way cable television is regulated in Minnesota. Some of these proposals would eliminate the city's role in cable regulation and administration; franchise fees now paid to cities would be pooled in a state-wide fund. MACTA (Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunication Administrators) and its lobbyists are working diligently in opposition of any legislation that would take away cities' authority to negotiate, award, and regulate cable television franchises. At their meeting of October 21, 1999, the Telecommunications Commission passed a motion recommending that the City Council pass the attached resolution opposing any legislation that would revoke the city's authority to negotiate, award, and regulate cable television franchises. If passed, it will be forwarded onto our state legislators. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECO~94ENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 99- ~O, being a resolution opposing any legislation that would revoke the city's authority to negotiate, award, and regulate cable television franchises. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 99-9o BEING A RF.~OLUTION OPPOSING ANY LEGISLATION THAT WOULD REVOKE THE CITY'S AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE, AWARD, AND REGULATE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCUI,~ES WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights has been granted the legal authority to negotiate, award, and regulate cable television franchises under both federal statute Title 6 and Minnesota State Statute Chapter 238; and WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights accepted the responsibility that comes with the awarding of the cable television franchise, including ensuring that the cable company meets the identif'~! needs of the community such as community television and institutional networks and serving as a local resource to resolving customer service issues; and WHEREAS, state legislation has been proposed that would repeal Chapter 238 and revoke the City's authority to award a cable television franchise, eliminate the City as a local resource to its citizens for resolving customer service issues, and remove the City's ability to receive direct support for community television and other provisions that meet community needs; and WHEREAS, it has not been demonstrated by any means that local governments' role in cable franchising impedes in any manner the ability of cable and telecommunications companies to offer full and competitive WHEREAS, while the City of Columbia Heights acknowledges the regulatory challenge of addressing the convergence of voice, video and data services, local governments are essential to any legislative discourse in this area and must retain authority to ensure continued local support for its community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City of Columbia Heights must retain its authority to franchise companies providing cable television services and is hereby opposed to any legislation that would revoke this authority and that it further asserts its Constitutional rights to retain its local authority to enter into contracts to serve its community. Passed this day of . ,1999. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary L. Peterson, Mayor William Elrite, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meetin; of November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER NO. a~ POLICE _~ APPROVAL: ITEM: Reappropriation of Youth Activity Money in BY: Thomas M. $ohnson~ ~'k~ BY: NO. The 1999 Police Department Budget ,. DATE: October 28, 1999 L,,"~ DATE: Background At the March 8, 199, City Council meeting the City Council accepted a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant from the State of Minnesota. The grant was for $10,305 ($6,000 for the Project Safety Net program and $5,000 for graffiti cleanup). In addition to this, the 1999 Police Department budget also had $6,000 budgeted for the Project Safety Net program. One condition is that the grant funds cannot supplant current youth activity money in the city. It is necessary to amend the City Police Department budget to move the $6,000 budgeted for Proj eot Safety Net into other miscellaneous youth activities. By doing this, we will be increasing youth activities within the city by $10,305, which is the intent of the program. Analysis/Conclusion In summary, this is basically a housekeeping type action by the City Council to bring us into compliance with the grant condition, that being, to increase our budget by the amount of the grant rather than using the grant to supplant current city funding and operations. Recommended Motion: Move to amend the 1999 Police Department budget by reappropriating the $6,000 that was budgeted for Project Safety Net to be used for other general youth activity programs to bring the city into compliance with the State of Minnesota Grant Agreement #90478. WE/TMJ:mld 99-355 COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCI~- ~-ITTER Meeting of: November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT j; ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER' S NO:~ CITY MANAGER' S APPROVAL ITEM: CORRECTION ON PAGE 3 OF OCTOBER 11, BY: C. BLOWERS, BY: 1999, MINUTES ADMINISTRATIVE DATE: NO:~-~- /'~ ~ ,, ~%.~ DATE: SECRETARY An error has been found on page 3 of the October 11, 1999, City Council minutes. It pertains to Resolution 99-81, Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for 1999 Sanitary Sewer Lining Project #9916. Line 10 of page 3 should have "Bergman Companies, Inc." replaced with "InsituformTechnologies USA, Inc." RECON~ENDED MOTION: Move to approve correction to page three of the October 11, 1999, City Council minutes as noted in the council letter. COUNCIL ACTION: Bidder Insituform Technologies Visu-Sewer Clan & Seal Lametti & Sons, Inc. Base Bid $42,362.00 $48,783.50 $55,356.00 WHEREAS, it appears that Insituform Technologies USA, Inc., 17988 Edison Avenue, Chesterfield, Missouri 63005 is the lOWest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA: 1. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with ~ in the name of the City of Columbia Heights for 1999 Sanitary Sewer Lining, Project #9916, according to plans and specifications therefore approved by the Council. 2. The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to return, forthwith, to all bidders, the deposits made with their bids except the deposit of the successful bidder and the next lower bidder shall be retained until the contract has been signed. 3. City Project//9916 shall be funded with approximately 100% City funds. Dated this 11 * day of October, 1999. Offered by: Wyckoff Seconded by: Szurek Roll call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Jo-Anne Student' Council Secretary 12) Hone_~ell Service A_~ent The Council authorized the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a one year agreement with Honeywell for the provision of equipment maintenance services at a cost of $67,878, 13) Renewal ofCmrency Exchanoe Licen~ for Kwik Cash. Inc. The Council approved recommending to the Minnesota Department of Commerce the renewal of the c~cy exchange license for Kwik Cash IncorpOrated located at 4639 Central Avenue Northeast of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and directed the ChiefofPolice to forward a letter to the Minnesota Department of Commerce advising them of this recommendation. 3 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 11/8/99 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: ~ PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE REPLACEME~NT OF BY: K. Hans BY: m~r #38: WRM~ERBRUS~ cI-IIPP~.~ ~x/f~ O~ OATE: 1 1 DATE: Background: Unit # 38, Vermeer Brush Chipper was purchased in 1989. In the Spring of 1989, a severe storm caused extensive tree damage City-wide. Staff made the decision to haul the tree debris to the Municipal Service Center and stockpile it with the understanding that a conlractor would be hired to haul the debris away. The plan changed and the mountain of brush was chipped by Unit #38. The brush had been mixed with dirt in the yard and the pile had dried out before chipping operations could be completed. The dirt and dry material caused extensive wear and shortened the life of the chipper. In 1997 the City borrowed St. Anthony's chipper during storm clean-up operations as unit #38 was down for repairs. The Vermeer Brush Chipper was purchased for $14,200 and has 1178 hours of operation. Repair costs total $16,875 over the last 10 years. In 1999, $20,000 was budgeted in fund 431-46102-5180 to replace Unit #38. Analysis/Conclusions: The brush chipper is an essential piece of equipment. It is used extensively during storm clean-up operations and scheduled tree trimming operations. Repair costs have exceeded the original cost of the chipper and staffhas serious concerns about its reliability. Unit #38 is properly sized to meet the needs of the city. Other tree services such as ~ee removal and replanting are contracted out. Staff recommends purchasing, from the State Contract that expires January 31, 2000, one new brash chipper comparable in size to Unit #38. Unit #38 will be disposed of by trade-in. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize staff to seek bids from State of Minnesota Purchasing Contract for the replacement of Unit #38: Vermeer Brash Chipper. Zm.'jb 99-325 COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 11/8/99 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: ~.~. PUBLIC WORKS / ITEM: AUTHORIZATION TO DESIGNATE 2-HOUR BY: K. Hause~ BY: PARKING IN FRONT OF 3844 CENTRAL AVENUE DATE: 11/4/9~...w-~ DATE: Background: The property owner of 3844 Central (Dr. Robert Donsker) is requesting a 2-hour parking sign be placed in front of his dental business. Mr. Donsker indicated that employees of the business to the south (Bobby and Steve's AutoWorld) are parking their vehicles in front of 3844 Central which creates a problem during business hours for patients who need access from the street to the sidewalk to the main building entrance off of Central Avenue. Analysis/Conclusions: Over the past month the Police Deparlment has aggressively patrolled the area and chalked the tires of cars parked for extended periods of time. No tickets have been issued as the vehicles have been moved before the time limit was up. The property does have four designated parking spaces in the rear of the building accessed off of the alley and room for two additional vehicles in the driveway access to the two garage stalls offthe alley. Individuals who park in the rear of the building must climb a flight of stairs to the main building entrance. Location of the signage would be placed at the north and south property lines of 3844 Central Avenue, creating four spaces of 2- hour restricted parking. The preliminary design of the Central Avenue Street Improvement Project does designate four parking spaces in this area. The Traffic Commission considered this request at their November regular meeting and is recommending to the City Council to designate 2-hour restricted parking in front of the business at 3844 Central Avenue. Recommended Motion: Move to designate 2-hour parking in front of 3844 Central Avenue based on a recommendation of the Traffic Commission. I~.'jb 99-326 COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: ! !/8/99 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: ~ PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: PROPOSAL FOR SUBSURFACE BORINGS _ BY: K. Hansen ~ BY: DATE: FOR CENTRAL AVENUE l/. d4o It) 11/4/99~:~"-- DATE: Background: As part of the preliminary design process for street and utility work, a subsurface exploration is normally conducted for underground work. Soil borings are normally taken in areas and to a depth where the underground work will take place to evaluate the soil strata physical characteristics. Analy~i~/Conelusions: The preliminary design for the Central Avenue reconsUuction from 37~ to 43r~ includes watermain and storm sewer replacement along with sanitary sewer manhole and storm sewer catch basin replacements. Additionally, the existence of buried railroad tracks will require a specialized piece of equipment to locate them spatially which American Engineering Testing is capable of doing. The contractor will obtain the necessary Mn/DOT permits and provide traffic control during the boring operations. The testing results will be utilized during the final design process. Recommended Motion: Move to accept a proposal for subsurface exploration and geotechnical review services for the Central Avenue improvement project from American Engineering Testing, Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $5,000; and, furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. IOI:jb 99-324 Attachment: American Engineering Testing, Inc. Proposal COUNCIL ACTION: '~ AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. l'.:'~,:/0 ;~ 1909 PU~LIO WOF~KS CONSULTANTS · GEOTECHNICAL · MATERIALS · ENVIRONMENTAL November 1, 1999 City of Columbia Heights 637 - 38t~ Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Attn: Kevin Hansen Proposal for Subsurface Exploration/Geotechnical Services Central Avenue Improvement Project Columbia Heights, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hansen: Per the request of Mr. Mike Aaron of BRW, Inc., we are submitting this Letter Proposal to conduct subsurface exploration and geotechnical review services for the referenced project. This letter is intended to define our scope of worl/and to present you with an estimate of our fee, the anticipated schedule and other information regarding our services. PrOiect Information The project involves improvements to Central Avenue from 37" Avenue to 43"~ Avenue in Columbia Heights. We understand improvements will basically involve a mill and overlay contained within the existing curbs on the outer edges. However, the improvements will include median realignment and reconstruction. Watermain installation is also proposed on the western side. We understand records indiCate street car tracks are buried beneath the existing pavement from approximately 37~' Avenue to 40'~ Avenue. Part of our services will be to assist in locating the buried tracks. 'AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" 550 Cleveland Avenue North * St. Paul, MN 55114 · 651-659-9001 * Fax 651-659-1379 Duluth · Mankato * Marshall · Rochester * Wausau City of Columbia Heights November 1, 1999 Page 2 Field Work The transmittal from BRW included plans with the.desired field program. The program will include six standard penetration test borings each extending to .a depth of 16'. These borings will be located in the south bound street area, where the watermaln installation is planned. In addition, BRW has requested 12 borings be drilled approximately 2' deep to explore the thicknesses of the in-phce pavement sections. The goal of these borings will be to penetrate bituminous, concrete and aggregate base layers. The above field services will include locating the borings in the field, clearing underground public utilities through the Gopher State One Call System and providing appropriate signage to allow lane closure. As Central Avenue is a four lane street, we do not anticipate the need to use traffic control flag persons during the field work. During the drilling operations, we Will also provide an Engineering Assistant or an Engineer I to assist in locating the buried street car tracks. We will use a Profometer for this work. The depth limitation for steel locating is on the order of 3" to 4'. At the start, we will attempt to 'calibrate' the Profometer by excavating into the pavement and exposing a known steel track. The reading from the 'known" location will be used to correlate other locations. We understand BRW may also have a person available with a metal detector at the time of our field activities in the event that method is better suited to the conditions. Our drill rig can aid in spot checking detected metal locations. When detected, we will spray paint the apparent location. We understand BRW will then survey the locations painted. All boreholes created will be backfilled and patched with a bituminous cold mixture upon completion. Laboratory At this time, we have budgeted $200 for soil laboratory testing. This budget is primarily intended for sieve analysis, water content, and/or Atterberg Limits tests. If R-value testing needs to be added to the scope, the R-value tests will be charged at a unit rate of $300 per test. City of Columbia Heights November 1, 1999 Page 3 Engineering Report Following the field and laboratory work, an engineering report will be prepared. The report will include logs of the test borings, location information, laboratory test results, a review of the en '.gineering properties of the soils and our geotechnical opinions/reCOmmendations regarding watermain support and backfilling, and an estimate of the subgrade R-value. The scope defined in the proposal is intended for geotechnical purposes only. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the site. However, we will note obvious contamination encountered which can be cietected by human sight or smell sensing. The scope of work defined in this proposal will be performed on a time and materials basis according to our current schedule of fees. A short-form copy of the schedule is attached. For the described scope, we will establish $5000 as a n~)t to exceed fee. If R-value tests need to be added to the project, the maximum fee should be increhsed by $300 per added R-value test. Schedule Based on our current backlog, we anticipate drilling operations can be performed within about one week after receiving authorization to proceed. Most of the factual data should then be available within a few days after field work completion. The final report should be available within several weeks following the field work, although this time period would be extended if R-value testing is needed. Terms/Conditions Our services will be conducted per the attached "Contract Agreement Between the City of Columbia Heights and American Engineering Testing, Inc. for Professional Services." If you sign (and return one copy) the actual Contract Agreement portion (7-pages), that agreement can also serve as our contract arrangement for any future work as well. Acceptance Please indicate your acceptance of this Letter Proposal by endorsing the enclosed copy and returning it to us. The "Contract Agreement" is considered part of the Letter Proposal. Again, execution of the actual Contract Agreement form itself will serve for our future work as well. The original proposal is intended for your records. City of Columbia Heights November 1, 1999 Page 4 Remarks We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal to you and look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding our services or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Vice President, Geotechnical Division Phone #(651) 659-1305 Fax #(651) 659-1379 JKV/ak PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE BY: Signature: Printed Name: Date: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of : NOVEMBER 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: -~ CONSENT ~ ~ ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER , ~ ~,~/-~ ASSESSING APPROVAL NO: ~ ITEM: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL BY: JANE GLEASON BY: ASSESSMENTS DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 19991 The City Council has adopted a resolution to certify delinquent special assessments. We are asking the City Council.to add four more assessments to the amounts that were certified in October. The property at 4250 McLeod Street is tax forfeit and the remaining balance owed against this property needs to be certified without interest and before the property is placed on the sale list at Anoka County. The other properties were cleaned or structures removed through the abatement process for health and hazard reasons. We will be certifying these using the same Anoka County Fund number as we did in October. This will save the City money as each new fund number costs the City an additional $75.00. Staff recommends the Council adopt the following motions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 99-88, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 99-88, being a Resolution to certify additional assessments to Anoka County fund #82958 for collection with the Property Taxes payable in 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: jg\county\cer abatement cl CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 5542 !-3878 (6! 2) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 RESOLU~ION.:'NO, 99 - 88 CERTIFICATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, that THE COUNTY AUDITOR be, and he is hereby directed, to levy the special assessments on the properties in the City of Columbia Heights as submitted on the attached page and filed in the Assessment Book for 1999 as an additional amount of $20,766.56. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the foregoing amounts shall be included in the individual real estate tax statements for the current year and identified thereon as "Special Assessments - Fund ft82958". SAID LEVIES shall be enforced and collected in the manner provided for the enforcement and collection of State and County taxes under and in accordance with the provisions of the general laws of the State. All assessments with penalties and interest as indicated thereon paid to the County Treasurer shall belong to the City of Columbia Heights and shall be turned over to the City Treasurer in the manner provided by the City Charter and Ordinances. Passed this 8th daY of NoVember, 1999. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: All ayes Gary L. Peterson, Mayor William Eldte, City Clerk JG\COUN'rY~:~SCER2 THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CiTY COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 4OTH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 8842 !-3878 (6 ! 2) 782-28OO TDD 782-2.806 November 9, 1999 Edward M. Treska Property Tax Administrator Anoka County Government Center 2100 3"~ Avenue Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2489 Subject:. 1999 Special Assessments Certified 11/8i99 ~ . to Fund #82958. Dear Sir: Please certify to the parcels listed below, in the "Special Assessments - Fund #-82958" the additional amount of $20,766.56: F 36 30 24 24 0034 4250 McLeod St. $1,408.00* R 25 30 24 34 0086 1260 46~ Avenue $ 5,521.48'* R 35 30 24 22 0126 4358 34 Street $11,117.86 R 35 30 24 44 0006 3900 Central Ave. $2,719.22 * $441.46 was certified to 4250 McLeod St. on October 11, 1999. The Total amount for F 36 30 24 0034 will be $1,849.46. ** $225.74 was certified to 1260 46t~ Avenue on October 11, 1999. The Total amount for R 25 030 24 34 0086 will be $5,747322. Enclosed is a copy of the Resolution 99 - 88 to Certify additional assessments. The City Council approved this Resolution 99 - 88 on November 8, 1999, in the amount of $20,766.65. This amount along with the amount of $56,802.60 certified to you in October, 1999 by the City of Columbia Heights should be certified to the taxed payable in 2000. Sincerely, William Elrite, City Clerk WE/JG THE CITY O1~' COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY INEMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of =November 8. 1999 AGENDA SECTION: ~ONSENT ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: ~ESOLUTION 99-89 ~ ELECTIONS APPROVAL ITEM: DESIGNATING ELECTION JOD~ES 3) BY: SHELLEY HANSON BY: NO: ~ ~. I DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1999 Attached is a list of election judges for the 1999 Special Election and the resolution designating those judges and their hourly compensation. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution there being ample copies available for the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 99-89being a resolution designating election judges for the 1999 Special Election. COUNCIL ACTION: ~80T.,~72'TON NO. 99-89 BBINO A ILBSOL~TION DBSX~NATIN~ BLBCTXON JUDOBH FOR THB 1999 SPBCIAL BLBCTXON WHEREAS: There is a scheduled special election in the City of Columbia Heights; and WHEREAS: Pursuant to City Charter, Section 30, and M.S.S. 204A, the Council shall appoint qualified persons on each election district to be judges of election. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights does appoint the attached list of judges, by precinct, for the Special Election to be held on December 14, 1999, with an hourly remuneration of $6.50 for head judge and $6.00 for an election judge. Passed this 8th day of November, 1999. Offered by: Seconded by: '~oll Call: Gary Peterson, Mayor William Elrite, City clerk 1999 SPECIAL ELECTION JUDGES FOR DECEMBER 14, 1999 Precinct 1-Murzvn Hall-530 Mill St. H~ Faye Cleasby Mona Lundholm Fran Sensen Marge Rosin Barb Karol 4346 7~ Street 4134 7~ Street 3907 Jackson St 1000 41"~ Ave 1400 46* Ave 789-7889 788-2727 788-0924 781-1849 574-0466 Precinct 2-NEI Coileee of Tech-82S 41st Ave HJ Darlene Bielejeski Nancy French Irene Ricci Martin Heining Wanda Heining 4262 Jefferson St 3969 Tyler St 4241 McLeod St 4212 4' St. 4212 4' St. Precinct 3 -Parkview Villa-965 40* I-LI Muriel Nichols Betty Spratt Gladys Zemke Gloria Tarman Ruth Hillestad Avenue 3812 Johnson St 1709 40'~ Ave 3970 Tyler St 4709 Upland Crest 965 40* Avenue Precinct 4-HieMand Elem Sehooi-lS00 49* Avenue H$ Marsha Stroik Averille Lestina Mavis Sibell William Dettman Art Goedeking 3938 Polk St 4831 W. Upland Cr 4049 Washington St 1170 49~ Ave 5200 7~ St Precinct S-First Lutheran Church-lSSS 40* Av~ ILl Edna Miracle Mayme Lyons. Lorrie Nalezny Joan Kinde loAnn Kewatt Pat Weber 4449 Reservoir Blvd 4354 Arthur St 609 37~ Ave 3952 Arthur St 636 48* Ave 3946 Arthur St 788-0122 788-2125 788-3529 788-6605 788-6605 788-8528 788-3118 788-5737 571-8540 788-7583 788.6734 571-0925 788-4008 571-2653 571-6333 788-0716 788-0240 788-3719 788-5391 572-1766 788-6744 Precinct 6-Hlthland Elem. $chooi--1500 49 I-IJ Judy Lee Vonnie Seim Barbara Elrod Delores Marquette Kay Mayer Judith Dettman 1705 Innsbmck Pkwy 571-7052 1425 Molan Terr 574-0480 1610 Innsbruck Pkwy 571-4294 1029 44 ½ Ave 788-2577 2115 Highland PI 574-1017 1170 49'' Ave 571-2653 Precinct 7-Valley View Elem School--800 49a Ave HJ Kay Handley Karin Mattson Rose Corbett Lillian Holtzlider Ann Kronstedt Frances Fleisher 809 50 ½ Ave 5030 Monroe St 5152 5" St 4445 Jackson St 5240 Washington St 4223 2~d St 574-0658 572-1822 572-2161 788-0694 572-9044 788-6331 Precinct 8-Valley View Elem School--800 49~ Ave HJ Pat Jindra Mary Dowdle Noranda Anderson Ken Kronstedt Ruby Hawkins Ellen Bebus 4753 4'' St 572-8447 4904 5'' St 572-1839 4751 University Ave 572-1916 5240 Washington St 572-9044 3850 Stinson Blvd 781-6247 5046 Jackson St 571-5895 Students who will work from 3 nm - 8 um Anaki Laine 1908 41~ Ave Josie Burmeister 4854 7~ St Tanya Lindstrom Christine Okerstrom Gretchen Spensley Annie Kroska Sara Zweber Ben Lindstrom 788-1864 572-8598 ** ** $* ** ** $* $* ** * Judges who will serve at Crestview Home voting. ** Persons who need to view training film CITY CQQNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: ~ ORIGINATING DEPT.: ~ CITY MANAGER NO: License Department ' APPROVAL ITEM: License Agenda BY: Kathryn Pepin /~ DATE: NO: ~, ~ /~) DATE: November 8, 1999 BY: BACKGROUND ANALYSIS Attached is the business license agenda for the November 8, 1999 City Council meeting. In addition to applications for Contractors Licenses, there is an application for change of location for Exotic Aquatics Pet Store from 4923 Central Avenue to 4940 Central Avenue in the former Blue Star Computer Building. In addition, there are applications for a taxicab vehicle and one driver from AAA Taxicab Service which is new to our area. At the top of the license agenda you will notice a phrase stating '*Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Applicatiod'. This means that the data privacy form has been submitted as required. If not submitted, certain information cannot be released to the public. RECO~ENDED MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for November 8, 1999. COUNCIL ACTION: TO CITY COUNCIL November 8, 1999 *Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application 1999 BUSINESS LICENSE AGENDA APPROVED By BUILDING OFFICIAL CONTRACTORS *Abuzant & Houston Construction *Jim Berthiaume Roofing *John A. Dalsin & Son Suburban Air Conditioning *Total Air Supply, Inc. Twin City Furnace Co., Inc. 79- 13~ Ave. N.E. 165 Norwood Drive 2830- 20~ Ave. S. 8419 Center Dr. 541 N. Wheeler St. 1464 Selby Ave. FEES 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 POLICE DEPT. HUMANE OFFICER PET STORE *Exotic Aquatics & Pet Supply CIO Troy L. Tjepkes 4940 Central Avenue 50.00 POLICE DEPT. TAXI DRIVER *Yohannes Bedecha 23" 3" St., Elk River 25.00 POLICE DEPT. TAXICAB VEHICLE "AAA Taxicab Service Yohannes Bedecha 2010 E. Hennepin Ave. 75.00 license.ag BRC FINANCIAL SYSTI~4 11/04/1999 15:11:06 FUND DES~I~I~ 101 GENERAL 201 CO{~4UNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND 203 PARKVIEW VILLA NORTH 204 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTH 205 SECTION 8 212 STATE AID NAINTENANCE 213 PARKVIEW VILLA SOUTH 225 CABLE TELEVISION 235 REI~TAL HOUSING 240 LIBRARY 250 COL HGHTS ~ SCHOOL ENRI 278 3WENILE JUSTICE GRANT 401 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 412 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PARKS 415 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT - PIR 431 CAP EQUIP REPLACE-GENERAL 601 WATER UTILITY 602 SEWER UTILITY 603 REFUSE FUND 609 LIQUOR 651 WATER CONSTRUCTION 652 SEWER CONSTRUCTION FUl{D 701 CElfl'RAL GARAGE 710 ENERGY MANAGEMENT 720 DATA PROCESSING 880 PERMIT SURCHARGE 881 CONTRIBUTED PROJECTS-REC 883 CONTRIBUTED PROJECTS-GEN 884 INSURANCE 885 ESCRO~ 887 FLEX BENEFIT TRUST M3ND Check History DISBURSEMENTS 55,882.74 110.83 3,265.12 75.52 43,178.45 3,414.59 1,609.94 9.18 57.35 4,930.08 213.23 101.44 209.10 8.47 1,238.84 20,783.00 5,242.27 2,876.08 99,403.71 180,892.75 152,433.11 349.48 2,130.49 8,498.45 6,273.10 3,625.69 4,540.12 313.11 18,499.00 207,184.43 1,554.98 828,904.65 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL060S-V06.00 RECAPPAGE GL540R BANK C~IECKING ACCOUNT TOTAL ALL BANKS DISBURSEMENTS 828,904.65 828,904.65 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/04/1999 15 Check History 11/8/99 COUNCIL LIST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 1 BANK V~DOR CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT ALEXON/DANA 82086 375.17 ANOKA COUNTY MOTOR VEHIC 82087 289.65 ARDITO/RITA 82088 10.00 ASSOC OF TRAINING OFFCRS 82089 800.00 AT&T WIRELESS LONG DISTA 82090 2.86 BELLBOY B~%/{ SUPPLY 82091 4,987.31 BELLBOY CORPORATION 82092 11,345.28 BUSINESS RECORDS CORP-MI 82093 2,997.74 CHERNIN/ALEKSANDR 82094 42.52 CEISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTI 82095 1,591.40 DELTA DEWTAL 82096 760.43 DIETZ/VAL 82097 461.54 FEHST/WALTER 82098 1,780.36 GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO 82099 47.19 GRAPE BEGINNINGS INC 82100 246.00 HANSEN/KEVIN 82101 107.94 HILLTOP Ti~%ILER SALES IN 82102 4,135.00 HOME DEPOT #2802 82103 23.45 JO}{~SON BROS. LIQUOR CO. 82104 1,071.93 JOHNSON PAPER & SUPPLY C 82105 668.50 KUEHN/JEAN 82106 33.61 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITI 82107 90.00 MOELLER/KAREN 82108 26.45 N S P 82109 20,713.60 NCITE 82110 100.00 PETTY CASH - KAREWMOELL 82111 59.04 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRTS 82112 4,201.08 PINNACLE DISTR 82113 137.65 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS 82114 256.51 PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSUP$~NC 82115 3.30 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS 82116 7,383.42 WINE COMPANY/THE 82117 466.71 WINE MERES 82118 70.85 ABLE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 82119 292.00 ACCAP 82120 5,104.00 ANDERSON/ROLAN E 82121 265.00 APACHE VILLAGE APT-CONSO 82122 516.00 BALLENTINE/BRUCE G 82123 455.00 BERG PROPERTIES 82124 954.00 BERG/LOIS 82125 371.00 BLA~NIK/VANCE 82126 715.00 BOETTCHER/LARRY 82127 1,328.00 CADIEUX/RONALD 82128 305.00 CRIES/DON 82129 308.00 CHILDS/LORAINE 82130 185.00 CHRISTENSEN/RICHARD 82131 630.00 CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME 82132 156.00 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/04/1999 15 Check History 11/8/99 COUNCIL LIST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 2 BANK VENDOR CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT DALSETH/MARILYN 82133 1,049.00 DEMEULES/LISA 82134 17.00 DIZDAREVIC/MIRSAD 82135 332.00 DUCK~ORTH/GINGER 82136 311.00 EGGE/JAMES 82137 442.00 ELMQUIST/ARNOLD C 82138 624.00 FANG/KWEI-WU 82139 523.00 FENNE/AVERY 82140 650.00 FINDELL/DONALD 82141 725.00 FLODIN/MARVIN 82142 184.00 GROMEK/THOMAS 82143 662.00 GULLAND/BE~ARD 82144 348.00 HANSEN/EDWIN & DOROTHY 82145 352.00 HANSON/CLARENCE 82146 440.00 HANSON/DENNIS 82147 295.00 HINES/GORDON E 82148 646.00 HOIUN/VERNON S 82149 267.00 JONES/DOU~ItAS 82150 24.00 K}{AN/MUJTABA 82151 493.00 KLEINMAN REALTY CO 82152 133,00 KOSTER/KENNETH 82153 445.00 KOWALZEK/}{ARVEY 82154 1,772.00 LANGE/DAVE & KATHY 82155 564.00 LAP, SON/DANIEL W 82156 228.00 LARSON/SUSAN 82157 327.00 LASKY/DAVID 82158 322.00 LEWIS/MARK 82159 489.00 LUDEMAN/IVAND 82160 804.00 MDC 2000 82161 572.00 MIDWEST MANAGEMENT-CONSO 82162 438.00 MODELL/PAUL 82163 2,589.00 NIZNIK/KATHIANNE 82164 23.00 NOVAK/TNEODORE & NANCY V 82165 629.00 PERRY/CINDY 82166 51.00 PETERS PLACE INVESTMENTS 82167 3,967.00 PING/LUU 82168 149.00 PS HOLDINGS 82169 305.00 RIFAI/MA~OUND 82170 515.00 SATHRE/ALICIA M 82171 458.00 SATHRE/LLOYD H 82172 418.00 SHOKEIR/MOHAMED 82173 449.00 SK~ICKY/JAMES 82174 408.00 STAUCH/LELAND 82175 1,187.00 SWANSON/BRADLEY J 82176 768.00 THOMPSON/JEROME K 82177 411.00 TOWN}{OUSE-APT MANAGEMENT 82178 1,386.00 TRISKO/FRANK 82179 286.00 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/04/1999 15 BANK VENDOR Check History 11/8/99 COUNCIL LIST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 3 CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT UTKE PROPERTY MANAG~]T 82180 724.00 VALTIERREZ/MARIO 82181 140.00 VkN BLARICON/STANLEY 82182 1,057.00 W F BAUER CONSTRUCTION 82183 103.00 WAKEMAN/LARRY GENE 82184 234.00 YOUNGI{EN/DA~/~ 82185 311.00 ZICKERMANN/IDRI 82186 48.00 ZICKERMANN/WALTER 82187 500.00 AIR TOUCH CELLULAR 82189 8.06 AT & T 82190 203.04 BELLBOY CORPORATION 82191 1,782.01 BLOWERS/CAROLE 82192 44.12 BRADLEY REAL ESTATES INC 82193 10,189.97 ERAY/LIZ 82194 19.62 BRECKENITCH/LAURIE 82195 57.25 CALLAGHAN/FRAN 82196 39.00 CALLAG}{AN/RUTH 82197 39.00 CHAPMAN/ADELINE 82198 39.00 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS HIGH SC 82199 48.00 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS I 82200 4,520.97 COOK CO/J P 82201 37.18 CREST VIEW LUTHERAN HOME 82202 274.12 DAVES SPORT SHOP 82203 115.47 ECKSTROM/DOROTHY 82204 39.00 EDISON CLASS OF 1964 82205 253.88 GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO 82206 118.60 GREEN/MARGARET 82207 39.00 HANSEN/ELLEN 82208 250.00 HEIGHTS BAKERY 82209 51.00 IKON OFFICE SOLUTION 82210 158.55 IPC PRINTING 82211 147.80 JOENSON/THO~AS M 82212 40.00 LINDER/SCOTT 82213 30.00 LINNGREN/MATT 82214 43.61 MN DEP~ OF PUBLIC 82215 6.00 MN HOUSING FINANCE AGENC 82216 62.00 N S P 82217 3,635.76 NORTH HENNEPIN COMITY 82218 119.00 OLSON/LEONARD 82219 522.33 PAUSTIS & SONS 82220 829.24 PC SOLUTIONS 82221 2,759.62 PETTY CASH - GARY BRAATE 82222 170.64 PET'~Y CAS~ - KAREN MOELL 82223 91.84 PE~ CASH - MARY DUGDAL 82224 134.57 PINNACLE DISTH 82225 72.95 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS 82226 771.71 RANALLO/KATHY 82227 299.41 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/04/1999 15 Check History 11/8/99 COUNCIL LIST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 4 BANK VENDOR CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT BANK C~{ECKING ACCOUNT SIELER/BERNICE 82228 39.00 U S WEST CO~UNICATIONS 82229 282.56 WASS/LOREAINE 82230 39.00 WINE COMPANY/THE 82231 63.00 WORLD CI~%95 WINE 82232 655.68 YOST/ELAINE 82233 39.00 AFFINITY PLUS FEDERAL CR 82235 725,00 FIRST COM~fdNITY CREDIT U 82236 1,770.00 }~T}{ PARTNERS 82237 16,175.53 IC){A RETIREMENT TRUST 45 82238 8,412.80 LMCIT 82239 21,027.02 MEDICA SENIOR 82240 431.50 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT 82241 747.15 NORWEST BANK - PAYROLL A 82242 128,685.39 ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY 82243 6,152.50 PERA 82244 22,165.84 PERA - DEFINED CONTRIBUT 82245 90.00 PERA POLICE RELIEF CONSO 82246 335.95 PUBLIC MANAGERS ASSOCIAT 82247 40.00 UNION 320 82248 1,021.00 UNITED WAY 82249 46.00 WYANDOTTE COUNTY COURT H 82250 150.00 ACE F~ARE 82251 241.29 ADI 82252 2,549.52 AGGREGATE & READY MIX OF 82253 70.00 AIR TOUCH CEIAUI~ 82254 226.94 AIRTOUCH CELLUI~ - PART 82255 34.43 AMERICAN AGENCY INC 82256 18,499.00 AMERICAN PAYROSL ASSOCIA 82257 225.00 ANERIPRIDE 82258 98.52 ANOKA CTY - CENTRAL COMM 82259 285.93 ~PLIED MAILING TECHNOLO 82260 1,322.15 ARAMARK 82261 53.77 AWWA 82262 105.00 B~ & TAYLOR 82263 130.06 BARNA GUZY & STEFFEN LTD 82264 13,537.98 BEARCOM 82265 86.50 BFI/~OODLAKE SANITARY SE 82266 99,384.88 BLU~S TREE SERVICE 82267 8,467.11 BROCK WHITE CO. 82268 716.52 CENTRAL STORES 82269 167.26 CHEMSEARCH 82270 507.03 CHISAGO I~S DISTRIBUTI 82271 1,844.50 CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITO 82272 189.00 CITIZENS LEAGUE 82273 50.00 CLASSROOM CONNECT 82274 76.19 COCA-COIA BOTTLING MIDWE 82275 308.55 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/04/1999 15 Check History 11/8/99 COUNCIL LIST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R~V06.00 PAGE 5 BANK VENDOR CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE CA 82276 40.00 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS RENTAL 82277 37.28 CO~ISSIONER OF CHILDREN 82278 25.00 COMP USA INC 82279 11.70 CONCRETE PAVING ASSOC OF 82280 65.00 COORDINATED BUSINESS SYS 82281 30.80 CUTTING EDGE CONT?ACTING 82282 201.00 DA}{L/MICHAEL S 82283 150.00 DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 82284 62.10 DANKA 82285 27.00 DAVIES WATER EQUIP CO. 82286 146.71 DCI INDUSTRIES LTD 82287 388.72 DIAMOND AUTO GLASS 82288 223.87 DIAMOND VOOEL PAINTS 82289 384.47 DISCOUNT STEEL INC 82290 45.80 DOMINO'S PIZZA 82291 101.44 DRAIN DOCTOR 82292 69.00 EAGLE WINE COMPANY 82293 759,23 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO 82294 46,356.25 FACT BOOK-CORPORATE REPO 82295 115.00 FAXON COMPANY/THE 82296 2,646.21 FOCUS NEWSPAPERS 82297 92.15 G & K SERVICES 82298 233.64 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 82299 12.99 GENUINE PARTS/NAPA AUTO 82300 16.13 GOOD MD/DR GARY 82301 240.00 GRAFIX SHOPPE 82302 738.11 GRI~GS-C00PER & CO 82303 5,602.19 GROLIER IrSBLISHING CO. I 82304 222.56 HARCOURT BRACE PROF.PUBL 82305 76.42 HEALTH PARTNERS 82306 174.00 HEIGNTS ELECTRIC INC. 82307 74.00 HEWLETT PACKARD SERVICE 82308 160.00 HILLTOP TRAILER SALES IN 82309 25.68 HOHENETEINS INC 82310 453.90 HOME DEPOT #2802 82311 565.29 JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO. 82312 25,204.13 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY CO 82313 2,859.88 KMART 82314 26.89 KORBEL/BRYAN 82315 75.00 KUETHER DIST. CO. 82316 21,218.55 LAKE MANAGEMENT INC 82317 980.00 LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE 82318 70.00 LANO EQUIPMENT CO. 82319 16.12 LAURE PHOTO & DIGITAL IM 82320 90.00 MAC QUEEN EQUIPMENT CO. 82321 297.64 MADDEN & ASSOCIATES/FRAN 82322 2,991.50 BRC FINANCIAL SYSTEM 11/04/1999 15 Check History 11/8/99 COUNCIL LIST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 6 BANK V~DOR CHECK NUMBER ~OUNT MARK VII DIST. 82323 6,669.65 MCCALLS 82324 11.97 MENARDS CASHWAY LUMBER-F 82325 1,162.85 METRO COUNCIL ENVIROMENT 82326 3,118.50 METRO WELDING SUPPLY 82327 2.88 METR~ - ATT MESSAGIN 82328 14.14 MID CON SYST]~4S INC 82329 193.91 MIDWAY FORD 82330 58.20 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO. 82331 45.40 MINNESOTA COACHES 82332 341.00 MINNESOTA SAFETY COUNCIL 82333 200.00 MINNESOTA SUN PUBLICATIO 82334 164.00 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 82335 600.00 MN STATE TREAS BUILDING 82336 507.19 MOR~INGSTAR INC 82337 495.00 MR NET 82338 224.55 NORTH METRO HUMANE SOCIE 82339 785.42 NORTH STAR ICE 82340 327.78 NORTHWAY LANDSCAPING & 82341 60.00 OFFICE DEPOT 82342 500.05 PAM OIL INC 82343 124.69 PARK SUPPLY INC 82344 75.03 PARTS PLUS 82345 35.43 PATTON IND. PRODUCTS 82346 30.33 PC MAGAZINE 82347 26.97 PC SOLUTIONS 82348 4,835.09 PEPSI-COLA-7 UP 82349 116.13 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRTS 82350 14,351.49 PHYSICIANS DESK REFERENC 82351 122.90 PIONEER PRESS 82352 45.50 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO. 82353 67.28 PRIOR WINE 82354 1,112.58 PROEX - WOLF CAMERA 82355 9.32 RLK - KUUSISTO LTD 82356 225.00 SC~EN GRAY ELECTRIC 82357 159.73 SEH 82358 122.00 SERCO LABS 82359 2,730.66 SIGN LANGUAGE & GOLDEN A 82360 28.76 SQUEEGEE PRO WINDOW CLEA 82361 95.85 SUBURBAN PROPAi~E 82362 76.21 SUPERIOR FORD INC. 82363 20,358.00 TELEPHONE ANSWERING CENT 82364 116.30 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 82365 266.25 TWIN CITY GARAGE [XX)R CO 82366 341.00 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED INC 82367 354.05 UNISOURCE 82368 18.56 UNISTRUT 82369 596.45 ERc FINA.CZAL SYS~ 11/04/1999 15 Check History 11/8/99 COUNCIL LIST CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS GL540R-V06.00 PAGE 7 BANK VENDOR CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT BANK CHECKING ACCOUNT UNITED RENTALS 82370 2,807.19 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 82371 675.00 US FILTER/WATER PR0 82372 152,392.87 VALUE LINE PUELIS}IING IN 82373 570.00 WALL STREET JOUttIIAL/THE 82374 175.00 ~ST GROUP PAYMENT CENTE 82375 39.00 WINE MERCI{ANTS 82376 898.40 WIPERS & WIPES INC 82377 86.27 WURTH USA 82378 45.43 WW GRAINGER 82379 89.23 828,904.65 *** DATE: TO: FROM: RE: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS NOVEMBER 5, 1999 HONORABLE MAYOR GARY L. PETERSON COUNCILMEMBERS WALTER IL FEHST, CITY MANAGER KENNETH IL ANDERSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR~~"~ ADDITION TO NOVEMBER 8, 1999 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. I would like to request that the attached City Council Letter and Resolution 99-02 regarding the 2000 Metropolitan Livable Communities program, be added to the November 8, 1999 City Council meeting agenda. This information is distributed for your review prior to the meeting. This is a standard resolution which has been adopted the past five years to renew our participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities program. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. H:\ltrl 1-8-991ivcommemo CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPT.: ~ CITY MANAGER NO: Communi~ Development~ ! I/ ~ APPROVAL ITEM: Resolution 99-92, regarding the 2000 BY: Joe Hollman..~..~/ BY~m, mmm~J Metropolitan Livable Communities program DATE: Novembert~,~1999 NO: Issue Statement: Attached, please find a copy of Resolution 99-92 which is a resolution electing to continue participating in the local housing incentives account program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The Metropolitan Council requests that the attached resolution is used by the cities who elect to participate in the program. Background: The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a resolution of intent to participate in the Metropolitan Livable Communities program by November 15 each year. Columbia Heights has elected to participate in each of the past five years. During previous years, housing goals (attached) were set for each City and a Housing Action Plan was required to participate in the program. Note that Columbia Heights currently exceeds the housing targets that have been established, and the required Housing Action Plan was prepared in 1996. Analysis: Incentives for renewed participation include access to $11 million for housing development, cleamup of polluted: sites for business and housing development, and mixed use development. There are three funding accounts through the Livable Communities Fund that the City has access to on a competitive basis. These are as follows: · The Livable Communities Demonstration Account is designed to fund a variety of community development projects through loans or grants; · The Tax Base Revitalization Account provides grants for polluted site cleanup; and, · The Local Housing Incentives Account provides grants to help cities work toward affordable and life cycle housing goals through a voluntary program. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 99-92, renewing our participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities program. Recommended Motions: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 99-92, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to adopt Resolution 99-92, Being a Resolution Electing to Continue Participation in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 99-92 BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL ELECTING TO CONTINUE PARTICIPATING IN ~ LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER ~ METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COblMUNIT~S ACT WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (Minnesota Statutes Section 473.25 to 473.254) establishes a Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund which is intended to address housing and other development issues facing the metropolitan area defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 473.121; and WI:[EREAS, the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund, comprising the Tax Base Revitalization Account, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account and the Local Housing Incentive Account, is intended to provide certain funding and other assistance to metropolitan area municipalities; and WHF~REAS, a metropolitan area municipality is not eligible to receive grants or loans under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund or eligible to receive certain polluted sites cleanup funding from the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development unless the municipality is participating in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program under the Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254; and Wi:ll~REAS, each municipality must identify to the Metropolitan Council the actions the municipality plans to take to meet the established housing goals through preparation of the Housing Action Plan; and WI~REAS, the Metropolitan Council adopted, by resolution after a public hearing, negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for each participating municipality; and WI:[EREAS, a metropolitan area municipality which elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program must do so by November 15 of each year; and WI~REAS, for calendar year 2000, a metropolitan area municipality that participated in the Local Housing Incentive Account Program during the calendar year 1999, can continue to participate under Minnesota Statutes Section 473.254 if: (a) the municipality elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Account Program by November 1:5, 1999; and (b) the Metropolitan Council and the municipality have successfully negotiated affordable and life-cycle housing goals for the municipality: NOW, THI~REFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Columbia Heights City Council hereby elects to participate in the Local Housing Incentives Program under the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act during the calendar year 2000. PASSED THIS DAY OF , 19 Offered by: Seeondedby: Roll Call: MayOr Gary L. Peterson HOUSING GOALS AGREEMENT METROPOLITAN LIVEABLE COMblUNITIES ACT PRINCIPLES The City of Columbia He/~hts suppom: I) The development of housing LTpes tbr people in ail stages of the Life cycle, w~th particular emphasis on addi~onal senior housing oppommities and own=-occupigd housing that is more consistent ~th meu~)politan/~an averaffe values. 2) Housing redevelopmem antivi~es d~t promote a balanced housing stock within the l~tropolitan Council's benchmark ranges Principles that assure that the City's various housing programs continue to Iccommodl~ [~Ople at ali income le~is, racial groups, or ~ backgrounds. 4) The promotion of redevelopment activities that diversify the tax base, maximize land usg utilization, and at the same 5) 6) An emphasis on housing activities that ses~,e to rehabilitate the vast owner.occupied-affordable housing resources already existing in the city. Where feasible, establish rental rehabilitation program, ~ed ar stabilizing and improving the conditions of the vast affoldable rental housing resources already existing in the city. GOALS: To carry out the above housing principles, the City et'Columbia I-(eights agrees to use benchmark indicators for communities of similar Location and s~e or'development u affordable and life-cycle housing goals for ~he period 1996 to 2010. and to.makg its best efforts, siren marke~ conditions and resource availabiliv/, to ma/n~n an index Mdan the bencimark ruses for affordability, life-cyde and .adfordabil/ty Ren~ ~8~ 4~-$0~ 49% L/fe-C~te T~ (Non-Single F~y ~) 0~~ ~ 6~2% (~71~ 75~5% ~a~y ~ 13-I51~ 2I/~ To ach/eve the above goals, the City of Columbia Heights elects to participate in die Meu'opolitan L/veable Commv~ir/es Act Local Housing hlcentives Program and wiU prepare and submit a plan to the Me, repot(tan Cotmcil by lune 30. 1996. indicaang the ~:tions it will take to carry out the above goals. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.£., COLUMBIA HEIGHT~, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 EPILEPSY MONTH IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS WHEREAS: There are more than 100,000 Minnesotans with some form of epilepsy; and WHEREAS: Epilepsy is the second most common neurological disfunction or physical impairment, not a disease, but disorder of the nervous system; and WHE~AS: Sixty percent of those persons who have epilepsy are elementary school children or younger which is appwximately one child in every second classroom; and WHEREAS: Early diagnosis and attention to the social and neurological aspects of epilepsy will afford people better control; and WHEREAS: There continues to be a need for improved education and more information regarding public attitudes toward understanding and accepting those persons with epilepsy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Gary L. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Columbia Heights, do hereby proclaim the month of November as EPILEPSY MONTH IN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA~ and encourage the residents of our City to increase their awareness of the needs of those who have epilepsy. Mayor Gary L. Peterson November 1999 'THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DIBCF~IMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PI~OVISION OF SEI~VICES EQUAl. OPPORTU N ITY E M PL.OYE R CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.~'., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 554211-3878 (6112) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 NOVEMBER 14-20 IS AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK WHEREAS, The Schools represent a major investment by any community; and and WHEREAS, Teachers are a most important part of our community's leadership; WHEREAS, Schools represent the best possible avenue of improving the quality of life in our Country; and WI~EREAS, Involved citizens provide a most important facet in the community schools; and WHF~REAS, There is a need for better communication and a more cooperative relationship between professional educators and the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Gary L. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Columbia Heights, do hereby proclaim November 14-20, 1999, to be AMERICAN EDUCATION WEEK, and urge all citizens to reaffirm their commitment to improving and supporting education at all levels, and to translate this commitment into action by visiting our local schools. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER Fire APPROVAL NO: 6 ITEM: Continuation of Public Hearing for 1407- BY: Dana Alexon BY: 1409 Circle Terrace DATE: November 8, 1999 DATE: NO: 6.A. Background: This item is the continuation of a Rental License Revocation Public Hearing from the Council meeting on October 25, 1999. On October 25, the City Council had tabled consideration of the Rental License revocation for two weeks, ending at tonight's City Council meeting. The action was taken at the request of Claude Loewenthal, the property owner's representative. Mr. Loewenthal agreed to complete the violation item relating to repair or replacing all damaged or missing storm windows. The City Council also asked staffto arrange a date for which they would accept completion of the remaining violations at this address. Assistant ChiefAlexon discussed the issue of the other remaining violations with Mr. Loewenthal on October 26 and followed up with a letter on October 27. A copy of that letter is attached. Analysis: Assistant ChiefAlexon met with Mr. Loewenthal on November 5, 1999 to inspect for completion of the storm window replacement. The storm windows were replaced as of that meeting. Based upon the dates for completion which staffhas agreed to, the next item due for completion is the replacement of screcns on or before May l, 2000. Staff is recommending that further action on the Rental License Revocation for 1407/1409 Circle Terrace be tabled until the first City Council meeting after May l, 2000. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and waive the reading of Resolution No. 99-77, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to table further consideration of Resolution No. 99-77, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights Approving Revocation Pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of the Rental License held by Susan Loewenthal Regarding Rental Property at 140% 1409 Circle Terrace until the first regularly scheduled City Council meeting after May 1, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT 5551,4~&.L~l'RI£~'TN.E..CoI,-~.~4sIAHE~Hl~.MN55421 OF~'~C~':BI~-?82-~.,~30 IN.I~CT~:~I2o?82-~'&35 FAX: 6127822~33 .... TD~:B12782280~ October 27, 1999 Mr. Claude Loewenthal 4737 South Highway 101 Minneapolis, MN 55435 Re: 1407/1409 Circle Terrace Dear Claude: This letter is in follow-up to our telephone conversation regarding your property yesterday. In action taken during the Public Hearing regarding revocation of the license for this property, the City Council directed that several of the violations be granted an extension until spring, 2000. This letter is to try to assure that both of us are clear regarding the violations and the dates for correction. Shall replace all missing storm windows on both units. The City Council granted a 14-day extension for completion of this violation, with this item to be brought before the Council on November 8, 1999. I would propose meeting you at the property at 3:30 pm on November 8 to verify completion. If this is not convenient, please call me. Shall scrape/paint building. I set a date of June 15,2000 for completion of this item. This should allow your contractor at least 30 days in the spring which are warm enough to paint. Shall remove all weeds, stumps from hill in back yard. Hill must be sodded, landscaped, maintained. I set a date of June 15, 2000 for completion of this item. This should allow your contractor at least 30 days in the spdng which are warm enough to complete work on landscaping. Shall install some type of retaining wall along hill on n.w. side of house were hill is washing out. I set a date of June 15, 2000 for completion of this item. As we discussed, the area which needs the retaining wall is immediately adjacent to the northwest comer of the house and extends for only a few feet north from there. In this area the dirt washes away. Shall repair/replace several damaged screens on structure. I set a date of May 1, 2000 for completion of this item. The code requires screens in place from May I through September 30 of each year. THE CITY OI= COLUMBIA HEIGHTS OOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES I believe all of the dates which I have set are fair and allow for more than adequate time to complete the necessary work on the violations. If any one of these dates are missed, License Revocation action would immediately resUme. If you are unclear as to any of the content of this letter, please contact me. Sincerely, Dana Alexon Housing Enforcement Official c2-99260.wpd cc: Walt Fehst, City Manager Gary L. Peterson, Mayor CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: PU~IC., I~AR I !~ S .,~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER & Fire APPROVAL NO: ITEM: Close Hearing/Adopt Resolution For BY: Dana Alexon BY: Revocation ~, a DATE: November 3, 1999 DATE: NO: Revocation of the license to operate a rental unit within the City of Columbia Heights is requested against Susan Loewenthal regarding rental property at 1407-1409 Circle Terrace for failure to meet the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Codes. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to close the public hearing and waive the reading of _ iffiCO~ffiNDI~ MOTION: Move ~o Mopt Resolution lqo. !~77 . Reso~ ofthe City ~ of the City of Columbia Heights Approving Revocation Pursuant to Ordinance Code Section 5A.408(1) of the Rental License held by Susan Loewenthal Regarding Rental Property at 1407-1409 Circle Terrace. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 99- 77 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS APPROVING REVOCATION PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE CODE SECTION 5A.408(1) OF THAT CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL RENTAL LICENSE HELD BY SUSAN LOEWENTHAL (HEREINAFTER "LICENSE HOLDER"). WHEREAS, LICENSE HOLDER IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1407-1409 CIRCLE TERRACE BLVD NE, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CODE SECTION 5.104(1)(A), WRITTEN NOTICE SETTING FORTH THE CAUSES AND REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION CONTAINED HEREIN WAS GIVEN TO THE LICENSE HOLDER ON OCTOBER 27, 1999 OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1999. NOW, THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING, AND ALL ORDINANCES AND REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS MAKES THE FOLLOWING: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That on August 24, 1998, the Columbia Heights City Council voted to revocate the license held by Susan Loewenthal for failure to correct Housing Maintenance Code violations. See Resolution 98-76. 2. That on October 9, 1998, Assistant Chief Alexon conducted a license reinstatement inspection and noted that seven violations remained uncorrected. A letter was written and sent to the special conservator and to Mr. Claude Loewenthal (Owner's son) detailing the violations that need to be corrected and the time table for correction. Three exterior items were given extension until June 1, 1999 to be corrected. 3. That on January 27, 1999, Matt Field and John Larkin, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, noted that two of the violations that were not granted extensions remained uncorrected. It was decided by the inspection office that these two exterior violations would be granted extensions due to the time of the year and that they would be rechecked when the four other violations were to be reinspected on June 1, 1999. 4. That on June 2, 1999, Rich Hinrichs, inspector for the City of Columbia Heights, noted that six violations still remained uncorrected. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by regular mail to the owner of the property at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 5. That on July 8, 1999, Rich Hinrichs, inspector for the City of Columbia Heights, noted that the six violations still remained uncorrected. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by regular mail to the owner of the property at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 6. That on August 10, 1999, Rich Hinrichs, inspector for the City of Columbia Heights, noted that the six violations still remained uncorrected. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by certified mail to the owner of the property at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 7. That on September 3, 1999, Gary Gorman and Rich Hinrichs, inspectors for the City of Columbia Heights, noted that the six violations remained uncorrected. Inspector Gorman took photographs of the remaining violations. 8. That on September 3, 1999, Rich Hinrichs, inspector for the City of Columbia Heights, noted that one exterior violation still remained uncorrected. Compliance orders listing the violations were mailed by certified mail to the owner of the property at the address listed on the Rental Housing License Application. 9. That on September 28, 1999, the Columbia Heights City Council held a public hearing and a Rental Housing License revocation hearing at the regularlly scheduled City Council meeting that evening. The action the City Council took on the revocation of the rental housing license of the aformentioned property was to table any action until the October 25, 1999 regular City Council meeting. This action would give the Owner's son time to get some of the violations corrected. 10. That on October 25, 1999, the Columbia Heights City Council held a public hearing and a Rental Housing License revocation hearing at the regularlly scheduled City Council meeting that evening. The action the City Council took on the revocation of the rental housing license of the aformentioned property was to table any action until the November 8, 1999 regular City Council meeting. This action would give the Owner's son time to get some of the violations corrected. 10. That based upon said records of the Enforcement Officer, the following conditions and violations of the City's Housing Maintenance Code were found to exist, to-wit: A. FAILURE TO CORRECT VIOLATION OF THE HOUSING MAINTENANCE CODE 11. That all parties, including the License Holder and any occupants or tenants, have been given the appropriate notice of this hearing according to the provisions of the City Code Section 5A.306(1) and 5A.303(1)(d). CONCLUSIONS OF COUNCIL 1. That the building located at 1407-1409 Circle Terrace Bvld NE is in violation of the provisions of the Columbia Heights City Code as set forth in the Compliance Order attached hereto; 2. That all relevant parties and parties in interest have been duly served notice of this hearing, and any other hearings relevant to the revocation or suspension of the license held by License Holder. 3. That all applicable rights and periods of appeal as relating to the license holder, owner, occupant, or tenant, as the case may be, have expired, or such rights have been exercised and completed. ORDER OF COUNCIL 1. The rental license belonging to the License Holder described herein and identified by license number F3330 is hereby revoked/suspended (cross out one); 2. The City will post for the purpose of preventing occupancy a copy of this order on the buildings covered by the license held by License Holder; 3. All tenants shall remove themselves from the premises within 60 days fi'om the fu'st day of posting of this Order revoking the license as held by License Holder. PASSED THIS DAY OF , 19 MOTION BY: SECOND BY: ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: NAYS: ATTEST: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA BILL ELRITE CITY CLERK GARY PETERSON MAYOR CZTY COUNCZL ~'1"1~R Meeting of: November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S No: --7. CITY AGER'S /, APPROV ITEM: RESOLUTION APPROVING TRANSFER OF BY: LINDA L. MAGEE//~ BY: NO: OWNERSHIP ~, ~, / ) DATE: 11-1~~! In July, 1999, the City received FCC Form 394, Application for .ise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television ~om MediaOne Group, Inc. to AT & T Corporation or affiliates thereof. The transfer is proposed to be completed as follows: MediaOne Group, Inc. will merge with Meteor Acquisitions, Inc. (Meteor) a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT & T Corporation. Following the merger, Meteor will serve as the parent company of MediaOne North Central Communications Corporation, the franchise holder. At the joint meeting of the Telecommunications Commission and City Council held Thursday, October 21, 1999, staff and cable legal counsel for the city (Tom Creighton) presented information as to the legal, financial, and technical qualifications of At & T. After reviewing the information presented, the commission passed a motion accepting the report of Attorney Tom Creighton and recommending to the City Council approval of the transfer of ownership, subject to several conditions, as outlined in the resolution, specifically: 1. Execution and delivery of Acceptance Agreement acceptable to the Authority (City) in the form attached to and made a part of the resolution. 2. Securing all necessary federal, state, and local government waivers, authorizations, or approvals relating to the MediaOne/AT & T transfer to the extent provided by law. 3. Reimbursement of all reasonable fees incurred in the Authority's (City's) review of the proposed transaction as required by Franchise. 4. The successful closing of the Transaction described in the MediaOne/AT & T Agreement. 5. Non-waiver by Authority (City) of any unknown yet existing franchise non-compliance issues. 6. Non-waiver by Authority (City) of any right to dispute here-to-date unaudited franchise fee payments. 7. Non-waiver by Authority (City) of any right to require franchise fee payments on future services delivered by AT & T via the cable system. 8o Non-waiver by Authority (City) of any right to pursue any remedies available, whether acted upon by Authority at the time of this approval, regarding Franchisee's compliance with customer service standards or other customer service obligations. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 99- 7[ · being a resolution consenting to the transfer of control of and certain ownership interests in a cable television franchise to AT & T Corporation, or affiliates thereof. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO. 99-91 RF_~OLUTION CONSENTING TO THE TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF AND CERTAIN OWNERSIHP INTERESTS IN A CABI.E TEI.~VISION FRANCFH~qE TO AT&T CORP., OR AFFILIATES THI~REOF WHEREAS, the cable television franchise ("Franchise") of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota ("Authority") is currently owned and operated by MediaOne North Central Communications Corp. ("Franchisee"), an subsidiary of the parent company, MediaOne Group, Inc. ("MediaOne~); and WHEREAS, MediaOne intends to transfer control of Franchisee to AT&T Corp. ("AT&T~) as a result of a parent company level merger pursuant to that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger dated May 6, 1999, (the "MediaOne/AT&T Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Authority has received a request for consent to the transfer of control of Franchisee from MediaOne to AT&T ("MediaOne/AT&T 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, AT&T possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial qualifications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the MediaOne/AT&T Transfer is hereby consented to by the Authority and permitted conditioned upon: Execution and delivery of Acceptance Agreement acceptable to the Authority in the form attached hereto; Securing all necessary federal, state, and local government waivers, authorizations, or approvals relating to the MediaOne/AT&T transfer to the extent provided by law; Reimbursement of all reasonable fees incurred in the Authority's review of the proposed transaction as required by Franchise; The success~l closing of the Transaction described in the MediaOne/AT&T Agreement; o Non-waiver by Authority of any unknown yet existing franchise non-compliance issues; Non-waiver by Authority of any right to dispute here-to-date unaudited franchise fee payments; o Non-waiver by Authority of any right to require franchise fee payments on future services delivered by AT&T via the cable system; and ge Non-waiver by Authority of any right to pursue any remedies available, whether acted upon by Authority at the time of this approval, regarding Franchisee's compliance with customer service standards or other customer service obligations. 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 nothing herein shall waive or diminish any lawful authority of Authority in the future to require Franchisee to offer nondiscriminatory open access subject to applicable law, nor shall anything herein diminish or waive any lawful rights of Franchisee regarding Authority's authority to impose such conditions. Prior to the enactment of any such requirement, Franchisee shall be provided with reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard. BE IT RESOLVED FURTHER, that AT&T 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 AT&T ('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. ADOPTED this ~ day of ,1999. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary L. Peterson, Mayor William Elrite, City Clerk 2 AGREEMENT AND ACCEPTANCE AT&T Corp. C'AT&T") and MediaOne North Central Communications Corp. ("Franchisee") and the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (Authority") make the following agreement on , 1999 for the purpose of making certain agreements and confirming acceptance of a Resolution adopted by the Authority consenting to the change of control of the Franchisee and its cable Franchise from MediaOne Group, Inc., ("MediaOne") to AT&T pursuant to certain agreements between MediaOne and AT&T, or its affiliates ("Change of Control"). AT&T acknowledges that Authority has consented to the Change of Control in reliance upon the representations, documents, and information provided by AT&T and on the Form 394 submitted to Authority. AT&T and Franchisee acknowledges, accepts and agrees to the terms of Resolution No. 99-91 of Authority consenting to the Change of Control and agree that any closing of the Change of Control will be in accordance therewith. AT&T acknowledges, accepts and agrees that, as of closing of the Change of Control, Franchisee will be subject to the terms and conditions of the Franchise of the Authority currently held by MediaOne ("Franchise"). AT&T and Franchisee, from and at~er the closing of the Change of Control, will act in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and Acceptance and will not act inconsistent with the terms and conditions contained in the Franchise. AT&T CORP. By: Its: MEDIAONE NORTH CENTRAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. By: Its: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA By: Its: Mayor By: Its: City Manager O:kAd~nin'~olufiomkAT&TAgreemtA,c,~wpd BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUP SUITE 1200, THE COLONNADE 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 TEL. (612) 546-1200 FAX (612) 546-1003 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota Thomas D. Creighton, Esq., Michael R. Bradley, Esq., and Stephen J. Guzzetta, Esq. October 13, 1999 Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control from MediaOne Group, Inc. to AT&T Corp., or affdiates thereof REPORT, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS I. INTRODUCTION This report is prepared on behalf of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota ("Authority"). The Authority received an FCC Form 394 Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable Television Franchise from MediaOne Group, Inc. ("MediaOne") to AT&T Corp. ("AT&T"), or affiliates thereof ("FCC Form 394"). The transfer is proposed to be completed as follows: MediaOne Group, Inc. will merge with Meteor Acquisition, Inc. ("Meteor"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T Corp. Following the merger, Meteor will survive as the parent company of MediaOne North Central Commtmications Corp., the franchise holder. After receiving the FCC Form 394, the Authority retained our fn-m to conduct a review of the transaction as a telecommunications consultant and advisor to the Authority, its staff and legal counsel. The local franchise, state law, federal law, and FCC rules all apply to this transfer. The franchise requires that the Authority review the transfer pursuant to the same standards used to award the original franchise. Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. § 238.083, provides that the local franchising authority must consider a written request to approve a transfer of ownership, and the franchising authority cannot unreasonably withhold such approval. Pursuant to the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Cable Act'), an Authority has a 120 day review period from the date of receipt of FCC Form 394, together with all exhibits, and any additional information required by the terms of the Franchise Agreement or operative state and local law. 47 U.S.C. sec. 537; 47 C.F.R. 76.502. Federal law stipulates that the 120 day review period begins upon submission of all information required or requested pursuant to the franchise. Minnesota law arguably requires a shorter review period than the 120 days. However, we have opined that it is more probable than not that the federal statutory timeline of 120 days preempts inconsistent state statutory timelines. While legal counsel to Transferee did not specifically concur in our analysis, on behalf of Transferee, he agreed not to assert any state timelines, provided the federal timelines were reasonably complied with by Authority. Subsequent to the receipt of the FCC Form 394, additional information was required of Transferee. Our fu-'m prepared a Request for Additional Information and delivered it to AT&T on September 15, 1999. Transferee responded to our request on September 23, 1999. Attached 2 hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1 is a copy of Transferee's response to our request. Absent Authority action, the transfer will be deemed approved by operation of federal law. The purpose of this report is to provide the Authority with an understanding of the transaction, the standard for review, our analysis and conclusions. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW At the time of awarding the original franchise and in subsequent transfers of the franchise, the Authority considered and approved the technical ability, financial capacity, legal qualifications and character of the original and subsequent owners of the cable systems, as well as other appropriate factors. The same considerations apply to the current review. The sources of information used in evaluating these factors included the FCC Form 394, its exhibits, the current franchise ordinance, various FCC rules and regulations regarding cable communications systems, state and federal law, and various subsequent written responses and responses to requests for documents from AT&T reviewed in conjunction with parallel reviews 'from other jurisdictions. The Authority's task in this process is to review the information provided regarding the transfer and to approve or deny the transfer. The Authority has the express right to approve or disapprove this transfer. The standard of review is that the Authority's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. For the purpose of determining whether it will consent to the transfer, the Authority must make inquiry into the legal, technical and financial qualifications and other appropriate factors regarding the party acquiring the franchise or a controlling interest in the Franchisee, in this case AT&T, and its aff'fliates and agents, as well as other appropriate factors. In analyzing the transaction, the Authority must consider whether AT&T and associated entities meet all of the criteria originally considered in the granting of the original franchise. 3 Note, however, that this analysis is not a comparison between MediaOne and AT&T. Rather, this analysis is an application of factors to determine whether AT&T, or its affiliates, satisfy the standards to the reasonable satisfaction of the Authority. The Authority should focus on the following factors in determining whether to approve or deny the transfer: Legal and character qualifications of AT&T and its equity partners; Technical ability of AT&T and its operational staff; Financial stability and qualifications of AT&T and its equity partners; and Other appropriate factors. The Authority also must consider the following provision of the Cable Act: Any state or franchising authority may not prohibit the ownership or control of a cable system by any person because of such person's ownership or control of any other media of mass communications or other media interests. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State or franchising authority from prohibiting the ownership or control of a cable system in a jurisdiction by any person (1) because of such person's ownership or control of any other cable system in such jurisdiction, or (2) in circumstances in which the State or franchising authority determines that the acquisition of such a cable system may eliminate or reduce competition in the delivery of cable service in such jurisdiction. 47 U.S.C. sec. 533(d). This office has conducted an extensive review of all relevant materials on behalf of the Authority. This report is a "shorthand" synthesis of that review in an attempt to fully inform the Authority without overwhelming the decision making body with detail and minutia. Obviously, our review extended far beyond the summary of this report, and we are available to further expand on this summary should the Authority have any questions. 4 III. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION It is necessary to understand the corporate structuring of the transaction to determine whether such structure is lawful, but also to understand the f'man¢ing (at what level is the money adequate to meet existing and anticipated franchise obligations), and to establish which entity's technical qualifications should be reviewed. The current Franchisee is MediaOne North Central Communications Corp., which is a subsidiary of MediaOne Group, Inc. Under the proposed transfer, MediaOne Group, Inc. will merge into a subsidiary of AT&T, thereby making AT&T the ultimate parent of Franchisee, which will remain the same. A diagram of the current corporate structure and the anticipated corporate structure after the transfer is attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit 2. IV. LEGAL OUALIFICATIONS The legal qualifications standard relates primarily to the analysis of whether AT&T, and its affiliates, are duly organized and authorized to own the cable system and the cable franchise via the subsidiary restructuring discussed above. As stated above, the ultimate ownership of the franchise rests in AT&T. However, there are lower level subsidiary owners within this ultimate ownership structure. We have reviewed this corporate structuring and the necessary transactions related thereto. All necessary corporate entities are or will be duly organized. We have concluded that all of the entities necessary to be qualified to transact business in Minnesota are or will be so qualified. The resolution regarding the transaction will contain a contingency that all such relevant corporate levels are so qualified. The legal analysis also involves an analysis of whether the overall transaction itself complies with federal, state and local law. We have reviewed the Agreement and Plan of Merger 5 dated May 6, 1999. Based upon our review of said documents, it is our opinion that the proposed transaction does not violate Federal, State or local law. Therefore, the Authority would not have a reasonable basis to withhold approval of the transaction based on the above. The issue of Open Access or Forced Access to the Internet access potential of the system is also related to Transferee's legal qualifications to assume control of the Authority's franchise. See AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 43 F. Supp.2d 1146 (D. Org. 1999). Attempting to impose a requirement of Open Access on the local cable system would create a situation whereby the local operator, usually through the proprietary Internet service provider of the parent of the local affiliate would be required to allow other Internet service providers (ISPs) not affiliated with the cable operator to connect their equipment directly to the cable provider's platform, by-passing the cable operator's proprietary cable ISP. A summary of the AT&T COrp. v. City of Portland case is attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit 3. In City of P0rt!~nd, the United States District Court upheld the City of Portland's denial of a cable franchise transfer between TCI and AT&T because AT&T refused to allow open access to other ISPs. Id. The Court held that the open access provision was related to AT&T's legal qualifications to assume control of TCI',s cable franchises, although never really getting to the analysis of the relevance of such a discussion in a transfer approval procedure. Instead, the court focused on a requirement of federal law that local franchise authorities must do all things necessary to encourage level playing field competitive environments. Id. This decision has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. Oral argument is scheduled for November, 1999. In Transferee's response to the Authority's Request for Additional Information, Transferee stated that AT&T is committed to providing its subscribers nondiscriminatory access to the content 6 of all unaffiliated Interact service providers, however, AT&T will require all subscribers to subscribe to its proprietary ISP even if the subscriber desires a different ISP. By way of example, if a subscriber wants America Online, she must subscribe to @Home, which is AT&T's proprietary ISP to get access to the cable line and to America Online for its content. The subscriber is billed for two services even though she only needs one. The Transferee also stated that there are over 500 ISPs that do not use Transferor's existing cable wiring. In refusing to open access to its lines and requiring that all ISPs go through @Home, while not completely eliminating the competition from its system, it is effectively eliminating 500 competitors in the cable modem Internet access market place by charging subscribers both for its @Home service and the subscriber's desired ISP. These facts are nearly identical to the facts faced in the City_ of Portland matter. Therefore, the Authority has case law authority (albeit on appeal) to withhold approval of the application based upon the legal qualifications standard of review. That notwithstanding, our firm advises the Authority not to impose an Open Access requirement on Transferee at this time, but rather recommends that the Authority waive none of its rights, now or in the future, related to this issue, and further the Authority expressly reserves the right to require of Transferee such access in the future while in the meantime requiring that the Transferee offer access to unaffiliated ISPs through @Home or any such successor affiliated service. The Authority is reminded again that this could result in subscribers paying for both the proprietary @Home and the ISP desired by the individual subscriber. Our recommendation would result in a temporary pass on the issue by the Authority while the law related to this complex issue 7 is settled in other jurisdictions, saving the Authority the expense of litigation in a legally unsure area. Additionally, approval of the application based upon the legal qualifications standard of review must also be conditioned upon AT&T receiving all necessary state and federal approvals and authorizations. With the above conditions, the Authority has a reasonable legal basis to withhold approval of the proposed transaction, but is advised not to withhold approval based upon conditions contained herein. V, TECHNICAL ABILITY The technical ability factor relates to the technical expertise and experience of AT&T, and its affiliates, in operating and maintaining a cable system. Transferee has represented that it has no plans to change currem management or staff · positions for the cable system. The technical experience of MediaOne has been reviewed and approved previously found to be acceptable. This analysis will focus on the technical ability of AT&T. The business division of AT&T under which Transferee operates is known as Broadband and Information Services ("BIS"). BIS includes the cable television operations conducted by AT&T. BIS is engaged, among other things, in the construction, acquisition, ownership and operation of cable television systems and is supported by more than 40 years of cable operations experience. Subsidiaries of BIS and affiliates of the Franchisee own and operate cable systems in 48 states served by over 1,500 headends. At BIS headquarters in Englewood, Colorado, there are two Vice Presidents of Engineering who report to the Chief Technology Officer of BIS. These two Vice Presidents oversee the operations, engineering, and construction activities for BIS subsidiaries and 8 partnerships in which BIS has managing/operational responsibilities. Essential functions of these Vice Presidents include the direction of system design and establishment of technical standards, and engineering and construction procedures. These Vice Presidents are required to have an engineering degree, a minimum of ten years practical experience, including construction, installation, microwave, earth stations, and fiber optics, and a thorough knowledge of all technical aspects of the cable television business. Corporate Field Engineers assist in the construction and maintenance of cable systems. Essential functions of the Corporate Field Engineers include correcting and recommending design modifications, conducting tests on newly constructed and existing systems and regularly inspecting the progress and quality of construction projects. These engineers are required to have two to three years of operational and construction experience. Corporate Field Engineers report to the Vice President of Engineering. BIS has six Directors of Engineering whose job it is to ensure customer satisfaction, manage engineering functions and budgets, and oversee technical business operations. The Directors coordinate engineering practices and production programs, direct decisions regarding types of equipment and their specifications, select outside contractors for the laying of cable or other construction projects within the company, review capital project proposals, provide technical information regarding construction and equipment requirements and preventive maintenance, and ensure that technical and safety standards are met. The Directors are required to have a Bachelor's Degree in engineering, a proven ability to motivate, supervise, and administer engineering plans and programs, a thorough knowledge of all technical aspects of the cable 9 television business (including FCC rules and regulations), and at least five years experience in cable television or a related industry. BIS has Corporate Construction Coordinators who direct all phases of construction and are responsible for the safety and progress of construction personnel. They conduct safety inspections and briefings, and inspect the progress and quality of construction projects. The Coordinators are required 'to have, at a minimum, a high school diploma or equivalent and knowledge of construction, electrical codes, and safety precautions, and two to three years of cable construction experience. Some states have Area Engineers (although it is not clear whether Minnesota is among them) who plan, organize, and direct the technical operations of a designated group of cable systems and function as a key technical resource to system management, technical planning, and decision-making by maintaining state-of-the-art knowledge of plant operations, and ensuring service, governmental, and franchise requirements are met concerning picture quality, leakage control, and overall integrity of cable plants within the area of responsibility. These Engineers are required to have an Associate's Degree in electronics of SCTE BCT or BCE Certification or equivalent, three to five years experience in the field, and a knowledge of electrical safety and local codes. While BIS assures the Authority that all of this expertise will support the local operations, it will be essential for the Authority to monitor local technical performance and customer service to ensure that such expertise is in fact available and adequately supporting local operations. It is critical that the Authority aggressively scrutinize any attempts to eliminate local management, and if such does occur, the Authority should attend to details of customer service 10 and technical upgrades to ensure franchise compliance and compliance with industry standards. In summary, we determine that AT&T possesses the necessary technical abilities. Therefore, we conclude as to the technical ability of AT&T, that the Authority would not have a reasonable basis to withhold approval of the transfer based on the technical ability of AT&T. VI. FINANCIAL STABILITY The financial stability factor relates to whether AT&T, and its affiliates, have the financial resources available or committed to not only acquire the systems, but also whether the f'mancial plan, as presented, is reasonable and economically viable. In the past, franchising authorities have expended considerable resources in analyzing whether the acquiring entity had sufficient resources to acquire cable systems. Although some financial information was received, a detailed analysis of Transferee's ability to acquire and close this transaction was not undertaken. It is assumed that if Transferee has the requisite financial resources to acquire and close the transaction, it will close. It is also assumed that MediaOne is a sophisticated commercial entity which has and will continue to engage in detailed evaluation and review of the financial ability of Transferee to close the transaction and, further, that MediaOne's review would be more thorough than that which the Authority could reasonably undertake. Accordingly, the Authority's consent should be conditioned primarily upon successful and lawful closing of the transaction consistent with the transaction description herein. Of far greater concern is whether Transferee's financial plan, to the extent presented, is reasonable and economically viable. In other words, does AT&T, or more important the affiliate directly responsible for the cable system, have adequate financial resources either currently or at their disposal to own and operate this cable system and comply with the Authority's franchise. 11 Our firm has reviewed the financial documentation provided by Transferee, including the 1998 AT&T Annual Report. A proposed "financial plan" was not received for the Authority's system. While it is clear that AT&T has adequate financial resources to acquire and own the cable system, it is not clear from the information provided whether its affiliate, Meteor, has adequate financial resources to own and operate the cable system. Therefore, we recommend requiring an Agreement and Acceptance from AT&T, in which AT&T formally agrees to all franchise obligations. Absent such an agreement, or the expenditure of significantly more time in analysis of the various corporate levels, we cannot assure the Authority that the financial plan, to the extent presented by AT&T and Meteor, is reasonable and economically viable. Relying solely on cash flow of the individual franchise may not provide the necessary capital to meet the rapidly changing (and growing) upgrade needs of local systems. We recommend requiring the Agreement and Acceptance since the financial resources of all intermediate entities were not subject to review due to cost sensitivities. Absent sufficient assurances of performance from AT&T, we cannot assure the Authority that the financial plan, to the extent presented by Transferee, is reasonable and economically viable. Therefore, an Agreement and Acceptance from AT&T should be required in order to provide the Authority with a sufficient basis to approve Transferee's FCC Form 394. VH, OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS Other relevant factors which have been reviewed for the purpose of determining whether to approve or deny this transfer are contained in the information provided for our review. The most significant factor to be considered is whether the franchise will remain intact, and whether Transferee will agree to comply with all existing franchise requirements, promises and 12 representations of its predecessors. Transferee has not proposed any modifications to the channel capacity or system design. Transferee has indicated that it will comply with all existing franchise requirements and obligations. It has not proposed any modifications to the channel capacity or system design. Transferee will continue the system's customer service call center that (theoretically) answers calls with live representatives 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Transferee has agreed to comply with all existing requirements regarding public, education, and government programming and will continue current channel designations for public, education and government access channels pursuant to any franchise rights it may have to modify such designations. Of course when we are analyzing companies as large as AT&T, we fred numerous legal, court and administrative proceedings in which such companies have been involved in the past. However as to any such actions which relate to AT&T's ability to perform its franchise obligations in Authority, there have been no such adverse findings made or such adverse final actions taken by any court or administrative body with respect to Transferee. Particularly there have been no such findings regarding any felony, revocation, suspension or involuntary transfer of any authorization (including cable franchises) to provide video programming services, mass media related antitrust or unfair competition, fraudulent statements to another government unit, or employment discrimination. The recent loss by AT&T regarding the open access issue, and the position the company took in that Portland case might rank in a future analysis of this office as a disqualifying event, however, as stated above, and until a further court record is made regarding AT&T's position, we do not recommend at this time that the Authority base withholding approval of this transfer based on the open access issue. 13 Since commencing to upgrade the cable systems in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and consolidating their operations, MediaOne has not met the minimum FCC requirements for customer service standards. Therefore, nothing in any transfer approval herein should be considered a waiver of Authority's right to pursue any and all remedies heretofore or hereafter available, whether acted upon by Authority at this time or not, regarding MediaOne's previous, current, or future franchise noncompliance or failure to meet customer service standards. Further, this transfer should be conditioned upon AT&T compensating the subscribers in the Authority for such failure, in an mount agreeable between the parties. Finally, on behalf of the Authority, our firm has required that Transferee pay all of the Authority's fees incurred as a result of the transfer application as required by the franchise. Any resolutions regarding FCC 394 adopted by the Authority should include the requirement of reimbursement of all fees incurred by the Authority. VIH. CONCLUSION As a result of the above analysis, we have concluded that while the Authority lacks a "traditional" reasonable basis to withhold approval of the proposed transfer, the Authority is advised to approve the transfer subject to certain conditions. approve the transfer conditioned upon: 1. Therefore, the Authority should Receipt of any and all state and federal approvals and authorizations related to the MediaOne/AT&T transfer; Actual closing of the transaction consistent with the transaction description herein; Execution and delivery of an Agreement and Acceptance by AT&T and MediaOne North Central Communications Corp.; 14 o Non-waiver by Authority of any unknown yet existing franchise non-compliance issues; Non-waiver by Authority of any right to dispute here-to-date unaudited franchise fee payments; Non-waiver by Authority of any right to require franchise fee payments on furore services delivered by the Transferee via the cable system; Non-waiver by Authority or Transferee of any right related to the open access issue; Reimbursement of all reasonable fees incurred by the Authority in reviewing this FCC Form 394; and Non-waiver by Authority of any right to pursue any remedies available, whether acted upon by Authority at the time of this approval, regarding Franchisee's compliance with customer service standards or other customer service obligations~ U:\cable\Col-hts 51456~AT&T Transfer Report 99 ,F2.wlxl 15 RESPONSE OF AT&T AND MEDIAONE GROUP, INC. TO THE MUNICIPAL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION PREPARED FOR ALL MEDIAONE FRANCHISE AUTHORITIES CURRENTLY REPRESENTED BY BERNICK & LIFSON, P.A. IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSFEROR (Some information requested herein is redundant with Form 394, however for analysis purposes it is helpful to have all of this identifier information in one location. Please submit separate forms if in fact there are two transfers, one a stock transfer and the other an asset transfer.) Name of Transferor MediaOne Group, Inc. Address of Transferor 188 Inverness Drive West Englewood, Colorado 80112 (303) 858-3502 Telephone Fax E-mail address Date September 23, 1999 Please provide the following information for the principal to whom inquiries should be made: Nanle Telephone Fax E-mail address Authorized Signature Date David G. Seykora (612) 312-5280 (612) 312-5288 dseykora(~,mediaone.com September 23, 1999 IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSFEREE (Some information requested herein is redundant with Form 394, however for analysis purposes it is helpful to have identifier information in one location. Please submit separate forms if differences result due to the distinction between a stork transfer and an asset transfer.) Name of Control Transferee Address of Control Transferee9 Telephone Fax E-mail address Date AT&T Corp. 32 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10013-2412 (212) 387-5400 September 23, 1999 Please provide the following information for the principal to whom inquiries should be made: Name Telephone Fax E-mail address Authorized Signature Date Chuck Ward (303) 298-6494 (303) 298-6591 clward~att, com September 23, 1999 2 FORM A OWNERSHIP QUALIFICATIONS OF TRANSFEREE Does the proposed ownership structure comply with any and all state, and federal restrictions upon ownership of cable communications systems. (X) Yes ( )No If no, please explain We are not aware of any state restrictions on the ownership of cable communications systems. There are no federal restrictions on ownership of cable communications systems existing at this time. As you may be aware, at one time, there were federal cable horizontal ownership limits in effect. These statutory cable horizontal ownership provisions have been held unconstitutional, Daniels Cablevision, Inc. v. U.S., 835 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1993), and the Federal Communications Commission's cable horizontal ownership rule has been stayed. Se.e Public Notice, FCC Sets Cable Horizontal and Vertical Ownership Limits (MM Docket No. 92-264) (Sept. 23, 1993) ("The effectiveness of the horizontal ownership limits, however, is stayed pending resolution of the constitutionality of such limits by the Courts.") Thus, the proposed transaction currently would not result in any violation of the statute or the Commission's rule. In any event AT&T has committed to the Federal Communications Commission that if and when the court pronounces the statutory, provision constitutional, AT&T will comply with whatever ownership limits emerge from the current judicial and Commission proceedings. Have the parties to this transfer received all state and federal approvals required as a result of this transfer? ()Yes (X) No If no, please explain The Merger requires the approval of the FCC with respect to the change of control of various FCC licenses held by MediaOne and its subsidiaries. In addition, the Merger is being reviewed by the Department of Justice under the Hart-Scott- Rodino Act and by the Securities and Exchange Commission in accordance with applicable securities law. It is impossible to predict with any specificity when these approvals (and the other approvals noted below) will be obtained, but it is our current expectation that all necessary approvals will be obtained by the first quarter of the year 2000. The Securities and Exchange Commission has completed its review and the resulting proxy statements have been sent to shareholders. At the state level, an application for consent to the change of control of the telecommunications'certificate of authority of MediaOne Telecommunications Corp. of Minnesota is currently being reviewed by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Similar applications are being revieWed by Public Service Commissions in Virginia and California. The Florida PSC has already approved such an application. Additionally, the New York PSC is considering the joint application of AT&T and MediaOne for a change of control. FORM B CHARACTER QUALIFICATIONS OF TRANSFEREE Has the Transferee (including parent corporation or subsidiaries, if applicable) or any principalx ever been convicted in a criminal proceeding (felonies or misdemeanors) in which any of the following offenses were charged? a. Fraud ( ) Yes(X) No b. Embezzlement ( ) Yes(X) No c. Tax evasion ( ) Yes(X) No d. Bribery ( ) Yes(X) No e. Extortion ( ) Yes(X) No Obstruction of justice (or other misconduct affecting public or judicial officers' performance of their official duties) ( ) Yes(X) No g. False/misleading advertising ( ) Yes(X) No h. Perjury ( ) Yes(X) No i. Anti.trust violations (state and federal)' ( ) Yes(X) No j. Violations of FCC regulations ( ) Yes(X) No ko Conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses ( ) Yes(X) No 2. If "yes", attach separate statemem providing specifies such as date, court, sentence or fmc, etc. With respect to the term "officer" in the definition of "principal," this response is limited to the senior officers described in the Attachment to the response to Section 2, Question 2 of the Form 394 filed with the Authorities. Because AT&T Corp. has ~For purposes of this form, "principal" means any officer or director of applicant, and any person, fu-m, corporation, partnership, joint venture, or other entity, who or which owns or controls five (5) percent or more of the voting stock (or any equivalent voting interest of a partnership or joint venture) of the Transferee. numerous non-senior officers, it would not be possible to answer this question for non-senior offiCers in the short time allowed for a response. Additionally, while we have no contrary knowledge, we have not reviewed records more than 10 years old in responding to this Form B. This response does not apply to FMR Corporation, which is listed in the Attachment to Section 2, Question 2 of the Form $94 as a ~ stockholder which owns 5% or more of the voting stock of AT&T. Respondents have no knowledge of FMR Corporation's status With respect to the subject matter of this question and do not have any reasonable means to obtain such knowledge. FORM C CABLE HOLDINGS OWNED BY TRANSFEREE NOTE: It is presumed that much of the information traditionally requested in this form will be suppl'ied in the Form FCC 394. However, the reviewing authorities reserve the right to further investigate individual cable holdings and to request additional information related thereto. Please respond to the following inquiries regarding systems currently held by the Transferee, or as they may relate to systems which have been previously owned or operated by any principal of the Transferee.* 1. Has the Transferee or any principal thereof ever received a cable or telecommunications franchise violation notice or notice of franchise compliance? Has Transferee or any principal thereof ever been freed or otherwise sanctioned by the holder of a cable or telecommunications franchise. (X) Yes ( ) No If yes, please explain At one time or another, a local franchise authority (LFA) has notified one of AT&T's subsidiaries which holds a cable television franchise that the LFA believed there were franchise compliance issues. On March 9, 1999, AT&T completed its merger with Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI). As a result, AT&T is now one of the leading cable television companies in the country and has nearly 11 million customers. AT&T's cable interests include several thousand separate franchises and hundreds of individual operating entities. The obligations of these entities under their franchises are extensive and complex. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that at a given time a number of LFAs could believe franchise issues exist. A franchisee may be notified by an LFA that the LFA believes a franchise compliance issue may exist. The vast majority of these issues are resolved amicably with LFAs. It must be noted, however, that such a notice indicates only the opinion or position of the LFA sending the notice and does not constitute evidence that a compliance issue actually exists. Accordingly, an LFA's issuance of a notice concerning an alleged franchise compliance issue does not constitute an appropriate basis for consideration by the Authorities in evaluating the fitness of AT&T to become the ultimate parent corporation of the franchisee receiving the notice. Has Transferee or any principal thereof ever filed suit or commenced any administrative or other adversarial legal proceeding against a franchising authority over issues related to a cable or telecommunications Franchise or system? ( X ) Yes ( ) No If yes, please explain AT&T has filed two lawsuits against franchising authorities in Portland~ultonomah County, Oregon and Broward County, Florida to enforce 7 what AT&T and the holders of the franchises believe are important legal and constitutional rights. The Respondents do not believe these lawsuits have any effect on AT&T's qualification to assume control over MediaOne and its subsidiaries. While Transferee has also commenced lawsuits against the local communities of Dallas and Austin, Texas, Montgomery County, Maryland, White Plains, New York, Dearborn, Michigan, Denver, Colorado, and Eugene, Oregon, over issues surrounding the use of public rights-of-way for telecommunications purposes, We note that federal law precludes the Authorities from considering matters related to the provision of telecommunications services as part of this proceeding. See 47 U.S.C. § S41(b). Do any of the systems** identified in your Form FCC 394 filing have an institutional network? If yes, please identify those systems, the length in plant miles of the institutional network in that system, the services offered on that network, the network capacity (activated), and any rates charged and for what services. (X) Yes ( ) No If yes, please explain As you are aware, many of the identified systems currently have institutional networks associated therewith. None of these existing institutional networks nor services offered thereon nor obligations with respect thereto are affected by the Merger Agreement or the obligations thereunder. For purposes of this form "principal" means any officer or director of Transferee, and any person, firm, corporation, subsidiary, joint venture or other entity, who or which owns or controls five (5) percent or more of the voting stock (or any equivalent voting interest of a partnership or joint venture) of the Transferee. ** Indicate all political subdivisions served by system (,political subdivision and state). 8 FORM D EXISTING SERVICE AREA AND LINE EXTENSION Does Transferee agree to comply with all existing franchise requirements regarding the provision of cable television service to subscribers served by currently consu-ucted cable television plant? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( ) No As explained in Form 394, Exhibit 2, MediaOne Group, Inc. will merge into Meteor Acquisitions, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. Although MediaOne Group will cease to exist, the subsidiaries of MediaOne GrOup, which' hold the franchises for each Authority's community will continue to exist. Stated another way, the current MediaOne entity holding the existing cable franchises in each Authority's community will not change as a result of the merger. The current franchisees will continue to remain subject to all existing franchise requirements regarding the provision of cable television service. AT&T is seeking to become the ultimate parent company of the MediaOne entities which are the franchisees under existing franchise agreements. AT&T is not seeking to amend the franchise agreements by substituting itself in place of the existing franchisees. However, AT&T intends that its franchisees will remain subject to all requirements imposed in franchise agreements. Does Transferee agree to comply with all existing franchise requirements regarding the expansion of cable television service to areas within the boundaries of the franchising authority which are not currently provided service by existing cable plant? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( ) No See the comment in response to Form D, item 1, above. If no, please explain your proposed line extension policy including rates, time table for offering services, and conditions. Show how your policies are based on the cost of the plant needed to reach the areas. o What would Transferee estimates is its average line extension policy, i.e., how many homes per cable mile are required before Transferee will construct cable plant in that area? All of the franchises in MediaOne's Minnesota/Wisconsin service area contain line extension policies and obligations. None of these policies or obligations are changed or amended as a result of the change of control. Does the Transferee agree to offer those services and rates proposed for the existing service area to any area which reaches or exceeds an average density as set forth in the current line extension policy of the franchise? See comment below. (X) Yes ( )No If no, please explain. We interpret this question as asking whether AT&T expects that holders of cable franchises under its ultimate parental control will extend service to non-serviced areas in accordance with applicable requirements contained in individual franchise agreements. The answer to this question is "yes." Franchisees will be expected to remain subject to all existing requirements in franchise agreements, including those dealing with line extensions to non-served areas according to specified levels of customer density. Has Transferee or any of its owners or principals ever been sanctioned or otherwise penalized by any level of government for failure to comply with construction standards applicable to any currently or formerly owned or operated cable system? ( ) Yes (X) No If yes, please explain. AT&T Corp. is not the direct owner of any cable television franchises. Accordingly, neither it nor any of its owners or principals has, to the bests of its knowledge, ever been penalized by any level of government for failure to comply with cable system construction standards. With regard to individual residential subscriber installations, describe policies for placing cable in homes, including the ability of the subscriber to determine where the drop will enter the dwelling, restorations of property disturbed or damaged during the installation, etc. If any additional fees will be charged for other than standard installations, and such fees are different from those currently in existence in the franchise territory, please list such fees, policies, and procedures. (You may attach already prepared policy or fee statements.) Cable drops connect the cable distribution plant to the cable wiring inside the customer's dwelling. We anticipate no change in the current practices with respect to the placement of cable drops. If possible, a new customer's request concerning the location of the cable drop will be observed. However, as a practical matter, the placement of the cable drop depends on many factors including the location of the cable distribution plant in relation to the customer's dwelling, the locations of existing utilities, the desired viewing locations inside the dwelling, the location of any existing cable wiring inside the dwelling, and the feasibility of entering the dwelling at different points. All applicable safety requirements including those under the National Electrical Safety Code also must be observed. Please note that 10 in new construction today, the builder often installs cable drops. For existing dwellings without cable service already passed by cable plant, the above-described factors generally dictate the placement of the cable drop. Pursuant to current policy in this regard, cable customers may install, rearrange or replace cable wiring inside their dwelling units, subject to MediaOne's right to take corrective action with respect to signal leakage problems caused by the customer. Overhead drops do not result in disturbance to property. Typically, underground drops are installed at the time of construction (often by the builder) and thus also do not result in disturbance to occupied property. However, the existing franchisee will be responsible for any "damage" to property (beyond any impact which is the normal result of standard installation activities) caused by its negligence. Has Transferee or any of its owners or partners ever been sanctioned or otherwise penalized by any level of government for failure to comply with subscriber installation standards applicable to any currently or formerly owned or operated cable systems? ( ) Yes (X) No If yes, please explain in detail. AT&T Corp. is not the direct owner of any cable television franchises. Accordingly, neither it nor any of its owners or partners has, to the best of its knowledge, failed to comply with subscriber installation standards for cable systems. For the systems owned and operated by AT&T's newly acquired business unit, AT&T Broadband and Internet Services, please see the response to qu.estion item D.1 above. 11 Underground Policy Does Transferee agree to construct cable distribution plant underground in any ~ areas where other utilities are now or hereafter underground? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( ) No bo Does Transferee agree to construct underground cable plant in newly platted areas at the time that electronic and telephone distribution plants are constructed underground? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( )No Co Please explain policies for the construction of underground subscriber drops during winter months or during otherwise inclement weather. (a) - (c). As explained in the response to question D.1 above, the current franchise holders will not change as a result of the merger. AT&T will expect that holders of cable franchises under its ultimate parental control will remain subject to all provisions in franchise agreements and all applicable state and local governmental requirements concerning the method and the timing of the construction of cable distribution plant and subscriber drops. (a) - (b). In areas of new construction where other utilities are being placed underground, franchise holders generally will be expected to place new cable distribution plant and subscriber drops underground as well. However, actual construction of cable distribution plant in any situation depends on many factors, including access to rights of way and conduit, the ability to access the distribution plant in connection with operations and repair and maintenance, and the relationship with the developer/builder. Indeed, in new construction, cable drops and cable wiring inside the dwelling unit are often installed by the builder. In general, absent express franchise obligations to the contrary, AT&T would not expect its franchise holders to remove existing overhead cable distribution plant and place it underground. (c). Where the installation of underground drops is required by franchise or applicable local law and when inclement weather does not permit construction of underground drops to existing dwellings, lines are put in above ground. Customers are notified of this practice at the time, and the drops are tracked. When weather permits, customers are notified (as are other utilities) and the drops are placed underground. Will Transferor (sic.:') agree to provide joint trenching of cable line extensions in new construction area/developments? 12 No changes in current franchisee policy with respect to the above are anticipated or required as a result of the Merger. 13 FORM E CHANNEL CAPACITY AND SYSTEM DESIGN Does Transferee propose any modification of the existing cable communications system? Included in any proposed modification are there any electronics, converter, headend, etc. changes proposed? See comment below ( ) Yes ( )No If yes, please explain. After the Merger, the franchisee will continue the cable system rebuilds and upgrades that MediaOne has initiated and that are the obligation of the franchisees. Transferee will control a considerable area of communications systems in the geographic area. Please explain any plans you may have to interconnect these systems or rebuild for the purpose of developing a metropolitan-wide telecommunications network. In your explanation, please include your corporate philosophy or past practice in the interconnection of adjoining systems you have owned or operated in other areas. Please also include a discussion of your current thinking regarding the future of metropolitan- wide communications systems, future technologies related to such systems, and future services which could be offered by such systems. Please provide such a discussion and attach to your response hereto. (Should such a discussion require the disclosure of confidential or proprietary information, please so advis.e and the confidentiality of such information can be maintained.) After the Merger, franchisees will continue to be subject to all franchise obligations with respect to interconnecfion in the same manner and to the same extent as before the Merger. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we submit, for informational purposes, that the franchisees and AT&T have independently announced the general intention to provide services in addition to cable services (such as telecommunications service) over some cable systems. By way of further explanation, however, as a general matter, the merger between AT&T and MediaOne will benefit subscribers throughout MediaOne's service areas in the provision of cable and telecommunications services. Although comprehensive plans or time frames have not yet been announced or developed, the AT&T and MedinOne expect to combine their Internet Protocol ("IP") telephony, broadband data and cable services and compete against incumbent local telephone companies in the provision of residential telephony service. The goal is to make the merged company the first fully-integrated residential communications service 14 provider with a national product including the ability to provide long distance, video, wireless, Internet and other data services on a packaged, as well as an individualized, basis. AT&T will continue MediaOne's philosophy regarding the construction of Broadband networks capable of conveniently delivering a wide array of entertainment, information and telephOne services to the customer through a single wire. MediaOne's state-of-the-art Broadband networks are the most powerful in the communications industry today. An industry leader in the deployment of fiber optic technology, MediaOne has installed thousands of miles of fiber optic plant in its distribution networks. MediaOne's networks rely on high-capacity fiber optic backbones that interconnect the headends, where signals are received or originate. Further, MediaOne's Broadband network architectures deliver greater system reliability and improved picture quality. Consistent with the economics of scope and scale and with continued system clustering, AT&T intends to continue to construct Broadband systems which increasingly deliver multiple services to its own customers. The merger will provide the existing MediaOne franchisees with additional financial resources to implement its previously committed cable rebuilds and upgrades. Following the merger, AT&T plans to upgrade MediaOne's national network and architecture to a high-speed system that will carry two-way voice services with the quality and reliability that will be necessary to convince customers to switch their local phone service from the incumbent carrier. Performance Tests - Will Transferee agree to comply with all existing obligations regarding on-going performance tests of the system as well as all existing reporting requirements related to such tests? ( ) Yes ( ) No See the comment in response to Form D, item 1, above. The existing franchisee responsible for compliance with all performance testing and reporting obligations will not change as a result of the merger. System Maintenance - Will Transferee agree to comply with all existing preventive maintenance requirements and procedures currently required of or being implemented by TranSferor? ( )Yes ( )No See the comment in response to Form D, item 1, above. The existing franchisee responsible for compliance with all system maintenance requirements will not change as a result of the merger. 15 5. Customer Complaint Pqlicies Will Transferee assume all current obligations applicable to and current procedures and policies undertaken by Transferor regarding responding to and resolving customer complaints? See Comment below. ( ) Yes ( ) No Please refer to the response to question D(1). The Merger does not affect Franchisee's status as the party responsible for compliance with all customer service standards and obligations. AT&T confirms that, after the Merger, Franchisee will continue to be bound by its current customer service obligations under the Franchise and applicable law in the same manner and to the same extent as before the Merger. At this time, AT&T does not contemplate any changes to MediaOne's existing complaint resolution procedures. b. Will answering services or automatic answering machines be used at any time? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( ) No We understand that, in each of the Authority's communities, the system is served by a metropolitan area call center that answers customer calls with live representatives 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. AT&T does not anticipate any changes to this general current method of handling customer calls as a result of the Transaction. Co Will Transferee agree to not change the locatio~a of the local office and also agree not to modify the services currently offered at that office, the equivalent staff currently serving at each office, and the current office hours? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( )No Franchisee will continue to comply with all Franchise requirements regarding local offices; local office policies are not expected to change as a result of this transaction. However, franchisee must reserve any and all rights to adapt its local office services to accommodate changing customer needs. Will Transferee comply with FCC standards regarding minimum telephone answering time and hold time? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( )No If yes, commencing when? 16 If no, please explain. After the Merger, franchisee will continue to be bound by its current customer service obligations under the Franchise and applicable law in the same manner and to the same extent as before the Merger. No changes with respect to customer service are required by the Merger Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, AT&T and MediaOne have a high degree of confidence that the Merger will result in improved customer service. This confidence is based primarily on AT&T's exceptional customer service reputation and the high expectations that AT&T's customers have of any services that carry the AT&T brand. We recognize that superior customer service is key in a highly competitive environment and we also have a general belief in the synergistic effects of the combined entities. 17 FORM F PROPOSED' SIGNAL CARRIAGE AND CHANNEL ALLOCATIONS Does Transferee propose the addition or deletion of any programming services (including data, audio or video) in the first three (3) years of ownership? Under federal law, approval of Form 394 cannot be based upon requirements with respect to programming. This transaction does not reqUire any such changes and currently Transferee has not announced any specific changes in this area. Notwithstanding the foregoing, we note that, in general, as a result of the upgrades and rebuilds discussed in the response to question E(1), new video programming services will be added and existing services may be modified somewhat. The nature and timing of the changes will vary from community to community. In addition, in this highly competitive environment, franchisee is constantly seeking to improve its service offerings in response to the overall desires of its customers. Service offerings might change for this reason as well. Will Transferee seek or allow public input on the addition or deletion of any programming services (including data, audio or video)? (X) Yes ( ) No If yes, please explain. AT&T's Broadband and Internet Services business, unit considers customer input, in addition to other factors, in reaching decisions about its video programming services delivered on individual cable systems. AT&T will support the current practices of franchisee in making decisions regarding the addition or deletion or programming. 18 FORM G COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAMMING Does Transferee agree to assume all local programming/access (i.e., public, educational, government, etc.) commitments of Transferor (including franchise requirements and procedures, channel capacity, funding, channel designation, equipment, facilities and staff?. See comment below. ( ) Yes ( )No If no, please explain. See response to question D.1 above. The current franchisee holding the existing cable franchise will not change as a result of the merger. AT&T will expect that franchise holders under its ultimate parental control will remain subject to all applicable requirements in franchise agreements concerning the provision of PEG facilities, financial support and technical monitoring. o Please specify your allocation of channel time and programming support to leased access users if different from current policies of Transferor (subscriber and institutional network). Regarding leased access, please explain Transferee's policies, rates and procedures for the leasing of channel time or entire channels by individuals, corporations (both for- and non- profit), associations, or the like. See response to question D.1 above. The current franchisee holding the existing cable franchise will not change as a result of the me.rger and no changes to franchisee's current leased access policies and procedures are required or anticipated as a result of the Merger. AT&T will expect that franchise holders under its ultimate parental control will remain subject to all applicable requirements in federal requirements concerning the provision of leased access, including the detailed regulations governing commercial leased access promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission pursuant to §612 of the Communications Act as amended by the 1992 Cable Act. See 47 C.F.R. §§76.970, 76.971, 76.975, 76.977. Further, since the existing franchisees will continue to manage the franchises, no change with respect to commercial leased access policies and practices is anticipated as a result of the merger. 19 FORM H SUBSCRIBER RATES 1. Will Transferee assume all existing Transferor rates and charges? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( ) No If no, please explain. Please refer to the response to question D(1). The current franchisee will not change as a result of the merger. Existing rates and charges are not anticipated to change as a result of the merger. In addition, where applicable, AT&T has stated it will adopt the MediaOne Social Contract which will continue to govern the rates for standard cable service through the year 2000. Please state the date of the next scheduled rate increase and the minimum anticipated increases in each category of rates. The annual adjustment of rates for tier programming services for Franchisee MediaOne of North Central, Inc. will take effect in the first'quarter of next year. The annual adjustment of rates for tier programming services for Franchisee MediaOne of the Upper Midwest, Inc. will take effect in the third quarter of next year. The Respondents anticipate the average rate increase next year will be consistent with the increases that have taken place over the last year or so, which have averaged about 5%. A significant portion of the increase will be attributable to increased costs of obtaining programming. The actual percentage increase in any given franchise may vary from the average dependihg on the actual services being delivered at the time. 2. Does Transferee plan to change the existing billing service? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( )No If yes, please explain Transferee's billing practice wMch will differ from existing practices. No change in current billing services is required by the Merger Agreement Nonetheless, billing services may change in the future as additional services are offered and as necessary to meet future company and consumer needs. However, AT&T is committed to ensuring that aH customer bills are provided in a manner that is clear, accurate, and easy to understand. Will Transferee agree to continue the timing of the charge for late payment of subscriber fees? 2O See comment below. ( ) Yes ( )No If no, please explain. With respect to the systems serving the communities of the different Authorities, AT&T does not have any plans to change the current policies of the franchisee regarding the timing and amount of late fees. Will Transferee agree to charge any late fees only to the extent of the companies actual expenses related to late payments? ( ) Yes (X) No If no, please explain. Franchisee currently imposes a late fee of $5.00 which is at the lower end of industry practice. No changes to this policy are anticipated as a result of the transaction. Will Transferee agree to include in Gross Revenues the Franchise Fees collected from subscribers and pay Authority five (5%) thereon7 (X) Yes ( ) No If no, please explain. In any community where the franchise requires that. Franchisee pay franchise fees on revenues collected in order to pay franchise fees, Franchisee will comply with such requirements. 21 FORM I EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES Will Transferee comply with all federal, state and local laws pertaining to discrimination, equal opportunity employment programs and affmnative action programs? If no, please explain. (X) Yes ( )No 2. Will Transferee assume all existing staff position obligations of Transferor? If no, please explain. See comment below. ( ) Yes ( ) No Transferee is not aware of any staff position obligations contained in any relevant franchise documents. In any event, current obligations of the franchisee will not change as a result of the Merger. 3. Please explain any proposed changes in management or staff positions of system. No changes in management or staff positions are currently anticipated or required as a result of the Merger. If no staff position changes are proposed, please explain any plans you have for analysis of existing staff positions for the purpose of proposing such changes after the ownership is transferred. At this time no plans exist for analyzing existing staffing for the purpose of proposing changes. In all of the above regarding the management structure of the systems, will Transferee agree to its responses for the first three years of ownership of the systems? If no, please explain. ( ) Yes (X) No Management needs flexibility to respond to changing business and technological conditions. 22 FORM J MISCELLANEOUS Does Transferee agree to accept the existing Franchise and to comply with all terms and conditions of said Franchise? See comment below. ( ) Yes ( )No Please refer to Form 394, Section V, Part II(c). As explained in response to Form D, item 1, above, the current franchise holder is not changing as a result of the merger. All existing obligations under the current franchise agreements remain in effect. Please list with specificity any Franchise modifications Transferee will request of Franchise Authority. Please attach proposed Franchise language for any such requested modifications. If no such modifications are proposed at this time, it will be assumed that Transferee agrees to take the system "as is" with all attendant and associated responsibilities and obligations of previous Franchise holders and owners. No Franchise modifications are requested in conjunction with the Merger. Note: For the purpose of Forms A through J, inclusive, please note that the term "Franchise" shall include the Cable Communications Ordinance for the Authority which is the subject of this inquiry and any amendments and agreements between Franchisor and previous owners. 23 FORM K MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE QUESTIONS The questions below are based on the following understandings: The current franchisee is MediaOne Group, Inc. CMediaOne"). Under the proposed Transaction, MediaOne will merge with Meteor Acquisition, Inc. ("Meteor"), a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Corp. Following the merger, MediaOne will no longer exist and Meteor and/or its subsidiaries will own the cable franchise. As an initial matter, we note that MediaOne Group, Inc. does not hold any franchises with any of the Authorities; rather, MediaOne Group, Inc. is the current ultimate parent entity of various MediaOne entities, including the franchisees for each of the communities serving the Authorities. While MediaOne Group, Inc. will be merged into Meteor, the franchisees will continue to exist after the Merger and remain the franchise holders. Please indicate whether AT&T will financially guarantee the performance of the cable system? If not, what entity will financially guarantee the performance of the cable system? The Merger does not affect any current obligations regarding financial guarantees and all existing guarantees will remain in place except to the extent that such guarantees are provided by MediaOne Group, Inc. Where MediaOne Group, Inc. is the current guarantor of the franchisee's obligati.ons, franchisee is prepared to replace the MediaOne Group, Inc. guaranty with a guaranty from Meteor. Will there be any management agreements? Please provide copies of all proposed or executed management agreements. No such management agreements with respect to the systems are anticipated as a result of this transaction. Does Transferee intend to provide non-discriminatory access to its cable modem platform for providers of Interact and on-line services, whether or not such providers are affiliated with Transferee? If the answer is no, please explain. AT&T is committed to providing its subscribers nondiscriminatory access to the content of all unaffiliated Internet service providers. As the attached Paper entitled The Legal and Policy Reasons Against Local Governmental Imposition of Forced Access Requirements (Attachment K-l) explains, subscribers to cable modem services provided over AT&T broadband systems already have the ability to access the content of any unaffiliated Internet service provider available on the Internet. 24 Furthermore, AT&T's investment and the upgrading of its cable plant to provide high-speed Internet access to the communities it serves has triggered a robust roll- out and competition from those companies that chose to provide broadband services through Digital Subscriber Loop (DSL) technology. Satellite and luted wireless technologies also are being deployed to compete in the emerging broadband market. Thus, competition in the emerging broadband market is underway and government restrictions on the deployment of certain technology, such as cable, could readily undermine natural market forces. For this and the many other reasons detailed in AT&T's public filings, there is no need to impose "open access" or "forced access" conditions, as they would be unlawful and contrary to the public interest. Furthermore, the imposition of an "open access" or forced access" requirement would substantially undermine investment incentives with respect to local cable systems, potentially slowing down the introduction of new services to consumers, ~ until all legal issues are resolved. Does Transferee intend, so long as cable modem services are deemed to be "cable services," as provided under Title VI of the Communication Act of 1934, as amended, to comply with all requirements regarding such cable services, including, but not limiting to, the inclusion of revenues from cable modem services and access within the gross revenues of Transferee's cable franchise, and commercial leased access requirements? If the answer is no, please explain. As stated in the response to item 3 above, franchisee intends to continue offering content-enriched cable modem service over its system which, as presently constituted, would be considered a "cable service" under Title VI of the Communications Act. Thus, franchisee will treat revenues it receives from the provision of content-enriched cable modem services as subject to franchise fees under federal law unless and until such services are' deemed not to be "cable services" under Title VI. Please list all of Transferee's competitors within the franchise area that provide Intemet access service or cable modem service and that currently do not use the Transferor's cable wire. As shown by the lists at Attachment K-2, the on-line ISP buyers guide, The List, advertises over 500 Internet service providers serving the 612/651 area codes and over 200 Internet service providers serving the 715 area code. Many of these alternative ISPs in both areas provide ISDN, DSL, wireless, twisted-pair and other forms of dedicated line access and none of them currently use the Franchisees' cable wires to provide.such access. In particular, Onvoy, Covad, and Spire all advertise the ability to provide high-speed data services within the communities served by the Franchisees using facilities other than Franchisees' cable system. Of course, these providers are in addition to U S WEST, the dominant incumbent provider of Internet access lines in the region, which offers customers a wide variety of 25 packaged Internet services, including ISDN lines, T-1 lines, twisted-pair lines, wireless services, ISP services, and various combinations of these services. Please describe all services Transferee plans to provide to subscribers in the future, and your estimated time line for roll-out of such services. See the response to item E.2 above. Please describe the bandwidth capacity dedicated to providing telephone and Intemet services respectively. Before addressing the substance of your request, we note that the information requested above is not relevant to an Authority's inquiry as to the legal, technical and financial qualifications of AT&T to become the ultimate parent company of the Franchisees. Under federal law, the authority of an Authority to request information in addition to that provided in the Application is limited to "such additional information as is reasonably necessary to determine the qualifications of the proposed transferee." Implementation of Sections 11 and 13 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection ,and Competition Act of 1992, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 10 F.C.C.R. 4654, 4676, ¶52 (1995). The information sought by this request relates solely to technical issues related to the use of cable technology and, as such, is not reasonably necessary to any evaluation of the qualifications of AT&T. Such information is not an appropriate basis upon which an Authority may base its review of the Merger. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in an effort to accommodate your request, we note that the RF spectrum of the coaxial cable plant used. in the a typical hybrid fiber/coax cable network is not strictly divided between different types of services. Rather, spectrum is split between upstream and downstream traffic. Upstream traffic, which includes end user interaction with digital cable programming, outgoing voice telephony traffic and upstream data traffic (e.g., customer queries to Internet sites), typically occupies the system spectrum below 50MHz. Not all the spectrum is usable however, because the lowest frequencies are subject to interference and are thus not "clean" enough for use. Accordingly, total usable bandwidth for all upstream traffic is normally limited to approximately 18-20MHz. This bandwidth is shared across all users on the HFC node and must be shared between video, Internet and telecommunications services. Typically, outgoing telephony services occupy upstream capacity of 6MHz. Similarly, current cable modem service systems typically require 6MHz of dedicated capacity for upstream traffic. Video upstream services typically use 1.2MHz each. All spectrum above 50 MHz is typically assigned to downstream signals, which include video programming, incoming voice telephony and data traffic from the Internet to the end user (e.g., web page download). The downstream spectrum is managed in 6 MHz channels, each of which can carry a single analog video channel. 10. 11. Multiple digital channels can be compressed onto a single 6 MHz channel. Typically, a single 6 MHz channel is dedicated to data traffic and the cable modems on the system are "tuned" to the assigned frequency. Incoming telephony and cable modem traffic are each likewise assigned to a dedicated 6Mhz channel. Please describe the bandwidth capacity dedicated, to providing upstream and downstream for Internet service. As noted in the response to item K.7 above, the information requested by this item is beyond the appropriate scope of review in this proceeding in that it addresses technical issues not reasonably related to the qualifications of AT&T to assume control of MediaOne Group, Inc. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in an effort to accommodate your request, please see the response to item K.7 above. Please indicated the amount of investment for providing cable modem services and how the figure is arrived at (STRANDED COSTS). As noted in the response to item K.7 above, the information requested by this item is beyond the appropriate scope of review in this proceeding in that it addresses technical issues not reasonably related to the qualifications of AT&T to assume control of MediaOne Group, Inc. Moreover, such information consists of highly sensitive confidential and proprietary business information not available to the public. Accordingly, such information is not subject to disclosure as part of this proceeding. Please describe any plans that Transferee has of enterir~g the business Interact market. Please refer to the recent AT&T press release regarding future Internet service plans attached hereto as Attachment K-3. Please compare Transferee's cable modem speed to DSL cable modem speed. As stated above, AT&T does not directly own any cable systems and therefore does not provide cable modem service directly to subscribers. The cable modem service offered to subscribers over the systems held by AT&T's subsidiaries varies in speed depending on network capabilities and other characteristics. Similarly, the various DSL offerings also vary in speed depending on the service provider, the network technology and other variables. However, as a general matter, the speed of cable modem services currently being offered by the MediaOne RoadRunner service is approximately l.SMbps on the downstream and 300kbps on the upstream; we understand that downstream and upstream speeds for residential DSL services typically range from 256kbps to 1.5 Mbps. 27 12. Please indicate whether subscribers will have the ability to choose any ISP it desires, through AT&T's proprietary ISP RoadRunner. If the answer is yes, please indicate whether AT&T will allow the subscriber to obtain cable modem service directly through its ISP of choice. For example, will XYZ ISP be able to pay AT&T a fee to use its cable platform to provide cable modem service. As noted in the response to items K.3, above, franchisee will provide Internet access through a content-enriched cable service that will allow all subscribers to access any website on the Internet including those provided by ISPs.. Like virtually all other Internet service providers, including AOL, MSN, and others, the service will include proprietary content as well as Internet access to other content on the Internet. The "RoadRunner service" will not be segmented and offered to competing ISPs on a dedicated basis or for resale to their customers. See the Report attached hereto at Attachment K-I. Accordingly, in your example, XYZ ISP will not be able to pay AT&T a fee to use its cable platform to provide cable modem service. Any information required below which you deem protected from public disclosure under Minnesota law must still be disclosed to the Authority. However, please label such information accordingly and in each case, with specificity, explain the legal justification (including citations) for your claim of such privilege. 28 Before the Merger AT&T Corp. and MediaOne Group, Inc. are separate and unrelated corporate entities. AT&T Corp. · MediaOne Group, Inc. MediaOne Group, Inc. merges into Meteor A;quisiflon, Inc. with Meteor Acquisition, Inc. surviving the Merger and MediaOne Group, Inc. ceasing to exist: MediaOne Group, Inc. -F Meteor Acquisition, Inc. Meteor Acquisition, Inc. After the Merger Meteor Acquistion, Inc. becomes a subsidiary of AT&T Corp. AT&T Corp. Meteor Acquisition, Inc. BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. SUITE 1200, THE COLONNADE 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 TEL. (612) 546-1200 FAX (612) 546-1003 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Bernick and Lifson, P.A. Telecommunications Clients and Other Interested Parties Mr. Thomas D. Creighton, Esq., Mr. Michael R. Bradley, Esq. and Mr. Stephen J. Guzzetta, Esq. October 8, 1999 AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland INTRODUCTION On June 4, 1999, a landmark decision was issued by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In the matter of AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, AT&T and TCI challenged a city ordinance and a county resolution requiring AT&T to allow internet service providers (ISPs) not affiliated with AT&T to connect their equipment directly to AT&T's cable modem platform, by- passing @Home, AT&T's proprietary cable ISP. AT&T and TCI claimed that the open access requirement was preempted by federal statutes regulating cable television; violated the First Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Contract Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Contract Clause of the Oregon Constitution; and breached the parties' franchise agreements. AT&T brought this action before the United States District Court for the District of Oregon for declaratory relief against the City of Portland and Multnomah County. The parties filed cross Motions for Summary Judgment. The Court ruled in favor of the City of Portland and Multnomah County. BACKGROUND This action arose during the AT&T/TCI cable franchise transfer. The Mount Hood Cable Regulatory Commission (the "Commission") which advises the City of Portland and Multnomah County, evaluated AT&T and TCI's request for change in control. The Commission held public hearings about the merger's affect on local cable service and heard testimony. The Commission found that @Home had no viable competitors in the local retail market for residential internet access services. The Commission recommended that the City and County regulate AT&T's cable modem platform as an "essential facility" to protect competition. "Essential facility" is a term of art in antitrust law, meaning a facility that competitors cannot practically duplicate and is otherwise unavailable. A business that control~ an essential facility may not exclude competitors without a legitimate business reason for the refusal. The Commission's intent was to allow unaffiliated ISPs to pay AT&T for direct access without having to go through it's proprietary cable ISP, @Home. On December 17, 1998, the City and County adopted mandatory access provisions. On December 29, 1998, AT&T rejected the mandatory access provision. On January 7 and 8, 1999, the City and County stated that AT&T's rejection "resulted in a denial, effective December 29, 1998, . . . of AT&T's request for a change of control in new TCI franchises." AT&T and TCI then filed this action in United States District Court for the District of Oregon. THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT DOES NOT PREEMPT THE LOCAL ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION The issue the Court decided was whether the City and County had the power to require access to the Cable modem platform as a condition of proving AT&T's takeover of the TCI cable franchises. In determining the issue, the court first examined whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preempted the local ordinance and resolution. The Court held that Courts have long recognized the City's power to promote competition in the local economy and that if Congress intended to preempt a power traditionally held by state or local government, it must make its intent "unmistakably clear" in the statute's wording. Therefore, since Section 556 of the Telecommunications Act showed that Congress intended to interfere as little as possible with existing local government authority to regulate cable franchises, the Court held the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not preempt the City and County ordinances. The Court also held that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 did not preempt the local ordinances and resolutions, because local franchising authorities have the power to determine whether a change of ownership or control would "eliminate or reduce competition." 47 U.S.C. 8 533(d)(2). The Court held that the franchising authorities' power to prohibit a change of control includes the lesser power to impose conditions under which it will permit a change of control. The Court rejected AT&T and TCI's contention that the mandatory access provision was preempted because it attempted to regulate AT&T as a common carrier. 47 U.S.C. 8 541(c). Likewise, the Court rejected the notion that the open access requirement imposed any technical conditions of AT&T's use of its cable modem platform. 47 U.S.C. 8 544(e). It also rejected AT&T's argument that the open access reqUirement was preempted because it imposed requirements regarding the provision or content of cable services. 47 U.S.C. 8 544(0(1). The Court held that as applied, the open access requirement is content neutral, affecting only economic arrangements. AT&T also argued that the open access provision would force AT&T to carry particular programming. 47 U.S.C. 88 531,532, 534, 535. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the requirement did not force AT&T to carry any particular programming. Instead, AT&T must allow unaffiliated ISPs physical access to its facilities. AT&T had already agreed that it would allow cable subscribers indirect access to competing ISPs. OPEN ACCESS REQUIRE~ DOES NOT VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Second, AT&T argued that the open access requirement violated the First Amendment, Commerce Clause and Contract Clause of the United States Constitution and the Contract Clause of the Oregon Constitution. The Court found that the open access requirement was an economic regulation and did 2 not force AT&T to carry any particular speech, and therefore, was not in violation of the First Amendment. The Court went even further to hold that even if the open access requirement did violate AT&T's free speech rights, the requirement passed the Supreme Court's test for reasonableness because the open access provision was within the constitutional power of the City and State as it furthers the substantial governmental interest in preserving competition, the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free speech, and the incidental restriction on free speech is no greater than necessary. Since the open access requirement would only affect cable service in the Portland metropolitan area only, the Court held the provision did not violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court also held that the open access requirement did not violate the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution and the Oregon Constitution because the open access provision was related to AT&T's legal qualifications to assume control of TCI's cable franchises, and because the open access provision did not substantially impair AT&T's contractual rights under the franchise agreements. THE OPEN ACCESS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS Finally, the Court addressed whether the open access provision constituted a breach of the franchise agreements. The Court held that the open access requirement did not conflict with the terms of the franchise agreements, and that AT&T had no contractual right under the franchise agreements to exclude competitors from the cable modem platform. The Court reasoned that the franchise agreements did not limit the factors that the City and County could consider in deciding whether to approve a change in control of the cable franchises. Even assuming that the substitution of AT&T should be considered a transfer rather than a change in control, the Court found that the City and County may reasonably consider the affect of a transfer on competition. CONCLUSION For all of these reasons, the Court ruled in favor of the City of Portland and Multnomah County. This is a landmark decision in support of a local franchise authority's right to require a cable operator, that is not subject to competition, to open access to its cable lines to ISPs. The decision however, has been appealed to the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, there will likely be a petition for FCC preemption filed before the FCC. FCC Chairman, William Kennard, recently blasted the decision, stating, "we have to have a national standard in this area." Our firm will keep you advised of significant developments in this important case. U:\cable\CABLE~Z)RTLAND V AT&T MEMO.wpd CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 8, 1999 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATI0 AGENDA SECTION: . ..~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER NO. ORD! NANCES/RESOLUTI ONS ~. POLICE APPROVAL: ITEM: New City Ordinance for Consuming in .~ BY: Thomas M. Johnson BY: NO. Public '~_ ~e',.~J DATE: October 28, 1999 DATE: Background ReCently we have had more and more issues within our community involving calls to individuals consuming intoxicating liquor and/or nonintoxicating malt liquor in public places such as street(s), highway(s), alley(s), sidewalk(s), boulevard(s), and other places frequented by the public. We have also received these complaints on private property without the owners consent and in areas that are not a licensed facility to serve or consume intoxicating liquors or nonintoxicating malt liquors. Analysis/Conclusion: It is felt by the police department that we need a tool in the form of the attached ordinance that will allow us to tag and/or arrest the individuals involved in these activities. The department has reviewed an ordinance that is used in the City of Minneapolis for these types of situations, and we are proposing the attached ordinance for the City of Columbia Heights. Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of the Ordinance, there being ample copies available for the public. Recommended Motion: Move to schedule a second reading of Ordinance No. 1401, being an Ordinance regulating consumption in public, for November 22, 1999. TMJ:mld 99-358 Attachment COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. 1401 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853 CITY CODE OF 1977, PERTAINING TO CONSUMING IN PUBLIC The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: SECTION 1: Chapter 10, Section 113, Subdivision (15), of Ordinance No. 853, City Code of 1977, shall be amended to hereafter read as follows, to-wit: 10.113 (15) Consuming in public. No person shall consume intoxicating liquor as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A. 101, Subdivision 14, or nonintoxicating malt liquor as defined by Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A. 101, Subdivision 19, while (1) on a public street, highway, alley, sidewalk, boulevard, or any place fi:equented by the public; (2) on any private property without the consent of the owner of such property; or (3) while in a vehicle upon a public highway. This section shall not prohibit the consumption of such beverages at duly licensed on-sale premises, or if otherwise authorized by law. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect f~om and after thirty (30) days after its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary L. Peterson, Mayor William Elrite, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 8,~ 1999 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION AGENDA SECTION: . ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER NO. ORDINANCES/REsoLUTioNS O POLICE APPROVAI,: ITEM: New City Ordinance for Loitering in . ,,.~% BY: Thomas M. Johnson BY: NO. Possession of Open Bottle 7~f-.~,~ DATE: October28, 1999 DATE: Background Recently we have had more and more issues within our community involving calls to individuals consuming and loitering in public while consuming intoxicating liquor and/or nonintoxicating malt liquor in public places such as street(s), highways(s), alley(s), sidewalk(s), boulevard(s), and other places frequented by the public. We have also received these complaints on private property without the owner's consent and in areas that are not a licensed facility to serve or consume intoxicating liquors or nonintoxicating malt liquors. Analysis/Conclusion It is felt by the Police Department that we need a tool in the form of the attached ordinance that will allow us to tag and/or arrest the individuals involved in these activities. The department has reviewed an ordinance that is used in the City of Minneapolis for these types of situations, and we are proposing the attached ordinance for the City of Columbia Heights. Recommended Motion: Move to waive the reading of the.Ordinance, there being ample copies available for the public. Recommended Motion: Move to schedule a second reading of Ordinance No. 1402, being an Ordinance regulating Loitering in Possession of Open Bottle, for November 22, 1999. TMJmld 99-357 Attachment COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. 1402 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853 CITY CODE OF 1977, PERTAINING TO LOITERING IN POSSESSION OF OPEN BOTTLE The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: SECTION 1: Chapter 10, Section 113, Subdivision (16), of Ordinance No. 853, City Code of 1977, shall be amended to hereafter read as follows, to-wit, 10.113(16) Loitering in possession of open bottle. No person shall loiter in any public street, highway, alley, sidewalk, boulevard, or any other public property, or on any private property without consent of the owner of such property, while in possession of any bottle or other receptacle containing intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor that has been opened, or the seal broken, or the contents partially removed, with intent to consume such intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating malt liquor. This section shall not prohibit the possession of alcoholic beverages at duly licensed on- sale premises if otherwise authorized by law. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its passage. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary L. Peterson, Mayor William Elrite, City Clerk CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 11/8/99 I'TEMS FOR CONS I DERA= ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER AGENDA SECTION: ~ .. · NO: 7 TI ON-Other Business PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: STORM WATER UTILITY FINAL REPORT BY: K. Hanse~_ BY: BackgFound: Staffmet previously with the City Council on three occasions for discussion and direction for the establishment ora storm water utility. The June 7~ work session established the recommended steps in setting-up a storm water utility; the July 19~ work session developed the enabling ordinance, and the August 16~ work session presented an issues analysis for the utility. The report attached herein provides a update to the information presented to the council from the previous work sessions. Analysis/Conclusions: Based upon the discussions at the August 16~ work session, staffhas revised the 10-year storm water management plan resulting in a rate (recommended) to single family residential customers at $1.48 per month. It was also suggested by the council to review possible reductions in the city's sanitary rate to offset the addition of storm water utility. The Finance Director and myself are recommending that both the sanitary sewer and refuse rates be reduced which should provide an offset by more than 50 percent of the $1.48/month cost to single family residential customers. The city does not provide refuse pickup to commercial properties, so the rate reduction will not impact these customers as much. The enabling ordinance was adopted by the City Council at their August 9z regular meeting. The intent of the ordinance is not to set the rate structure, but to establish the Council's ability to establish a storm water utility fee system. The rate structure will follow the ordinance, in the form of a City Policy, after a period of public review and comment. The ordinance establishes a mathematical basis behind the fee system, supported by standard engineering practices and detailed in the attached report. From the June 7~ work session, a public improvement approach involving meetings and newsletters was suggested for an opportunity for public comment. Information was provided in the fall Heights Happening newsletter detailing the Storm Water Utility. Staffhas scheduled November 24 with the Chamber of Commerce for a presentation and comment session with the members of the business community. Direct mailings would be provided to utility billing customers, the school district and churches to provide additional background information and establish a public meeting. Currently, staff is recommending an 'Open House' format with a scheduled time of 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. with a formal presentation at 7:00 p.m. then followed by a question and answer period. The Open House is suggested for December 7~ or 8~, with a Public Hearing at the December 13~ regular council meeting for consideration of adopting the policy which establishes the Storm Water Utility rates. Recommended Motion: SEH. Move to accept SWrm Water Utility Report as prepared by the Engineering Consultant, Attachment: Storm Water Utility Report dated November, 1999 COUNCIL ACTION: Storm Water Utility Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota SEH No. A-COLHT9901 November, 1999 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICK$ON INC Multidisciplined. Single Source. 35,35 VADNAIS CENTER DRIVE, 200 SEH CENTER, ST. PAUL, MN 55110 651 490-2000 800 325-2055 ARCHITECTURE · ENGINEERING · ENVIRONMENTAL · TRANSPQRTA TION November 3, 1999 RE: Columbia Heights, Minnesota Storm Water Utility SEH No. A-COLHT9901.00 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Columbia Heights 590 49~ Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 Attention: Mr. Kevin Hanson Enclosed please find our final report entitled "Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Using a Storm Water Utility." Th report serves to update information presented to the Council on August 16, 1999. Specifically, minor changes to the cost and duration of the implementation plan results in residential rates of $1.50/per month per household. The report includes a summary of the 10-year storm water management plan's implementation program. The report also summarizes several financing alternatives available to the City, including user charges or a storm water utility. Lastly, the report establishes a storm water utility rates structure and outlines the steps necessary for implementation. It is recommended that this report be reviewed with your legal and financial advisors. We are available to discuss the report with you at your convenience. Project Manager ah Enclosure SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON INC. MINNEAPOLIS, MN ST. CLOUD, MN CHIPPEWA FALLS, WI EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MADISON, WI LAKE COUNTY, IN FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A Table of Contents Executive Summary ' 1 Storm Water Management Program ................................ 4 Financing Alternatives .......................................... 14 Implementing Your Utility ...................................... 23 Fee Basis .................................................... 26 Implementation .................. ............................. 34 Columbia Heights Storm Water Utility ............................ 40 Proposed City ?oliey ........................................... 40 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................... 46 References ' 48 Appendix A Appendix B Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page i Table of Contents October 1999 List of Tables Table 1 Preliminary Ten year Implementation Plan ....................... 7 Table 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Funding Alternatives ..... 15 Table 3 RainfalVRunoff Ratios ....................................... 28 Table 4 Runoff Curve Numbers ...................................... 29 Table 5 Typical Costs .............................................. 30 Table 6 Utility Revenue / Rate Comparison at 80% Funding ............... 31 Table 7 Utility Cost Comparison ..................................... 33 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page ii Table of Contents October 1999 List of Appendices Appendix A - Legal Considerations Appendix B - Typical Questions Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page iii FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A Executive Summary As communities develop, the impact of urbanization on water resources continues to increa.~. In an effort to maintain and improve the existing drainage system and mitigate the impact of future development, Columbia Heights plans to develop and implement a comprehensive storm water management program. Storm Water Management Program The storm water management planning process involves four steps. 1. Assessment of the current situation; 2. Analysis of management strategies; 3. Development of Goals and Policies, and; 4. Implementation of Improvements; The benefits of a Storm Water Management Program include: · Flood protection; · Water quality improvements; · Wetland protection; · Erosion and sediment control; · Drainage system construction and maintenance; · Community education; and · Improved fish, wildlife, and recreational opportunities. The Financing Dilemma The cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining storm water facilities continues to increase along with other municipal costs. In fact, the storm drainage system is often the last and most expensive public utility for cities to develop. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Pagel Executive Summary October 1999 Traditional methods of financing storm water management programs have become more complex in recent years. Faced with increasing costs and continuous pressure to minimize property taxes, cities may lack the financial resources to undertake a multi-year storm water management program. City general, funds and special assessments have typically financed most of the necessary improvements in the past. However, special assessments are often successfully challenged in court. Consequently, many communities lack the proper funding to address the increasing costs related to storm water drainage, water quality management, and wetland protection. A relatively new, unique and legal funding source can address the financing dilemma without increasing property taxes. Service charges, which have been used by communities to finance sanitary sewer and water utilities, are now being applied to storm water management. The storm water utility approach is gaining recognition as the most equitable way to finance storm water management activities. Selecting the Best Financing Option In evaluating financing options, the following criteria should be considered: · Dependable; · Acceptable; · Simple and Flexible; The utility is favored because it is: (1) considered fair; charges are based on runoff rather than property value as is the case with general taxes; (2) it is dependable; the utility is self-financing it does not compete with other governmental services for general revenues and it provides consistent funding which is kept in separate dedicated funds, and it can be used for debt services; (3) it is acceptable; no increase in property tax is required, a regular small service charge is typically more acceptable to residents than a large one-time assessment, and the program is in use around the country; and (4) it is simple and flexible; utility charges are similar to water and sewer charges, the fee system is adaptable to local situations and credits and exemptions can be built in. What is a Storm Water Utility? Let's start with what the storm water utility is not. The utility is not a new level of government, nor is the utility a new tax. A storm water utility is simply a method of financing the administration, planning, implementation, and maintenance of storm water management programs. The utility does not replace Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 2 Executive Summary October 1999 existing funding sources--it complements them. The utility is nothing more than a service charge or fee. A utility fee is typically charged against all developed parcels within a City based on the premise of"contributors pay". The fee is based on how much water runoff and/or pollutant load is contributed by a particular parcel. This consistent, dependable revenue source provi_d~ _3 dedicated fund to manage the drainage system and water quality improvements without increasing property taxes or using assessments. Estimated Costs and Utility Revenues -' ' The utility approach is based on the concept "contributors pay". The rate stmctme is based on land use type, density, parcel size, and the amount of runoff and/or pollution load contributed by a particular parcel. Monthly rates vary depending on the cost and duration of the storm water management programs. The estimated ten year program cost is approximately $2,380,500. Over $1,271,000 is expected to be spent on Administration and Maintenance, $94,500 is related to Planning Activities and the remaining $1,015,000 is involved with Capital Improvements and other costs. The program revenue must be equal to the Program Costs. The average annual revenue required for the City is about $238,000, not including inflation. Assuming that the utility will finance 80 percent of this cost, annual utility revenues will be $190,440. Based on the required program revenue, the utility fee for each residential household is estimated at $1.48 per month. The Cost for a commercial property is estimated to be $21.75 per acre per month. These estimates assume that a utility fund would finance 80 percent of the program costs. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 3 FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A Storm Water Management Program Introduction As communities develop, the impact of urbanization on water resources continues to increase. With increasing development comes anincrease in the rate and volume of storm water runoff. An increase in runoff overtaxes the existing drainage systems, and increases the potential for localized flooding. Additionally, a decrease in storm water quality can be directly attributed to the level of development. A decrease in water quality translates into lost recreational opportunities and permanent changes to the biological systems present in water bodies. In an effort to maintain and '.improve the existing drainage system and mitigate the water quality impacts, Columbia Heights plans to develop and implement a comprehensive storm water management program. Historically, the issue of storm water was in principal very simple; collect the water into an underground .system of pipes and get it to river or creek as quickly as possible. If there was a problem with localized flooding, more and bigger pipe was put in the ground. 'Water quality and other environmental issues were not considered. It is fair to say that the main concern of the average citizen is still to get the water aWay from their house or business as quickly as possible. But a new issue has been factored in, one mandated by law and for the most part good sense--the issue of water quality. Unchecked and ever increasing runoff is impacting the quality of our rivers, lakes and creeks through pollutants that are contained in the nmoff as well as by erosion that occurs as a result of increasing amounts of storm water that enter into bodies of water at a faster rate. To address this, best management practices for managing storm water have changed from collection and piping to retention, cleaning, and establishing a more controlled and gradual discharge to the receiving body of water. 7 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program P~e4 Storm Water Management Program October 1999. Program Objectives The primary objectives of the storm water management program are summarized as follows: · Develop and implement a comprehensive storm water management program, including a comprehensive drainage plan and analysis of future facilities (i.e., pipes, pond, etc.). · Maintain natural and man-made facilities (ponds, creeks, sediment basins, storm sewers, culverts, ditches, etc.) for their intended use and function. · Address existing storm water runoff problems and their control. Provide adequate financing to implement necessary Best Management Practices, maintenance activities, water quality programs, and pUblic education. Planning Process The City prepared a Water Resource Management Plan in 1992. The Water Resource Management Plan contains specific objectives and corresponding policies. The objectives and policies recognize the fundamental relationship between water quality and land use. Plan objectives include: Water Quantity, i.e., flood control: Prevent flooding from surface flows while reducing, to the greatest practical extent, the public capital expenditures necessary to control excessive Volumes and rates of runoff. · Water Quality: Maintain or improve the quality of water resources within the City. Erosion and Sediment: Prevent, to the extem possible, sediment from construction sites from entering the City's surface water resources and to control the erosion from drainageways within the City. · Floodplains and Shoreland: Control development in floodplains, floodways and shoreland. Fish and Wildlife Habitat and Water Recreation Facilities: Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitats, water recreational facilities, and water resource aesthetics. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 5 Storm Water Management Pwgram October 1999 Implementing Improvements The final task associated with the storm water management program includes establishment and implementation of improvement and maintenance programs. These final tasks are necessary to ensure that storm water management measures are implemented in a timely f~h. ion and that their effectiveness in maintaining the City's drainage system can be quantified. The program also provides the City with the flexibility to adjust the implementation of storm water measures to maximize effectiveness. Proposed Budget The proposed budget for the storm water management program follows in Table 1, illustrating individual expenditures and estimated schedules for maintenance activities. The budget is based on the 1992 plan, recent storm sewer studies completed by the City and typical costs experienced in other communities. The estimated ten year program cost is approximately $2,923,500. Over $1,271,000 is expected to be spent on Administration and Maintenance, $94,500 is related to Planning Activities and the remaining $1,569,000 is involved with Capital Improvements and other costs. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 6 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 7 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 8 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Managemcm Program P~e9 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 10 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 11 t Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 12 Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 13 FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A Financing Alternatives The cost of constructing, operating, and maintaining storm water facilities continues to increase along with other municipal costs. In fact, the storm drainage system is often the last and most expensive public utility for cities to develop. Traditional methods of financing storm water management programs have become more complex in recent years. Faced with increasing costs and continuous pressure to minimiTe property taxes, cities may lack the financial resources to undertake a multi-year storm water management program. City general funds and special assessments have typically financed most of the necessary improvements in the past. However, special assessments are often successfully challenged in court. Consequently, many communities lack the proper funding to address the increasing costs related to storm water drainage, water quality management, and wetland protection. The major categories of funding sources are (1) Ad Valorem Taxes; (2) Special Assessments; (3) System Development Charges (Building Permits, Land Development Fees and Land Exaction); (4) User charges; (5) Tax Increment Financing; and (6) Grants. Table 2 illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of the different financing methods. Following is a description and financing principles used with each of these financing mechanisms. Ad Valorem Taxes Ad Valorem or general taxation is the most common revenue source used to finance government services including minor maintenance measures for drainage and water quality facilities. Using property tax has the effect of spreading the cost over the entire tax base of a community. However, many properties are tax. exempt. Special Tax District (Fifiela, 199Y) Cities can create storm water improvement districts to finance storm water management improvements. In effect, a storm water improvement district is a new taxing district. The City adopts an ordinance that defines the area of the district. The City can undertake storm water improvements within the district. To finance the improvements, the City can levy a property tax on property within the district. Financing COlumbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 14 Table 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Funding Alternatives Funding Method Advanta[~s Disadvanta[es Ad Valorem Tax 1. AdministradveSlmctureforcolleetionin 1. No incentive to reduce runoff or place, pollution. 2. Simple and accepted source of revenue. 2. No relationship to level of benefits 3. Allows for a larger revenue base. received. 4. Through lax districts contributors pay. 3. Discontinuous source of revenue. 4. Limitations on nmount of expenditures due to budget constraints. 5. Competition with other City services (i.e., police, fire). Special Tax 1. Do not need to prove benefit from the 1. No flexibility in npplication of tax. District improvement. 2. Tax exempt proposes not subject to tax. 2. Ali tnxable property in district pays. Special 1. Only benefitted properties pay. 1. Rigid procedural requirements. Assessments 2. Revenues from assessment are applied to n 2. Runoff contributions cannot be assessed. specific project cost. No competition with 3. Difficult to determine and prove benefit. general services. 4. May place an unfair burden on some 3. Benefits directly related to cost for service, segments of the population. 4. Assessment can be deferred in hardship cases. System 1. New development generating runoff pays for 1. Only address problems within the vicinity Development runoff management, of the new development, not usually Charges 2. Adminislrative structure for reviewing plans existing developments. and collecting fees is in plnce. 2. Only address prevention not correction of 3. Systems can be tailored to the specific needs major problems. through regulntory chnnges. 3. Limited usefulness as n financing 4. Revenues are applied to water management, mechanism. No competition with general services. User Charges 1. Properties causing or conlributing to the need 1. Some initial costs in development of rate for runoffmanagement pay relative to their formula nnd philosophy. contribution to the problem. 2. May require an expanded administrative 2. Self-financing system not in competition with structure. general services funds. 3. Existing and new developments both pay. 4. Flexibility in the system. 5. Continuous source of revenues. 6. Specific dedicated fund. 7. Administrative slructure for collection already in place. Grants 1. Reduce cost burden to residents in the 1. Undepenchtble source of revenue. community. 2. Increase administrative costs for securing and managing the funds. 3. Most often grnnts require cost shnring and thus additional funding source. This results in double ndministrntive costs due to several funding sources. 4. Limited nvallnbility on an irregulnr schedule. 5. Requires considernble lead time from application to receiving funds. Financing Alternatives October 1999 This financing mechanism offers both advantages and disadvantages over the special assessment. The chief benefit is the lack of need to prove benefit from the' improvements. All property in the district pays to finance improvements. Costs are spread according to the taxable value of property. This approach may also be a disadvantage. There is no flexibility in tailoring the application of the tax. Some key factors in the establishment and use of a storm water improvement district include: The ordinance establishing the district must be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the Council. A public hearing must be held prior to adopting the ordinance. The City must hold a public hearing before awarding a contract for an improvement within the district. State law prescribes the requirements for notice of hearing and items to be considered in ordering the improvement. The City can issue general obligation bonds to finance improvements in the district. The bonds do not require an election and do not count against any debt limit. State law requires that the bonds be supported "primarily out of the proceeds of the tax levied" on property in the district. This provision allows other revenues to be used to pay debt service on the bonds. Special Assessments (Fifield, 1997) Minnesota Statues, Chapter 429, conveys the authority to undertake and to finance a wide range of public improvements. Section 429.021 specifically gives the power to: acquire, develop, construct, reconstruct, extend, and maintain storm and sanitary sewers and systems, including outlets, homing areas and ponds, treatment plants, pumps, lift stations, service connections, and other appurtenances of a sewer system, within and without the corporate limits. Special assessments are the most common tool for financing public improvements, All or a portion of the cost of an improvement are levied against properties benefitted by the improvement. The issue of benefit poses the greatest challenge in the use of special assessments, The amount of the special assessment cannot exceed the benefit received by the property from the improvement. The benefit is measured by the increase in the market value of the property. However, the direct benefits of a storm water management system may not be equally distributed in a given area. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 16 Financing AJternatives October 1999 Other factors to consider in the use of special assessments include: · State law contains a specific process for making public improvements and levying special assessments. The City can issue general obligation bonds to finance the improVements. If at least 20 percent of the improvement costs are assessed, then the bonds can be issued without an election. The bonds are not subject to any debt limit. Special assessments are not required to finance the entire project. The City can use other available sources of revenue, including general property taxes, to finance the improvement and pay debt service on bonds. Storm Drainage System Development Charge As land is developed or built upon, surface water runoff and pollution loading increases. Administrative and capital costs can be recovered at the time of building permit issuance or land development approval. A City can require dedication of land for ponding or drainage purposes. The land, however, must be from the parcel being developed. System Development Charges(SDCs) or tnmk charges are one time charges paid by new development to finance the construction of public facilities. SDCs are generally used for several basic reasons. (Nelson, 1995) 1. To shift the burdens from existing development to new development; 2. To synchronize the construction of new or expanded facility capacity with the arrival of new development; 3. To subject new development decisions to pricing discipline; and 4. To respond to anti-tax sentiments. There are seven factors to determine the proportionate share of costs to be borne by new development (Nelson, 1995): 1. The cost of existing facilities. 2. The means by which existing facilities have been financed. 3. The extent to which new development has already contributed to the cost of providing excess capacity. Financing Columbia Heights? Storm Water Management Program Page 17 Financing Alternatives Octob~ 1999 The extent to which existing development will, in the fi.~re, contribute to the cost of providing existing facilities used community wide or by non- occupants of new development. The extent to which new development should receive credit for providing at its cost facilities the community has provided in the past without charge to other development in the service area. 6. Extraordinary cost incurred in serving new development. 7. The time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts of money paid at different times. Planning is extremely important according to Nelson (1995), both from a land use and a storm water management perspective. Of particular importance within the water resources management Plan is the capital improvements element (CIE) and the capital improvements program (CIP) that implements the CIE. For improvements to be funded in part through SDCs, the CIE should offer an adequate policy foundation. In essence, the CIE serves to strengthen the relationship between SDCs and public policy by dearly stating those policies and the role of impact SDCs in effecting them. CIE's normally include a three step planning process. · Preparation of an inventory and assessment; · Determination of policies and needs; and · Development of an implementation strategy. To adequately address the issue of Storm Drainage Trunk Charge for New Development or SI)Cs, a comprehensive review of the existing water resources management plan would be conducted to consider the elements discussed above. Next, a CIE would be refined from the existing document. Work with legal counsel would be undertaken to establish the legal basis for SDCs. Finally, the SDC determination will be developed based on development needs, land use and total systems cost. Lastly, a public information element will be used to introduce the system to the community. The public information element will illustrate the approach as equitable and will dispel any myths our criticisms that may exist. User Charges or Storm Water Utility User charges, which support storm water utilities, are a mechanism by which a City can generate funds through billings similar to water and sewer billings. The principle is to charge for services rendered to properties generating runoff, as Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page Financing Alternatives October 1999 well as the service to properties being protected fi'om the effects of runoff, without consideration to an increase in'-market value .of the property. Implementation of a storm water utility is broken into three phases: Concept Development, Implementation and Billing. Concept Development involves research and analysis of funding options and funding needs. A storm water funding feasibility report includes a summary of all findings and recommendations including a preliminary implementation Plan. During Implementation, action plans for each component of the utility implementation are developed. The action plans identify tasks, resources, responsibilities, schedules and measurements. A link between the recommended rate structure and the data base is developed during Implementation. The public involvement plan is implemented prior to presenting a draft ordinance to Council. With public support in place, the ordinance is finalized in the Billing phase. Billing applies adopted rates to individual accounts, resulting in an interface between real estate records and the billing system. Standard operating procedures are developed to document the process for updating the data base interface and billing system. On-call support is developed to ensure a smooth transition to new billing procedures and investigation of credits and appeals. Grants Grants are available for surface water management and nonpoint source pollution. However, it is generally not a good financial practice to rely on grants for a service program. This source of revenue is not dependable and requires constant speculation as to its availability. Orants are useful but should only be used to supplement a planned local revenue source. Examples of some available grants are described below, subject to change and availability of funds. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 604b- Urban Wat~r _Ouali _ty Grant The EPA's 604b Grant Program is targeted at water quality improvements in urban areas. The grant is not a cost share program, but does require local participation. The grant is generally administered through the state. Underground Injection Control Pm~ram The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program involves inventories of ground water protection areas in the City to address abandoned drainage or domestic disposal wells which are potentially harmful to underground sources of drinking water. The results of the questionnaire can provide a great deal of information on the degree of risk to the Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program page 19 Financing Alternatives. October 1999 City's underground sources of drinking water. The EPA has provided funding and training for volunteers to implement the UIC program at the local level. Environmental Education Granl The EPA's Environmental Education Grant, enacted in 1991, is targeted at cities or organizations in the amount of $25,000 or less. The Environmental Education Grant is intended to finance local education initiatives related to the nature environment. Grants are awarded on a 50/50 cost share basis. Clean Lakes Grant The Federal Clean Lakes Grant is the next step in lake restoration following the State Clean Water Partnership Program. The program can include significantly more funding than the state program and can be used for development and implementation of lake restoration plans. Clean Lakes funding is. administered through the MI)CA. Section 319 - Clear Water Act Funding through EPA's Section 319 program supports state programs but is potentially available for urban BMP and project implementation coordination. The grants program includes a spring application period (May to June) for the state. The program is significant in that it can funds implementation (i.e., constmedon) rather than funding planning efforts or studies. Available funds may involve either full or matching funds. Other Sources of Funding U.S. Amy Corps of Engineers: Section 22 Planning Assistance to States Programs Funds are a ~0/$0 cost share. The program is administered through state planning. Eligible projects are given to COE to prepare a cost estimate for preliminary design. The estimate is negotiated with the "customer". The "customer" provides 50 percent cost share in the form of cash. The COE then completes the preliminary design or study. These funds are applicable on an "as- available" basis. The COE is not always customer focused; timeliness and reliability must be balanced against technical expertise and financial participation. These funds are applicable on an "as-available" basis. The COE is not always .customer focused; timeliness and reliability must be balanced against technical expertise and financial participation. MPCA Low Interest Loans Typically used for wastewater treatment and collection systems, MPCA's State Revolving Loan Fund dollars can be used in watershed or nonpoint source Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 20 Financing Alternatives October 1999 control. PFA administers the State Revolving Loan Program for MPCA. MPCA recently adopted rules to facilitate application of this program. (Skwira, 1996). According to PFA (Dennis Fiest personal comm.), cities may .qualify for a low- interest loan with a rate which would be at least 1 - 1.5 percent less than the normal bonding rate. In addition, by using the loan program, a City can save the administrative costs related to the bonding process. Furthermore, PFA typically waives the interest payment in the first two years of the 20-year loan period. There is no dollar limit or competition for these funds. DNR's Flood Hmrd Mitigation Program Up to 50 percent cost sharing is available through the bonding program. As with PFA funds, this alternative best applies to a phased consm~on scenario, since the state funding is on the biennium. Additionally, DNR's suggests the assistance of your state representative to lobby on behalf of the City for funds which are pursued by a number of entities. DNR Mhcellaneou~ Fundin_~ Pro_trams DNR funding programs applicable for a storm water management program included Community Environmental Partnerships, Metropolitan Greenways Planning Grant Program, and the Outdoor Recreation Grant Program. Clean Water Partnership MPCA receives federal matching funds for preserving and protecting lakes and for enhancing their public use and enjoyment, under the Federal Clean Lakes Program. The MPCA's Clean Water Parmer~ip Program (CWP) provides matching funds for lake improvement projects and nonpoint source pollution abatement. The grant program is very competitive and the grant administration can be time consuming and expensive. LCMR: Legislative Commission Minnesota Resources LCMR's grant program is funded on the biennium, and is intended for resource- related programs such as wetland management, groundwater protection, water quality, etc. As with the Clean Water Partnership grants, there is a great deal of competition for LCMR dollars. Metropolitan Council Local Water Resources Plan lmplem~ntat/on The purpose of this program is to fund implementation of events listed in local water resource management plans. Maximum funding is limited to $20,000 per grant. Grants can be used for ordinances, wetland function and value assessments and lake assessments. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 21' Financing Alternatives October 1999 Metropolitan Environment Partnership Grant pro_m~-n $7.5 million will be available over 5 years beginning in 1999. Criteria and funding priorities will be announced. The program is a continuation of the Twin Cities Water Quality Mitigative Grant Program. Watershed Outlet Monitorin_o Pro_gram The Purpose of this Program is to collect water quality data for urban discharges to the Mississippi River. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 22 FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A Implementing Your Utility What Is a Surface Water Management Utility? Let's start with what the storm water utility is not. The utility is not a new level of government, nor is the utility a new tax. A storm water utility is simply a method of financing the admini~ql'ation, planning, implementation, and maintenance of storm water management programs. The utility does not replace existing funding sources---it complements them. The utility is nothing more than a service charge or fee. A utility fee is typiCally charged against all developed parcels within a City based on the premise of "contributors pay". Where land is in a natural state, most rain soaks into the ground or is retained in small depressions. Where development has been prevalent, rooftops, driveways, and parking lots prevent rainfall from soaking into the ground. The rain runs off into streets, ditches, ponds and lakes, creating the need for drainage systems and to protect the quality of our water resources. Therefore, the fee is based on how much water runoff and/or pollutant load is contributed by a particular parcel. This consistent, dependable revenue source provides a dedicated fund to manage the drainage system and water quality improvements without increasing property taxes or using assessments. A, utility also provides the means to handle the increasing costs throu~ sinai! adjustments in the utility charges. Assuring Success To assure success in adopting a storm water utility, the need for the utility must be understood by the public. The following three steps should be taken: Find out if the financial need supports the effort. Assuming the need exists, a community questionnaire can be used to gauge public sentiment about the program. Also, if assessments have been a problem in the past, then the need for a utility program becomes more obvious. A second consideration involves implementation. If the mechanisms for billing and handling revenue are in place, as is the case with sewer and water charges, there is one less hurdle to cross. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 23 Financing Alternatives October 1999 3. A third point to be considered is who will provide the majority of the revenue. The public must believe the fight properties are being charged the right amount. Key Elements (Kremp~e, 1988) There are two fundamental principles to the storm water management program: 1. All real property within a subwatershed will benefit from installation of storm water management facilities. 2. The cost of developing storm water management facilities should be assessed against the pmlm~y in a basin. These principles may not be easy for property owners to understand at first, but they are key to the storm water management concept. It is difficult for property owners who live on top of a hill to understand how the construction of a water quality basin or a storm drain in a low-lying area benefits them. It is important to recognize that development adds to existing drainage and pollutant loading problems. The property owner on the hill has, by converting the natural ground cover into streets, driveways and rooftops, increased the runoff. This contributes to the drainage and water quality problem of neighbors in low-lying areas. To some extent then, all property owners should contribute to the cost of correcting that problem. Utility Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages 1. Properties causing or contributing to the need for runoff management pay into the Utility. 2. The change is directly proportioned to runoff generated by specific land uses. 3. A self-financing system is not in competition with general services funds. 4. Existing and new developments both pay. 5. The system is flexible. 6. The utility provides a continuous source of revenue. 7. It provides a specific dedi~:ated fund for storm water management. g. The administrative structure for collecting fees is usually in place. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 24 Financing Alternatives October 1999 Di~advantagea 1. Some initial costs are encountered in developing the philosophy. rate formula and 2. The utility may require an expanded administrative structure including establishment of a billing system if none c~enfly exists. Program Administration Adminislrad°n for developing the storm water management utility involves the following: Development of quarterly rates based on funding needs; · Modification of billing and collections system; · Determination of responsible party(ies) to monitor program implementation; · SolicitatiOn of commentS froTM legal and financial advisers; and · Public information: Ordinance The legal basis for the utility should be an ordinance and corresponding City policy. The ordinance establishes the storm water utility, and outlines the following: · Calculation of utility fees; · Credit system; · Exemptions; · Payment of fee; · City policy; and · Supporting computations. Public Hearing A public hearing is required before the ordinance can be adopted. The hearing provides the forum for the general public to speak either for or against the ordinance. Prior to this point in the process, strong public support should be secured. Therefore, the hearing itself typically does not involve heated debate or a great deal of controversy. Financing Columbia HeightS' Storm Water Management Program Page 25 FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A Fee Basis Philosophy The general philosophy behind the storm water utility program is simple--contributors pay (Jouseau, 1983). To develop a fe~ basis, the City must make a determination of which properties pay what amounts. The utility is typically supported by all_developed (non-vacant)_property within the community. Based on existing, land use, the extent of each property classification is estimated. Next, the percentage of impervious area associated with each property classificati°n is determined. ' ' Using methods outlined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Midje, 1992), typical land categories and relative percentages of impervious areas can be determined. Based on the percentage of impervious area on a parcel, a runoff index can be assigned to each property type. The runoff index or curve number (CN) is used to estimate the amount of rainfall that will run off a parcel. Cause and Effect To remain fair to all properties, the utility is based on how much a particular parcel contributes to the need for storm water conveyance and/or water quality improvement. The amount of Contribution should not be based solely on the amount of rooftops and pavement, or pervious area, on a parcel. The contribution should also consider how much rain actually runs off. Different amounts of rain will produce different amounts of runoff. However, the difference in runoff for a residential property and a commercial site area is not constant for all rainfall depths. Therefore, a rainfall depth should be used in the revenue equation that will result in the appropriate properties paying appropriate amounts. Revenue Equation The revenue equation should not be arbitrarily set based on pre-set factors from another community's ordinance. To be able to demonstrate a rational basis for utility fees, the revenue equation should be based on standard engineering practices. The revenue equation follows the Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS - previously SCS) storm water runoff methodology outlined in Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 26 Fee Basis October 1999 the SCS National Engineering Handbook,'' Section 4 - Hydrology (Mockus, 1969). The general runoff equation is: P + 0.$S Q = Actual Runoff Potential Maximum Runoff Potential Maximum Retention and initial rainfall abstraction The "S" term can be expressed in terms of the runoff index, or curve number (cho. S = (IO_O0/C1~- ~.0.. Tables are easily developed for convenient solution. For determimn' g utility fees, P remains constant and CN has been assigned to each of the land use categories. How Much Rainfall? At low rainfall, almost all of the rain soaks into lawns and other green spaces. Residential properties produce very little runoff. But all rainfall that falls on connected impervious surfaces associated with commercial or industrial properties is converted to runoff. As rainfall amounts increase, the green space soils become saturated with water and more rainfall begins to run off. Table 3 illustrates this relationship. As rainfall increases, the difference in runoff between intensely developed properties (commereiaYindustrial) and residential developed properties becomes 'significantly less. Greater runoff~ and its associated pollutant load, is generally related to the more intensely developed properties (commereiaYindustrial). Therefore, using the basic premise of the utility (contributors pay), a rainfall amount that will result in highly developed properties paying more than residential properties should be used. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 27 Fee Basis October 1999 Typieai Rainfall A quick review of utility programs in other communities shows that a two-inch rainfall has typically been used in determiniug utility fees. As illustrated in Table 3, a two-inch rainfall results in almost four times the runoff from a commercialfmdustrial acre then from a residential acre. Therefore, commercial/industrial properties WOuld pay up to four times as much as a residential parcel of equal size. Table 3 Rainfall/Runoff Ratios Runoff Commerchl/ RaiaDepth Industrial i Resid~n~, l~,tio,, 1" 032" 0.01' 32.00:1 * Ratio equals commercial/ind~trial runoff (CN-90) divided by rezidential runoff (CN- 72). There is also a statistical basis for the two-inch rainfall. A two-inch rain can be expected to be equaled or exceeded once annually in any given 24-hour period; i.e., a one-year event (Oberts, 1984). While it is true that rainfall amounts of less than two inches occur more frequently, use of smaller rainfall events (one inch, for example) puts a much larger financial burden on the comraercial/industrial properties. Since the two-inch rain depth has been generally accepted as the basis for utility fees in other communities, the utility fee will be determined by using a rainfall amount of two inches. Letting rainfall (P) be equal to two inches, the runoff equation becomes: Q = (16 - (1600/CN) + (40.000/CN2)) (800/CN - 6) Land Use Categories Existing zoning classifications were used to determine each property's contribution to the utility. The zoning data was provided by the City. Table 4 illustrates typical runoff curve numbers. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 28 Fee Basis' October 1999 Using this criteria, land use categories and the respective curve numbers for use in the utility equation are illustrated below. For the respective land uses, the runoff indices (CNs) are applied to determine the amount of runoff from an area resulting from a specified amount of rainfall. The contribution towards the storm water utility is equated to the percentage of the total runoff for each property type. Table 4 Runoff Curve Numbers Runoff Index Typical Land Use Cate~°r~, ,,,, , (CN~ Single-Family Residential 72 Two-Family Residential 80 Manufactured Housing 85 Industrial, Multi-Family, Railroad Right-of-Way 88 Commercial/Office/Parking 92 Institutions. (developed) 90 Vacant Exempt Typical Charges To determine typical charges, the estimated expenditures for a given time period are apportioned according to the percentage of total runoff attributed to that property type. Typical utility charges for the proposed $238,000 annual budget are given in Table 5. These charges would fund 80 percent of the anticipated expenditures for the proposed budget. The utility rates can be adjusted to raise different levels of revenue by changing the relationships of what one property type pays in comparison to another, or by increasing the per acre charges. Additionally, undeveloped properties can be assessed a low, flat rate to bring all parcels into the rate collection system, which has not been included in this case. The utility will not eliminate existiog funds derived from new developments, or assessments. The utility will, however, allow the City to undertake the new programs related to storm water management. The percent to which the utility is relied on to offset the costs of program implementation can also be changed from the 80 percent funding level illustrated in Table 5. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 29 I/3 O Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 30 Fee Basis October 1999 Table 5 results in mOnthly fees that are comparable to typical rates in other Minnesota communities. Table 6 illustrates how variable residential (per household) rates would result in revenues in excess of the 10-year, $2.3'8 million CIP identified earlier in the report. Table 6 Revenue / Rate Comparison Monthly Monthly Residential Commercial Ten-Year (Household) Rate Revenue 'Rate per Acre $1,500,000 $1.16 $17.12 $2,000,000 $1.55 $22.83 $2,420,000 $2.00 $29.45 $2,500,000 $1.55 $22.85 $3,000,000 $2.33 $34.24 $2,220,000 $2.00 $29.42 $4,000,000 $3.10 $45.6S $5,000,000 $3.88 $57.07 Note: Final revenues and rates to be verified with adjustments to the CIP' (Table 1) and the land use breakdowns, areas and equivalency factors (Table 5) Typical utility rates in other communities are illustrated in Table 7. Exclusions Some properties may be excluded from the utility. In the example provided, only street and highway right-of-way, water parks, Minneapolis Water Works property and the City of Hilltop are excluded under this formula. In development of the final ordinance, county facilities, railroad right-of-way and other properties should be reviewed to determine if a low, fiat rate fee will be used or if they will be considered exempt. Credits Credits may be applied for to reduce the utility fee for individual parcels. Credits can be considered where runoff is retained on a single parcel or water quality enhancement projects have been implemented. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 31 Co�umh'ia Heights, Minnesota Storm Water, UEQ[Ity Land Use No. of Parcels Total Area Apartments 6 7.7100 Commercial 334 158.0300 Exempt 993 754.4900 Industrial 66 103.7400 Multi Family 4768 862.6400 Mpls Water Works 3 75.4500 Single Family 1256 360.8600 Storm Water Utility Single Family 1 - - = -� Multi Family J Apartments f Commercial Industrial Minneapolis Water Works Exempt =SEN IIii II IIIiI-~ Columbia Heights, Minnesota Storm Water Utility. Land Use Apartments Commercial Exempt Industrial Multi Family Single Family No. of Parcels Total Area 6 334 993 66 4768 3 1256 7.7100 158.0300 754.4900 103.7400 862.6400 75.4500 360.8800 Storm Water Utility Single .Family Mulli Family Apaments Commercial Industrial Minneapolis Water Works Exempt Fee Basis October 1999 Table 7 uuuty ~ost ~om ~enson Residential Commercial Industrial Charge Charge Charge Communi~ Per,Month. ,,Per,Month. , Per~,M,,o,n~,. Bloomi_ngton 2.60 17.94 5.98 Roseville 1.46 22.10 7.37 Bumsville 0.72 9.39 3.13 North St. Paul 1.35 17.53 13.38 Vadnnis Heights 1.50 · 12.08 9.43 Shoreview 1.65 13.83 4.61 Fatgsn 1.52 7.28 2.43 Shakopee 1.15 17.22 5.74 Fridley 0.'58 8.75 2.92 Richfield 2.40 12.00 4.00 White Bear Township 1.00 30.00 10.00 Woodbury 2.50 9.17 3.06 Centerville 0.67 2.00 0.67 Eden Prairie 0.84 21.89 14.82 (1) Residential assumes ~/~tcre lots (2) Cost per acre. Financing Coltnnbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 33 FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A t o , m t e , Implementation Prior to deciding whether or not to implement a utility, a public involvement program is usually developed in an effort to measure public acceptance. Once public support exists, implementation of a Storm Water Utility will require several steps. The next step involves drafting an ordinance to provide the legal basis for..implementation of the utility. The third step includes establishing the individual property .charges based on acreage, land use, and the rate as established by ordinance. Step four involves modification of the current billing procedure. Step five creates a fund to which utility revenues would be paid into, and from which revenues can be made available for identified expenditures. The last step identifies the administrator of the Surface Water Management Utility. The Administrator, usually the Director of Public Works, City Engineer, or City Administm~r, is responsible for managing the funds, establishing budgets, and handling rate adjustments. Implementation of the utility should closely follow the adoption of the ordinance and policy statement regarding the ~ty. The utility would take effect following the public hearing, with fees payable as part of the next utility billing cycle. The major effort in administering the utility will be to determine the area and land use category for each parcel in the City. Additional effort may be necessary to expand the billing process to include those properties which do not currently receive City water and sewer service. The following describes the implementation program in more detail. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Managemem program Page 34 Fee Basis 'October1999 Public Acceptance Public Infomation Program The storm water utility concept will succeed if it has complete public understanding and support. Additionally, the decision makers and the public must understand the benefits to be derived from such a program. SurveYs and Articles A Survey can be the first place to test the waters for a utility. Articles in existing utility ~llings and ill the local newspaper can also help explain thc program. This "spreading the word" aspect cannot be over emphasized. Unless overwhelming community acceptance of such a program exists, ample time should be set a side for the public information program. S?~cial Mailings Most communities have developed special promotional mailings to introduce the utility concept to the community. These procedures vary from very simple to elaborately printed documents. Typically' the mailings outline the need for the program and typical charges by property classifications. In some eases, these promotional materials have been used to aunounee upcoming informational meetings. Informational Meetines Community leaders can interface with the general public at informational meetings designed to explain the reason behind the utility and how the utility will impact individual properties (Jouseau, 1983). An example format would involve a late afl, moon/early evening open house followed by a formal presentation. A public hearing is held for final consideration of the utility. The hearing represents a fonnal opportunity for citizen input prior to Council action adopting the utility ordinance. Tvoical Ouestions Appendix B of the report illustrates typical questions (and corresponding responses) that arise during consideration of the utility. Ordinance Development Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 35 Fee Basis. Ootol~- 1999 The ordinance is intended to outline the key elements to be included in official controls to support the utility. The legal basis for the utility should be. in ordinance form along with corresponding City policy to establish rates. The ordinance establishes the storm water utility, and outlines the following: · Calculation of utility fees; · Credit system; · Exemptions; · Payment of fee; · City policy; and · Supporting computations. The City adopted the following ordinance as the legal basis behind the future storm water utility rate smmtm'e. The ordinance establishes a mathematical basis behind the fee system, supported by standard engineering practices. The rate structure would be considered in the form of a City Policy, based on public input and the City Council. A proposed City Policy follows the City Ordinance. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 36 ORDINANCE # 1397 BEING AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STORM WATER UTILITY CHAPTER 12 ARTICLE III The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: General Operation. The City storm water system shall be operated as a public utility (hereinafter called the storm water utility), pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 444.075, from which revenues will be derived subject to the provisions of this Chapter and Minnesota Statutes. Section 1: Definitions. Utility Factor. Utility Factor 12.301 The utility factor is defined as the ration of runoff volume, in inches, for a particular land use, to the runoff volume, in inches for an average single- family residential, assuming a 2-inch rainfall and Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) "Type B" soil conditions. Section 2: Storm Water Utility Fee 12.302 The storm water utility fee is defined as the annual charge developed for each parcel of land. Section 3: Monthly Storm Water Utility Revenue 12.303 The monthly storm water utility revenue is the estimated monthly expenditures for planning and inventories, capital expenditures, personnel and equipment and operation of the storm water utility, in accordance with established City policy. Section 4: Storm Water Utility Factors. 12.304 The Storm Water Management Fee shall be determined by first d~ining the percentage of total runoff in the City which is attributed to single-family residential property. The fee per acre for single-family residential is computed by computing the product of the runoff percentage and the Monthly Storm Water Utility Revenue, divided by the estimated total acres of single-family residential land use in the City. The per acre fee, the appropriate utility factor and the total acreage of the parcel Single-family residential parcels shall be assessed on a per household basis. The utility factor for various land uses are shown in the following table. um ty Classification Land Use CN Factor 1 Single Family Residential District 72 1.00 2 Two Family Residential District 75 1.30 3 Three Family Residential District 80 1.92 4 Manufacturing 88 3.30 5 Retail Business District 90 3.74 6 Limited Business District 90 3.74 7 General Business District 92 4.23 8 Central Business District 92 4.23 9 Neighborhood Business 88 3.30 10 Light Industrial District 88 3.30 11 Heavy Industrial District 90 3.74 Section 5: Credits 12.305 The Council may adopt policies, by resolution, for adjustment of the storm water management fees. Information to justify a fee adjustment must be supplied by the property owner. Such adjustments of fees shall be retroactive. Credits will be reviewed regularly by Section 6: Exemptions 12.306 The following land uses are exempt from the storm water management fee: · Public Road Right-of-Way · Lakes · Wetlands · City Property Section 7: Payment of Fee 12.307 Storm Water Utility Fees shall be billed in accordance with the Finance Department's current billing cycle with water and sanitary sewer bills. The fee shall be due and PaYable the same terms as water and sanitary sewer utility bills. Any prepayment or oVerpayment of charges shall be retained by the City and applied against subsequent fees. All such utility bills may be collected as provided for water billing by Section 4.314(3) of the City Code. Section 8: Appeal of Fee 12.308 If a property owner or person responsible for Paying the storm water, management fee believes that a particular assigned fee is incorrect, such a person may request that the fee be re-computed. Section 9: Penalty for Late Payment 12.309 The Council shall, by Resolution, fix all charges and penalties for late payment for Storm Water Utility fees and shall similarly fix the rates by which such charges shall be computed. Section 10: Certification of Past Due Fees on Taxes 12.310 If any storm water utility fees have not been paid when due, then a penalty as set forth on Section 00.080, shall be added to the amount due. Any such past due fees may then be certified to the County Auditor for collection with'real estate taxes on the following year pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 444.075, Subdivision 3. In addition, the City shall also have the fight to bring a civil action or to take other legal remedies to collect unpaid fees. First Reading: Second Reading: Date of Passage: July 26, 1999 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll call: Jo-Anne Student, Council Secretary Mayor Gary L. Peterson Fee Basis October 1999 Columbia Heights Storm Water Utility Proposed City Policy Poficy Statement All properties within the City of shall contribute to the Storm Water Management Utility in an amount proportional to the runoff contributed by each particular parcel. ExemPtionS Street and Highway Right-of-Way - SU~t and highway right-of-way shall be exempt from all charges. Lakes - Lakes listed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as Natural Environment Waters, Recreational Development Waters or General Development Waters shall be exempt from all charges. Wetlands - Wetlands on all nonresidential property which are not part of a formal storm water management system and which are maintained in a natural state shall be exempt from all charges. City-owned Property - All City-owned parcels, including park land and easements, will be exempt from ail charges. Fee Basis Land Use - Land use for determining storm water utility fees shall be the existing land use at the date of enactment of the Storm Water Utility Ordinance. As land is developed, or redeveloped, the fees will be re-computed based on the revised land use. If downstream facilities (storm sewers, ponds, etc.) have been developed in anticipation of future development, undeveloped property shall be treated as fully developed. Soils - Natmal Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) - Type B soils shall be assumed for determining the runoff index (CN) in the revenue equation. Rainfall (P) - A 2-inch rainfall will be used in the revenue equation. Runoff Indices (CN) - The runoff indices for the property classifications are as follows: Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 40 ~-' Fee Basis October 1999 i Classification Land Use Utility Factor (CN) 1 Single Family Residential District 72 2 Two Family Residential District 75 3 Three Family Residential District 80 4 Man~acturing 88 5 Retail Business District 90 6 Limited Business District 90 7 General Business District 92 8 Central Business District 92 9 Neighborhood Business 88 10 Light Industrial District 88 11 Heavy Industrial District 90 Revenue Equation - The revenue equation for computing the runoff volume (Q) shall be based on the runoff equation in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) National Engineering Handbook Section 4 - HydrologY. The equation is as follows: P + 0.8S where S = (1000/CN) - 10 and P = 2" Credits Storm Water Utility fees may be adjusted under the conditions stated below. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to provide justification for the fee adjustment. Credits must be applied for by (date) of the year preceding the year in which the credit is to be considered. Storm Water Retention - If it can be demonstrated th_at an individual parcel retains all.or a portion of the rainfall that it receives, the storm water management fee will be reduced by a percentage equal to that percent of the parcel which produces no external runoff. A fee reduction of 20 percent or greater must be demonstrated if the credit is to be applied. [,9.W_lllg/~lfi - The storm water management fee will be waived for any property owner with income which is or below an established minimum income for the Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 41 Fee Basis October 1999 year prior to issuance of any charges. This credit must be applied for each year. This credit shall consider the County's established general assistance level. Pro_m~v Under-utilization - If it can be demonstrated that a parcel's existing land use is developed to a lower density than assumed in the fee determination, and that no downstream improvements have been constructed based on potential development of the parcel, a reduction in fee may be considere& Water Oualitv Facility - Those'parcels having facilities constructed specifically for the pm'pose of water quality enhancement may be eligible for a credit. The credit will be based on the removal efficiency of the facility. The property owner shall provide the calculations demonstrating the phosphorus removal efficiency of the facility. The credit will be equal to 60 percent of the phosphorus reduction percentage. A fee reduction of 20 percent or greater must be demonstrated if the credit is to be applied. Adjustment of Fees Storm Water utility Fees will be adjusted under the following conditions. Revision of Storm Water Utility Revenue - The estimated expenditures for the management of storm water shall be revised at a fi'equency determined by City Council. The fees will be adjusted accordingly and will follow established City procedures for this adjustment of utility (water and sewer) rates. Application for Credit - The City shall establish and utilize a credit application form for consideration of fee reduction. It is the responsibility of the property owner to apply for a credit. Change in Developed Condition of Parcel - In the case of residential property, the revised utility rate will take effect immediately following occupancy of the dwelling. With all other development, the revised utility rate will be applied as soon as drainage/water quality features are developed. End Proposed City Policy Statement Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 42 Fee Basis October 1999 Billing Options Several keY decisions exist relative to billing options. · How should it be billed? · Who should pay the bill? Three options were considered for billing. · A line item on the annual County tax statement; · A line item on the existing Columbia Heights Utility bill; and · A separate bill. The separate bill was eliminated as being too expensive. The option to add a line to the County tax bill seems more difficult to administer and also has a monger connotation of being a tax rather than user fee. The option to add a line to existing bills is recommended since it is less expensive, the customer base is in place, and it closely aligns with the person who should be paying the storm water utility fee. The next question addresses who should be paying the bill (i.e., the property owner or the occupant/tenant). If the property owner pays, the occupant/tenant would end up paying eventually through their rent. It is assumed that for non- owner occupied properties, that the existing arrangement between those two parties is already being resolved with the water bill and this should minimize later complaints, appeals, and conflict resolutions. It is further recommended that storm water utility billing be aligned with existing water accounts. Bills will only be sero to properties within the City limits of Columbia Heights. Establishing Individual Utility Bill, The process of establishing billing from property I.D. information and incorporating into the City billing system requires a succession of interrelated steps. It is envisioned that this process will involve the City building a data set, likely with the assistance of one or more student interns and outside technical support. The following flowchart shows this process graphically. Simply stated, the challenge is to synchronize parcel areas with their existing land use, multiplied times the appropriate billing rate. This land use can be derived from the assessor's land use code in the tax roll, an existing land use map, the official zoning map or'a combination of these sources which may involve field Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 43 Fee Basis October 1999 verification in some instances. Since the zoning map may not indicate existing land use, that option is not recommended. It is recommended that the assessor's land use code be relied on with cross checks made between the existing land use map and ZOning classifications. City Council Finalize Policy City Establish ~ taXparceI .. Rates Calculate Monthly Bill Receive SEH Customer Receive Bill ~Yes ~ No Pay fee Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Prograxn · Page 44 Fee Basis October 1999 As described earlier, single-family residential properties is proposed to be billed a fiat per-household rate. Higher density uses are proposed to be billed by the acre. As such, City staff will prepare a file with fields for property I.D. or PIN, land use type, rate, acreage (when applicable), and the amount of the monthly bill. The'City will store each of these variables and update the list as necessary. It is envisioned that this be on a quarterly basis. All calculations will be done at city ttall. Resolving Billing System Conflicts A manual process of conflict ~resolution is required. The process will verify that all properties have been accounted for and the fee is appropriate. The City GIS system can provide a graphic solution, but will not, eliminate the need for a manual review. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 45 FINANCING COLUMBIA HEIGHTS' STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM USING A ' Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions From the material presented in this report, the following conclusions have been made: The ten-year cost of developing a storm water management program is proposed to be $2,380,500. .Paying for storm water management projects has become more complex recently because of difficulties in demonstrating a particular benefit equal to a property's assessment. Seven major categories of financing exist: ad valorem taxes, special assessments, special tax districts, system development charges, user charges, tax increment financing and grants. The storm water management utility method is the best financing option because it is fair, dependable, acceptable, and flexible. A storm water management utility, supported by service charge, provides financing for storm water management improvements, based on a particular property's contribution of runoff water to the drainage system. The utility benefits a community by providing a dedicated fund for and drainage system improvements and maintenance and water quality enhancement. The two key elements to the utility approach are: - All properties benefit; and - All developed properties should pay. 8. The storm water, utility is based on the simple financing concept "Contributors Pay." Following the "Contributors Pay" principle, the volume of runoff coming from a specific property can be determined. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 46 Conclusions and Recommendations October 1999 10. Based on the runoff leaving a parcel, a charge against properties can be developed. 11. As rainfall increases, the difference in runoff from intensely developed property and residential property becomes significantly less. 12. A greater pollutant load and more runoff is associated with intensely developed properties as opposed to residential properties. 13. A two-inch rainfall results in almost four times the runoff from a commercial/industrial property as compared to a residential property. 14. Typical charges include $1.48 per month for a single-family residential household, and $21.75 per acre per month for a commercial parcel, assuming the utility is funding 100 percent of the anticipated program cost. 15. A public relations effort is essential for the storm water management utility concept to succeed. Recommendations This report should be reviewed by the City Council, staff, financial and legal advisors. The focus of the review should be on overall program budget, typical rates and billing options. A storm water management utility should be utilized to pay for a portion of the City's storm water management program drainage system related expends (80 percent funding is assumed in this report). Fees shall be based on runoff contributed to the drainage system, following NRCS (SCS) criteria and a two-inch rainfall. The existing land use should be used to determine the storm water management utility fees. A public relations program, including public hearings and informational meetings should be undertaken prior to adopting the utility method. A City Policy establishing a rate structure in accordance with the City's Storm Water Utility ordinance should be prepared. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 47 References 11/25/97 References Fifield, Rusty, 1997. Financing Storm Water lmprovemen~z. Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Memorandum to the City of Lake St. Croix Beach. September 8, 1997. Fiest, Dennis, 1995. Personal Phone Conversation regarding Public Facilities Administrations role in MPCA Low Interest Loan Program. Honchell, Charles V., 1989. Financing Storm Water Projects Using a Storm Water Utility; presented at a March 22 seminar at the Vadnais Heights City Hall. Honchell, Charles V., 1986. Creating a Store Drainage Utility. American Public Works Association Reporter, pp. 10-11. Jouseau, Marcel, 1983. StOre Water Management: Financing Local Storm Water Management. Publication No. 10-83-143 of the Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, pp. 37. Kremple, Roger E., 1988. Storm Water Management by Utility Approach, Proceedings of 1988 National Conference of Hydraulic Engineering, Steven R. Abt and Johannes Gessler (Eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 1234-1239. Midje, Howard, 1992. Hydrology Guide for Minnesota. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, pp. 160. Mockus, Victor, 1969. SCS National Engineering Handbook, Section 4 Hydrology. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, pp. 10.3-10.6a. Nelson, Arthur C., 1995. System Development Charges for Water, Wastewater and Storm Water Facilities, pp. 173. Oberts, Gary L., 1984. Surface Water Management: Precipitation Frequency Analysis for the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, p. C-4. Skirwa, Peter., 1996. General Correspondence regarding MPCA Low Interest Loan Program, April 10, 1995. Appendix A Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 48 Appendix A October 1999 Legal Considerations (Jomeau, 191k3) Until 1983, it was not possible for any local unit of government in Minnesota to adopt a user charge scheme to finance storm water management for the statutes did not provide the authority. During the 1983 legislative session, the legislature amended M.S. 444.075 Subd. 1 and 3 (1983 Laws Ch. 183) permitting all the Metropolitan Area cities, other than Minneapolis and St. Paul, to charge for the use, the availability and connection to the storm water system. These charges are to be used for the financing of storm water systems including the conveyance system, holding areas, ponds, and related facilities. Storm water projects include the cost of construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement or other obtainment and the maintenance, operation, and use of such facilities. The charges made for service rendered shall'be, as nearly as possible, proportionate to the cost of providing the service. An important issue to decide when a City is considering user charges is the notion of service and to whom the service is rendered. In amended M.S. 444.075, the concept of a charge for service rendered is unclear with reference to storm sewer service. Of particular interest is: (I) what is the service; and, (2) to whom is the service rendered? To answer these two questions one should look at the purpose of proper storm water management and look at the legislative intenL Proper storm water management is undertaken for two reasons: To provide a conveyance system for the increased volume and rate of surface runoff resulting from activities on the land, whether they be urban or intensive agricultural uses. To insure that the surface runoff does not damage riverain or lake shore properties, or the ecology of a lake, thereby lowering fiverain and lake shore property values. The definition of"service rendered" helps in delineating who will recdve a storm water sewer service. First, a service is generally provided to the properties generating runoffbecanse they will ultimately rely on a storm water conveyance system. The degree to which a property relies on or uses the system is dependent on how much runoff a property generates beyond the natural runoff level. A user charge rate smacture then should differentiate between types of land.uses, density of use and parcel size, all significant in determining runoff. The rate structure should also consider instances where no runoff is generated because of land characteristics, or management practices. Secondly, a service is provided to pro .perfies in areas susceptible to increases in runoff, especially low lying areas, riverain and lake shore properties. The degree of protection against the effects of flooding, erosion and water quality Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 49 Appendix A October l999 degradation is commensurate with the proximity to the creek or its floodplain, or' to the lake or wetland. Some modifying factors would include topography, views and access to the lake. However, from just reading the law it is difficult to determine what was the legislative intent in amending M.S. 4~.~..075. Prior to the amendment, cities were authorized to assess properties for storm sewer service. The legal requirements for assessments imposed conditions that limit the ability of the cities to pass on the entire cost of the improvement, and the service to the benefitted properties if the cost exceeds the total in~ in market value of the properties. In addition, the properties not directly benefitted, i.e., where a market value increase is not realized, cannot be assessed even though the drainage system may convey water from these properties. From this prior authority and the 1983 amendment to M.S. 444.075, it can be hypothesized that the legislature's intent in passing Ch. 183 was to define the service provided by a storm water system more liberally to include both the service to properties generating runoff, as well as the service to properties being protected from the effects of increases in the runoff. Additionally, it would seem that the Legislature intended to move away from the limitations, imposed by the concept of assessment levy not exceeding the increase in market value of a property. The lack of clear definition in Ch. 183 of the term "service rendered" should be sufficient reason for cities intending to develop a "storm water utility program" to seek the advice of their legal counsel to insure that the user charge program is developed on a sound legal basis and to avoid unnecessary legal challenges. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 50 Appendix B October 1999 Appendix B Typical Questions The following is intended to provide an example of typical questions that arise during the consideration of the utility: "When will it (the fee) stop and be reduced - presently (it is) $1.~0, next year $3.00 and so on...' The Ordinance establishes the storm water management fees for a three to five year period. As the community develops, rates could decrease since developed properties contribute significantly more than undeveloped properties. -Why should I pay if I don't drain into a (drainage) system? I am being taxed by the City now for services I do not receive!" There are two principles fundamental to the storm water management program: 1. All real property within a drainage basin will benefit from installation of an adequate storm drainage system. 2. The cost of installing an adequate drainage system should be assessed against the developed property in a basin. These principles may not be easy for property owners to understand at first, but they are key to the storm water management concept. It is difficult for a property owner who lives on a hill to understand how the construction of a storm drain in a low-lying area benefits him. But storm drainage includes much more than just flood control. Keeping streets open to emergency vehicles, maintaining ponds and open channel so they do not become healhh and safety hazards, and promoting use of drainage facilities for recreation all contribute to enhancing the quality of life. It is important to reco~,ni~,e that development adds to existing drainage problems. The property owner on a hill has, by converting the natural ground cover into streets, concrete and rooftops, increased the storm water runoff. This contributes to the drainage problem of neighbors in low-lying areas. To some extent then, the property owner should contribute to the cost of correcting that problem. "Don't create a separate government agency! Why is the present engineering department not capable of handling this need?" Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 51 Appendix B October 1999 A utility is defined as service charge based on a property's contribution of water to a drainage system. The utility is a financing method, not an agency; the Director of Public Works will be the administrator of the program. The utility will be the primary responsibility of the engineering department. "Is the utility really necessary? Hooray! - now we get taxed because it rains - good idea - consider one for wind too! Or maybe sunshine!" Rainfall causes the need for an adequate drainage system. Development increases the volumes of runoff and associated pollutant loads. To address water quantity (flooding) and water quality issues, a utility or user charge is necessary to finance the cost of the progr-,ans. "Why is there a per unit cost difference between single-family homes and town homes and condominiums?" The difference in cost is related to the difference in impervious surfaces, such as rooftops and driveways, for the two property types. In general, a single-family residential lot has only about 15 to 20 percent impervious surface~ A typical town home or condominium "lot" has over 50 percent impervious surface. When comparing a 10-acre single-family residential development to a 10-acre town home development, the town home pwparty will produce more runoff than the single-family residential property. Since the utility is based on a user charge philosophy, the town home property, which produces more runoff, pays a greater amount. The cost to the town home property is then distributed among the number of households on the parcel. "Why do we pond storm water runoff today instead of just letting water runoff as fast as possible into ditches, storm sewers, rivers, and lakes like we did for years?" Ponding of storm water runoff allows the City to take a proactive rather than reactive approach to managing storm water runoff. As development increases, runoff increases as well. The use ofponding not only provides for the protection of property (flood control), but the reduction of peak flow rates also reduces the cost of installing storm sewer systems and ditch/culvert systems to carry the runoff from point A to point B. Additional benefits of storm water ponding include environmental protection and ground water protection. The use of StOrm water ponds can prevent pollutants associated with storm water from being carried downstream to lakes and wetlands thereby enhancing downstream water quality. Additionally, by keeping water on the land rather than letting it drain away, infiltration of storm water can help to recharge the surficial ground water levels. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 52 Appendix B October 1999 "Are we going to have a senior citizen credit on a storm water utility as most seniors are on fixed incomes?" The suggested policy statement, prepared with the proposed storm water management ordinance includes a suggested credit for low income individuals. The sugges~ credit makis no specific reference to senior citizens. Final credits and credit language will be determined by City Council. "What ff there is no runoff from my property?" The suggested policy statement prepared with the pwposed storm water management utility ordinance suggests an exemption for the portion of an individual property which retains all its runoff. As determined by the City Council, individuals would have to demonstrate that, in fact, no runoff leaves the property in order to receive this credit. "Win there be a charge on vacant land?" Vacant land will be 'charged a minimal rate under current utility formula. Drainage and water quality features are often installed prior to completing full development. Therefore, when facilities are sized for future development, even vacant properties need share in the cost. "Will there be a different charge on large lots?'' To keep the utility formula as simple as possible, a flat rate charge was developed for all single-family residential households in the City regardless of the size of the individual lot. The basis for this decision is .that although the overall lot size may vary, the amount of impervious surface for an individual single-family residence is very similar. Since the amount of impervious surface is similar for most of these lots, they are all charged the same amount. "Can we assess the State and/or County for their roads?" While it is true that State and County roadways and rights-of-way, as well as the City's own roadways and rights-of-way, produce significant runoff, roadways have not been included in the utility formula. Although there is no specific reference in Chapter 444 of Minnesota State Statutes prohibiting communities from charging publicly-owned rights-of-way, such a charge is only taking money from one pocket and putting it into another. Other communities in the Metropolitan area have not considered a charge for public roadways under their utility formulas. "I understand that the utility fund is trying to generate revenue over the next ten years. What are we receiving that we are not already being given?" Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 53 Appendix B October 1999 The utility fund finauces the City's storm water management program. Issues to be addressed include: · Addressing localized drainage problems; · Wetland protection; · Detention basin maintenance and construction; · Slxeet sweeping; and · Ditch and culvert maintenance. Although activities such as addressing localized drainage problems and street sweeping are services currently provided by the City, the utility provides the means to take a proactive management approach rather than reacting to problems alL-r they have occurred. "Why can't persons police themselves in regard to storm water runoff, especially involving pollutants, etc.?" People can certainly police themselves. Another aspect of the water quality management program is to raise public awareness through public education efforts. Past history has shown that a lack of public awareness regarding lawn care, for example, can result in water quality impacts to lakes, streams and wetlands. As the general public becomes more informed about water quality issues, self-policing, as is suggest~i in the question, can become a reality. "Can we expect better service and less taxes if the utility fund is incorporated in the City?" Residents can expect new services, as well as better services. Much of the focus of the City's water management program is centered around the drainage system. The drainage system of a community is usually the last of the public utilities to be addressed and for that reason, it is almost always the most costly. The City's plan provides for an equitable approach for handling storm water runoff and its associated pollutants from the City in its fully developed state allowing the City to react to problems before they develop. Improved services in areas such as street sweeping, ditch and culvert maintenance can be expected. New services such as wetland protection and water quality management will also be a result of this program. The existence of the utility fund will provide for a reallocation of City funds to areas other than storm water management. However, in past budgets, only small amounts of dollars have been spent in the area of storm water management. Therefore, it is unlikely that any significant reduction in taxes will be realized by implementing the utility. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 54 Appendix B October 1999 "Will this fund help piping ditches in the City?" Where there are existing problems today with ditches in the City, public improvements may be undertaken. In some cases, those improvements may include the installation of pipe to replace the existing ditches. However, channels and ditches have benefits for not only conveying storm water, but also for allowing infiltration to the surficial ground water, and by trapping sediment and associated pollutants prior to discharge into a lake or wetland. "Will there be a sales tax on the store water utility charges?" No sales tax is considered with the storm water management utility charge. "What are the benefits of a store water utility?" This question will be addressed in two parts. First, the benefits of the storm water management program will be discussed, and second, the advantages of the storm water utility as a financing method will be addressed. Many of the benefits and services to be provided through the City's water management program have already been described. The City's storm water management program will address wetland protection through regulation (ordinances) and through capital improvements. Such efforts will help to protect the natural amenities that are so important to residents of the City. Second, flooding problems can be reduced significantly by planning for proper ponding areas and storm water conveyance systems addressing the increase in runoff from continuing development in the City, in a cost effective manner. The benefits of using a storm water management utility to financing storm water management programs are numerous. First of all, a utility is funded by a service charge on all developed parcels. Charges are based on the amount of water that drains away or runs'off from a particular parcel. Second, since there is a direct correlation between water runoff and the impact it creates, the greater the runoff the greater the impact on storm waters and, therefore, the greater the charge. Charges are not based on property value as are property taxes. Third, tax exempt properties pay. their fair share under the utility plan. The utility is favored because (1) it is considered fair; charges are based on runoff rather than property value as is the case with general taxes, (2) it is dependable; the utility is self-financing it does not com.r~,-~e with other governmental services for revenues and it provides consistent funding which is kept in separate dedicated funds, O) it is simple and flexible; utility charges are similar to water and sewer charges the fee system is adaptable to local situations and credits and exemptions can be built in, and (4) it is acceptable; no increase in property tax is required and a regular small service charge is typically more acceptable to residents than a large one-time assessment. Financing Columbia Heights' Storm Water Management Program Page 55 CITY COUNCIL LI~TT~R Meeting of: 11/8/99 AGENDA SECTION:, -1T£~S ~0~': CON'S.! D ERAT ! ON ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: 7 Other Bus~ ness: ' PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: RIGHT-OF-WAY PURCHASE FROM BY: K. Hansen~ BY: CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY '7' C,, ~'~ DATE: 11/4/9~...~.~ DATE: Background: Staffhas been in discussions with CP Railway to remove the railroad tracks in the area north of 37' Avenue, University Avenue Service Drive to the east end of Hnset Park. The track is not used. It creates stregt maintenance problems and divides Huset Park West. CP Railway owns a small parcel of land just north of 39* Avenue and east of $'~ Street (see attached map). As part of the process, CP Railway is requiring the City to acquire this parcel. Analysis/Conclusions: The City Attorney has reviewed the land ownership records and Purchase Agreement. The attorney agrees that CP Railway owns the parcel in question. The attorney has found the Purchase Agreement to be consistent with other CP Railway agreements. His experience with CP Railway is that the terms of the purchase and the price is non-negotiable. The purchase price for the parcel is $39,500 (fh'm). The funds would be State Aid ConstructiOn funds, if approved by the State Aid Office or State Aid Maintenance funds. A total of $45,000 is budgeted in the 1999 State Aid Maintenance fund. Track removal and street repair in the public right-of-way and track removal through Huset Park is the responsibility of the City. Track removal in the CP Railway parcel is at the option of CP Railway. If the tracks are not removed within 120 days of the purchase, the City would be responsible to remove the tracks. In the past we have found that salvage companies will remove the · tracks for the salvage value, at no cost to the City. Restoration would be the City's responsibility. Purchase of this parcel will connect 39* Avenue right-of-way to land already owned by the City located north and east of this parcel. Future use of this parcel may include pending for future development. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize the acquisition of CP Railway land as described in the Purchase and Sale Agreement at a cost of $39,500; and, furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. 99-323 Attachment: Purchase & Sale Agreement Parcel Map COUNCIL ACTION: PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT Canadian Pacific Railway P.O. Box' 530 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 Attn: Director, Real Estate Marketing, U.S. 1. BUYER AND SELLER: The undersigned (Buyer) offers to purchase certain Property (as define~l in paragraph 3) at Columbia Heights, Anoka County, Minnesota from Soo Line Railroad Company, doing business as Canadian Pacific Railway (Seller). 2. ACCEPTANCE: This offer shall be void if not accepted by Seller within 90 days of its date:The accepted offer is sometimes referred to as "this agreement." 3. PROPERTY: The Property consists-of' the land shown in approximation on '.. Exhibit A (the'Land)'and the improvements thereon (the Improvements) (collectively, the · . Property);.provided, however, that the Improvements do not includethose improvements 'which are excluded from the purchase by .other provisions of this 'offer. The land is described as follows:' T. hat part of a 50 foot strip of land lying Southerly of First Subdivision of Block "F", Columbia Heights and of the Northwesterly one-half of 39th Avenue Northeast in the Ci~ of Columbia Heights, bounded and described as follows: beginning at the point of ~ntersection of the East line of said First Subdivision of Block "F" produced South with a line running parallel with and 10 feet distance Northwesterly (measured at right angles) from the center line of the main track of the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Made Railroad Company's so-called Columbia Heights Spur as the same waslocated, maintained and operated on the 6th day of December, 1960; thence Southwesterly along the last described parallel line to a point of intersection wit the Northwesterly line of 39th Avenue Northeast; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly lipe of said 39th Avenue Northeast to a point of intersection with a line running parallel with and 10 feet distance Northerly (measured at right angles) from the center line of the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Ste. Marie Railroad Company's most Northerly ~pur track, as was located, maintained and operated on the 6th day of December, 1960; thence Westerly along the last described parallel line to a point of intersection with the west .line of said First Subdivision of Block "F' produced South; thence South along said West line produced South as aforesaid to a point FORM 902.1/97,MOD.99148-Ol.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN -1- Canadian Pacific RailwaY ,~. of intersection with the center line of 3gth Avenue Northeast; thence Northeasterly along the center line of said 39th Avenue Northeast to a point of intersection with the East line of said First Subdivision of Block ."F" produced South-as aforesaid; thence North to the point of beginning. .. 'The precise legal.description of the Land to be used in the deed will be generated from the survey described in paragraph 14. 4. '/:...DEED: RESERVATIONS AND COVENANTS; RELEASE OF EASEMENTS: (A) The Property will be .conveyed at the closing by quit claim deed. The following reserVations and covenants will be included in the deed (in these reservations and covenants, Seller is referred to as Grantor, Buyer is referred to as Grantee, and the Property is referred'to as the real property): As used in this paragraph, "Claims" means any and all liabilities, suits, claims, .counterclaims, causes of action, demands, penalties, debts, · obligations, promises, acts, fines, judgments, damages, consequential .damages,. losses, costs, and expenses of every kind (including 'without limitation any attorney's fees, consultant's fees, costs, remedial action costs, cleanup costs and expenses which may be :related to any claims); ' "Environmental Law" · means .the · Comprehensive Environmental Response; Compensation and Liability ACt ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery ACt, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution.Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., the. Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § .1321 et seq., the Clean Air ACt, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U;S.C. § 2601 et seq., all as amended from time to time, and any other federal, state,, local or other govemmenta! statute, regulation, rule, law or ordinance dealing with the protection of human health, safety, natural resources or the environment now existing and hereafter enacted; and "Hazardous Substance" .means any pollutant, contaminant, hazardous substance or waste, solid waste, petroleum · product, ~listillate, or fraction, radioactive material, chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, polychlorinated biphenyl or any other chemical,-substance or material listed or identified in or regulated by any Environmental Law. By accepting.delivery of this Quit Claim Deed, Grantee, for itself, its directors, officers, agents, affiliates, predecessors, successors and assigns, and anyone acting on. its behalf or their behalf covenants and agrees not to sue Grantor FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN Railway or its respective directors, officers, stockholders, divisions, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors, successors and assigns, grantors 'or anyone acting on its behalf or their behalf with respect to any Claims (including without limitation all Claims adsing, under any "Environmental Law), existing and contingent, known and unknown, that Grantee had, has or may have, whether arising at common law, in'equity, or under a federal,, state or local statute, rule or regulation, adsing-out .of, :'.resulting from, or relating to the condition of the Property. 'The foregoing shall aPply to any condition of the Property, known or. unknown, contemplated or uncontemplated, suspected .or unsuspected, including without limitation the presence of .any Hazardous Substance on the Property, whether such Hazardous SubstanCe is located on or under the Property, or has migrated from or to the Property, regardless of whether the foregoing condition of the Property was caused in whole or in part by the Grantor's actions or inactions. (B) At or near Closing, Seller will execute and record a release of any . easement or license rights it may have; howsoever acquired, for the installation, operation or maintenance of.railroad tracks upon land owned in fee byany party whomsoever located in the South-half of the Southeast .Quarter, and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest .Quarter of Section 35, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota. · Except for trackage located within public streets, Seller will. reserve unto itself the right to enter upon any such easement property at any time within 120 days after the execution of the release to remove railroad trackage and the appurtenances thereto. If Seller fails to remove any such improvements within 120 days after the effective date of the release, they shall be deemed abandoned in Place and shall become property of the underlying fee owner, in which case, absent any contractual or statutory obligation to the contrary, Seller shall have no further liability o~ responsibility ~for removing them. 5. [Not applicable] '6. TRACKAGE AND APPURTENANCES EXCLUSION; REMOVAL: All railroad trackage (and the appurtenances thereto), buildings, and other imProvements to the Land are excluded from the purchase. Seller may enter the Property at any time within 120 days after the closing t~) remove such improvements. If Seller fails to remove any such improvements within 120 days after the closing, they shall be deemed abandoned in place and shall become Buyer's property, in which case Seller shall have no further liability or responsibility for removing them. 7. CONSIDERATION: · FORM 902.1/97.MOD.g9148-01.olp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN -3- Canadian Pacific Railway (A). The purchase price of the Property is $39,500.00, net to Seller. and (B) . Effective at.closing, Buyer shall assume all liability, cost and expense in ..connection with the removal of any railroad tracks, ties, ballast or other appurtenances located within public streets or alleys in the South-half 'of'the Southeast Quarter, and the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 3ONorth, Range 24 West, Anoka 'County,. MN and that part of Thirty-seventh Avenue. Northeast loCated in the. NortheaSt Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, 'Township 29' North, Range 24 West:..'Said crossings are shown..upon the map-labeled -."Exhibit B" which is attached hereto and is made a part hereof. 8. CLOSING: Except as otherwise provided in paragraph 9, this transaction shall close at a mutuail~] agreeable time and place no later than 90 days after Seller's acceptance of this offer. 9.' GOVERNMENTAL APPROVAl: Sellerwill be required to obtain governmental .;..* approval or:exemption in lieu.thereof (collectively, Authorization). in order to consummate "this transaction..This.agreement shall be :contingent upon the'granting of Authorization, and Buyerwill cooperate with Seller to obtain Authorization. If Authorization is not obtained within '180 'days'-after :Seller's aCceptance, of this ,offer. (the'Contingency Period), this agreement.' shall "automatically .terminate at the end of the-Contingency Period. If ..Authorization..is ~.not ..obtained ~ prior* to the expiration of ~.the time period specified in .* paragraph 8,~ the date for closing shall be delayed to a date no later than 15 days after * Authorization is*obtained; however, under no circumstances shall the closing be delayed to a date later than 180 days after Seller's acceptance of this offer. 10. ESCROW: Should the parties agree to close in escrow, Buyer will pay all fees and charges in connection with the escrow. 11. PAYMENT: The purchase price shall be paid to Seller at the closing by a check drawn on an account, of the Buyer or by a wire transfer to an account or accounts designated' by Seller. 12. ENCUMBRANCES: The Property will be conveyed subject to facts which would be disclosed by a comprehensive survey, rights and claims of parties in possession, rights of the public, and ~asements, leases, licenses, and permits. Buyer may object t° the marketability of Seller's title on the basis of such matters. 13. JUDGMENT LIENS: Any judgment against Seller which may appear of record as a lien against the Property shall be settled and satisfied by Seller within 30 days after it becomes final and unappealable, and Seller shall indemnify Buyer, and Buyer's title FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN Canadian Pacific Railway insurer, for any loss sustained by either of them as a result of Seller's failure to have any such judgment lien so settled and satisfied. Buyer may object to the marketability of Seller's title on the basis of such matters. 14. SURVEY: Buyer shall, at its expense, have a survey of the Land prepared by .. a. surveyor registered in the State in which the Land is located. If the Land is registered **(i.e., 'Torrens) land, .or if a certified survey is .required by law, .the survey shall be duly · :certified..The survey shall show the location of all known*easements and improvements, · '·'.:~including ·(but not limited to)all .railroad tracks.. The survey.shall also show the location of · all Seller's railroad tracks within 50 feet of the Outer boundaries of the Land. If the Purchase price requires a certification as to square footage, the same shall be certified by the surveYor. The survey shall be subject to Seller's approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Buyer shall deliver the survey to Seller n° later than 45 days after Seller's acceptance' of this offer. Seller shall have 10 days in which to disapprove the survey by giving notice to Buyer of the matters which render the survey unacceptable. If Seller fails to give such notice, the survey shall be deemed approved. If Seller gives such ..... ; notice,- Buyer shall make a good faith attempt to remedy such matters and shall, within 10 ..... ..days.of Seller's notice, deliver a revised survey to Seller.;Sellerlshall have 10 days in which · . to disapprove.the 'revised survey by giving Buyer notice of the matters which render it ...... unacceptable. If. Seller fails:to give such .notice, the survey shall be deemed approved. If - Seller gives'such: notice, this 'agreement'shall thereupon terminate unless Seller, at its · '. :-.".option,'shallagree in writing to permit Buyer to make additional revisions to the survey. 15. SUBDIVISION PLATS: Buyer will be responsible for preparing, at its expense, any survey or plat required by any governmental authority (including any survey or plat of Seller's property contiguous to the Land, where such survey· or plat is required in connection with or as a consequence of, Buyer's purchase of the Land). The survey or plat shall not be filed or recorded until Seller has approved it. 16. RIGHT OF ENTRY: During the first 45 days after Seller's acceptance of this offer, Buyer (and its employees, agents, and contractors) may enter the Property and, to the extent necessary to effectuate the purposes of this Paragraph, Seller's land in the vicinity of the Property (such land and the Property being referred to, collectively, as the Site), for the purpose of conducting soil tests, environmental tests, and a survey, subject to the following conditions: (a) Buyer shall give Seller reasonable advance notice of the date and time of each bntry ·and the nature of the activities to be conducted on the Site at each such date and time. (b) Seller may elect to be present during the conduct o{ such activities and to FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01 .otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN -5- Canadian Pa¢/fi¢ Railway monitor same. Such monitoring shall not relieve Buyer of any liability under this paragraph 16. (c) Pdor to entering the Site, Buyer shall secure the permission of any tenant then' in possession, of same. (d) Upon the completion of its activities on the :Site, BuYer shall remove any .' debds resulting.from such*activities and shall restore the Site to the condition it was in prior to the commencement of such activities. (e) Buyer shall indemnify, *hold harmless and defend the Indemnitees (as defined below) from and against all Claims adsing out of, resulting from or relating to any loss of (or damage to) any property or business or any injury to (or 'death of) any person, where such loss, damage, injury, or death actually or allegedly adses (whether directly or indirectly, wholly or in part) from: (a) any action or omission of Buyer (or its employees, agents, or .'.contractors) while .on the. Site pursuant to :this paragraph 16;. or (b) the .exercise 'by Buyer..(or"its 'employees, agents, :or 'contractorS) of the · . '.' · *....permission granted by this.paragraph 16; or (c) the release of any Hazardous .. '.:*. .... Substance (as defined in paragraph 29) resulting (directly or indirectly, wholly .' :.*. '~ or. in'part) from any action.or omission of Buyer (or its employees, agents, or · ' . . .'. 'contractors)while on.the.Site pursuant to this paragraph 16. Indemnitees · ~:.. '.- .: -means :Seller,~ its-subsidiaries, affiliated companies and parent companies, ..... · '*'*and'their'directors," officers; employees'-and agents, including without limitation Soo Line Corporation, Tri-State Land Company, Tri-State Management Company, The Milwaukee Motor Transportation Company, - Hiawatha Transfer Company, and Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Buyer (and its employees, agents, and contractors) shall comply with ali applicable laws while on the Site. (g) Buyer will not commence any environmental testing until its work plan for such testing has been approved in writing by Seller, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Buyer will provide Seller with complete copies of the test data and test reports as soon as they are availa~ble to Buyer.. (h) The c, bst'of any test or survey will be bome solely by Buyer. (i) Test holes shall be located no closer than 10 feet from the nearest rail of any railroad track located on or adjacent to the Site. Drilling equipment and *FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148..01.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN related equipment shall not be placed closer than 10 feet from the nearest rail of any such track. -While on the Site, Buyer(and its employees, agents, and contractors) shall comply with 'Seller's safety rules, including any requirement regarding the use of flagmen. All costs associated with compliance with such 'rules shall be borne by Buyer. If Seller shall incur any costs in connection therewith, -Buyer shall reimburse Seller.within 30 days after receipt of Seller's invoice. (k) Unless disclosure is, required by court order or applicable law, BUyer shall maintain, and shall cause its employees, agents, and contractors to maintain, the confidentiality of all information pertaining to any environmental test perfortned on the Site. (I) If any mechanic's or materialmen's lien, or similar lien, is asserted against the Site, the Property, or any other property of Seller or the Indemnitees as .?::a result of the:exercise of the permission granted in this paragraph 16, Buyer · ~-:'.. 'shall immediately satisfy and/or obtain the release of such lien, all at Buyer's expense, and Buyer shall indemnify, hold .harmless and defend the .- ..Indemnitees from'and against all'Claims arising out of or connected with such lien. 17.'... 'TITLE MATTERS: 'Seller makes no warranty or representation with respect to "the marketability or quality of its title and is not under any obligation to fumish abstracts of title, title reports, or titleinsurance poJicies in respect of the Property. Buyer shall have 45 days after Seller's acceptance of this offer in which to raise objections to the marketability of Seller's title. If Buyer objects to Seller's title, it must give Seller notice within such 45-day- pedod, specifying the precise nature of the alleged title defects. The notice must be accompanied by evidence of the alleged defects, in the form of a copy of an abstract of title or a title company's title commitment. If Buyer fails to give proper or timely notice, it shall be deemed to have waived its fight to object (except that defects which arise subsequent to the 45-day pedod shall not be deemed waived unless Buyer fails to give Seller notice of same promptly after it learns, or in the exercise 'of reasonable diligence should have learned, of them); furthermore, even if Buyer gives proper and timely notice, it shall be deemed to have w~ved its dght to object on the basis of then-existing defects not specified in the notice. Seller shall have 45 days or until the closing, whichever is less (the Cure Pedod), in which it ,may, if it so chooses, attempt to cure any defect specified in a timely and otherwise proper'notice. Seller has no obligation or responsibility whatsoever to cure (or attempt to cure) any title defect. If Seller shall undertake to cure or attempt to cure any title defect, it may withdraw from such undertaking at any time. without penalty; such undertaking shall not create, nor shall it under any circumstance be construed to create, FORM 902.1/97.MOD,99148-01.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN · Canadian Pacific Railway any obligation whatsoever on the part of Seller to cure any such defect. If Seller is unable or unwilling to cure any specified defect, Buyer may terminate this agreement by giving Seller notice of termination at any time pdor to the actual delivery and acceptance of the deed, which notice shall state that this agreement is being terminated by reason of Seller's failure to cure title defects. By accepting delivery of the quit claim deed, Buyer shall be deemed to waive any and all uncured title defects. 18. REAL ESTATE TAXES: The total real estate tax bill payable in the year in which the date'of closing occurs will be prorated on a per diem basis as of the closing, using the most recent tax bill; such proration shall be final and binding on Seller and Buyer and there shall be no post-closing adjustment. There will be no proration tothe extent the payment of such'taxes has been assumed by a lessee under a lease that will be assigned to Buyer or merged into the purchase. 19. TRANSFER TAXES AND FEEs: 'Buyerwill purchase, affix, and cancel any and all documentary stamps in the amount prescribed by statute, and will pay any and all transfer taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, and fees incidental to the transfer of the Property or the recordation or filing of the deed. '20. "SPECIAL' ASSESSMENTS: ·Buyer.will assume responsibility for paying any ~'special assessment (or.installment thereof) where the due date for payment is on or after the date of this offer, irrespective of the date of the improvement. · 21 '. '."'-NOTICES: '-Notices permitted or required by this agreement must be in writing and shall be deemed given when delivered in legible form to the business address of the party to whom addressed. If delivered at the closing, a notice shall be deemed given when hand-delivered to the party's representative at the closing. The business addresses of the parties are as follows: Seller - mailing address: P.O. Box 530 Minneapolis, MN 55440 Director, Real Estate Marketing, U.S. delivery address: I 501 Marquette Avenue, Suite 1380 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Director, Real Estate Marketing, U.s. telecopier: (612) 347-8170 Director, Real Estate Marketing, U.S. FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA couNTY. MN Canadian Pacific Railway BUyer -- mailing address: Attn: deliVery address: Attn: Attn: Telecopier: Notices not given in the manner or within the time limits Set forth in this agreement are of no effect and may be disregarded by the party to whom they are directed. 22. REAL ESTATE BROKERS: Seller represents that it has not retained any real estate broker or agent in connection with this transaction. If any real estate broker or agent can establish a valid claim for commission or other compensation in connectiOn with this transaction, such commission or other compensation shall be paid by Buyer. 23...LEASES: At and as of the closing, Sellerwill assign to Buyer Seller's dghts, and Buyer will assume Seller's obligations, under any lease which: (a) was granted by Seller (or its predecessors in interest) as lessor, (b) is known to Seller, and (c).includes or burdens any portio~ of the Property; provided, that if Buyer is the lessee under such a lease, that lease shall merge into the pumhase as of the closing. And further provided, that if a lease includes property other than the Property, the assignment and assumption (or merger) shall be limited to the leasehold interest in the Property: The assignment and assumption contemplated by this paragraph shall be limited to dghts and obligations FORM 902.1/97,MOD.99148-01.otp' OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN -9- Canadian PacifiC Railway accruing as of and after the closing. Prepaid rentals shall be prorated on a per diem basis at and as of the.clOsing. In the event of a partial assignment or merger, rentals in respect of the period from and after the closing shall be adjusted between Seller and Buyer on the basis of the square footage of the land area of their respective interests in the leased premises; provided, however, that where the rental was established on a basis other than square footage, the adjustment shall be determined using such other basis. Seller will provide a copy of each such lease to Buyer within 30 days after Seller accepts this offer. At the closing, the parties will execute an assignment and assumption agreement incorporating the terms of this paragraph and identifying such lease or leases. Notwithstanding the-foregoing, Seller reserves to itself 100% of the gross revenues attributable to any fiber optic agreement of whatever nature, including gross revenues in respect of any renewal term or extended term contemplated by said agreement. 24. EASEMENTS, LICENSES, AND PERMITS: At and as of the closing, Seller will assign to Buyer Seller's rights, and Buyer will assume Seller's obligations, under existing easements, licenses, and permits (collectively, instruments) which: (a) were - granted by Seller (or its predecessors in-interest), (b) are.known to Seller, and (c) include or burden any portion of the Property. There.shall be no'proration of prepaid rentals, prepaid fees, or other prepaid charges in respect of any such instrument. If such an instrument pertains in part to property other than the Property, the assignment and. · 'assumption shall be limited to the interest the instrument creates in the Property. In the · .-event'of such partiall assignment, .the rentals, fees,, and other char~ges which come due · .:affer.theclosing shall be allocated between Seller and Buyer on the basis of the square footage of the land area of their respective interests in the property affected by the instrument; provided, however, that where the rental, fee, or other charge was established on a basis other than square footage, the adjustment shall be determined using such other basis. The assignment and assumption contemplated by this paragraph shall be limited to rights and obligations accruing as of and after the closing. Seller will provide a copy of each such instrument to Buyer within 30 days after Seller accepts this offer. At the closing, the parties will execute an assignment and assumption agreement incorporating the terms of this paragraph and identifying such instrument or instruments. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Seller reserves to itself 100% of the gross revenues attributable to any fiber optic agreement of whatever nature, including gross revenues in respect of any reneWal term or extended term contemplated by said. agreement. I 2~5. AS lSi ALL.FAULTS; NO REPRESENTATION BY SELLER: Buyer agrees to accept the condition of the Property,-including specifically without limitation, the environmental and 'geological condition of the Property, in an "AS-IS" and with "ALL FAULTS" condition. Buyer's acceptance of title to the PropertY shall represent Buyer's acknowledgment and agreement that: (i) Seller has not made any wr'rtten or oral representation or warranty of any kind with respect to the Property (including without FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN limitation express or implied warranties of title, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose); (ii) Buyer has not relied on any written or oral' representation or warranty made by Seller, its agents or employees with respectto the condition or value of the Property; (iii) Buyer has had an adequate opportunity to 'inspect the condition of the Property, · including withoutlimitation any environmental testing, and to inspect documents applicable thereto, and Buyer is relying solely on such inspection .and testing; and (iv) the condition of the Property is fit for Buyer'S intended use. 26. [Not applicable] 27. [Not applicable] 28. ENVIRONMENTAL: PARTIES' RIGHT TO TERMINATE:. Either party may terminate this. agreement at any time prior to the delivery of the deed if it determines, in the exercise of its discretion, that circumstances related to Hazardous Substances render the sale inadvisable. The closing of the sale, if it occurs, is not, and shall not be construed as, · -an *actual or implied representation or warranty by Seller as'to*the condition of the Property or the absence of Hazardous Substances. 29. DEFINITIONS: · : · .-' ~'Claim"'or.'Claims".means'anyand all liabilities;suits, claims, counterclaims, causes "of-'action,-demands, penalties, debts,., obligations, .promises, *acts, fines, judgments, ..... damages, *consequential damages, 'losses, costs, and expenses of every kind (including without limitation any attorney's fees, consultant's fees; costs, remedial action costs, cleanup costs·and expenses which may be related to any claims). "Environmental 'Law" 'means the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § i321 et seq., the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., all as amended from time to time, and any other federal, state, local or other governmental statute, regulation, rule, law or ordinance dealing with the protection of human health, safety, natural resources or the environment now existing or hereafter enacted. "Hazardous Substance" or "Hazardous Substances" means any pollutant, contaminant, hazardous substance or waste, solid waste, petroleum product, distillate, or fraction, radioactive material, chemical known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, polychlorinated biphenyl or any other chemical, substance or material listed or identified FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01 .otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN -11- C~anadian Pac~fi¢ Railway in or regulated by any Environmental Law. 30. LITIGATION EXPENSES: In any action brought in connection with this agreement, the prevailing 'party shall be entitled to recover its litigation expenses, including, but not limited to, court costs, .disbursements, witness fees, experts~ fees, and attorneys' fees. 31. TIME OF THE ESSENCE: Time is of the essence of this agreement. 32; .... LIQUIDATED DAMAGES AND SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE: If Buyer fails to perform any of the terms or conditions of this agreement within the sPecified time limits, Seller may, at. Seller's option, declare this agreement terminated or have this agreement specifically enforced. Likewise, if Seller fails to perform any of the terms or conditions of this agreement within the specified time limits, BUyer may declare this agreement terminated, or Buyer may have this agreement specifically enforced. The rights and remedies granted to the parties in this paragraph are intended to be cumulative to all other rights and remedies .available to the parties (whether under this agreement, at law, in "equity or otherwise); 'accordingly, ~[he.'exercise by either party of any such right or remedy shall not preclude it from exercising any other such right or remedy. ·. 33.' '. COMPUTATION OF TIME: For the purpOse of computing the time periods · specified'in .this agreement,' Saturdays,.. Sundays and:legal holidays shall be counted. · . However, .where'the last day for performing any act falls on aSaturday, Sunday, or legal "holiday, that actmay be performed on the 'next succeeding day which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. 34. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the sale and purchase of the property. Buyer has not relied on any statements or representations by Seller except as are set forth in this. agreement. 35.. NON-ASSIGNABILITY: Buyer shall not in any manner assign or transfer its fights under this agreement, voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, without the advance written consent of Seller. Any attempted or purported .assignment or transfer by Buyer wi.thout such consent shall be void. Subject thereto, this agreement shall inure to the bene~ of, and be. binding upon the heirs, eXecutors, administrators,- successors and assigns of the respective parties. 36. SURVIVAL OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The terms and conditions of this agreement shall survive and be in full force and effect al[er the de!ivery of the deed, and shall not be deemed to have merged therein. FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01.olp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN .12. C~,anadian Pa¢/fi¢ Railway ,=. 37. SURVIVAL OF INDEMNIFICATION,... LITIGATION EXPENSE CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS: The indemnification, litigation expense, confidentiality provisions of this agreement shall survive its termination. AND and 38. APPLICABLE LAW: This agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State in which the Land is located. 39 .... SEVERABILITY: Each Provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, and word ~'of ~this *agreement shall apply to the extent permitted by applicable law and is *intended to be severable. 'if any provision,' paragraph, Sentence, clause, phrase or word of this agreement is illegal orinvalid for any reason whatsoever, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect the legality or validity of the remainder of the agreement. 40. RAIL SERVICE; NO OBLIGATION: Nothing in this agreement is intended to create, nor shall it be construed to create, any express or implied obligation on the part of Seller to provide. (or continue to provide) rail service to Buyer and/or the Property. Nothing in this agreement is intended to prevent or limit, nor shall'it be construed toprevent or limit, the discontinuance, by Seller, of rail service over any railroad line or trackageby which rail service is or may be provided to Buyer and/or the Property. ..... ; 41 .~'......WELLAND SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM DISCLOSURES: Seller certifies. - ' ':: .: ~ that to the best of Seller's knowledge there are no wellson the Property. Seller states that "~ to .the best'.ofSeller's .knowledge there is no :individual sewage' treatment system, as · defined in Chapter 115.55 of the Minnesota statutes, on or serving the Property. 42. [Not applicable] 43. HEADINGS: The paragraph headings used in this agreement are used solely for the purpose 'of convenience. They are not intended to, and do not, modify or limit the wording of the paragraphs to which they are appended, and they shall not be used or construed as guides to the interpretation of said paragraphs. FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01,otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN -13- Canadian Pacific Railway OFFER DATE: This'offer is dated OFFER: (Buyer's name as it should appear in deed) By Its. Type of company, e.g., corporation, partnership: State of incorporation or formation: ACCEPTANCE: SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY By Director Real Estate Marketing, U.S. Date: Not Assignable VV'~hout Consent- FORM 902.1/97.MOD.99148-01.otp OFFER TO PURCHASE ANOKA COUNTY. MN -14- Canadian Pa¢/f/¢ Railway 20 15 14 " I! 7 g GC)' cO~L CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meetin~ of: November 8~ 1999 AGENDA SECTION: Other Business ORIGINATING DEPT.: t/t-~J CITY MANAGER ~7 Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Conditional Use Permit ~'~' ~'*° '~2 BY'. Joe Hollmm~~ BY: NO: Case # 9911-34, 4022 Central Avenue NE DATE: Nove 9 Issue Statement: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license at 4022 Central Avenue NE. The applicant currently has a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant in the building, but the beer and wine license will intensify the use which requires a separate Conditional Use Permit. Background: Due to the lack of a quorum, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for November 2, 1999, was postponed until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 1999. State Statute as well as the Zoning Ordinance requires at least 10 days published notice prior to a public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use Permit applications. As a result, November 15 is the earliest date available for the rescheduled meeting. Having discussed the issue with the City Attorney, it has been determined that the best way to legally expedite the process as quickly as possible is to have the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to final review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission with any conditions that may be added by the Commission. Analysis: Pertinent licensing requirements for a beer and wine license are as follows. (1) It must be in conjunction with a restaurant or hotel. (2) A wine license requires seating for no less than 75 people. The floor plan indicates that there will be 80 seats. (3) For a beer license, minors are only allowed to remain on the premises if the licensee derives no more than 20% of its gross revenues generated on the premises from the sale of beer and has a minimum seating capacity for at least 100 persons at booths and tables only, or if the premises is a bona fide club. The floor plan indicates that there are only 80 seats in the restaurant, so a beer license is not allowed unless minors are not allowed in the restaurant. (4) For a wine license 80% of the annual gross receipts must result from the sale of food. (5) For a wine license, the restaurant must not be within 200 feet of the center of the main/front door of a church nor within 300 feet of a school building. The City Engineering Department surveyed the distance between the restaurant and the Early Childhood Family Education Center in the Columbia Heights Mall. The distance between the front doors to each building is 293 feet, so a wine license is not allowed. Note that a beer license requires a minimum of 300 feet between a school or church. Be advised that the Early Childhood Family Education Center will be moving out of the Mall at some point late this winter or early next spring. Staff was informed by the school district that the tentative move date is February l, 2000, but this is dependent on the completion date of the Family Center. Recommendation: Staffrecommends that City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for a wine license subject to the condition that the wine license shall not be issued until the Early Childhood Family Center has moved out of the Columbia Heights Mall. The approval would also be subject to final review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the Council is not comfortable with this process, an alternative approach would be to table action until the October 22 meeting which would allow time for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the case and make a recommendation to City Council. Recommended Motions: Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow a wine license at 4022 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions. 1. Approval with conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. The liquor license shall not be issued until after the Early Childhood Family Center has moved out of the Columbia Heights Mall. Move to deny the Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer license at 4022 Central Avenue NE subject to a final determination by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attachments: COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN ~5421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 PI.A##I~/6 AIVD ZO#I#6 COMMI$$10/V NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 N.E. 40th Avenue, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. The order of business is as follows: **Due to lack of a quorum, this meetinq has been postponed until Monday, November15, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license at 4022 Central Avenue N.E. The subject property is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and Section 9.112(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and bars in the CBD. The applicant currently has a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant in the building, but the beer and wine license will intensify the use which requires a separate Conditional Use Permit. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For questions, you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 612-782-2856. Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt Fehst City Manager kp The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, extension 209, to make arrangements. (TDD/782-2806 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Case: 9911-34 Page: 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING Case#: 9911-34 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner: Address: Phone: Genevieve Kuppe 5000 Johnson Street NE Columbia Heights, MN Applicant: Ashok Bedi 4022 Central Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN (612) 782-9678 Parcel Address: 4022 Central Avenue NE Zoning: CBD, Central Business District Comprehensive Plan: C - Commercial Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: CBD South: CBD East: CBD West: CBD Land Use North: Commercial South: Commercial East: Commercial West: Public Parking Ramp BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license at 4022 Central Avenue NE. The applicant cun'ently has a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant in the building, but the beer and wine license will intensify the use which requires a separate Conditional Use Permit. Case Histo~_ : Case 9406-24 was a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a specialty grocery store combined with a deli/restaurant in the building which was approved by the! City Council on June 13, 1994. Case 9608-41 was a request by Mr. Bedi to operate a restaurant/deli with a grocery store in the building which was approved by the City Council on August 12, 1996. Case: 9911-34 Page: 2 ANALYSIS Surrounding ProperS_: The surrounding property in all four directions is zoned CBD, Central Business District. Thc neighboring lots on the north, south, and east are used commercially. Thc property to thc west is used for a public parking ramp. Technical Review: Section 9.112(2) of thc Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, bars, provided said design is to only serve customers seated at tables, counters or booths. Minimum Yard and Density requirements in the Central Business District are as follows: 1. The floor area ratio shall not exceed 6.0. Floor Area Ratio is defined as the numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. The Floor Area Ratio for the building is approximately 1.0 which meets this requirement. 2. Every lot shall have a minimum fi'ontage of 20 feet. The subject parcel has a frontage of 50 feet which meets this requirement. 3. Front Yard shall be one foot. It appears that the building was constructed right up to the fi'ont lot line, but this is a pre-existing situation so the structure is legally nonconforming. According to the floor plan submitted with the application, the restaurant will contain 80 seats. Parking requirements for a restaurant are at least one space for each 3 seats, which will require 27 parking spaces. There are no on-site parking spaces provided, but the property does have use of the City parking ramp which is located immediately across the alley to the west of the subject property. Considering that the parking ramp is available, minimum parking requirements will be met, including handicap parking. Waste material storage is located behind the building which complies with the Zoning Ordinance. The dumpster is located on a pad on City property which was designed to be used for waste material storage. Pertinent licensing requirements for a beer and wine license are as follows. 1. It must be in conjunction with a restaurant or hotel. The proposed license will be in conjunction with Sahib's Gateway to India restaurant. 2. A wine license requires seating for no less than 75 people. The floor plan indicates that there will be 80 seats. 3. For a beer license, minors are only allowed to remain on the premises if the licensee derives no more than 20% of its gross revenues generated on the premises from the sale of beer and has a minimum seating capacity for at least 100 persons at booths and tables only, or if the premises is a bona fide club. The floor plan indicates that there are only 80 seats in the restaurant, so a beer license is not allowed unless minors are not allowed in Case: 9911-34 Page: 3 the restaurant. 4. For a wine license 80% of the annual gross receipts must result from the sale of food. 5. For a wine license, the restaurant must not be within 200 feet of the center of the main/front door of a church nor within 300 feet ora school building. The City Engineering Department surveyed the distance between the restaurant and the Early Childhood Family Education Center in the Columbia Heights Mall. The distance between the front doors to each building is 293 feet, so a wine license is not allowed. Note that a beer license requires a minimum of 300 feet between a school or church. Be advised that the Early Childhood Family Education Center will be moving out of the Mall at some point late this winter or early next spring. Staff was informed by the school district that the tentative move date is February 1, 2000, but this is dependent on the completion date of the Family Center. As a result, one option to consider is that the Conditional Use Permit could be issued only for the wine license, subject to a condition that the wine license can not be issued until the Early Childhood Family Center has completely moved out of the Columbia Heights Mall. Compliance with Ci~_ Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future commercial use. One of the goals of the Land Use and Redevelopment component of the Plan states "Improve the commercial viability of the Central Avenue Corridor while protecting nearby residential neighborhoods." Also, in the Plan's discussion of locations of special planning interest, it states that the City should promote private redevelopment of underutilized and/or deteriorated sites. The proposal is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Summa~_ : The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows. 1. The proposal is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows. 1. City licensing requirements will not be met. CONCLUSION Staff Recommendation: Because minimum licensing requirements will not be met and because the actual move date for the Early Childhood Family Center from the Columbia Heights Mall is uncertain, staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer license at 4022 Central Avenue NE. However, staff recommends approval of the Conditional use Permit for a wine license subject to the condition that the license shall not be issued until after the Early Childhood Family Center moves from the Mall. Case: 9911-34 Page: 4 Recommended Motions: Move to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a wine license at 4022 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions. 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. The wine license shall not be issued until the Early Childhood Family Center completely moves from the Columbia Heights Mall. 3. A minimum of 75 seats shall be maintained in the restaurant. Move to recommend City Council denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer license at 4022 Central Avenue NE. Alternate Motion: Move to recommend City Council denial of the Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license at 4022 Central Avenue NE, because minimum licensing requirements will not be met. Attachments: · Completed application form; floor plan; area map; letter from State Representative Chaudhary, and, Notice of Public Hearing CITY O~ COLUMBIA HEIGHT~ RECEIVED Appu. catto- Dar:e, /¢' privac7 Pence Date o~1 Use Pe~it ~ Pee: 8. y. zhibite Submitted (~ps, dias=ams, etc.) · resents upon all of the. _ . undecsi~ned hereby 9. ~llv, ~o: ~" ~-?r ......... *- here~ are · ~L~:::~fT::~:~ ~~.:'.~t'~' ~'~T' . ,, Si~ature of App '- Taken ST:~'- .J~. IL'- Address Book - First Revision Section 36 AVE N '~ !" =407 100 0 100 2130 300 400 Satveer Chaudhary State Representative Distdct 52A Anoka and Ramsey Counties Minnesota House of Representatives Phi C~ Sr.ak~ COMMITTEES'. EDUCATION; HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE; FACILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE; JUDICIARY; CHAIR, DWI SUBCOMMI'FI'EE; VICE-CHAIR. CIVIL & FAMILY LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT & METROPOMTAN AFFAIRS October 19, 1999 Dear Friend, This letter is to serve as a character reference for Askok Bedi (dba Sahib's) application for a beer and wine license in Columbia Heights. Begun only three years ago, when few restaurants were willing tO risk opening on Central Avenue, Sahib's has strived and thrived by emphasizing its diverse cuisine and personalized service. Amongst the not simple challenges of running a small restaurant in an inner ring suburb, Mr. Bedi has also successfully confronted numerous health and safety code issues left over from previous tenants and owners. While other businesses in Columbia Heights have sought exemption from code, Sahib' s has exhibited the moral and financial fiber to directly and immediately comply with all, even potential, health and safety concerns. D~spite 'the~e challenges, Sahib's has grown and succeeded, and at the same time increased foot traf~c and revita!i~ed our communitys' business district. Sahib'S has nOw grown to expansion capacity and with that, a customer desire for beer and wine. With the ability to serve a broader customer base, so too will co.me even greater growth and vitality for Columbia Heights. Since joining the legislature, I have led the charge for stricter DWI laws, including lowering the per se blood alcohol content to .08. I am keenly aware of public concerns with excessive drinking, and can say that Sahib's establishment does not foster a swarthy atmosphere. As a sit-down restaurant, a beer and wine license will only enhance Sahib's already respectable dining experience. Thank you in advance for considering Sahib's application. It is the type of business worthy of expansion in our community. Sincerely, Satv Cmm State Repres mtative 1601 North Innsbruck Ddve. Fddla¥, Minnesota 55432 507 State Office Building, 100 Constitution Ave.. St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1298 FAX (612) 296-4165 (612) 571-0897 (612) 296-4331 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) '782-2800 1'i313 782-2806 PLA~I~/I#6 AND ZgNI~I~ COMMISSIO/V NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a pubfic hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 560 N.E. 40th Avenue, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 1996. The order of business is as follows: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a beer and wine license at 4022 Central AvenueN.E. The subject property is zoned CeD, Central Business District, and Section 9.112(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and bars in the CBO. The applicant currently has a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant in the building, but the beer and wine license will intensify the use which requires a separate Conditional Use Permit. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will he given an opportunity to be heard. For questions, you may contact Joe Hoilman, City Planner, at'612-782-2856. Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Wait Fehst City Manager kp The City of ColUmbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, extension 209, to make arrangements. (TOOl782-2806 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) THE CiTY OF COL,.UMImlA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE SASIS OI~ DISABILITY IN EMplOyMENT OR THE PROVISION OF' SERVICES CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: Other Business ORIGINATING DEPT.: lf~2J CITY MANAGER '~ Community Development~/~t- APPROVAL ITEM: Conditional Use Permit q. ~ , g/') BY: Joe Hollm~/--/ BY: NO: Case # 9911-33, 508 40th Avenue NE DATE: November~ 1~9'99 Issue Statement: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 40' x 48' (1,920 square feet) accessory structure on the property at 508 40th Avenue NE. The accessory structure is intended to be used for storage of miscellaneous parts, equipment, and vehicles. Background: Due to the lack of a quorum, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for November 2, 1999, was postponed until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 1999. State Statute as well as the Zoning Ordinance requires at least 10 days published notice prior to a public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use Permit applications. As a result, November 15 is the earliest date available for the rescheduled meeting. Having discussed the issue with the City Attorney, it has been determined that the best way to legally expedite the process as quickly as possible is to have the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to final review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Conunission with any conditions that may be added by the Commission. Analysis: As indicated in the attached staff report, minimum yard and density requirements as well as parking requirements will be met. The pole building will have three 12 feet wide by 12 feet high overhead doors that will face south. Note that the rear of the garage will face 40th Avenue NE. The walls will be 14 feet in height and the total height of the building will be roughly 20 feet. The color of the walls will be ivory and the trim and roof color will be emerald green. Note that the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate the height or size of accessory structures in commercial districts other than the maximum height requirement of three stories or 35 feet for any building in the Retail Business Zoning District. Also, the applicant has stated that he plans to add a louvered vent on the back side of the building (facing 40th Avenue NE) to improve the building's appearance. Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to final review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the Council is not comfortable with this process, an alternative approach would be to table action until the November 22 meeting which would allow time for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the case and make a recommendation to City Council. Recommended Motion: Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 1,920 square foot accessory building in the Retail Business zoning district at 508 40th Avenue NE, subject to approval with conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attachments: COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Racy f r~nz~n 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 5542 !-387~ (612) 782-2800 TDD 78~-2806 Kwin H~on PLAff/~/I/VG AND ZO~IIAfG COMfffI$$10/V NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 N.E. 40th Avenue, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. The order of business is as follows: *Due to lack of a quorum, this meetinq has been postponed until Monday, November 15, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an approximately 40' x 48' (1,920 square feet) accessory structure on the property at 508- 40~' Avenue N.E. The accessory structure is intended to be used for storage of miscellaneous equipment and vehicles. The subject property is currently zoned RB, Retail Business, and Section 9.113(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for accessory buildings in the RB Zoning District. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For questions, you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 612-782-2856. Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt Fehst City Manager kp The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, extension 209, to make arrangements. (TDDI782-2806 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Case: 9911-33 Page: 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING Case#: 9911-33 GENERAL INFORMATION Owner: Merit Siding, Inc. Applicant: Address: 508 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN (612) 781-4115 Phone: Parcel Address: 508 40th Avenue NE Zoning: RB, Retail Business District Comprehensive Plan: C - Commercial SalTI¢ Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: RB South: RB East: RB West: RB Land Use North: Commercial South: Multi-Family Residential East: Commercial West: Commercial BACKGROUND Explanation of'Request: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 40' x 48' (1,920 square feet) accessory structure on the property at 508 40th Avenue NE. The accessory structure is intended to be used for storage of miscellaneous parts, equipment, and vehicles. Case HistorF: There are no previous Planning and Zoning Commission cases on the site. However, there have been recent complaints pertaining to outdoor storage on the property, and the applicant has stated that he has experienced problems with vandalism to his equipment. As a result, he is proposing to construct the storage garage and construct a fence around the property to help alleviate these problems and concerns. Case: 9911-33 Page: 2 ANALYSIS Surrounding Property: The surrounding property in all four directions is zoned RB, Retail Business District. The neighboring lots on the north, east, and west are used commercially. The property to the south is used for Multi-Family Residential. Technical Review: Section 9.113(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for accessory structures in the RB District. Minimum yard and density requirements are as follows. · Every lot shall have a minimum frontage of 40 feet - the existing property meets this requirement. · Minimum lot width shall be 50 feet - the existing property meets this requirement. · Minimum lot area shall be 6,000 square feet - the subject property is approximately 10,050 square feet. · Front Yard shall be 15 feet - the site plan states that the proposed accessory building will meet the 15 foot front yard setback. Having scaled the distance on the site plan which was submitted on October 28, the garage as shown is only 5 feet from the front property line. Staffwill recommend as a condition of approval that an amended site plan be submitted along with a building permit application that illustrates the 15 foot front yard setback. · The floor area ratio shall not exceed 1.0 - the subject property will have a floor area ratio of approximately .5 which meets this requirement. · The maximum height of a structure in the RB District shall be three stories or 35 feet, whichever is lesser - the existing building and proposed storage garage meet this requirement. · The minimum side and rear yard setback shall be 3 feet - the proposed building is shown at 3 feet from the side lot line and 37 feet from the rear lot line. · Accessory structures shall be at least 6 feet away from the principal structure - there will be a 7 foot separation between buildings. The pole building will have three 12 feet wide by 12 feet high overhead doors that will face south. Note that the rear of the garage will face 40ta Avenue NE. The walls will be 14 feet in height and the total height of the building will be roughly 20 feet. The color of the walls will be ivory and the trim and roof color will be emerald green. Note that the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate the height or size of accessory structures in commercial districts other than the maximum height requirement listed above. Also, the applicant has stated that he plans to add a louvered vent on the back side of the building (facing 40ta Avenue NE) to improve the appearance of the building. Office buildings require at least one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area (net). Based on my calculations, a total of 9 off-street parking spaces are required for Merit Siding and the neon sign company. The site plan submitted by the applicant does not illustrate a parking Case: 9911-33 Page: 3 layout, but it does note that a total of 13 parking spaces will be provided. Staffprepared a rough parking layout and it appears that there is room for 5 parking spaces (including one van accessible parking space) behind Merit Siding and the neon sign company which will leave 20 feet between the parking spaces and the proposed fence. Also, considering that the size of a parking stall is 9 feet wide by 20 feet in length and the garage is 40 feet wide with three 12 foot wide overhead doors, there is room in the garage for at least four vehicles parked side by side. This will leave roughly 1,120 square feet of space in the garage for miscellaneous storage. Minimum parking requirements can be met. Section 9.116(3) of the Zoning Ordinance states that all parking lots for five or more vehicles shall have the organization of the spaces painted on the surface according to a plan approved by the City. Staffwill recommend as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a parking plan for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Ordinance also states that lots shall be designed so that internal circulation can be provided without utilizing a public street. Internal circulation can be accomplished on the site. Driveways and parking lots are required to be surfaced with a material to control dust and drainage. As a result, staffwill recommend as a condition of approval that all areas intended to be used for vehicle movement be hard-surfaced with asphalt or concrete. Note that the applicant is proposing to construct a fence around the perimeter of the property with two 16 foot wide electric sliding gates offthe driveway along the south side of the property. Vehicles will enter and exit the site using these two gates. There are also two poles on the site that will be removed and/or relocated. One side issue that the Planning and Zoning Commission should be aware of is the driveway which nms along the south side of the subject property. This driveway is a separate platted lot and the ownership of the property is undetermined. It is staffs impression that the lot was platted as a driveway which was intended to be used by the adjacent properties. However, the existing improved driveway does not follow the boundaries of the driveway parcel. The driveway that gets used actually crosses property lines of the 500 Club, Merit Siding, and the apartment building to the south. Should a fence be constructed along the property line as proposed, a portion of the driveway will be blocked off. This would also be the situation if the apamnent owner or the owner of the 500 Club constructed a fence along their property lines. Staffhas been advised by the City Attorney that this is a private issue between property owners and the City should not get involved. One other issue pertains to Eastman's Gym which is advertised in the front windows of 508 40* Avenue NE. To clarify this use, the applicant has a boxing ring in the building that he uses to train one boxer. This is a completely private use and he does not hold any events that are open for public viewing, so additional parking is not required. Compliance with City Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future commercial use. The Plan Case: 9911-33 Page: 4 addresses 40th Avenue as an area of special Planning interest. It states that the City has long zoned the corridor for business rather than housing because of the level of traffic on 40~ Avenue, and the City should continue with it in order to achieve a long-term evolution to more appropriate land uses. Care should be taken to ensure that abutting housing is protected through proper site planning and design. Construction of the storage garage will provide space for indoor storage of parts, equipment, and vehicles which will give the site a neater appearance. However, the scale and style of the building will not be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff has some concern about the aesthetic impact that the garage will have on the surrounding area. Summa~_ : The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows. 1. The proposal meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance. 2. Construction of the storage garage will provide space for indoor storage of parts, equipment, and vehicles which will give the site a nearer appearance. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows. 1. The scale and style of the building will not be consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. CONCLUSION Staff Recommendation: Because minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance will be met, staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions listed in the recommended motion. Recommended Motion: Move to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 1,920 square foot accessory building in the Retail Business zoning district at 508 40~ Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions. 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. An amended site plan that is drawn to scale illustrating the proposed location of the building on the lot shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The applicant shall submit a parking plan for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit, and the pattem shall be striped on the surface of the lot. 4. All areas intended to be used for vehicle movement shall be hard-surfaced with asphalt or concrete. Attachments: · Completed application form; lot survey; site plan; garage illustrations; and, Notice of Public Hearing CITY OF COLUI~BIA HEIGHTS Application For: Rezonin$ Variance Privacy Fence Conditional Use Per. it Subdivision Approval Site Plan Approval Other '. '- RECEIVED Case No Peet ~1 ~.o COMMUNITY. OEYELOPMEi~.I Receipt Application Date, 1. Street Address of Subject Property, .~)~ 40~ ~. ~J~ :2. Lesal Description of Subject' Property~ Applicant: Address, .~%C)[0~ zi~l~ ~. Descrip~ion of Request: -.. Address: Phone, ZoninR.. Applicable City Ordinance Number Present Zontn Present Use ReAson £or Request= Proposed Zonin$ Proposed Use o Exhibits Subnitted (saps, diairans, etc.) Acknovledf~nent and Siplnature= The underslsned hereby represents upon all of ~he. penalties of lav,'for the purpose of ~nduc~ns the City of Colunb~a ~eishts to take the action here~n requested, that all statements here~n are true and that all york here~n mentioned will be done ~n accordance ~£th the Ordinances of the City of Columbia Eeishts and the laws of the State of H~nnesota,. ~&~. Slinature of Applicant=____~ Date: Taken BY: I,F'OR ~-~ ~,~¢~ CERT I F I CATE OF SURVEY tYlEASURLC'YENT$ SHOI/N IN FEET ~ OECI~LS OF A F~T~ B ~ C~TI~ ~T ~Y. ~ ~ ~T 4OO2 ,.EFFERSGN ST. NE. C(X.~ I-EX~.iTS, ~ 55421 DATE o · IRON IdONL.AaENT I,~ o~c-mrnoN (~ s.~d ~/ak.K) ~ 2 .ad 3, AUDITORa 8UpIDIVI~iON I~K). 24, A..a,. Couae/, ~ Abo · dlht ~w.y ever ~d lams ~ mtp ot'hnd 14 f~ ia wtdlh Ind mGmci. I ~ 5' St. NB (which baden th. wm. side of .50 oF:. 0 I /.% .,,? -/x. '"' / '" ,~ \o~o ~ · ~ ~,"~5 \ o°°~ 14ENAf~OSFr~dle¥ $1ze: d0' · 4e' x ~4' ...~, 6' 0.C. S0eclno wmzl~%~ulitlon {r'-1 binM"Pl~el FLOOR PLAN MIDWES MINX P~INT FILE NUI~Ei~ NOig30$E J Clomur. Strto, 0 . ~77 Ag ~or. -*ttn Lit. for Wills 0~ ~M Co~, ~ors ~lonk CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E:., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (6~2) Ma~ Szumk PLANNINg AND ZONINE COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 560 N.E. 40th Avenue, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. The order of business is as follows: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an approximately 40' x 48' (1,920 square feet) accessory structure on the property at 508- 40~ Avenue N.E. The accessory structure is intended to be used for storage of miscellaneous equipment and vehicles. The subject property is currently zoned RB, Retail Business, and Section 9.113(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for accessory buildings in.the RB Zoning District. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For questions, you may contact Joe Hoilman, City Planner, at 612-782-2856; Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt Fehst City Manager kp The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in ail City of Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, extension 209, to make arrangements..(TDDI782-2806 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) THE: CITY OF' COL. UMBIA HEIGHTS OOE:S NOT OlSCRIMINATE: ON THE: BASIS OF DISA~II.I'I'Y IN I~MP!-OYM~'NT OR THI~' PROVISION OF SII=RVICIItB ~'QUAL. OPPORTUNITY ~MPI..OYE:R CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of.' November 8, 1999 AGENDA SECTION: Other Business ORIGINATING DEPT.: ~ CITY MANAGER f~. Community Developmenl~ f~ APPROVAL ITEM: Conditional Use Permit ~'. ~',J BY: Joe Hollm~/t/t~., BY: NO: Case # 9911-36, 4005 Central Avenue NE DATE: November 6, 1999 Issue Statement: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to open a 200 seat restaurant with a full service bar with liquor in the tenant space formerly occupied by KJ's Sports Bar and Grill at 4005 Central Avenue NE. It will be called The Starbar and Grill, and the proposed hours of operation are 10:00 AM - 1:00 AM, seven days a week. Background: Due to the lack of a quorum, the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting scheduled for November 2, 1999, was postponed until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 1999. State Statute as well as the Zoning Ordinance requires at least 10 days published notice prior to a public hearing in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission for Conditional Use Permit applications. As a result, November 15 is the earliest date available for the rescheduled meeting. Having discussed the issue with the City Attorney, it has been determined that the best way to legally expedite the process as quickly as possible is to have the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to final review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission with any conditions that may be added by the Commission. Analysis: As indicated in the attached staff report, minimum yard and density requirements as well as parking requirements will be met. Pertinent licensing requirements for an on-sale liquor license will also be met. It must be in conjunction with a restaurant or hotel. The restaurant must have facilities for no less than 150 guests. At least 40% of annual receipts must result from the sale of food. Restaurant requires a dining area, open to the general public, with a total minimum floor area of 3,000 square feet. The total floor area of the restaurant is roughly 4,900 square feet. The restaurant must not be within 200 feet of the center of the main/front door of a church nor within 300 feet of a school building. Note that the Early Childhood Family Center is within 300 feet, but the licensing ordinance allows for the continuation of a liquor license for a premises provided the church or school moved in after the liquor license was originally issued. Because a liquor license has been issued for the premises since before the Early Childhood Family Center opened in the Mall, it can continue to be issued for the site. Recommendation: Staff recommends that City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to final review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the Council is not comfortable with this process, an alternative approach would be to table action until the November 22 meeting which would allow time for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the case and make a recommendation to City Council. Recommended Motion: Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of The StarBar and Grill at 4029 Central Avenue NE, subject to approval with conditions set by the Planning and Zoning Commission. f:> L_ ~ A --~ ~ //~ (5 '7"~-c- ~ Attachments: Per Joe Hollman, this was a typographic error COUNCILAC', and it shOuld read'/4005 Central Avenue:~NE. not 4029 Central Avenue NE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 8~ Fmm~n 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 5542 !-3878 (612) 782-28~ TDD T~Ye~ 782-2806 ~; 8a=~ PLANNING AND ZONI~I6 COMMI$SIOIV NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 rd.E. 40th Avenue, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. The order of business is as follows: **Due to lack of a quorum, thio meetinq has been postponed until Monday. November 15, 1999 at 5:00 p Jrt. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an approximately 200 seat restaurant and full service bar with liquor at 4005 Central Avenue N.E. Note that this space is currently occupied by KJ's Sports Bar and Grill which will be closing. The subject property is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and Section 9.112(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and bars in the CBD. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For questions, you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 612-?82-285§. Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt FehSt City Manager kp The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, extension 209, to make arrangements. (TDDI782-2806 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) THE[ CITY OF COf...UMI~IA HFIGH'I'S DOES NOT OI$CRIMiNATE ON THE[ BASIS OF DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES ;'QUA[. OPPORTUNITY [NIP!-OYER Case: 9911-36 Page: 1 STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE NOVEMBER 2, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING Case#: 9911-36 Owner: Address: Phone: Parcel Address: 4005 Central Avenue NE Zoning: CBD, Central Business District Comprehensive Plan: C - Commercial Robert Grootwassink 6440 Flying Cloud Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 944-1665 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Zachary Properties, Ltd. 6418 110th Ave. N. Champlin, MN 55316 (612) 315-4883 Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: CBD South: CBD East: 17,-4 West: CBD Land Use North: Commercial South: Public Parking Ramp East: Parkview Villa West: Commercial BACKGROUND Explanation of Request: This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to open a 200 seat restaurant with a full service bar with liquor in the tenant space formerly occupied by KJ's Sports Bar and Grill at 4005 Central Avenue NE. It will be called The Starbar and Grill, and the proposed hours of operation are 10:00 AM - 1:00 AM, seven days a week. Staff anticipates that a proposed menu will be available for review at the November 2 meeting. Case History: The original site plan for the mall was approved in 1981. During the regular meeting of March 2, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a site plan to allow the build-out of the Columbia Heights Mall. Also, at it's April 6 meeting the Commission approved a site plan to allow the Columbia Heights Transit Hub to be constructed near the northwest comer of the property. Case: 9911-36 Page: 2 Case 9710-32 was a request for a Conditional Use Permit to open KJ's Sports Bar and Grill in the space which was approved by the City Council on October 13, 1997. Case 9404-12 was a request for a 20 square foot sign variance to allow a total of 100 square feet of wall signage for the tenant space. This request was granted due to the hardship of the location of the business on the lot. Prior to KJ's, the space was utilized by the Box Seat Restaurant and Carbone's Family Restaurant. ANALYSIS Surrounding Property: The surrounding property to the north, south, and west is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and the adjacent property to the east is zoned R4, Multiple Family Residential. The neighboring lots to the north and west are used commercially. The property to the south is used for a public parking ramp, and the property to the east is used for Parkview Villa. Technical Review: According to Section 9.112(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, a Conditional Use Permit will be required if the proposed use contains a restaurant, cafe, tea room, bar, prepared food outlets subject to Section 9.116(15) and Prepared Food Delivery Establishments as such establishments are defined in Section 9.103(63). Minimum Yard and Density Requirements are listed below. · The floor area ratio shall not exceed 6.0. Floor Area Ratio is defined as the numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. The proposal meets this requirement. · Every lot shall have a minimum frontage of 20 feet. The subject parcel greatly exceeds this requirement. · Front Yard shall be one foot. The existing building meets this requirement. Parking for a restaurant requires at least one (1) space for each three (3) seats based on capacity design. The floor plan submitted with the application indicates that there will be seating for roughly 200 customers which requires 67 parking spaces. Note that no changes to the existing floor plan are proposed, so the parking demand will not change. Minimum parking requirements are being met. Staffhas not seen any plans for signage, but all proposed signage must be submitted on the City prescribed application form and must fully comply with the Zoning Ordinance. As mentioned earlier, a sign variance was granted in 1994, so a total of 100 square feet of wall signage is allowed. Pertinent licensing requirements for an on-sale liquor license are as follows. 1. It must be in conjunction with a restaurant or hotel. The proposed license will be in conjunction with The StarBar and Grill. 2. The restaurant must have facilities for no less than 150 guests. The floor plan indicates that there will be 200 seats. 3. At least 40% of annual receipts must. result fi.om the sale of food. Case: 9911-36 Page: 3 4. Restaurant requires a dining area, open to the general public, with a total minimum floor area of 3,000 square feet. The total floor area of the restaurant is roughly 4,900 square feet. 5. The restaurant must not be within 200 feet of the center of the main/front door ora church nor within 300 feet of a school building. Note that the Early Childhood Family Center is within 300 feet, but the licensing ordinance allows for the continuation of a liquor license for a premises provided the church or school moved in after the liquor license was originally issued. Because a liquor license has been issued for the premises since before the Early Childhood Family Center opened in the Mall, it can continue to be issued for the site. Compliance with Cit}, Comprehensive Plan: The City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for furore commercial use. One of the goals of the Land Use and Redevelopment component of the Plan states "Improve the commercial viability of the Central Avenue Corridor while protecting nearby residential neighborhoods." Permitting the continued use of the restaurant on the site will be consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows. 1. The proposal is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and meets the minimum requirements of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance. 2. The restaurant will allow for the continued operation of an entertainment amenity in downtown Columbia Heights. The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows. 1. There does not appear to be any negative aspects. CONCLUSION Sta_~T Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use permit as it meets the technical standards of the Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions listed in the recommended motion. Recommended Motion: Move to recommend City Council approval of the ConditiOnal Use Permit to allow the operation of The StarBar and Grill at 4029 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions. 1. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 2. All proposed signage must be submitted on the City prescribed application form and must fully comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Attachments: · Completed application form; floor plan; and, Notice of Public Hearing CITY OF COLUHBIA HEIGHTS Application For= ~ezon~ng Variance Privacy Fence Cond£tional Use Permit Subdivision Approval' Site Plan Approval Other : '. X RECEIVED OCT I 5 COMMUNITY DEVE, LOPMEN'I 1. Street Address of Subject Property, 4005 Central Avenue NE.. 2. Less1 Description of Subject' Property,. Description of ~equest, Conditional Use Permit City, State, Zip:~~,~,~ ~ Zon~nR: Applicable City Ord~d~ance Number Present ZonLu8 CB,D Present Use section Proposed Zoning Proposed Use /~[~,.~..~-" 7. Reason for Request: To allow the operation qf on approximately 200 seat restaurant and ~ulI service bar with liquor. 8. Exhibits Submitted (maps. d£agrans, etc.), AcknovledRment and SIRnature,' The undersLgned hereby represents upon all of the penalties of lav, fo~ the purpose of ~nducLu$ the City o£ Columbia He~shts t° take the action here£n requested, that all statements here~n are true and that all york here~n mentioned ~ill be done ~n accordance v~th the Ord£nances o~ the City o~ Columbia Heights Signature of Appltcant.~~~-'-' Date: . Taken By: '_~ 0 0 0 O O 0 O' o~ © 0 0 0 0 ~ i'0 .., cO' '~6o'~." _F:~ 'Ex-r o otloc. '. 0 '0 · ! CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE; N.~'., COLUMBIA H£~GHT$, MN 5542 !-3878 (6 ! 2) 782'2800 TDD 782-2~06 PLANNIN~ AND ZONIN$ COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 590 N.E. 40th Avenue, at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 2, 1999. The order of business is as follows: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an approximately 200 seat restaurant and full service bar with liquor at 4005 Central Avenue N.E. Note that this space is currently occupied by KJ's Sports Bar and Grill which will be closing. The subject property is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and Section 9.112(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for restaurants, cafes, tea rooms, taverns, and bars in the CBD. Notice is hereby given that all persons having an interest will be given an opportunity to be heard. For questions, you may contact Joe Hollman, City Planner, at 612-782-2856. Planning and Zoning Commission · CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Walt Fehst City Manager kp The City of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, programs or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be provided to allow individuals with disabilities to participate in all City of Columbia Heights' services, programs and activities. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request when the request is made at least go hours in advance. Please call the City Council Secretary at 782-2800, extension 20g, to make arrangements. (TDDI782-2806 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HI"IGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATI~ ON THE[ BASIS OI~ DISABILITY IN E[MPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SE:RVICE:S I"QUAL OPPORTUNITY E:MFI!_OYER The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Linda Magee, Assistant to the City Manager ROLL CALL: Commission Members: Ken Henke, Ruth Cn'aham, Robert Bubollz, and Reuben Ruen (arrived at 7:20 pm). Council Representative: Julienne Wyckoff City Representative: Linda Magee and Sean Kuehn Cable TV Representative: Kathi Donnelly-Cohen Legal Counsel: Tom Creighton Also present were Gary Peterson, Mayor; Chuck Ward from AT & T; and Todd Hartman, Legal Counsel for MediaOne. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Bob Buboltz, seconded by Ken Henke, to approve the minutes from the meeting of August 19, 1999. All ayes. OLD BUSINESS A. Channel Check Everything checked out ok. Ken commented that he has noticed some flickering of picture quality that looks like 2-half frames trying to lock in at different rates. It happens mostly on the access channels and was not noticeable tonight. B. Correspondence Log and Complaint Follow Up. Vicki Bates- A letter was received June 10~ from Ms. Bates regarding rates and service. Kathi reported she followed up on this. Complaint #122-Donna Carroll-There was a misunderstanding regarding Basic I & H levels of service. This has been resolved. Complaint #123-Delores Strand-Kathi responded by letter to her concerns regarding rate increases, programming tiers, and the lack of Sr. Citizens discounts. Complaint #124-Leo Lemke-Complained that repairs to the building where the junction box had been mounted hadn't been done. Kathi reported this repair work was completed on 8/27/99. Complaint #!25-Linda Ballentine-Complained that her cable had been out for quite awhile and when she called the company she got inadequate information from the service representative. Kathi reported that the Customer Service Supervisor spoke with Linda and credited her account. She is now satisfied. Complaint #127-Thelma Cahill-Complained of poor reception on channels 41 & 11. She also stated she had lost her bill and wanted to make a payment. When she called to get the amount, she was on hold for 20 minutes, and never received the help she was seeking. MediaOne did perform a service call at the residence and everything is now ok, and she is up to date with her hill. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 1999 PAGE 2 C. Review of Rate Increases for 1999 A report was enclosed in the agenda packet regarding the review of Forms 1240 for rates being charged for calendar year 1999. The purpose of the review was to determine if the basic rates set forth in the worksheets were an appropriate starting point for analysis of cost and inflation adjustments containcd in MediaOne's Reports. The review revealed nothing exceptional and did not indicate an unreasonable increase in the projected rates. Based on this analysis, the commission and/or city need not take any action with respect to this rate filing. D. Update on Web Site At the meeting of October 25, 1999, the City Council will be acting on the recommendation of staff to hire Net Link International for an amount not to exceed $9,975 to establish a Web Page for the City of Columbia Heights. Jean has started to gather information to put on the site. She stated she was happy with the response the City received regarding this subject. Eleven companies had shown an interest, and six companies actually returned bids for consideration. E. Other Old Business There was no other old business. NEW BUSINESS A. Update on Merger of MediaOne with AT and T 1. Informational Brochure Enclosed. MediaOne and AT & T are working together to build awareness of the benefits of the planned merger. This information was sent to community leaders in the affected cities. MediaOne and At & T will continue to cormnunicate what benefits cOnSumers will have available to them. 2. Review of Technical, Legal, and Financial Qualifications AT & T is basically acquiring MediaOne by closing on the agreement of this proposed merger. The City has the right of review the information that was requested, and would need to have a reasonable basis to deny the transfer. Tom proceeded to review the findings included in the report. He explained that several entities were involved in this merger, but that AT & T met the financial qualifications. They also met .the Legal qualifications that were necessary at this point, so there was no reasonable basis to deny the transfer according to the terms. Tom explained that the "Open Access Issue" dealing with the High Speed Data Link is being addressed in the courts, therefore, it is not something that can be used to deny the transfer. TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 1999 PAGE 3 In regards to the Technical Aspect-AT & T has not had a lot of experience in the Cable TV Industry. Therefore, this was difficult to analyze. AT & T's previous merger with TCI was one of the means used to gather information. It appeared that AT & T kept TCI personnel on board who were knowledgeable about the cable industry and they continued to provide good customer service. So based on the information reviewed, he would recommend approval of the transfer process. He attached a Resolution, with conditions, for the City to consider. The conditions that are listed in the Resolution are as follows: 1. Execution and delivery of Acceptance Agreement acceptable to the Authority in the form attached. 2. Securing all necessary federal, state, and local government waivers, authorizations, or approvals relating to the MediaOne/AT & T transfer to the extent provided by law; 3. Reimbursement of all reasonable fees incurred in the Authority's review of the proposed transaction as required by Franchise. 4. The successful closing of the Transaction described in the MediaOne/AT & T Agreement. 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 fianchise fee payments on future services delivered by AT & T via the cable system. 8. Non-Waiver by Authority of any right to pursue any remedies available, whether acted upon by Authority at the time of this approval, regarding Franchisee's compliance with customer service standards or other customer service obligations. The Acceptance Agreement attached to the Resolution would be signed by AT & T, MediaOne and the City. Motion by Ken, seconded by Reuben to recommend the City Council approve the Resolution, with the conditions as outlined in the packet at its meeting of November 8, 1999. All ayes. Bo Notice of Rate Increases for Programming Services and Equipment Effective January, 2000. Enclosed in the agenda packets is a notice that rates will be adjusted for programming services and equipment effective January l, 2000. Forms 1205 (equipment) and 1240 (basic rates) were received by the City for review. The company is required to file the maximum rate increase possible, with a 90 day notice to the City of this potential amount. The rates can later be increased at a lessor amount than indicated, and 30 days notice must be provided to subscribers. The cornmission members discussed the rate increases that take place each year much to the subscribers dismay. Kathi explained that although rates were increased $2.00/month last time, this was mainly due to additional programming being offered. A commission member expressed concern that the company is more interested with the quantity of channels than with the quality or affordability of the programming. Other New Business *Receipt of the 3~ Quarter Franchise Fees-A copy of the franchise fees for 3~ quarter were passed out at the meeting. Columbia Heights received $27,125.18 for this period. *A Resolution was passed out at the meeting opposing any Legislation that would revoke the city's authority to negotiate, award, or regulate cable television franchises. Tom explained that Steve Kelly who is running for a legislative position, is proposing the state take control of all franchise fees so that they can be distributed by the state. His hope is to distn'bute the fees in the rural areas of MN. Cities, such as Columbia Heights, would need to apply for grants and compete with others for a share of the monies we now receive. TELECOMMU~CATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 1999 PAGE 4 The purpose of the Resolution is to make our legislators aware of his proposal. Staffwould like the Commission to recommend the City Council pass the Resolution concerning this matter at their meeting of November 8, 1999. Motion by Ken, seconded by Bob to recommend the City Council pass the Resolution opposing any Legislation that would revoke the city's authority to negotiate, award, or regulate cable television franchises, at their meeting of November 8, 1999. All ayes. REPORTS Ao Report of Commissioners The Commissioners had nothing to report. Report of MediaOne- August, September 1999 Reports-These reports were passed out at the meeting. Kathi reported that MediaOne is in receipt of Tom's letter on the City's behalf questioning what documents of · the monthly reports contain trade secret information. He requested that a determination be made and a reasonable procedure be established to address the public's need, and yet protects the companies trade secret information. She said they will provide written clarification on this issue. The rates and channel line up are public information, but subscriber information, such as the numbers in each system, are not public. For the time being she will stamp only the sheets that need to be kept confidential and the remainder of the information will be enclosed in the packets. Kathi also reported that customer service statistics had greatly improved since the last meeting. In July the average call was answered in 66 seconds and in September calls were answered in 11 seconds. She passed out some graphs showing the improvements that had been made during the last two months. Commissioners were reminded of the Broadband Expo that will take place this weekend at the MN State Fairgrounds. Kathi said it should be informative as well as a good place to meet people and ask questions regarding the technology available to subscribers. C. Report of the Cable Attorney. *Tom sent a letter to JeffHarkman on behalf of his clients inquiring its reporting of bulk units and how it affects the PEG fees being collected. Each subscriber, whether in a multiple dwelling unit or a single family home must be assessed a PEG Fee which is passed on to the franchise holders. He asked for clarification regarding the collection of those fees from multiple dwelling unit subscribers. This does not affect Columbia Heights as we have no bulk units, but it was sent on behalf of other cities having MediaOne as their provider. *Enclosed in the packets was an FCC Order regarding the Cable Company's Refund Plan that was adopted September 30, 1999. Kathi reported that one time refunds will be issued in November. D. Report of the Assistant to the City Manager Linda had nothing further to report. Motion by Ruth, seconded by Bob, to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 pm. All ayes. Resl~tfully submitted, Shelley Hanson 0 OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TRAFFIC COMMISSION NOVEMBER l, 1999 "THESE MINUTES NOT APPROVED" The Traffic Commission Meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL Present: Carlson, Goodman, Jolly, Stumpf, Sturdevant Staff: Kathyjean Young, Assistant City Engineer Tom Johnson, Police Chief Dana Alexon, Assistant Fire Chief II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Goodman, second by Sturdevant, to approve the minutes of the October 4, 1999, Traffic Commission Meeting. Motion carried. III. OLD BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING TO REINSTATE PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 37TM AVENUE FROM TYLER STREET TO HART BOULEVARD Mr. Jerry Hart of 1401 Lincoln Terrace discussed a concern about parking for the High School with the Police Chief. Mr. Hart has observed vehicles parking on both sides of Fillmore Street north of 49~ Avenue causing a narrow roadway for emergency vehicles to get through. Mr. Hart is requesting to restrict parking on one side of Fillmore Street during school events. Fillmore,Street is 30' wide from face of curb to face of curb. Assuming there are two 8' parking lanes, the travel lane is 14'. An emergency vehicle would only be able to get through if there was no oncoming traffic. Fillmore Street is currently posted for "No Parking During School Hours, 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM". Posting Fillmore Street "No Parking" only during school events would be difficult for staff and confusing for residents. Staff suggested restricting parking on one side of Fillmore Street at all times. The Acting Fire Chief has stated that with limited north-south access in the area, Fillmore Street is an important route to the homes in Mathaire. The Commission discussed the fact that the width of Fillmore Street was similar to other streets and the frequency of school events. Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission November 1, 1999 Page 2 IV. Mo RECOMMENDED MOTION: Motion by Goodman, second by Stumpf, to deny the request for a parking restriction on one side of Fillmore Street during school events. Motion carried unanimously. B. PUBLIC HEARING TO DESIGNATE 2-HOUR PARKING AT 3844 CENTRAL AVENUE. Dr. Robert Donsker of 3844 Central is requesting a 2-hour.parking sign be placed in front of his business at 3844 Central Avenue. Employees of Bobby and Steve's AutoWorld are parking their cars in front of this address all day long which creates a problem for handicapped patients who need access from curb to sidewalk. Over the past month the Police Department has aggressively patrolled the area and chalked the tires of cars parked for long periods of time. No tickets have been issued as the vehicles were moved before the time limit was up. Location of the signage would begin at the north property line of 3844 Central. Motion by Goodman, second by Stumpf, to recommend the City Council designate 2-hour parking in front of 3844 Central Avenue. OTHER OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST TO REVIEW TRAFFIC ON ARTHUR STREET NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF 41 sa' AVENUE Ms. Sue Wilebski of 4343 Royce St. was present to address her concern with the limited visibility caused by the lilac shrub near the intersection of4Pt Avenue and Arthur Street. Ms. Wilebski met with Council Member Julienne Wyekoff concerning the intersection. The lilac shrub does meet the requirements of the visibility ordinance. Another concern at the intersection is the street grade near the intersection with the corresponding speed of traffic on Arthur Street. Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission Page 3 Visibility at the intersection is very good. The change in grade north and south of 41~t Avenue has no impact on the visibility. Police Chief Johnson reported that there had only been one accident per year over the past three years. He suggested that the speed trailer be placed on the street this fall and again in the spring. The visibility will also be reviewed. Commissioner Jolly suggested that staff contact the owner of the property to see if they would be willing to trim back the shrub or remove it.. Commissioner Carlson stated that if the lilac bush was in compliance that there was not anything more that staff could do. Motion by Sturdevant, second by Jolly, to direct staff to monitor the speed and volume on Arthur Street near 41~t Avenue and report the results at a future meeting. Motion carried. VI. OTHER NEW BUSINESS None VII. REPORTS A. CITY ENGINEER 1. ACTION TO REINSTATE PARKIN(} ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 37TM AVENUE FROM TYLER STREET TO HART BOULEVARD ACTION TO DESIGNATE THE NORTHERLY WEST BOUND LEN OF 37TM AVENUE AS RIGHT-TURN ONLY The City Council denied the above Traffic Commission recommendations. The Council designated "No Parking" on the north side of 37~ Avenue from Central Avenue to Van Buren Street. Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission November 1, 1999 Page 4 Bo Co 2. LEFT TURN OPERATION ON CENTRAL AVENUE Commissioner Goodman requested staff review installation of protected/permissive left roms on Central Avenue at 40* Avenue. There have also been similar requests for other intersections along Central Avenue. Staff reported the most significant concern with protected/permissive left mm signals is the operation of the emergency vehicle pre-emption. At a traffic signal with only protected left tums (current operation) the emergency vehicle has the green light and all other legs, including opposing traffic have a red light. With protected/permissive left tums (400, Avenue and 490, Avenue at Central Avenue), the emergency vehicle and opposing traffic both have the green light. This has caused some concern on the part of the Fire Department. Mr. Robert Green of BRW felt this change has the potential to increase the annual accident rate by one accident at each intersection. Acting Fire Chief Alexon stressed that the Fire Department is opposed to any change which would make the intersection more dangerous for emergency vehicles. Traffic moving in any direction other than that of the emergency vehicle causes greater potential for crashes. Commissioner Goodman was satisfied with the research done on left turns on Central Avenue. The Commission felt the protected/permissive left turn signals should not be pursued. No action was taken. POLICE CHIEF Police Chief Johnson reported that the City Council and City Manager have requested signage be placed at the entrance to the alley at $3~ Avenue between 40, Street and University Service Road on the south side alley entrance and at 52~ Avenue between 40, Street and University Service Road at both the north and south alley in order to help stop thru-traffic. Staff will recommend proposed signage at the next meeting COMMISSIONERS None Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission November 1, 1999 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Goodman, second bySturdevant, to adjourn .the meeting at 8:15 P.M. carried unanimously. Motion Respectfully Submitted, Traffic Commission Secretary