Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 27, 2000 RegularCITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Please note: City Hall Phone Numbers have ch.a.nged. New numbers are: Main Number(763) 706-3600' TDD (763)706-3692 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA I-IEIGHTS~ MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2'800 TDD 782-2806 ADMINISTRATION November 22, 2000 Gary L. Peterson Councilrnembers John Hunter Donald G. dolly Marlaine Szurek Julienne Wyckoff City Manager Walter R. Fehst The following is the agenda for the regular meeting of the City Council to be held at 7:00 PM on Monday, November 27, 2000 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 disabled persons are available upon re- quest when the request is made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the Deputy City Clerk at 763-706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only) CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL 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 after 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.) MOTION: Move to approve Consent Agenda items as follows: 1) Minutes for Approval MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2000, Regular City Council Meeting, and the November 20, 2000 Special Assessment Levy Hearing, as presented. 2) Establish Work Session Meeting Dates for December, 2000 MOTION: Move to establish Work Session meeting dates for Monday, December 4, 2000 following the Truth In Taxation Meeting, and Monday, December 18, 2000 beginning at 7:00 p.m. and a Budget Hearing meeting for Tuesday, November 28, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. 3) Authorize Clarification Revisions to Letter of Agreement for Legal Services Regarding Cable and Telecommunications MOTION: Authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to enter into a Letter of Agreement with Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta for legal services provided for cable and telecommunications matters. 4) Adopt Resolution 2000-84, Being a Resolution Regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Columbia Heights and the Public Managers' Association, effective January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2003 MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-84, there being ample copies EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City Council Agenda November 27, 2000 Page 2 of 7 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-84, Regarding the Memorandum of under- standing between the City of Columbia Heights and the Public Managers' Association, effective January 1, 2001 -December 31, 2003. Adopt Resolution 2000-83, Being a Resolution Regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the International Association of Firefighters, effective January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2003 MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-83, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-83, regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the International Association of Firefighters, effective January 1, 2001 - December 31, 2003. Authorize the Assistant Fire Chief to Attend the National Fire Academy MOTION: Move to authorize the Assistant Fire Chief to attend the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland from January 8, 2001, to January 19, 2001 and that expenses be reimbursed from the appropriate account. Approve payment of Stipends for Participating Student & Teacher from 2000 School Based Partnership Grant MOTION: Move to approve the payment of the stipends for work performed by a student representative and a school representative to the Columbia Heights School District in the total amount of $6,502.06. These payments are to be made in two equal payments of $3,251.03 on the following dates: December 1, 2000, and June 6, 2001, with funding for this expense to come from the 1999 School Based Partnership Grant Fund No. 279-42100-3050. Authorize to accept Juvenile Accountability Block Grant from State MOTION: Authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to accept a grant from the State of Minnesota Department of Economic Security/Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant in the amount of $9,874 with a match of $1,097, with the match to come from unexpended funds in the 2000 Police Department budget. Approve changes in Joint Law Enforcement Council - Joint Powers Agreement MOTION: Move to approve the attached addendum to the Joint Law Enforcement Council, Joint Powers Agreement, which will allow for the inclusion of the cities of Centerville and St. Francis and allow for county representation through two representatives appointed by the Sheriff and two County Commissioners. Approve Extension of GIS Range Rider Contract MOTION: Move to approve an extension to the GIS Joint Powers Agreement; and, authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. Authorize Final Pavrnent for MSC concrete Floor Repair and Coating MOTION: Move to accept the work for MSC Concrete Floor Repairs and Coating, City Project #0016 and to authorize payment of $1,249.00 to TMI Coatings Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota. City Council Agenda November 27, 2000 Page 3 of 7 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) Establish Hearing Dates Re: License Revocation or Suspension of Rental Properties at 4023 6th Street, 4055-4057 University Avenue, 1206-1208 Circle Terrace, and 4600 Polk Street. MOTION: Move to establish a Hearing Date of December 11, 2000, for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Renae Novak at 4023 6th Street. MOTION: Move to Establish a Heating Date of December 11, 2000, for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Kwei Fang at 4055-4057 University Avenue. MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of December 11, 2000, for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against David Jacobs-Susan Loewenthal at 1206-1208 Circle Terrace. MOTION: Move to Establish a Heating Date of December 11, 2000, for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Richard Lee at 4600 Polk Street. Approve Replacement of Unit #17, 1985 Ford C700 Water Flush Truck MOTION: Move to authorize staff to seek bids for one (1) new Cab-over Cargo Chassis and reconditioning of the existing water tank and flushing system. The estimated cost of $55,000 would be appropriated from Capital Equipment Replacement Fund #431-43121- 5150. Authorization to proceed with PurchaseAgreements for 4542 Washington Street and 1307 42nd Avenue as Recommended in the 1999 Storm Water Study MOTION: Move to authorize for Purchase Offers to be made for the Fair Market Value for 4542 Washington Street and 1307 42nd Avenue NE as recommended by Wilson Development Services. Adopt Resolution 2000-85, for 2001 Seasonal and Temporary Wage Adjustments MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-85, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2000-85, adopting changes in wage ranges and establishing wages for seasonal and temporary employees for calendar year 2001. Approve License Applications a. 2000 Business License b. 2001 Business License MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for November 27, 2000. Adopt Resolution 2000-86, being a Resolution to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be issued by the City MOTION: Move to Adopt Resolution 2000-86, Being a Resolution Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota to Reimburse Certain Expenditures From the Proceeds of Bonds to be issued by the City. City Council Agenda November 27, 2000 Page 4 of 7 18) Payment of Bills MOTION: Move to pay the bills as listed out of proper funds. 5. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS A. Proclamations B. Presentations Co Introduction of New Employees Tina Foss, Clerk-Typist II - Recreation Department D. Recognition ° PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Close the Public Heating for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4546 Tyler Street NE. Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License held by Yong Kwon Yi regarding Rental Property at 4546 Tyler Street in that the Property is in Compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. Bo Close the Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 1224-1226 Circle Terrace NE. MOTION: Move to Close the Public Heating Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License held by Salman Ali regarding Rental Property at 1224-1226 Circle Terrace NE in that the Property is in compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. C° Consideration of Franchise Application MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing to consider the franchise applications of Wide Open West and Everest Connections Corporation. MOTION: Move to place the franchise application of Wide Open West on temporary hold and to make no findings as to their legal, technical, and financial qualifications. MOTION: Move to find that Everest Connections Corporation is legally, technically, and financially qualified to construct a cable system and provide cable service within the territorial limits of the City, and to direct staff and Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta to proceed with negotiations of a cable franchise. D° Approve Resolution No. 2000-82, being a Resolution Establishing Restrictive Accounts for Excess Fire Pension Residual Assets and Adopting a Plan for the Expenditure of Such Assets MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-82, there being ample copies available to the public. City Council Agenda November 27, 2000 Page 5 of 7 MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution/42000-82, a resolution establishing restrictive accounts for excess fire pension residual assets and adopting a plan for the expenditure of such assets; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for purchase of a 2001 Ford Expedition, under State Consortium Bid, for a total of $46,254.01, plus any applicable tax and license fees, from North Central Ambulance Sales and Service of Lester Prairie, Minnesota. Federal Law Enforcement Block Grant for Equipment Purchase MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-81, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-81, being a Resolution to Accept the U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement Block Grant for $21,578 with a local match of $2,398, and approve the list of equipment to purchase with this grant. Emergency Ordinance No. 1427, being an Ordinance for an Extension of the Moratorium on the Placement, Construction, and Modification of Towers and Wireless Telecommunications Facilities from December 7, 2000 to March 30, 2001 MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1427, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to approve Emergency Ordinance 1427, being an Emergency Ordinance of the Columbia Heights City Council for extension of the moratorium on the placement, construction, and modification of towers and wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Columbia Heights from December 7, 2000 to March 30, 2001. Reconvene First Reading of Ordinance No. 1424, being an Ordinance Regulating the Zoning of Wireless Communications Towers and Wireless Communications Facilities (Tower Siting Ordinance) MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1424, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to establish Monday, December 11, 2000, at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the second reading of Ordinance 1424, Columbia Heights Tower Siting Ordinance. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1425, Being an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 853 City Code of 1977, vacating Certain Alleys and Easements within the NEI Transition Block MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1425, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Approve Ordinance 1425, which is an Ordinance vacating certain alleys and easements for Northwest Addition, as the proposal is in compliance with the City Subdivision Requirements. City Council Agenda November 27, 2000 Page 6 of 7 Approval of Second Reading of Ordinances No. 1411 and No. 1423, Being an Ordinance Rezoning the properties at 825 41st Avenue, 4150 Central Avenue, 4156 Central Avenue, and 4157 Jackson Street from R-2 and CBD to R-4 MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1423, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Approve Ordinance No. 1423, which is an Ordinance rezoning 4157 Jackson Street from R-2 (single and two-family residential) to R-4, (multiple family residential), as the rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1411, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to approve Ordinance #1411, which is an ordinance rezoning 825 41st Avenue from R-2 (single and two-family residential) to R-4 (multi-family residential), and rezoning of 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE from CBD (Central Business District) to R-4 (multi-family residential), as the rezoning is consistent with the City comprehensive Plan. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1426, Being an Ordinance designating Permit Parking Only on 41 st Avenue NE (N.E.I. College of Technology) MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1426, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to Approve Ordinance No. 1426, Being an Ordinance designating permit parking from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, on the north side of 41st Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the south side of 41~t Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the east side of Jackson Street south of 42'~d Avenue N.E. 7. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions B. Bid Considerations Other Business 1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Case #2000-0408, Final Planned Unit Development for construction of a 50- unit senior assisted living building and 22 affordable rental townhome units. MOTION: Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Final Planned Unit Development and accompanying PUD Agreement at 825 41~t Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, 4157 Jackson Street NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions: 1. City Council adoption of Ordinances 1411 and 1423, rezoning the subject properties to R~4, Multiple Family Residential District. 2. City Council adoption of Parking Ordinance #1426, to allow for 44 NEI only on- street Parking spaces. 3. Directional changes in the public alley shall be clearly signed and marked, and a City Council Agenda November 27, 2000 Page 7 of 7 traffic impact barrier and guardrail shall be provided at the point where the alley turns away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building, as well as a fence erected along the alley abutting Outlot B for safety measures. All engineered plans and specifications are subject to City Engineer review and approval. The turning radius at the comer of the 14 foot wide alley intersection with the 23 foot wide alley (Outlot D) is subject to City Engineer review and approval. Landscape materials and planrings must be guaranteed to survive a minimum of two years. Replacement planrings to be installed at the sole expense of the developer in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. Successful negotiation and approval of a development agreement(s) between the applicant and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority/City of Columbia Heights. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Report of the City Manager B. Report of the City Attorney GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS A. Minutes of Boards and Commissions l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Meeting of the October 17, 2000, Economic Development Authority Meeting of the November 1, 2000, Library Board of Trustees Meeting of the November 6, 2000, Traffic Commission Meeting of the November 16, 2000 Telecommunications Commission Meeting of the November 8, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of the October 25, 2000 Park and Recreation Commission 10. 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.) 11. ADJOURNMENT Walter R. Fehst, City~~r~ ADDITION TO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 27, 2000: Under Item 5. C: Introduction of new employee- Brian Hachey (pronounced Hash-ee) Assistant Liquor Operations Manager who started today, 11-27-2000 PLEASE ALSO NOTE: Tina Foss may NOT be able to attend tonight's meeting. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 13, 2000 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the City Council was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 23, 2000 in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 590 40th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota. Present: Councilmember Szurek, Councilmember Jolly, Councilmember Wyckoff, Councilmember Hunter, and Mayor Peterson. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO MEETING AGENDA 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.) mo MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Szurek, to approve Consent Agenda items as follows: 1) Minutes for Approval MOTION: Move to approve the minutes of the October 23, 2000, Regular Council Meeting as presented. 2) Establish Work Session for November 20, 2000 MOTION: Move to establish a Work Session meeting following the Special Assessment Levy Hearing on Monday, November 20, 2000. Walt Fehst, City Manager, recommended the Council also go through the Public Works Department and Finance Department proposed budgets at this meeting. 3) Approve Resolution No. 2000-78, Being a Resolution changing the Date of A Regular City Council Meeting. MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-78, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2000-78 Being a resolution changing the date of the second meeting in December 2000, to Wednesday, December 27, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. City Council Minutes November 13, 2000 Page 2 of 12 WHEREAS: WHEREAS: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-78 BEING A RESOLUTION CHANGING THE DATE OF A CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING The City Council has decided to change the date of the second regular Council meeting in December, 2000, and The date of the second regular Council meeting in December would heretofore have been scheduled for Monday, December 25, 2000 has now been rescheduled to Wednesday, December 27, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that all interested parties be advised of this change with the traditional convening time of 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber. Passed this 13th day November, 2000. Offered by: Wyckoff Second by: Szurek Roll call: All ayes Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 4) Mayor Gary L. Peterson Canvassing Municipal General Election Returns MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the Resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-77, canvassing Municipal General Election returns. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-77 CANVASSING MUNICIPAL GENERAL ELECTION RETURNS WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights, did on the 7rd day of November, 2000, conduct and hold a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing a Mayor and two Council Members; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights at a meeting of said Council held on the 13th day of November, 2000, did canvass the returns and results of said General Municipal Election; and WHEREAS, the following results were determined by said canvass of said General Municipal Election, to wit: TOTAL BALLOTS CAST IN ELECTION: 9,501 Valid Votes Cast for Mayor Valid Votes Cast for two 4-Year Council Seats Gary L. Peterson 5,413 John Hunter 2,792 Robert C. Buboltz 3,098 Bruce Nawrocki 4,063 Overvotes 0 Theresia Synowczynski 3,648 Times Blank Voted 936 Robert A. (Bobby) Williams 4,064 Undervotes 0 Overvotes 0 Write-Ins 54 Times Blank Voted 794 Undervotes 2,798 Write-Ins 49 City Council Minutes November 13, 2000 Page 3 of 12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, that Gary L. Peterson is elected Mayor, and that Brace Nawrocki and Robert A. Williams are hereby elected members of the City Council; assuming said office on January 2, 200 I. Passed this 13th day of November, 2000 Offered by: Wyckoff Seconded by: Szurek Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 5) Establish date for Public Hearing, Federal Block Grant for Equipment Purchase MOTION: Move to establish a public hearing date of November 27, 2000 at approximately 7:00 p.m., regarding the purchase of equipment with federal block grant funding totaling $21,578 with a $2,398 match by the City, and to approve the proposed list of equipment to be purchased with these funds. 6) Establish Hearing Dates Re: License Revocation or Suspension of Rental Properties at 4546 Tyler Street and 1224-1226 Circle Terrace Boulevard. MOTION: Move to establish a Hearing Date of November 27, 2000 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Yong Kwon Yi at 4546 Tyler Street. MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of November 27, 2000 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Salman Ali at 1224-1226 Circle Terrace Boulevard. 7) Approve Rental Housing License Applications MOTION: Move to approve the items listed for rental housing license applications for November 13, 2000. 8) Approve Business License Applications a. 2000 Business License b. 2001 Business License MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for November 13, 2000. 9) Payment of Bills MOTION: Move to pay the bills as listed out of proper funds. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. 5. PROCLAMATIONS, PRESENTATIONS, RECOGNITIONS AND GUESTS A. Proclamations 1. American Education Week Mayor Peterson read the November 12-18 American Education Week Proclamation. City Council Minutes November 13, 2000 Page 4 of 12 B. Presentations 1. Thank you, by Mary Soukup - Ostrander Property Mary Soukup, daughter of Mrs. Ostrander, and Mrs. Ostrander were present to thank the City Councilmembers for their help in the sale of the family home. She stated the Councilmembers acted with great compassion to expedite this process. C. Introduction of New Employees Mayor Peterson indicated that Roger Peterson, the new member of Park and Recreation Commission was in the audience. D. Recognition - none e PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Close the Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 3732 3ra Street NE. Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing as property was brought into compliance. Close the Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 981 43 V2 Avenue NE. Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing as property was brought into compliance. Co Close the Public Hearing for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 1100o 1102 39th Avenue NE. Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing as property was brought into compliance. Do Close Public Heating for Revocation/Suspension of Rental Housing License at 4055-4057 University Avenue NE. Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing as property was brought into compliance. First Reading of Ordinance No. 1425, Being an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 853 City Code of 1977, vacating Certain Alleys and Easements within the NEI Transition Block MOTION by Hunter, second by Jolly, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1425, there being ample copies available to the public. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Hunter, second by Jolly, to establish Monday, November 27, 2000, at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the second reading of Ordinance 1425, which is an Ordinance vacating certain alleys and easements for the NEI site, as the proposal is in compliance with the City Subdivision Requirements, and the City Engineer has reviewed the vacations proposed. Tim dohnson, City Planner, briefed Council and referred to the background information memo on the Transition Block. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing for the Preliminary and Final Plan and Rezoning of the Ostrander property. This ordinance vacates the existing City owned easements on the plat, and two alleys. City Council Minutes November 13, 2000 Page 5 of 12 doyce Shellito, 403 Summit Street, asked the building height adjacent to the proposed easements and questioned fire-fighting problems. Johnson stated the building would be 40feet high, or three stories including the basement. He stated this plan has been looked at by the fire department for any concerns. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. Approval of Preliminary Plan for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Case #2000-0408 at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE MOTION by Szurek, second by Hunter, to approve the preliminary plan for the planned unit development at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions: 1. City Council adoption of Ordinance 1411, rezoning the subject property to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District. 2. Successful negotiation of a purchase agreement between the applicant and NEI College of Technology. 3. Successful negotiation of a development agreement between the applicant and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. 4. City Council approval of the preliminary and final plat for the project. 5. The final landscaping plan shall be amended to accommodate landscaping in and around the stormwater pond to create an open space amenity in the area. 6. The proposed public utility system shall have final review and approval by the Public Works Department. 7. Final Drainage and Grading plans will need to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 8. Plans will need to be approved by the Columbia Heights Fire Department for emergency vehicle access and hydrant distribution. 9. The final lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved as part of the final plan review. 10. Directional changes in the public alley shall be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier shall be provided at the point where the alley tums away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building, as well as a guardrail placed adjacent to Outlot B for safety measures. Successful negotiation of a purchase agreement between the applicant and NEI College of Technology. 11. The traffic circulation system shall be clearly signed and marked on the site, including identification of any one-way systems and private accessways. 12. The final plans shall accommodate waste material storage. Johnson indicated this is for the Planned Unit Development of the Transition Block. This is an integrated concept incorporating different types of development, being platted separately. The Planning Commission recommended approval. This area, not including the Ostrander property, was rezoned in April. The locksmith shop purchase has been completed. Jim Hoefi, City Attorney, stated this motion includes the PUD reviewed at the City Council Work Session. Jolly asked if the hydrologist has reviewed the sanitary flows. Johnson stated that Kevin Hansen, Public l/Vorks Director, indicated this will not alleviate the drainage problem, but will not make it any worse. City Council Minutes November 13, 2000 Page 6 of 12 Harold Hoium, 4315 5th Street NE, questioned items on the development map. Ken Anderson, Community Development Director, indicated the road referred to is a private drive belonging to NEI, which will be shared by the school, the assisted living facility and the rental units. Bruce Nawrocki, 1255 Polk Place, felt this is a piecemeal project, compacting too much in a small space, and that the City Engineer should put in writing that no adverse conditions will come about from flooding. Nawrocki questioned elevations and the limitation of parking to other than NEI users. He felt Council should move ahead with the assisted living project and drop the rental property. Roger Peterson, 4113 Quincy Street NE, feels the size of this project is too much for this space and parking. The street parking should also be available to residents, not just NEI parking. doyce Shellito, questioned vehicle access, parking spaces per unit, and water runoff in the parking lot. Anderson stated there would be 25 parking spaces for the 50 assisted living units and additional spaces in Out Lot E. This is an industry standard. The Traffic Commission has reviewed the egress with no action recommended. They were against on- street parking permits. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the on-street parking. Councilmembers stated NEI has agreed to this parking plan, and is aware there could be up to 12" of standing water, from a large storm, in the parking lot. Anderson stated NEI wouM have 456parking spaces on site, and with permit approval, would have 33 spaces on 41StAvenue and 11 spaces on Jackson Street. He stated the pond in Out Lot B would maintain the current run off situation. Nawrocki felt the increased amounts to the sanitary sewer and storm sewer could cause potential problems with the systems, and possible flooding or backup into homes. Peterson indicated the Public Works Department would address this. Mary Callaghan, 4219 Jackson, statedl O0 year storms happen frequently and water running down kan Buren Street plugs up and floods many homes. She is afraid water will now also come from this project, adding to frequent flooding. She felt there would be too many people using the storm and sanitary sewers. Council Members discussed past problems with flooding in th is area and the potential of increase to the sanitary sewer system. Nawrocki felt the problems should be addressed prior to development approval. Peterson indicated this was a long ongoing problem, and the City should do whatever is necessary to fix the problem, but not hold back this development. Fehst stated the study of this area was moved up one year to assess and reduce these types of backups. This development plan meets all necessary requirements. Hunter asked if this sanitary sewer could be tied into the Central Avenue project. Staff will research this. Upon vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. City Council Minutes November 13, 2000 Page 7 of 12 Approval of Ordinance No. 1423, Being and Ordinance Rezoning 4157 Jackson Street NE and Approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for the Northwestern Second Addition at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, 4157 Jackson Avenue. Rezoning MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1423, there being ample copies available to the public. Upon vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to establish Monday, November 27, 2000, at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the second reading of Ordinance No. 1423, which is an Ordinance rezoning 4157 Jackson Street NE to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, as the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the City Comprehensive Plan, and is consistent with the proposed zoning for the entire NEI site. Following discussion: Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion Carried. Johnson indicated this is the Ostrander parcel and would be rezoned to be consistent with the project and the Comprehensive Plan for Transit Oriented development. The rezoning is from R2 to R4, Multi-Family Residential District. Preliminary and Final Plat MOTION by Hunter, second by Wyckoff, to approve the Preliminary and Final Plat as presented for the Northwestern Second Addition site as submitted at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, 4157 Jackson Street NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, as the Plat is in substantial compliance with the City Subdivision Ordinance requirements, subject to the following conditions: 1. City Council adoption of Ordinance # 1423, rezoning the subject property at 4157 Jackson Street NE to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District. 2. The applicants will need to demonstrate interest in the property at 4156 Central Avenue NE (i.e. ownership) before the City Council will approve the Final Plat. 3. Successful negotiation of a development agreement(s) between the applicant and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. 4. The creation and vacation of pertinent perimeter drainage and utility easements shall be added to the plat and shall be approved by the City and the Public Works Department. 5. The creation and vacation of alley rights-of-way as shown on the plat. 6. Directional changes in the public alley shall be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier shall be provided at the point where the alley tums away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building. A guardrail shall also be provided next to the drainage pond (Outlot B) as a safety measure. 7. Plat should be amended to reflect and spell out Block for legal description on plat. 8. The City Attorney, City Engineer, and County Surveyor shall review and approve the plat before recording. Johnson indicated all necessary departments have reviewed this plat. Hunter pointed out the additional lO-foot easement. Johnson indicated this was added as requested. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. City Council Agenda November 13, 2000 Page 8 of 12 First Reading of Ordinance No. 1426, Being an Ordinance designating Permit Parking Only on 41st Avenue NE (N.E.I. College of Technology) MOTION by Jolly, second by Szurek, to waive the reading of Resolution No. 1426, there being ample copies available to the public. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Jolly, second by Szurek, to establish Monday, November 27, 2000 at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1426, Being an Ordinance designating permit parking from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, on the north side of 41st Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the south side of 41st Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the east side of Jackson Street south of 42"a Avenue N.E. Anderson stated the Traffic Commission recommended denial and that notice was sent to everyone within 300feet. Three letters of concern were received from residents. Peterson requested that all residents again be notified prior to the second reading of the ordinance. Upon vote: Szurek - aye, Jolly - aye, Hunter - aye, Wyckoff- nay, Peterson - aye. Motion carried 4 to 1. dolly stated the Traffic Commission recommended denial because this would be inconsistent with our policy to not use off street parking for developments. First Reading of Ordinance No. 1424, Being an Ordinance Adopting the Columbia Heights Telecommunication Tower Siting Ordinance MOTION by Szurek, second by Hunter, to waive the reading of Ordinance No. 1424, there being ample copies available to the public. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to establish Monday, November 27, 2000, at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the second reading of Ordinance 1424, Columbia Heights Tower Siting Ordinance. dohnson indicated the existing moratorium is in effective until December 7th. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this ordinance. Kenneth Henke, Telecommunications Commission member, stated this ordinance is to regulate the placement of towers and certain engineering aspects associated with the cell phone industry, and encourage more than one user per tower. Hunter questioned generator noise. Henke stated these are only used during power emergencies. Peterson asked that the Telecommunication Commission look at it and give their recommendation to the City Council on November 27th. Anderson advised continuing the emergency tower moratorium, so as not to be without a moratorium or having the new ordinance in place. MOTION by Jolly, second by Szurek, to table the motion until the Tele-communications Commission has reviewed and addressed the additional concerns received in writing on the Telecommunication Tower Siting Ordinance. All ayes. Motion carried. City Council Agenda November 13, 2000 Page 9 of 12 ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION A. Other Ordinances and Resolutions 1. Establishing Amount of Assessments to be Levied; Resolution No. 2000-75, Being a Resolution Establishing Amount of City Share and Amount of Special Assessments on the Projects to be Levied. Fehst stated the November 20th special assessment hearing is consistent with the two prior assessment hearings. MOTION by Szurek, second by Jolly, to waive the reading of the Resolution, there being ample copies available or the public. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Szurek, second by Jolly, to adopt Resolution No. 2000-75; Being a Resolution Establishing Amount of City Share and Amount of Special Assessments on Projects to be Levied. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 75 BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AMOUNT OF CITY SHARE AND AMOUNT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROJECTS TO BE LEVIED WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights by motion on the 25th day of September, 2000, ordered a special assessment hearing to levy the cost of improvements and WHEREAS, the following projects will be specially assessed on November 20, 2000, and a portion of the construction 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: CITY OF ESTIMATED ASSESSED ESTIMATED HILLTOP CITY PORTION PORTION TOTAL Street Construction $100,597.89 $113,398.75 $213,996.64 Partial Street Construction $ 41,242.58 $ 83,982.50 $ 125,225.08 Mill and Overlay $13,880.82 $101,010.00 $114,890.82 Seal Coat Streets in Zone 4 $1,332.00 $ 12,480.15 $ 98,908.75 $112,720.90 General, Utility Funds $559,665.00 $599,665.00 Passed this 13"~ day of November, 2000 Offered by: Szurek Seconded by: Jolly Roll Call: All ayes Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk City Council Agenda November 13, 2000 Page 10 of 12 B. Bid Considerations Other Business 1. Offer to Purchase 4656 Monroe Street NE. MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Szurek, to deny the offer to purchase 4656 Monroe Street NE submitted by Williams Design and Construction, Inc. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Szurek, to authorize staff to seek bids for the sale of property at 4656 Monroe Street NE. Anderson explained bids are mailed to interested parties, and advertised in the local newspaper for twenty-one days. The bids would ask for plans so the quality of the home could be considered. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. Approval of Conditional Use Permit Case #2000-1127, 4000 6th Street MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Jolly, to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of the Hy-Lander Drive-In at 4000 6th Street NE to, 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 existing freestanding sign on the west side of the lot must be removed as it is non-confomfing. All future signage must be submitted on the City prescribed application form and must fully comply with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Staff would recommend to post no parking signs along 40th Avenue for the drive-in spaces to continue to have direct access to 40~ Avenue without being blocked in by parked vehicles. Subject to City Engineer final review. 4. Solid waste material shall be so located and fenced as to be removed from public view or shall be kept in an enclosed building. 5. Hours of operation shall be confined to the period between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. 6. Lighting shall be accomplished in such a way so as to have no direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential properties. 7. Prior to opening, completion of any repairs deemed necessary by City Building Official. dohnson indicated this is the former A & W site. The Planning & Zoning Commission held the Public Hearing on November 8'h, and recommend the approval with conditions. The existing building is nonconforming, but the use is conforming. There will be no substantial changes to the building and approval is subject to approval by the Building Official and Anoka County officials. The Building Official's list of additional conditions was discussed. There will be 9 drive-in lanes, a walk-up window, and a privacy fence. The sign is nonconforming and must be removed. The proposed hours of operation were listed. City Council Agenda November 13, 2000 Pagellofl2 Allen Rue, 4128 6th Street, stated he is a fifth generation Columbia Heights resident, has 16years experience in the restaurant business, and his goal is to bring back a nostalgic restaurant to Columbia Heights. Bruce Nawrocki referred to parking in front of the restaurant, suggesting it be seasonal Peterson stated signage could also reflect a parking restriction after 10:00 a.m. each day. Upon Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Report of the City Manager Fehst stated the Police, Fire, and Assistant Fire Chief met at Anoka County on Tuesday regarding a report on the current analog radio system. System patches could be used, but would be very expensive. Replacement with an 800-megahertz system is recommended. Funding would come from several areas, with no determination of each city's share of the cost. Fehst and Public Works Staff met with Metro Transit, regarding bus stops on University Avenue and bus stop maintenance. Metro Transit will clean up bus stops once a week, or once a day if necessary. They will also submit an ordinance controlling ad/paper boxes. They will consider new bus stop shelters with the theme of bus hub. Fehst, and the Community Development Director met with residents of the Huset Park area, and presented info on the Master Development Plan. They addressed concerns of about 56 residents. He recommended reconstituting the committee to look further at this plan. Fehst thanked Patty Muscovitz, Bill Elrite, Jean Andres, the Finance Department Staff, and all the judges and students (students donated their earnings to their Key Club), for all their hard work on the election process. He commended the residents of Columbia Heights for the 85.08percent voters turnout. Jolly discussed complaints on the new bus routes on University Avenue. He commended kVyckoff on her efforts in this area. B. Report of the City Attorney Jim Hoefi, City Attorney, stated that on Thursday, November 9'h' the City closed the sale of 4101 Central Avenue. Bruce Nawrocki questioned possible incorrect zoning of this property for use as a mortuary. He recommended rezoning or a change of the zoning description to include this type of business. Johnson indicated this use was not correct under the current zoning ordinance, but will be included in the new zoning ordinance. Report of the Building Official Mel Collova, Building Official, indicated: · The new Wendy's restaurant should open before Thanksgiving. · The Gardens restaurant is open City Council Agenda November 13, 2000 Page 12 of 12 o 10. 11. · The old A&W has been inspected and the interior is in good shape · Papa Johns is remodeling and will be required to apply for a permit · Northeast Bank has been notified they must inform any purchaser of 506-508 40th of certain conditions · The Nedegaard building is progressing · The two homes on Lookout Place have been removed · An interested party is considering a motel behind the LaCasita restaurant · Real Estate Equities should consider the price of rents at 44th and University ~ $1050 per unit. Four units were rented before completion of the building. Collova stated occasional calls are received on the storm sewer and sanitary sewer issues. He indicated part of the over use of the sanitary sewer may be residents draining their sump pumps in to it. He suggested informing residents not to do this, or checking their homes to eliminate this practice, dolly stated some cities have passed a strong ordinance with fines for people who do this. Wyckoff stated she went to the Cairo Grill, was very impressed, and recommended it to the public. Peterson questioned the old Columbia T. V. building. Collova stated funding options for removal are being pursued. GENERAL COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Minutes of Boards and Commissions a) Meeting of the October 19, 2000 Charter Commission CITIZENS FORUM Harold Hoium thanked the City Manager and Community Development Director attending the Huset Park meeting, as they did give ideas and several proposals. Hoium stated the cost for animal control at the Budget Hearing was $16,000. He felt there should be a size restriction on animals in the City so they cannot be more than 14 inches high or over 40pounds. dolly informed everyone of a benefit for Mr. Hams, at the Heights Theatre on November 16th. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Special Assessment Levy Hearing Columbia Heights City Council November 20, 2000 - 7:00 p.m. 1) Roll Call Present: Councilmember Szurek, Councilmember Jolly, Councilmember Wyckoff, Councilmember Hunter, Mayor Peterson. 2) Resolution No. 2000-76~ being a Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for the following street improvements: Zone 4 Street Rehabilitation: Full Street Reconstruction, Partial Street Reconstruction, Mill and Overlay, and Seal Coating of the Bituminous City Streets a) Presentation by City Staffproviding background information on the above mentioned improvement projects. Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director, indicated the Council packet included a singlepage staff report, assessment calculation of final construction costs, detailed construction costs, map of impacted area, assessment notice published in the paper, and the relevant resolution. Hansen stated that Zone 4 street improvements were completed in the year 2000, and listed the boundaries of this zone. The types of treatments performed were full street reconstruction, partial street reconstruction, mill and overlay, and seal coating of the bituminous city streets. Rates and terms are: full street reconstruction $2,952 per parcel over 15 years; partial street reconstruction $2,125 per parcel over 10 years; Mill and Overlay $840 per parcel for 10 years, and seal coating $148 per parcel for one year. The recommended interest rate is 8°,4. Hansen asked persons present to sign the attendance sheet, and indicated a sign up sheet for special concerns or work to still be completed. He explained assessment by parcel versus lineal foot. He stated the interest rate is lower than several years ago when it was 9.5%. b) Questions/Comments from City Council and Public Dave Fisher, 5005 4'h Street, asked if the county was contacted to help with these costs. Hansen stated there was no aid available from the county and there were no state aid dollars used as the projects were not eligible. Harold Hoium 43215'h Street, questioned if one full block was owned by one person, would they get billed for the whole block. Hansen indicated yes they would. deff Farbor, 815 50'h Avenue, questioned if he was be assessed double for the street work that was done lay, then ripped up and replaced. Hansen stated this was defective work by the contractor and they were responsible for the cost. MOTION by Hunter, second by Szurek, to close the public hearing and to waive the reading of Resolution No. 2000-76, there being ample copies available to the public. All ayes. Motion carried. Jolly asked that the new sod that was laid, be checked next spring. Hansen said it would be and that funds are withheld from final payment until all work is completed satisfactorily. MOTION by Szurek, second by Jolly, to Adopt Resolution No. 2000-76, being a Resolution Adopting Assessment Rolls for Zone 4 Improvements. All ayes. Motion carried. 3) Adjournment MOTION by Wyckoff, second by Szurek, to adjourn the meeting at 7:25 p.m. All ayes. Motion carried. Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 2 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS - CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Iq. ~. '~. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGERS NO: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL ITEM: December 2000 Work Session and BY Walt Fehst BY: " Budget Heating Dates DATE: November22, 2000 DATE: / ' NO: Work Sessions dates: It is recommended that Work Sessions for December, 2000, be scheduled for: 1. Monday, December 4, 2000 following the Truth and Taxation Hearing; and on Monday, December 18, 2000 beginning at 7:00 p.m. It is recommended that a Budget Hearing be scheduled for: 1. Tuesday, November 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to establish Work Session meeting dates for Monday, December 4, 2000 following the Truth In Taxation, and Monday, December 18, 2000 beginning at 7:00 p.m. and a Budget Hearing meeting for Tuesday, November 28, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. COUNCIL ACTION: h:"2000-11-27worksession dates CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ~- ~ -3 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ITEM: CLARIFICATION REVISIONS TO LETTER OF BY: LINDA L. MAGEE . ~..__ REGARDING CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ]~/f~ NO: In April of 1990, the City of Columbia Heights entered into a letter of agreement with Thomas Creighton of Bernick and Lifson, for provision of legal services involving cable related matters. Since the initial letter of agreement, two amendments to the original letter of agreement were made, adjusting hourly rates for services rendered. The most recent amendment was passed by the Council March 22, 1999, and was effective March 29, 1999. In May of 2000, Thomas Creighton, along with the two other Telecommunications Attorneys with Bernick and Lifson, Michael Bradley and Stephen Guzzetta, left to form their own firm of Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta. Subsequently, we continued using Thomas Creighton, Michael Bradley, and Stephen Guzzetta for our cable and telecommunications issues. For clarification purposes, it is recommended that a new letter of agreement be entered into with Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta. Attached is a copy of the revised Letter of Agreement. The letter of agreement is consistent with the current letter of agreement, with the only changes being to specify the current law firm, clarify services to include both cable and telecommunications matters, incorporate the current hourly rates, and include changes in hourly rates effective January 1, 2001. At their meeting of November 16, 2000, staff addressed the revised letter of agreement with the Telecommunications Commission. It was the consensus of the commission that the City enter into the revised Letter of Agreement with Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into a Letter of Agreement with Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta for legal services provided for cable and telecommunications matters. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBia HEIGHTS~ MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 ADMINISTRATION Mayor Gary L. Peterson Councllmembers John A. Hunter Donald G. Jolly Marlaine Szurek Julienne Wyckoff City Manclgor Walter R. Fehst PLEASE NOTE: CITY HALL PHONE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED. NEW NUMBERS ARE: MAIN NUMBER (763) 706-3600; TDD (763) 706-3692 November 17, 2000 Mr. Thomas D. Creighton Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta, LLC 5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 102 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Dear Tom: The purpose of this Letter of Agreement is to formalize terms for employment of Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta, LLC to represent the City of Columbia Heights as its law firm for cable and telecommunications. The services to be provided include: 1) Legal representation of the City of Columbia Heights in connection with its cable and telecommunications regulatory matters. 2) General legal advice and assistance relating to the administration of the cable and telecommunications franchise(s). 3) General legal advice and assistance relating to items requested by the Telecommunications Commission and/or referred to the Telecommunications Commission by the City Council. 4) Attendance at meetings. All services and representation will be provided by Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta, LLC. Other members of the firm or sub-contractors of the firm may provide backup services within the areas of their specialties. There will be no substitution of personnel except with prior client approval. Moreover, no project will be undertaken or service provided without the express authorization and direction of the client. Full control over use of time pursuant to this Agreement will rest with the City Manager or his designee. All services rendered pursuant to this agreement which involve decisions to undertake court procedures, actual court appearances, legal opinions or interpretation decisions which are within the authority of the City Attorney will be brought to the attention of and discussed with the City Attorney. Final judgment on legal interpretations and decisions to proceed with legal process shall remain with the City Attorney unless such responsibility is delegated otherwise. THE CITY Of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS Of DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENt OR THE PROVISION Of SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER November 17, 2000 Thomas D. Creighton Page 2 of 2 Pages Services rendered will be billed on a monthly basis, at a rate of: Thomas Creighton $150/hour Michael Bradley $135/hour Stephen Guzzetta $135/hour, plus direct expenses such as postage and photocopying. Effective January 1, 2001, services rendered will be billed on a monthly basis, at a rate of: Thomas Creighton $160/hour Michael Bradley $145/hour Stephen Guzzetta $145/hour, plus direct expenses such as postage and photocopying. The bills must be itemized by date, services rendered, time expended and expenses incurred. Direct expenses must be itemized separately. If your work involves areas that will be reimbursed to the City by the Cable Company or some other source such as transfer of ownership or litigation, your billing rate will be $200 per hour. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty days written notice. Sincerely, Gary L. Peterson, Mayor Walter R. Fehst, City Manager CREIGHTON, BRADLEY, & GUZZETTA, LLC Thomas D. Creighton, Attorney Michael Bradley, Attorney Stephen Guzzetta, Attorney cb 2000/194 CITY COUlqCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 . ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT NO: ~- ~-~ CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL UNDERSTANDING DATE: 11-20-00 , ,~-4 ¥ DATE: NO: The current Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Public Manager's Association, representing Division Heads, terminates on December 31, 2000. Negotiations between the city's negotiation spokesperson and PMA have resulted in a mutually acceptable Memorandum of Understanding for calendar years 2001,2002, and 2003. The proposed changes are attached and as follows: Waqes: 2001: 2002: 2003: 3.5% adjustment over 2000 3.5% adjustment over 2001 3.5% adjustment over 2002 Insurance: 2001: $475 per month (2000 = $455 per month) 2002: $505 per month 2003: $535 per month Deferred Compensation: Employer shall pay on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis; $750 per employee for 2001; $1,000 per employee for 2002, $1,250 per employee for 2003 (2000=$500). The total cost package over the three years is 11.82%. Attached is a resolution which would adopt and establish the changes as negotiated for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. Also attached is a copy of the new contract language incorporating the changes. Also attached is a uniform settlement form. Minnesota Statute 179A.07, Subdivision 7 requires completion of a Uniform Settlement Form (Form). The form is applicable to contract negotiations between exclusive representatives and all public employers, other than Townships. The Bureau of Mediation Services (Bureau) is charged with developing the Form and related instructions for compliance with the statute. Pursuant to that charge, the Bureau has adopted the attached Form to meet the requirements of this legislation. The Form is not intended to be a report of a public employer's labor costs or a substitute for the costing by labor or management of their collective bargaining proposals. Its purpose is limited to fulfilling the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 179A.07, Subdivision 7. It is the intention of this legislation to provide a standard basis for public employers and the public to compare the economic elements of collective bargaining settlements. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT NO: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER' S CITY MANAGER' S APPROVAL ITEM: 2001-2003 PMA MEMORANDUM OF BY: LINDA L. MAGEE BY: UNDERSTANDING DATE: 11 - 20 - 00 DATE: · NO: Page 2 of 2 The attached Form must be presented to the governing body of each public employer at the time it ratifies a collective bargaining contract. The Form must be available for public inspection during normal business hours within five (5) calendar days after ratification by the public employer. The difference between the percentage change from baseline reflected on the Uniform Settlement Form and the total cost package is attributable to the fact that the form includes cost of movement through the wage schedule. This is not included as a part of the total cost package of the City unless there is a change in the wage schedule (ex., added step, etc.). Thus, if the new dollars for wage schedule movement and the corresponding social security and retirement contribution attributable to the wage schedule movement were subtracted, the change in baseline would be the same as the total cost package. Likewise, if all members of the bargaining unit were at the maximum of their range, the change from baseline and the total cost package would be the same. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-84, regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Columbia Heights and the Public Managers' Association, effective January 1, 2001 December 31, 2003. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 2000-84 BEING A RESOLUTION REGARDING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND THE PUBLIC MANAGERS' ASSOCIATION BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that: WHEREAS, negotiations have proceeded between the Public Managers' Association, representing Division Heads of the City, and members of the City negotiating team, and said negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable Memorandum of Understanding for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003; WHEREAS, a copy of said Memorandum of Understanding will be made available for inspection at the Office of the City Manager and is made a part hereof by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Memorandum of Understanding as negotiated, be and is hereby established as the salary and fringe benefit program for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 for the Public Managers' Association bargaining unit employees of the City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute this agreement. Passed this day of ,2000. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary L. Peterson, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk November 6, 2000 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PROPOSAL TO THE PUBLIC MANAGERS ASSOCIATION 1. INSURANCE The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of four hundred and seventy-five dollars ($475) per month per employee for calendar year 2001 for employee life insurance, group health insurance, long term disability insurance (at the written request of the PMA), and dental insurance. Should the cost of such benefits be less than $475 per month for 2001, the difference may be used toward any other City-provided insurance benefit and/or ICMA deferred compensation. The EMPLOYER'S contribution per month per employee for calendar year 2002 for employee life insurance, group health insurance, long term disability insurance (at the written request of the PMA), and dental insurance will be five hundred and five ($505) dollars. Should the cost of such benefits be less than $505 per month for 2002, the difference may be used toward any other City-provided insurance benefit and/or ICMA deferred compensation. The EMPLOYER'S contribution per month per employee for calendar year 2003 for employee life insurance, group health insurance, long term disability insurance (at the written request of the PMA), and dental insurance will be five hundred and thirty-five ($535) dollars. Should the cost of such benefits be less than $535 per month for 2003, the difference may be used toward any other City-provided insurance benefit and/or ICMA deferred compensation. 2. ICMA DEFERRED COMPENSATION As a form of additional compensation, the EMPLOYER shall pay on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis up to a maximum of: $ 750 per year per employee for 2001 $1,000 per year per employee for 2002 $1,250 per year per employee for 2003 toward the ICMA Deferred Compensation Plan. 3. DURATION This Memorandum of Understanding shall be effective as of January 1, 2001, and shall remain in force and effect until December 31, 2003. This agreement shall continue in effect until a new agreement or contract supersedes it. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 /~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MAi~AGER ' S AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ~1 - - ~ ~ NO: CITY MANAGER ' S APPROVAL ITEM: 2001-2003 IAFF LABOR AGREEMENT BY: LINDA L. MAGEE BY: ~ NO: DATE: 11-20-00~-~C~ ~-- DATE: The current labor agreement between the city and the International Association of Firefighters, representing Firefighters terminates on December 31, 2000. Negotiations between the City's negotiation spokesperson and IAFF have resulted in a mutually acceptable labor agreement for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The proposed changes are as follows: Waqes: 2001: 2002: 2003: 3.5% adjustment over 2000 wages 3.5% adjustment over 2001 wages 3.5% adjustment over 2002 wages Insurance: 2001: $475 per month (2000=$455 per month) 2002: $505 per month 2003: $535 per month Call Outs and Overtime Increase in minimum pay for call outs from one hour to two hours. Deferred Compensation: Employer shall pay on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis; $300 per full-time employee for 2001; $300 per full-time employee for 2002; $300 per full-time employee for 2003 (2000= $300). Attached is a resolution which would adopt and establish the changes as negotiated for calendar year 2001, 2002, and 2003. Also attached is a copy of the new contract language incorporating the changes. The total cost package over the two years is 10.88%. Also attached is a Uniform Settlement Form. Minnesota Statute 179A.07, Subdivision 7, requires completion of a Uniform Settlement Form (Form). The Form is applicable to contract negotiations between exclusive representatives and all public employers, other than Townships. The Bureau of Mediation Services (Bureau) is charged with developing the Form and related instructions for compliance with the statute. Pursuant to that charge, the Bureau has adopted the attached Form to meet the requirements of this legislation. The Form is not intended to be a report of a public employer's labor costs or a substitute for the costing by labor or management of their collective bargaining proposals. Its purpose is limited to fulfilling the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 179A.07, Subdivision 7. It is the intention of this legislation to provide a standard basis for public employers and the public to compare the economic elements of collective bargaining settlements. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL ITEM: 2001-2003 IAFF LABOR AGREEMENT BY: LINDA L. MAGEE BY: NO: DATE: 11-20-00 DATE: Page 2 of 2 The attached Form must be presented to the governing body of each public employer at the time it ratifies a collective bargaining contract. The Form must be available for public inspection during normal business hours within five (5) calendar days after ratification by the public employer. The difference between the percentage change from baseline reflected on the Uniform Settlement Form and the total cost package is attributable to the fact that the form includes cost of movement through the wage schedule. This is not included as a part of the total cost package of the City unless there is a change in the wage schedule (ex., added step, etc.). Thus, if the new dollars for wage schedule movement and the corresponding Medicare and retirement contribution attributable to the wage schedule movement were subtracted, the change in baseline would be the same as the total cost package. Likewise, if all members of the bargaining unit were at the maximum of their range, the change from baseline and the total cost package would be the same. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-83, regarding the Labor Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights and the International Association of Firefighters, effective January 1, 2001- December 31, 2003. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 2000-83 REGARDING LABOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1216 WHEREAS, negotiations have proceeded between the Intemational Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1216, representing Firefighters of the City, and the City's negotiating spokesperson, and said negotiations have resulted in a mutually acceptable contract for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003; WHEREAS, a copy of said contract is available at the Office of the City Manager and is made a part hereof by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the contract agreement, as negotiated, be and is hereby established as the salary and fringe benefit program for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 for IAFF bargaining unit employees of the City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be authorized to execute this agreement. Passed this __ day of ., 2000. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary L. Peterson, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PROPOSAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL 1216 November 3, 2000 ARTICLE XI CALL OUTS AND OVERTIME 11.1 Call Outs. Employees will be compensated for all call outs. The hourly rate for call outs shall be calculated by taking the hourly rate times one and one-half. An employee who is called out shall receive a minimum of two hours' pay. ARTICLE XVIII INSURANCE 18.1 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of four hundred and seventy-five ($475) dollars per month per (permanent and probationary full-time) employee for calendar year 2001 for employee life insurance and group health insurance (including dependent coverage). No retroactive insurance benefit payments will be made to any employee terminating employment during calendar year 2001 prior to Council ratification of a 2001 employer contribution rate for insurance. 18.2 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of five hundred and five ($505) dollars per month per (permanent and probationary full-time) employee for calendar year 2002 for employee life insurance and group health insurance (including dependent coverage). 18.3 The EMPLOYER will contribute up to a maximum of five hundred and thirty-five ($535) dollars per month per (permanent and probationary full-time) employee for calendar year 2003 for employee life insurance and group health insurance (including dependent coverage). 18.4 By mutual agreement, employees may use up to the amount of the premium for individual dental insurance coverage of the per month per employee health and life insurance dollars in 18.1, 18.2, and 18.3 for dental insurance for all unit employees. 18.5 Employees not choosing dependent coverage cannot be covered at EMPLOYER expense for any additional insurance than the individual group health and group life insurance. Additional life insurance can be purchased by the employee at the employee's expense to the extent allowed under the EMPLOYER's group policy. ARTICLE XXIII DURATION 23.1 This AGREEMENT shall be effective as of the first day of January, 2001, and shall remain in force and effect until the thirty-first day of December, 2003. In the event a new contract is not agreed upon by December 31 of the bargaining period, the existing AGREEMENT shall remain in force until such new AGREEMENT is agreed upon. ARTICLE XXIV 24.1 WAGES November 3, 2000 2001 Wage Schedule Adjustment shall be effective January 1,2001. No retroactive wage payments will be made to any employee terminating employment during calendar year 2001, prior to Council ratification of a 2001 wage schedule. After Level Classification: Firefighter Start to Six Months 40 Hour 56 Hour Work Schedule Work Schedule Recruit Firefighter $14.94/hour $10.67/hour 65% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Six Months Recruit Firefighter I $16.09/hour $11.49/hour 70% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Twelve Months Twenty-Four Months Thirty-Six Months Forty-Eight Months Sixty Months Recruit Firefighter II $17.24/hour 75% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Recruit Firefighter III $18.38/hour 80% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Firefighter I $19.53/hour 85% of Journeyman Firefighterrate Firefighter II $20.68/hour 90% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Firefighter III $21.83/hour 95%of Journeyman Firefighter rate Seventy-Two Months Journeyman Firefighter Classification: Captain Start to Six Months Captain I 96% of Captain III Six Months Captain II 98% of Captain III Twelve Months Captain III $22.98/hour $23.89/hour $24.39/hour $24.89/hour $12.32/hour $13.14/hour $13.96/hour $14.78/hour $15.60/hour $16.42/hour $17.07/hour $17.42fhour $17.78/hour 24.2 2002 Wage Schedule After November 3, 2000 40 Hour 56 Hour Level Work Schedule Work Schedule Classification: Firefighter Start to Six Months Recruit Firefighter $15.46/hour 65% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Recruit Firefighter I $16.65/hour 70% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Six Months Recruit Firefighter II $17.84/hour 75% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Twelve Months Twenty-Four Months Recruit Firefighter III $19.02/hour 80% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Firefighter I $20.21/hour 85% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Thirty-Six Months Forty-Eight Months Firefighter II $21.40/hour 90% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Firefighter III $22.59/hour 95%of Journeyman Firefighter rate Sixty Months $23.78/hour Seventy-Two Months Journeyman Firefighter $11.04/hour $11.89/hour $12.74/hour $13.59/hour $14.44/hour $15.29/hour $16.14/hour $16.99/hour Classification: Captain Start to Six Months Captain I 96% of Captain III Six Months Captain II 98% of Captain III Captain III $24.73hour $25.24/hour $17.66/hour $18.03/hour Twelve Months $25.76/hour $18.40/hour 24.3 2003 Wage Schedule After Level Classification: Firefighter Start to Six Months Six Months Twelve Months Twenty-Four Months Thirty-Six Months Forty-Eight Months Sixty Months Seventy-Two Months November 3, 2000 40 Hour Work Schedule 56 Hour Work Schedule Recruit Firefighter $16.00/hour 65% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Recruit Firefighter I $17.23/hour 70% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Recruit Firefighter II $18.46/hour 75% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Recruit Firefighter III $19.69/hour 80% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Firefighter I $20.92/hour 85% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Firefighter II $22.15/hour 90% of Journeyman Firefighter rate Firefighter III $23.38/hour 95%of Joumeyman Firefighter rate Journeyman Firefighter $24.61/hour $11.43/hour $12.31/hour $13.19/hour $14.06hour $14.94/hour $15.82/hour $16.70/hour $17.58/hour 24.4 24.5 Classification: Captain Start to Six Months Captain I 96% of Captain III Six Months Captain II 98% of Captain III $25.59/hour $26.13/hour $18.28/hour $18.66/hour Twelve Months Captain III $26.66/hour $19.04/hour Employees shall successfully complete professional qualifications in order to be advanced to the next highest pay level within their classification. As a form of additional compensation, the City will contribute $1 per permanent and probationary full-time employee toward a City-sponsored deferred compensation program for every $1 contributed by such employee toward a City-sponsored deferred compensation program. Such employer contribution will not exceed $300 for calendar year 2001, $300 for calendar year 2002, and $300 for calendar year 2003. (Delete current 24.5) CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER L~_ ~. [9 Fire APPROVAL NO: ITEM: Authorize the Assistant Fire Chief to Attend BY: Dana Alexon BY: /~j~/~] the National Fire Academy DATE: November 15, 2000 DATE: NO: Background: The National Fire Academy, located in Emmitsburg, MD, is a major fire-service training center operated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Fire Academy offers many courses for firefighters and fire service managers, including the Executive Fire Officer (EFO) program. Former Fire Chief Charlie Kewatt attended the EFO program and recommended that Assistant Fire Chief Dana Alexon also attend this program. The City Manager has agreed that this program would be beneficial to the city and the fire department. The EFO program consists of four courses that are taken over a four-year period of time. Each course is two weeks long, held at the Fire Academy, and requires a research paper to be completed following the course. There is no cost for the courses, and the Federal government pays for all travel expenses except for meals. Analysis: After receiving approval from the City Manager, Assistant ChiefAlexon applied for and was accepted to the Executive Fire Officer program. He attended the first class in the program in February 2000. The required research paper was graded 3.9 of 4.0 possible points. He has been scheduled for the second class in the program, called Strategic Management of Change, from January 8, 2001 through January 19, 2001. The cost of meals will be $174.00. City Council approval is required since the course is longer than 3 working days. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to authorize the Assistant Fire Chief to attend the National Fire Academy in Emmitsburg, Maryland from January 8, 2001 to January 19, 2001 and that expenses be reimbursed from the appropriate account. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Li ~ ?-~ ORIGINATiNG DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER NO. ' POLICE ~ APPROVAL:. ;/ ITEM: Stipends for Participating Student & Teacher BY: ThomasM. Johnson~)i~YA~ ..~'~4.~_~,~ NO. from 2000 School Based Parmership Grant DATE: November 6, 2000-~-4 [. BACKGROUND In 1999 the Police Department wrote a grant to analyze assaultive incidents at Columbia Heights Senior High School. The grant included funds for the hiring of a student representative and a school representative to participate as information gatherers and to assist the Resources/Crime Analyst. It was also included in the grant that these individuals would be paid a stipend of up to $1,560 per year for the student and up to $5,000 per year for the school representative. The cost of the stipends is included and approved in the Federal School Based Partnership Grant. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION The Columbia Heights School District has assigned a teacher and a student to fill the two positions covered in this grant. They have submitted a bill for the payment of the stipends to each of these individuals. (See attached billing). The Police Department is seeking approval to pay this bill in two payments--the first to be paid on December 1,2000, in the amount of $3,251.03, and the second payment to be made June 6, 2001, in the amount of $3,251.03. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the payment of the stipends for work performed by a student representative and a school representative to the Columbia Heights School District in the total amount of $6,502.06. These payments are to be made in two equal payments of $3,251.03 on the following dates; December 1, 2000, and June 6, 2001, with funding for this expense to come from the 1999 School Based Partnership Grant Fund # 279-42100-3050. TMJ:mld 00-257 Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: Columbia Heights Public Schools Independent School District #13, 1400 49th Avenue N.E., Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421 Telephone: (612) 586-4505, FAX: (612) 586-4508 David L. Behlow, Ph.D. Superintendent October 12, 2000 Michelle Steichen Columbia Heights Police Department City of Columbia Heights Columbia Heights, Minnesota 55421 Dear Ms. Steichen: Thank you for explaining the Partnership Grant that exists between the Columbia Heights Public Schools and the Columbia Heights Police Department. As discussed in the meeting today, the District will make biweekly salary payments for the teacher and the student that will be involved in the grant starting on November 8, 2000 as follows: Student: $60.00 every other xveek for 15 payment periods with the balance to be paid upon a letter from you and or your department indicating that £mal payment should be made. The biweekly payments will be $60 less appropriate state and federal withholdings. The letter authorizing the f'mal payment must be received by the District no later than June 8, 2001. The total funds received by the student shall not be more than: 15 payments at $60.00 = $900.00 Final Payment June 2001 = $540.00 Total Salary paid = $1,440.00 Teacher: $200.00 every other week for 15 payment periods with the balance to be paid upon a letter from you and or your department indicating that final payment should be made. The biweekly payments will be $200 less appropriate state and federal withholdings. The letter must letter authorizing the f'mal payment must be received by the District no later than June 8,2001. The total funds received by the teacher shall not be more than: 15 payments at 200.00 = $3,000.00 Final Payment June 2001 = $1,600.00 Total Salary paid = $4,600.00 An Equal Opportunity Employer Billings: The District will bill the Police Department twice during the year for these payments. The fn'st bill be due December 1, 2000 and the balance due on June 6, 2001. The amount billed will be: (1,440.00 + 4,600.00)/2 = FICA ~ .0765 = Total Due December 1, 2000 = $ 3,020.00 $ 231.03 $ 3,251.03 Total Due June 6, 2001 = $3,251.03 Total Billed = $6,502.06 If you have any questions please call me 763-528-4412 Sincerely,/~ ~o~~Bulger~~ Director of Business Services CC: David Behlo~v Janet Eide Pdma plimnt'sName: Columbia Heights Police Department OR[ #: MN0020400 ~le: MN OMB approval 1103-0019 Expiration 3/20001 Budget Detail Worksheet List each position by title and name of employee, if available. Show the annual salary rate and the percentage of time to be devoted to the project. Compensation paid for employees engaged in grant activities must be consistent with that paid for similar work within the applicant organization. Name/Position Computation Cost Crime Analyst $28,000 $28,000 School Representative 260 hours x rate/hr (19.23) 5,000 Student Representative 260 hours x rate/hr (6.00) 1,560 Link to Problem Solving: See attached Total:$ 34,560 Budget Detail Worksheet - You must return this page as part of your applicaUon 55 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER NO. q -.4 -~ POLICE APPROVAL: ITEM: Authorization to accept Juvenile BY: Thomas M Johnson/)~ · ~,~ \ ,~BY: NO. Accountability Block Grant from State DATE: October 31, 2000 '~ DATE: BACKGROUND The Columbia Heights Police Department has been successful in securing a grant through the State of Minnesota Department of Economic Security/Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant. This grant will pay for our share of the Project Safety Net program ($6,000) and for the supervisors pay for our graffiti cleanup program. The grant is for $9,874 with a $1,097 match. The grant breaks down as follows: $6,000 for Project Safety Net and $4,971 for salaries and fringe benefits of work crew supervisors and pizzas for the clean up crew. We have been using this same grant during the past year for the same expenses. EVALUATION/CONCLUSION: This grant will allow us to continue two programs that have worked very well for the city and the department. Individuals caught doing vandalism and/or graffiti, or who have community service time to serve, or who through the local schools have detention to serve, use this program to pay their debt to society. The city benefits by having graffiti-free buildings and a clean, appealing community. The program has been expanded to include raking leaves in the fall for the elderly or disabled and shoveling snow in the winter for the same. Project Safety Net is a program that greatly benefits the city by giving us a place to take juvenile curfew violators. Once at the Safety Net, we know they will get an immediate intervention and the officer can return promptly to the streets. The department feels strongly that this is an excellent use of these funds. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor and the City Manager to accept a grant from the State of Minnesota Department of Economic Security/Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant in the amount of $9,874 with a match of $1,097, with the match to come from unexpended funds in the 2000 Police Department budget. TMJ:mld 00-254 COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent i_l _/~ .c~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER NO. POLICE %-%(, APP ROVA, I_fi// ITEM: Approve changes in Joint Powers BY: Thomas M. Johnsonc~ /) BY: NO. Agreement DATE: November 6, 2000 - '~ DATE: BACKGROUND During the past year the Joint Law Enforcement Council agreed to make some changes to the current Joint Powers Agreement. These changes include adding the cities of Centerville and St. Francis to the Council. It also changes the representation of the County to provide for two representatives appointed upon recommendation of the Sheriff and two County Commissioners. The County Attorney rewrote the Joint Powers Agreement to include these proposed changes. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION In order for these changes to take place, each City Council currently included in the Joint Powers Agreement and the County Commissioners must approve the change. Attached is a memo from the County Attorney along with a copy of the 1982 agreement, a draft addendum showing the changes, and a signature copy of the addendum. I am recommending that the City Council approve the addendum and have the Mayor and City Manger sign off on it. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the attached addendum to the Joint Law Enforcement Council, Joint Powers Agreement, which will allow for the inclusion of the cities of Centerville and St. Francis and allow for county representation through two representatives appointed by the Sheriff and txvo County Commissioners. TMJ:mld 00-256 Attachment COUNCIL ACTION: ANOKA COUNTY ATTORNEY ROBERT M.A. JOHNSON Government Center · 2100 Third Avenue ° Anoka, MN 55303-2265 attorney @co.anoka.mn.us Administration / Civil Division Criminal Division / Investigation Division Family Law & Mental Health Division Juvenile Division / Victim-Witness Services (763) 323-5550 (763) 323-5586 (763) 422-7589 Fax (763) 422-7524 Fax October 25, 2000 TO: FROM: Columbia Heights City Council Robert M. A. Johnson, Chair Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Coun Joint Powers Agreement The Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council is proposing several changes to the joint powers agreement creating the Council. Substantively, the agreement adds the cities of Centerville and St. Francis to the Council. It also changes the representation of the county to provide for two representatives appointed upon recommendation of the sheriff.and two county commissioners. The other changes in the addendum are intended to better conform the joint powers agreement to existing law. In order to place these proposed changes in context, I am enclosing a copy of the 1982 agreement, a draft addendum showing the changes, and a signature copy of the addendum. If the City Council approves the addendum, please execute the clean signature copy and return it to the Office of the County Attorney at the above address. RMAJ:ds Encs. Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer MASTER AG REE.~tENT JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL AGREEMENT The undersigned governmental units, namely Anoka, Blaine, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Spring Lake Park, Ramsey, Lino Lakes, Circle Pines, Lexington, Circle Pines-Lexington Joint Municipal Police Commission, and the County of Anoka hereby recognize the need to prepare to deal adequately with current crime problems and problems of law enforcement which could itensify with continuing population growth and changes and which are of regional nature and are occurring or likely to occur within the region represented by Anoka County. WHEREAS, they likewise recognize that they do all have the power to and do in fact maintain police departmen.ts and police personnel; and ~ WHEREAS, one of the stated purpose~ of this Council shall be to preserve the authority and responsibility 6f local law enforcement t~ the extent to which it is practical and economical; and WHEREAS, the undersigned governmental units recognize that pursuant to the provisions of the Joint. Ex~rcise of Powers Act, Section 471.59 Minnesota Statutes Annotated, that they do have the authority to enter into this agreement where they are jointly and cooperatively exercising a power common to al! of the contracting parties, and pursuant to this and in order to insure that a proper regional organization be established representative of the various municipalities involved with authority and responsibility to research and study problems of law enforcement of a regional nature, together with the authority and power to implement such regional services as hereinafter set forth, and that the parties hereto do establish the following organization with the management authority vested therein as set forth as follows: 1. The name shall be: ANOKA COUNTY JOINT LAW ENFORCEmeNT COUNCIL. 2. That it would be subject to the management of a council of 23 whose membership would be constituted by appointment on an annual basis by each of the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with one other individual to be appointed by the Village or City Council; provided, however, that the cities of Circle Pines knd Lexington and the Circle Pines-Lexington Joint Municipal Police Commission shall be represented by their Chief'of Police and the Chairman of the Joint Municipal Police Commission, and that the County would be represented by the Sheriff and one other individual to be appointed by the Board of County Commissioners. In addition, the Board of County Comm.issioners shall appoint two individuals: one to represent the unincorporated areas with tb~e County and one to represent the incorporated areas in the County who do not have a police department with at least six full-time police officers. That the 23rd person would be appointed by the Council to serve as chairman whose responsibili%y would be to act as chairman of the different meetings of this Council, whose only vote would be in the case of a tie. That these appointments would be made by the various councils to be effective on the first day of each year and continuing until a successor has been duly appointed and qualified. And further, the first meeting of the Council shall be called by the chief of the most populous city for the purpose of organizing the Council and after the Council is organized, its members shall determine the method, time, place and frequency of their subsequent meetings. The Council shall adopt such rules and regulations for the conduct of its business as may be expedient and necessary and comformable to law. -2- 3. That the governmental units hereby delegate to the Council herein described that they should be empowered as follows: A. To undertake research and initial recommendations for law enforcement and criminal justice programs which may be regional in nature and regional in responsibility or that have a common purpose which could be carried on in a more efficient manner collectively than separately. B. To initiate and carry on law enforcement responsibilities which are of mutual concern to the parties to the agreement, including the authority to hire the personnel necessary and acquire tSe equipment and property that might be called for in any one of the projects which might be determined to be of regional significance. C. That the area over which this Council shall have responsibility shall be the entire County of Anoka. D. That the Council shall have the authority to make application for state and federal funds, to enter into contracts with various state and federal agencies in regard to the expenditure of such funds; the Council shall have-the authority to make application to and receive funds from various foundations, organizations or individuals ~o assist the Council in carrying out its responsibilities; the Council shall have the authority to receive funds from any local governmental .units to assist it in carrying out its responsibilities. E. The Council shall prepare a budget detailing the anticipated expenditures for each calendar year and shall submit said budget to the County Board by September 1. The County Board shall have authority to make such alterations in the budget as they deem proper and necessary and shall proceed to levy taxes as needed to fund the budget as approved. -3- F. Any new programs may be initiated by the Council upon affirmative vote of any thirteen of its members at any regular meeting of the Council. 4. This agreement supercedes the Joint Powers Agreement between seven of the parties hereto relating to the Joint Law Enforcement Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we, the undersigned, on behalf of our gover~mental units, do hereby bind ourselves in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. CITY DF ANOKA~-x Jerry Dulgar ~ts%i City, Manager Its: ~yor CITY OF CIRCr.~E PINES Its: ~ty Administrator Its: Mayor Dated: 77 ~ , ,~, ~ ', 't _ ij Cit~gge~ I ts: Mayor By: ~-,~ , ~ ',~ ~._~ ~ ~. .' Its: City Manager Dated: ~- ?-~f k. CITY OF COON RAPIDS By: ' ' ," .-.-. Robert D. ~his~ie Its: C~ty. Manaqer /'~ By: , ~ob~r~ B. ~ew~s Its: Mayor Dated: April 15, 1982 CITY OF FRIDLEY Its: City Manager Dated: April 27, 1982 -4- CITY OF LEXINGTON By: ., ~.(I,.~',/.,_~ .~., I~s: ~ayor By: V','~--- '~V~x-~ ~ O Its: Clerk-Administrator Dated: April 29, 1982 CI RC~S-LEXI~ Dated: _ oRP. / ~/~ Its~ ~ayor Its: Cit~ Administrator Dated: April 29, 1982 CITY OF RAMSEY / -5- JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL AGREEMENT ADDENDUM #1 DRAFT THIS AGREEMENT ADDENDUM is made by and between the County of Anoka, the Cities of Anoka, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Ramsey, St. Francis, and Spring Lake Park, and the Circle Pines-Lexington-Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission. RECITALS: (1) In 1970, the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council was formed by a joint powers agreement and was modified by an agreement executed in 1982 to add a number of cities in Anoka County.. (2) The county, cities, and police commission named above (herein "parties") wish to enter into this agreement addendum to amend the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement in order to add the Cities of Centerville and St. Francis as parties to the agreement, and to make other appropriate amendments to the parties' agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE TO AMEND THEIR AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: The first paragraph in Section 2 of the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: That it would be subject to the management of a council of 23 26 whose membership would be constituted by appointment on an annual basis by each of the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with one other individual to be appointed by the ~ittagcm:rr-City Council; provided, however, that if a participating governmental unit contracts with the Anoka County Sheriff for police services, it shall be represented by the Anoka County Sheriff; provided further, however, that the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines and Lexington and the Circle Pines-Lexington-Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission shall be represented by their Chief of Police and the Chairman of the Joint Municipal Police Commission; and that the County would be represented by the Sheriff and one ,~.~ ,,~,~v,,~,~,~, to be,~i~l~,~,-~,~' .... ~ t__,,y .t~,~ ..... ,_,,~,,~' ,~-~' '-~,,,-~y'" ....... two four individuals: one to represent" ---,:-- ~ ............. :-'- --' ..... :- ~" ': ..... ':-- -~ .... ' dbvth d [.JUilL~U UUI. Jdl LIII~;;;IIL WILIi ."iL IUciSL 3lA iLIII-LIIIIU [.Jk./li~,g UIilgg1,5appolnte_ e Boar of County Commissioners, two of whom shall be Anoka County commissioners and two of whom shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the Anoka County Sheriff. That the e3-~ 26~. person would be appointed by the Council to serve as chairman whose responsibility would be to act as chairman of the different meetings of this Council, whose only vote would be in the case of a tie. -1- That these appointments would be made by the various councils to be effective on the first day of each year and continuing until a successor has been duly appointed and qualified. Part F in Section 3 of the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: Any new programs may be initiated by the Council upon affirmative vote of any th/rteen fourteen of its members at any regular meeting of the Council. 3. Section 5 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: By the terms of this agreement, a party does not waive any limitation of liability available to that party, including, but not limited to, Ivlinn. Stat. Chap. 466. 4. Section 6 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Anoka County will be responsible for handling funds and shall disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by counties. 5. Section 7 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: A strict accounting will be made of all funds and a report of all receipts and disbursements will be made upon request. 6. Section 8 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: 'Contracts and purchases made in providing services under this Agreement will be made by Anoka County and will conform to the requirements applicable to the County. 7. Section 9 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Any party has the right to withdraw from this Agreement by declaring in writing its intention to withdraw effective on a specified date, which date cannot be less than thirty days from the date of the written notice. A withdrawing party must send a copy of the written notice to each party. Withdrawal by a party will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by such party before the effective date of withdrawal. 8. Section 10 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: This agreement will terminate under the following circumstances: -2- mo There are no remaining parties to the Agreement as a result of withdrawal pursuant to this Agreement; or Bo All parties, or all remaining parties, mutually agree to terminate the Agreement. Termination of this Agreement will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by a party before the effective date of termination. Upon termination, any remaining funds or any property acquired pursuant to the terms of this agreement may be retained by Anoka County or by the party acquiring the property, except as may otherwise be required to comply with any requirement related to the source of funds used to acquire the property. 9. Section 11 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: The records and documents relating to all matters that are the subject of this Agreement are subject to inspection, review and audit by the parties and state officials so authorized by law during regular business hours. Records will be retained in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chap. 138. 10. The parties agree that the cities of Centerville and St. Francis may participate in the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council. The City of Centerville shall participate through the Circle Pines-Lexington-Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission. 11. By signing this addendum, the cities of Centerville and St. Francis agree to be bound, effective as of the date of the party's signature, by provisions in the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement signed by the other parties in 1982. 12. All parties to this Addendum need not sign the same copy of the Addendum. An original Addendum signed by each party shall be maintained in the Office of the Anoka County Attorney. CITY OF By Mayor By City Manager/Administrator/Clerk/Coordinator Dated: -3- JOINT LAW ENFORCEMENT COUNCIL AGREEMENT ADDENDUM #1 TillS AGREEMENT ADDENDUM is made by and between the County of Anoka, the Cities of Anoka, Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Columbia Heights, Coon Rapids, Fridley, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Ramsey, St. Francis, and Spring Lake Park, and the Circle Pines-Lexington-Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission. RECITALS: (1) In 1970, the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council was formed by a joint powers agreement and was modified by an agreement executed in 1982 to add a number of cities in Anoka County.. (2) The county, cities, and police commission named above (herein "parties") wish to enter into this agreement addendum to amend the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement in order to add the Cities of Centerville and St. Francis as parties to the agreement, and to make other appropriate amendments to the parties' agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE TO AMEND THEIR AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: The first paragraph in Section 2 of the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: That it would be subject to the management of a council of 26 whose membership would be constituted by appointment on an annual basis by each of the participating governmental units of their Chief of Police together with one other individual to be appointed by the City Council; provided, however, that if a participating governmental unit contracts with the Anoka County Sheriff for police services, it shall be represented by the Anoka County Sheriff; provided further, however, that the cities of Centerville, Circle Pines and Lexington and the Circle Pines-Lexington-Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission shall be represented by their Chief of Police and the Chairman of the Joint Municipal Police Commission; and that the County would be represented by the Sheriff.and four individuals appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, two of whom shall be Anoka County commissioners and two of whom shall be appointed upon the recommendation of the Anoka County Sheriff That the 26th person would be appointed by the Council to serve as chairman whose responsibility would be to act as chairman of the different meetings of this Council, whose only vote would be in the case of a tie. That these appointments would be made by the various councils to be effective on the first day of each year and continuing until a successor has been duly appointed and qualified. -1- Part F in Section 3 of the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement is amended to read as follows: Any new programs may be initiated by the Council upon affirmative vote of any fourteen of its members at any regular meeting of the Council. Section 5 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: By the terms of this agreement, a party does not waive any limitation of liability available to that party, including, but not limited to, Minn. Stat. Chap. 466. Section 6 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Anoka County will be responsible for handling funds and shall disburse funds in a manner which is consistent with the method provided by law for the disbursement of funds by counties. Section 7 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: A strict accounting will be made of all funds and a report of all receipts and disbursements will be made upon request. Section 8 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Contracts and purchases made in providing services under this Agreement will be made by Anoka County and will conform to the requirements applicable to the County. Section 9 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: Any party has the right to withdraw from this Agreement by declaring in writing its intention to withdraw effective on a specified date, which date cannot be less than thirty days from the date of the written notice. A withdrawing party must send a copy of the written notice to each party. Withdrawal by a party will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by such party before the effective date of withdrawal. Section 10 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: This agreement will terminate under the following circumstances: A. There are no remaining parties to the Agreement as a result of withdrawal pursuant to this Agreement; or -2- All parties, or ail remaining parties, mutually agree to terminate the Agreement. Termination of this Agreement will not result in the discharge of any legal liability incurred by a party before the effective date of termination. Upon termination, any remaining funds or any property acquired pursuant to the terms of this agreement may be retained by Anoka County or by the party acquiring the property, except as may otherwise be required to comply with any requirement related to the source of funds used to acquire the property. 9. Section 11 is added to the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement to read as follows: The records and documents relating to all matters that are the subject of this Agreement are subject to inspection, review and audit by the parties and state officials so authorized by law during regular business hours. Records will be retained in accordance with the provisions of Minn. Stat. Chap. 138. 10. The parties agree that the cities of Centerville and St. Francis may participate in the Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council. The City of Centerville shall participate through the Circle Pines-Lexington-Centerville Joint Municipal Police Commission. 11. By signing this addendum, the cities of Centerville and St. Francis agree to be bound, effective as of the date of the party's signature, by provisions in the Joint Law Enforcement Council Agreement signed by the other parties in 1982. 12. All parties to this Addendum need not sign the same copy of the Addendum. An original Addendum signed by each party shall be maintained in the Office of the Anoka County Attorney. CITY OF By Mayor By City Manager/Administrator/Clerk/Coordinator Dated: -3- CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 11/27/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: PUBLIC WORKS J~lJ~ ITEM: EXTENSION OF GIS RANGE RIDER BY: K. Hansen BY: CONTRACT DATE: 11/20/0~~ DATE: Background: In 1996 Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement (Tri-City Agreement) with the cities of Andover and Fridley to hire an outside consultant to provide GIS technical assistance. The Consulting Firm of PlanSight was hired and performed work under the Tri-Cities Agreement beginning in 1997. The Consulting Services Agreement terminates on December 31, 2000 unless extended by further agreement of the parties. Analysis/Conclusions: The cities ofAndover, Fridley and Columbia Heights staff are interested in continuing the contract for 2001. Continuing with PlanSight will provide the continuity we need to keep the program moving forward. The 2001 goals for the City of Columbia Heights are as follows: Building database of utility information into CityWorks Utility Management Software. Completing review and integration of physical feature database Providing other City departments with easy to use access to GIS database Analyzing and map crime data (Police) Link GIS to fire database/analyze and map database information (Fire) Develop process for dealing with easements in GIS (Finance/Assessing) Additional tasks as identified The City benefits from work done under this contract as well as from the other cities. Columbia Heights' share for the 2001 Tri-City GIS Range Rider is $16,686.00, which includes a 3% adjustment for 2001. This amount is budgeted in the 2001 Public Works budget. Recommended Motion: Move to approve an extension to the GIS Joint Powers Agreement; and, authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 11/27/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: L{-A~ II PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT FOR MSC BY: K. Hansen ~.gd,.,~ CONCRETE FLOOR REPAIR AND COATING DATE: 11/20/0(M.- Background: Attached is the final request for payment for the MSC Concrete Floor Repairs and Coating, City Project 0016 in the original contract amount of $1,249.00. The garage floor repair and coating work is paid for with the Public Works Central Garage Fund. The work has been completed in accordance with the project specifications and staff is recommending acceptance and final payment to the contractor. Recommended Motion: Move to accept the work for MSC Concrete Floor Repairs and Coating, City Project 0016 and to authorize payment of $1,249.00 to TMI Coatings Inc. of St Paul, Minnesota. Kn.'jb Attachments: Engineer's Report of Acceptance Invoice dated October 12, 2000 COUNCIL ACTION: CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S REPORT OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE 2000 IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS CITY PROJECT NUMBER 0016 November 20, 2000 TO THE CITY COUNCIL COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: This is to advise you that I have reviewed the work under contract to TMI Coatings Inc. The work consisted of concrete repair and coating of the MSC garage floor. The contractor has completed the project in accordance with the contract. It is recommended; herewith, that final payment be made for said improvements to the contractor in the amount as follows: ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE CHANGE ORDERS FINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT FINAL WORK APPROVED ALL PRIOR PAYMENTS BALANCE DUE Sincerely, City Engineer $ 24,980.00 $ o.oo $ 24,980.00 $ 24,980.00 $ 23,731.00 $ 1,249.00 INVOICE NO. 12278 TO' TMI COATINGS, INC. 2805 Dodd Road St. Paul, MN 55121-1519 Phone: (651)452-6100 Fax: (651)452-0598 ICity of Columbia Heights Attn: Kathy Young 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 (763) 706-3704 RECEIVED OCT 16 ZO0 pUBLtO woRKS Date: 10/12/00 Customer P. O. No: I TMI Job No: City Project No. 0016 I 00-3054 Material Value $ Labor Value $ Change Orders Value $ Total Contract DESCRIPTION Value $ $24,980.00 Net 15 Days PROTECTIVE COATINGS RECOATING MUNICIPAL GARAGE FLOOR BILLING FOR 5% RETENTION ENCL: WITHHOLDING AFFIDAVIT FOR CONTRACTORS % PerAnnum Serv. Chg 18.00% % delivered to date % complete to date % complete to date TOTAL EARNED TO DATE LESS PREVIOUS BILLINGS CURRENT PAYMENT DUE AMOUNT $ $24,98O.OO $ $24,98O.OO $ $o.oo $1,249.00 TOTAL DUE THIS INVOICE $1,249.00 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: ~'i - /X, - ~ -2__ Fire APPROVAL ITEM: Establish Hearing Dates BY: Dana Alexon BY: g- ~ · License Revocation, Rental Properties NO: DATE: November 20, 2000 DATE: Revocation or suspension of a license to operate a rental property within the City of Columbia Heights is requested against the following owners regarding their rental property for failure to meet the requirements of the Housing Maintenance Codes. 1. Renae Novak ................................................................. 4023 6th Street. 2. Kwei Fang ..................................................................... 4055 - 4057 University Avenue. 3. David Jacobs - c/o Susan Loewenthal .......................... 1206-1208 Circle Terrace Blvd. 4. Richard Lee ................................................................... 4600 Polk Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of December 11, 2000 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Renae Novak at 4023 6th Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of December 11, 2000 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Kwei Fang at 4055-4057 University. Avenue. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of December 11, 2000 for Revocation or Suspension of a License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against David Jacobs - c/o Susan Loewentahl at 1206-1208 Circle Terrace. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Establish a Hearing Date of December 11, 2000 for Revocation or Suspension ora License to Operate a Rental Property within the City of Columbia Heights against Richard Lee at 4600 Polk Street. ICOUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting off 11/27/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER ITEM: REPLACEMENT OF UNIT #17, 1985 FORD C700 BY: K. Hansen BY: WATER FLUSH TRUCK DATE: 11/21/00~v~/'' DATE: Background: Equipment unit #17 is a 1985 Ford C700 Cab-Over chassis equipped with a 1000 gallon water tank and various water flushing equipment. The chassis was purchased new in 1985 for $ 33,710, with a projected life of 15 years. The odometer reading is 45,000 miles with 6,213 hours of operation recorded since an hour meter was installed in 1992. The manual transmission is very difficult to shift and is no longer in production. The transmission linkage was poorly designed and has been replaced several times. The 2- speed differential needs to be replaced. Drive belts for the air compressor that supplies air to operate the flush controls are no longer available. The mechanics have rated the overall mechanical condition as fair to poor. The body condition is fair. The water tank interior is stainless steel with a steel exterior hull. The attached spraying system is adequate and could be reconditioned with minor valve and pipe replacements. The exterior steel hull is resting on the bottom supports and needs repair. Unit #17 is used by the Street Dept. during street sweeping operations to rinse the streets and control dust. It is used by the Park Dept. to flood skating rinks, water trees, sod, and ballfields. It is used by the Sewer and Water Dept. as an auxiliary water supply for sewer cleaning equipment. Analysis/Conclusions: The entire unit was scheduled for replacement in 2000 under the Capital Equipment Plan with an estimated cost of $110,000. Public Works has obtained cost estimates and has developed three option plans with cost estimates: Keep Unit #17. Convert the transmission from standard to automatic, complete the other necessary repairs to the chassis, recondition the water tank and flushing system. The estimated cost is $30,000. Replace Unit #17 chassis and recondition the existing water tank and flushing system. The estimated cost is $55,000. Purchase a new chassis, water tank and flushing system. The estimated cost is $105,000. Staff recommends replacing Unit # 17 chassis and reconditioning the existing water tank and flushing system. Unit #17 chassis is proposed to be disposed of by auction. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize staff to seek bids for one (1) new Cab-over Cargo Chassis and reconditioning of the existing water tank and flushing system. The estimated cost of $55,000 would be appropriated from Capital Equipment Replacement Fund #431-43121-5150. KH:jb COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: 11/27/00 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT AGENDA ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: ~/~ /~-~{ PUBLIC WORKS ITEM: AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH BY: K. Hansen PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 4542 WASHINGTON DATE: 11/21/0Q~ffJ E STREET AND 1307 42ND AVENUE AS RECOMMENDED IN THE 1999 STORM WATER STUDY Background: An extensive engineering study was undertaken in 1998 and completed in 1999 evaluating various locations throughout the City with storm water problems. The largest study area, Jackson Pond, recommended the most feasible alternative for three separate sites would be the acquisition, demolition, and site grading of three residential properties. At their September 12th, 2000 regular meeting, the Council authorized the firm of Wilson Development to assist the City with the acquisition process. The third property, located at 4330 Washington, has withdrawn from the process and is not interested in selling their property as part of this process. Analysis/Conclusions: An independent appraisal firm, hired by the City, has performed a complete property appraisal with the estimated market value tlor each property as follows: Market Value · 4542 Washington Street $104,000 · 1307 42"d Avenue $106,000 Anoka County has the property appraised at $80,700 and $85,400, respectively, for taxes payable in 2000. These figures do not include moving neither costs or adjustments for interest rates differences, which also may be requirements under the law. It is the intent of this process for the sale of property to be performed by negotiation, with the offering price indicated as negotiated by Wilson Development. Funding will be shared equally by the City's Storm Water Utility and DNR Flood Mitigation Grant funds, which have been awarded to the City of Columbia Heights. Recommended Motion: Move to authorize for purchase offers to be made for the Fair Market Value for 4542 Washington Street and 1307 42"d Avenue, as recommended by Wilson Development Services. rm:jb Attachments: Appraisals (2) partial Purchase Agreement (Sample) COUNCIL ACTION: LAKE STATE REALTY SERVICES, INC. Appraisals Fie Ho. 20100 APPRAISAL OF A Single Family Residence LOCATED AT: 4542 Washington St. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 FOR: The City of Columbia Heights 637 38th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 BORROWER: Owner. Johnson AS OF: October 31, 2000 BY: Paul G. Schwartz Certified General Appraiser 2140 Ot~er Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 {651) 659-0920 LAKE STATE REALTY SERVICES, INC. Appraisals Fi,, No. 20100 November 6. 2000 Mr. Kevin Hanson The City of Columbia Heights 637 38th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 File Number: 20100 Dear Mr. Hansen: In accordance with your request, I have personally inspected and appraised the real property at: 4542 Washington St. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as improved. The property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and improvements. In my opinion, the estimated market value of the property as of October31,2000 is: $104,000 One Hundred Four Thousand Dollars The attached report contains the descriplion, analysis and supportive data for the conclusions, final estimate of value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications. Sinc~ . Paul G. Schwartz Certified General Appraiser MN #2O0O2323 Lake State Realty Services, Inc. 2140 Otter Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Direct: 651-659-0920 and fax: 651-653-1381 2140 Otter Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (651) 659-0920 )party DescdpHon LAKE STATE REALTY SERVICES, INC. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT File No. 20100 Proped),Addr,~ss 4542 Washington St. CZ), Columbia Heights State MN Z~pQade 55421 Legal Deso'iptlon Lot 3, Block 4, Gilie~es Annffx to Columbia Heights . ~nt) Anoka ~sess~s Pa~ No 263024420~5 Tax Ye~ 2000 R E~~ ~sess~ts $ 0 00 B~ow~ Owner: Johnson Cu~ent 0~ M Johnson , O~panl: ~ O~] Te~nl ~ Va~nl Prop~ ~hts. ep~3~ed ~ Fee Si~e Ne~h~ ~ Proje~ Na~ Map Sale P~e $ N/A Data ~ S~e N/A Des~pt~n and $ a~nl ~ loan ~a~e~n~ss~ns to ~ ~ W ~ N/A Lend~nl The Cite of Columbia Hmqhts A~dre=s 637 38th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Ap~ Paul G Schwa~ . Add,ess 2140 O~er Lake Drive, White Bear La~e~ MN 55110 L~t~ ~ ~n ~ Su~,~an Note: Race lad the racial compolltlon of the neighborhood itl not appral~l factors. Neighb~hood boundaries and characteristics: See A~ached Addendum. Pactel thai affect the marketability of the properties in Ihs neighborhood (proximily to employment end amenities, srt~oyment stability, appear to market, etc.); See Attached Addendum. Market conditions in the subject neighborhood (including suppofl fo~ the above condu$iona related to the ~end c~ pmt:~y v~ue~, derra, nd/~upp~y, and ma~ing Ia'ne - - ~uch as data on competitive properties for sale in Ihs neighborhood, description o! the prevalence of males and financing concessions, sic.): The demand/supply ratio of the subject marketplace is considered stable, with an adequate amount of properties for sale, and potential purchasers MLS marketing times for properties similar to the subject average less than 50 days. Due to the high demand of the subject's marketplace' properties typically sell for something close to the list price Seller concessions are few to none, and are typically in the form of points Property values continue to increase atarateabovethatoftheReqionalCPl. Project Information for PUDa (1[ applicable) - - Is the developer/builder in control of the Home Owners' Association (HOA)7 L...) YES ~p~oxlmate tolal nurni:~ ot units in Ihe subject proiect App~ox~nale ~otal nurnbe¢ of units ~or sale in Ihs subject project Describe comrr~n elemenls and recrealional facilities: ~ NO O'men~on, 40 x 129.15 Sileer~a 5166 Sq Ft ComerLo4 [.~ Yes Spe~ zoning close.cation and de~iption Low Density Single Family Residential H~h.~ & best use as ~oved: ~ Presenl u, , ~ Oth~ use Ei~r~y ~ Slreel Asphalt Gas ~ Cur.gull. Concrete Wal~ ~ S~ewalk Co~nts (apparenl ad~erse ease~nts, en~oachments, special a~sessmenls, slide areas, ~legal or legal noncon[or~ng zomng, u~e, sic ): Addendum Topography Level-edt area drains into S~ze Typical for area Shape Rectangular Drainage Poor-area drains into V'ew Nothing adverse Law~."~'~ Typical for area ~iveway Surfac~ As.phatt Appa~'enl easements None apparent FEMA special Flood Hazard A..ea [] Yes [] No FEMA Zone B Map Date 2/16/93 FEMAMapNo. 270010 0005 B See Attached GENERAL DESCRIPTION EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION FOUNDATION No.~'Un4s One Foundation Conc__ BIk. ~ Slab No No. o(SIo,ies One E~'tenorWalis Hdbd ~' I CI3,4~ ~ Type(Del./Att) Dat. R~fSurfa~ Asph. Shing mBase.hi Part. Des~n(Sl;14e) Rambler Gutlem&Dwnspts Alum~ J S~n'~PumpYe_~_ Exisl~g/l:'roposed Existing W, ndowType D,bl Hung J Dampness Some noted Age(Yrs.) 65 Yrs j $1orm/Sa'eens Yes I Set[lemenl Perhaps EffectiveA~e~rs ) 20 Yrs. Manufactured House NO / In[estation None noted I Fieished area above cjrade contains: INTERIOR Mate,-ia~s./Co n d i4 iD n ~ Carp.-Vyl !Avg, Wale Paint./Avg T~e~h HdWd./Avg Bath ~ C.TI/Arq. Bath Waes~t Pnld./Avg. Do<~ Solid Cr.-Wd/Avg. HEATING T~,pe FWA Fuel Gas COOLING Central None Other None C<x~ionN/A 2 Bedroorr ,); KITCHEN EQUIP. A1TlC Raffig~aior ~ None Range/Oven Sta~s D~posal ~ Drop Stak D~Shwasher ~ Scuttle FaNHood Poor bt~owave Heated Washer/l~')er F~ished ® [] AMENITIES , Polio Concrete Pool BASEMENT tINSULATION l[] Nee SqFI. 552 S f. Roof Cncld. % Finished 0% Cel~,g Cncld. Cei~g Exposed w~s Cncld. W~s Cone B~k R~ Cncld. R~ Cone. No~ ~E~ None 968 Sc a~ F~t ofGr~s L~ CAR STORAGE: Ga'age 2 Attac.~ed Datac~ed 2 Buit4n 2 IAdd.tior~ lealures (special energy a[ficient items, etc.): Th.e subject has the following additional features: concrete walkway and patio; and a new addition 10 years ago, which added family room and bedroom Condition of the imp,'ovements, depreciahon (physical, tunclional, and exlernal), repa~'s needed, quality of construction remodeling/aitditmns, amc.: See Arlached cannot ~eread'Jycureq Nc other adversecondJttons noted LAKE SI'AIrE. REAL] Y SERVICES, INC. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT r,.,o. 20100 I ESTIMATED SITE VALUE .floOd ZOoe.lot .............. = $ 20=000 Comments on Cost Approach (such zs, source of coal eslimate. ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION CDST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS: sits value, square tool ~l~lalion and for HUD, VA and FmHA, the Dw~l~ng 968 Sq. FI. {~ $. 81 75 · $ . 79~134 est"naiad remaining econorrYc life o! the properly): Bsmt. 552 Sq Ft. (~ $ 24.50 · 13,524 While the subject has external obsolescence due to the ~ Patio = 4,500 position in the flood plain, a separate amount is not ~ c.,a-ag~.arlx~ 473 Sq Ft. G $ 24.75 · 11~707 subtracted in the depreciation section~ since the land value ~ Tot'~ E~trnated Ca~ New ................ · $ 108~865 reflects this condition. The subject's replacement cost is Le~ % Physic. al I Functinna] External Esl. Remaining Econ. L~e: --40 obtained from the local marketplace. The physical I;~o,~ia~ion 33%[ * · $ 35,925 depreciation is based on the age/life method, with the subject E)e~ec~ated Va]uo of Impn~emenle ................... · $ 72,940 having an effective age of 20 years~ and an estimated 'A~.ii'Valua of Site Improvemen a ................... · $ 6~500 remaining lifespan of 40 years. INDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH ............ $ 99 400 . ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 4542 Washington St. 4249 NE 5th St. 4545 6th St. NE 4151 Madison St. Ad~.~l Columbia Heights i Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Prox. in'~), to Subiect 5 blocks southwest 2 blocks west 5 blocks southeast Sa~es Price $ N/A : $ 105~500 · $ 119~900 ..... $ 108~140 R'ic~T.~ss~.Nea $ 0.00 ~ $ 123.02 ~ :~; S 136.87 ~ $ 112.41 ~ Data snd~r Inspection MLS & Driveby MLS & Driveby MLS & Driveby Ve~iilc~tio n Sources VALUEADJU:S~ DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I *()$~ DESCRIPtiON I '()$~ DESCRIPTION . Salt or F'~,~ncing FHA : FHA ', FHA ', Concessbns No concessions No concessions No concessions ', Dale of Sa]e,'T~ N/A 6/00 g DOM : 8/00 6 DOM : 8/00 8 DOM Lc~atinn Urban Similar ; Similar I Similar ; L~m,.,hckt~e ~ Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple Fee Simple S~e 5166 S~ Ft Similar ; 10,800 Sq Ft. -5.000 Similar v~ew Flood Plain Nothing adverse,; -7,500 Nothing adverse ,; -7,500 Nothing adverse ;, -7,500 C~n a~if Appeal Rambler/Avg Rambler/Arq. Rambler/Avg Rambler/Avg. oua~ d c_x:ns~,~ ~n Avg Avg : Avg : Avg A~Ie 65 Yrs 77 Yrs. ; 47 Yrs ; 78 Yrs. ; .~ Condil~n Av~ Av~. Good -5,000 Av~. 2 Ro4~mCour4 6! 2; 100 5[ 2i 100i +2,500 51 3i 1.00! +2,500; 5! 1: 1.001 +2,500 ~ OrosalivingA,-ea 968 SqFt. 882 SqFt. ! NMD 876 SqFI ! NMD! 962 SqFI. ', NMD ~ Base~& Fr~h~ 552 Sq. Ft. Similar '. Full Bsmt. ; -2,0001Full Bsmt, ; -2,000 Ro~n~ Be~owGrads Unfinished Unfinished ~ Unfinished , FR, .5 bth. ', -3~000 Fundinn~ L~I~) Avg Avg. Avg. Avg. Heating/Coding Gas FVVA Gas FVVA C/Air i -1,000 Gas FWA C/Air i -1,000 Gas FVVA C/Air ! -1,000 E~E~oe~tlt~ Typ forage fyp forage i Typ. forage i Typ. forage Garage/Carport '2 Oat Garage 2 DeL Garage 1 Dot Garage +2,000 2 Dot Garage Pc~ch. Patio. Deck. Patio None ; +1,500 None : +1,500 Deck : Fence. Pod, sic. ; ,, K I Equp Typical Typical ~y~i:al AcTiusted Sa~s P6cz Oms~: 115% Cross: 22.1% 0r~a: 14.8% cifOomparatae Nel. -41% S 104,000 Net:. -12.1% $ 105,400 NeL -10.2% : S 97,140 Comments on Salea Comparison (including Iha subjecl Dropody'e compatibihty to the neighborhood, etc. ): See Attached Addendum. ITEa, t SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 Date, price and Data N/A NIA N/A N/A wihi~ ~ar of apf:raisal A~aJ)~ o~ an)- current ag~eemenl o~' sale, option, or listing of the ~Jbject Fop~'ty and artaJys~ of any [ax~' sales oi'~b;}ed ar¢l ~ w~h~ one ~ ~ the da]o The subiect and comparables have not sold other than as indicated above. INDICATED VALUE BY SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ..................................................... $ 104,000 · INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACH ~Aj~l~ical~e;, Estimated Marl(et Rent $ .... N/A /Mo x ~ Ren~ ~,,~,~ ' N/A · $ N/A Thisap~.al,mad, ~ 'aais' ~ ~b~edlol~i&a]le"mt~on~hsp~3~=cond~l~ed~ ~) i C~,dl,o,'~ ~N~p,-air. at This is a summa~ appraisal. This ap~raisa) is made as-is. All mechanicals, unless specified, are assumed to be in i proper working order No liability is assumed by this statement. Fir~ R~onciatinn: See Attached Addendum. ~ The purpose ~ thi~ appraise] is to est~n'ate Ihe market vakJe of the rea] Ixopedy that is Ihe aJbjeci of this relAX1, based on Ihe above condit~on$ and the ~ .~ a~i;.ni~r.gc~d~i~ne~andmarke~va]uede~i~i~nEtaiam~a¢edin~hea~'xhedFreddis~'~cF~rrn439~Far~eMaeFa`wH~4B(Revised 6/93 ). ,~: I PetE) ~,MATE THE MAR.KET VALUE, A~ DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPE. RTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT C~= ~ RE!c~R"r, AS OF 10/3i,~z000 {WHICH I$ THE ~ OE1NSPEC'[ION AND TE EFF,~CT1V~ DATE OF THIS REPORT) TO BE $ 104 ~000 . -~ APPR.~JSE.~: t_~ l/ ~.~,? ~. / ~L...~ su PE~VI.SORY AP~PRAJ SER ION LY IF REQU IRF-D1; Nar~, Paul G qchwart, z '.I' Narr~ _~ate Rep<:~ S~ned 11/06~000 Date Repor~ S~ned Or Stale L~c~ ~ Sh~te Or Slafe Licenae ~ Lake State Realty Sewices, Inc LAKE STATE REALTY SERVICES, INC. Appraisals File No 20101 APPRAISAL OF A Single Family Residence LOCATED AT: 1307 42nd Ave. NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 FOR: The City of Columbia Heights 637 38th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 BORROWER: Owner: Kruse AS OF: October 31,2000 BY: Paul G, Schwartz Certified General Appraiser 2140 Otter Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (651) 659-0920 LAKE STATE REALTY SERVICES, INC. Appraisals Fi, No. 20101 November 6, 2000 Mr. Kevin Hansen The City of Columbia Heights 637 38th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 File Number: 20101 Dear Mr. Hansen: In accordance with your request, I have personally inspected and appraised the real property at: 1307 42nd Ave. NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the subject property, as improved. The property rights appraised are the fee simple interest in the site and improvements. In my opinion, the estimated market value of the property as of October 31, 2000 is: $106,000 One Hundred Six Thousand Dollars The attached report contains the description, analysis and supportive data for the conclusions, final estimate of value, descriptive photographs, limiting conditions and appropriate certifications. Sincerely, Paul G. Schwartz Certified General Appraiser MN #20002323 Lake State Realty Services, Inc. 2140 Otter Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 Direct: 651-659-0920 and fax: 651-653-1381 2140 Ot~er Lake Drive, White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (651) 659-0920 ,lion LA, F- STATE RF_ALTY SERVICIzS, INC. UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT File No. 20101 Prol~edy Address 1307 42nd Ave NE Legal D~so'ipllon See Attached Addendum. Assesses Parcd No 363024240067 8o,'ro,,er Owner: Kruse Ca), Columbia Heights Stale MN Z~,C..~e 55421 Count), Anoka Ta~Yea 2000 R.E. Taxes$ 868.60 Speda/Assessmenl$$ 0.00 Occupant: [] Owner [~ Tenant [] Vacant NatT~ Sale Price $ N/A Date of Sale N/A Lsnd~/Cllent The City of Columbia Heights Paul G Schwartz suit up Over 75% ~ 25-75% Ce'Nh rate Rapid ~ Stable Properly values Increasing [] Stalde Deman~supp~y Shodage Currenl Owner R. Kruse HO.kS /Mo Map Reference E2-g2 Csnme Trod 515 02 Desk{plan and $ a~nt of loan ~ar~e~ss~ns lo ~ ~ ~ ~ N/A Ad*~s 637 38th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Address 2140 DUet Lake White Bear Lake, MN 55110 ~edomlnant Single family housing ~e~nt ~nd u~% ~nd u~ change occupancy IPRICE(~ AGE~) O~ fa~y 100% ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ 85 Low 30 2Araby ~ n~ Predomnant ~ Nots: Racs and ths racial composition of ths nslghborhood ara not appraisal factors. Neighb~hood boundadss and characteristics: See Atlached Addendum. Fact.s that affscl Ihs markelabilit¥ of the properties in the neighborhood (prosin~ty to em~oyment and amenities, en'4doymenl stability, appeal to market, etc.): See Attached Addendum. Market conditions ia the eubjed neighborhood (induding suppod fa the above condusione related Io the b'end o1' property values, demand/mpldy, aad mada4i~g t~m ·. such as data on compelitive properties f~ sale in Ihs neighborhood, dasc.'iplion of the prevalence of sales and financing conclseionl, IIc.): The demand/supply ratio of the subject marketplace is considered stable, with an adequate amount of properties for sale, and potential )urchasers. MLS marketing times for properties similar to the subject average less than 60 days Due to the high demand of the subject's marketplace, properties typically sell for something close to the list price. Seller concessions are few to none, and are typically in the i'orm DJ' paints. Property values continue to increase at a rate above that of the Regional CPI. P~'oJect Information for PUDs (11 applicable) - - Is the developer/builder in conlrol of the Home Owners' Association (HOA)? U YES Approximale tolal ~ of units in the sublecl project ~ox~te Io1~ ~ ol un~s f~ sale in the subject ~oject Oes~ibe com~n elements and recreational facilities LJ NO Dimensions 50 x 150 Siteersa 7500 Sq Ft. CornerLot ~ Yes tX) No Spec£~c zoning classification and des~iption Low Densit~ Stogie Family Residential hast & ~sl use as ~oved: ~ Presenl us ~ ~ OIh~ use ~tilltles Pu~ Oth~ Off-site Improvements Ty~ Pu~ P~ale :l.d~, ~ St,eel Aspha,t Ga~ ~ Cu~gutta Concrete Wa,. ~ S,ewalk No~e San~a~ sew~ ~ Street I~hts None Co~nt~ (apparent adverse ease~nls, en~oach~nts, spec~J assess~nls, ilide areas, llegal ~ legal non~nf~ng zoning, use. etc.): Addendum. Topography Level-adj area drains into Size Typical for area Shape Rectangular Drainage Poor-area drains into View Nothing adverse Landscal~ng Typical for area ~away Surface Asphalt Appa'enl aaserneols None apparent FEMA Sl~cia~ Flood Hazard Nee [] Ye~ U No FEUAZone C Map Dale 2/16/93 FEUAMapNo. 270010 0005 B See Attached IGENERAL DESCPJPTiON EXTE~OR DESCPJPTION FOUNDATION BASEMENT IN..SULAT1ON No. o~ Units On___~.e F~ndatk:,n Cone__ Blk_..._: Slab N._.~.o Axea Sq. Ft. 76,5 s.f....~ Rod Cncld.___.~ No. c~St°nes 1.5 Exteno~Watls Stucco & Wd (3'a~Spa:~ NO % Finished 0% __ Ceii~g Cncld. Type (Del /~t.) Del RodSurface Asph Shiny Basemenl Partial C~I~g Exposed Weis Cncld. D~sign(Sl~e) 1.5 Sty. Gutless& Dwnspts AIum. S~mpPun~,Yes Wale Conc. Blk ~ Cncld. E~dsti~g/Proposed Existing W~ndowType DblHung Dan~oness Some noted Ro~ Conc. None __ Age(Ym.) 84 Yrs Sl~xn¥5~eens Yes Setllement Perhaps O~ts~deEr~ None ~ __ L~J Effective A~e ~r~ ) 20 Yrs Uanufa~ured House iNO Infestal~n None noted Assume typ for age B a-~,~,~ 765 LevN t 1 1 I 3 1 1,056 [] Lsve~ 2 I I I t I f I t I.~ F~hed ares above ~rade conlains: 6 Roses. 3 Bedroom s)i ' Balh(s)i 1~056 Square Feet otC. mss L~,i~ A.'ea I~1 INT~PJOR Maleriak./Co~da~on HEA~NG ~JTCHEN EQUIP. ATTIC AMENITIES , CAR STORAGE: ~ rioc~ Carp.-Vyl./Avg. Type F"SNA Re~tigerakx ~ None [] F~'epL~ce(s) # __ [~ Noae [] B WalIs Paint/Avg. FuN Gas Range/Oven [] $tai'~ [~ Patio [~ Garage2 #dcar~ [] Trim~ HdWd/Avg ¢.,o~ilic~Avg Dis~ [] *Dp Sta~ [] ~ [~ ~ad~l ~ Bath Wainso:~ None Cent,'eJ None Fan/Hoed ~=~ Rc,<~ I~ Fence 6' privacy ~=~ Suit-in -- · Doors Hollow Cr.-Wd/Aw Other None laicro~vave ~ Healed ~ Pod ~,~ Ca'port [] Co,-,diio~N/A Washer/Dryer [_J F~nished [_J [ J Ddvewe¥ ample Additional tealures(epe¢ial energy efficient i~ems, etc.): The subject has no additional features. There is a temporary sleeping quarters in the basement Condition ct the irr~ro~emenls, depreciation (physical, tunctional, and external), repa~s nseded, quahly ct conslmctlon rsrr~de~ingladditions, etc.: See Attached Addendum. ~mmsd,ais vicinity of Ihs s,~biect property T~e immea;a!e wcm,ty Clra~ns ~nto the subiect, therefore the subiect has hydraulic problems This . cannot be read: ~ cured No other ad/ares con.~ t;o~s noted LAKE STATE REALTY SERVICES, INC. Valuation Section UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REPORT ~=i~e No. 20101 ESTIMATED SITE VALUE pc~orhydraulics ............ = $ · 20,000 Comments on Cost Approach (such as, sourceof cost estimate, ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST-NEW OF IMPROVEMENTS: site value, square foot catculalionan d for HUD, VA and FmHA, Ihe ,. D~e[ling 1,056 Sq Ft @ $ 81.75 = $ 86,328 eslimated remaining economic lite of Ihe property): Bsmt. 765 Sq Ft. @ $ 24.50 = 18,743 'While the subiect has external obsolescence due to the Fence = 2,500 hydraulic problems, a separate amount is not subtracted in G~ 528 Sq Ft ~ $ 24.75 = 13,068 the depreciation section, since the land value reflects this Total Estimaled Cost New ................ = $ 120,639 condition. The subject's replacement cost is obtained from Less % PhY~cal I Funcbonal External Est, Remaining Ecen, Life: -40 the local marketplace. The physical depreciation is based on Depre~at~ 33%I * = $ 39,811 the age/life method, with the subiect having an effective age Oelxeciated Value of Improvements ................... = $ 80,828 of 20 ),ears, and an estimated remaining tifespan of 40 years. · As-is' Value of Site Improvements .................. = $ 6,500 iNDICATED VALUE BY COST APPROACH .......... = $ 107,300 ITEM I SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO. 1 COMPARABLE NO 2 COMPARABLE NO 3 1307 42nd Ave. NE 4950 Washington St. NE 4119 Monroe St. NE 1214 42nd Ave. NE Address Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Columbia Heights Proximity to Subject 12 blocks nodhwest 6 blocks southwest within I block Sales Price $ N/A $ 109,000 $ 115,500 $ 120,000 :~c~C, mssUv Nea $ 0.00 ~$ 123.30 ~ $ 141.54 ~ $ 80.00 (D Data and/o~ Inspection MLS & Ddveby MLS & Driveby MLS & Driveby Verification Sources VALUEADJUS'F~S DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION I '(')$^"""~"""" DESCRIPTION I *(~$~,,~?,,~-,~ DESCRIPTION Sales ~ Financing FHA ; Conv. Ins. ; FHA Concessions No concessions ; No concessions : No concessions ', 0ate of Sale/Time N/A 3/00 17 DOM 4/00 12 DOM ; 6/00 13 DOM Location Urban Similar ; Similar ; Similar Leasdx:~Fee.~q:~e Fee Simple Fee Simple , Fee Simple ; Fee Simple , S,te 7500 Sq. Ft. Similar ; Similar ; Similar ',~e* Poor Hydraulics Nothing adverse i -5,000 Nothing adverse i -5,000 Nothing adverse i -5,000 Design and ApFeal 1.5 St¥./Avg. 1.5 StyJAvg. 1,5 Sb/./Avg. 1.5 Sl~./Avg. ~ua~f d~ Avg. Avg. : Avg. : Avg. : ,~e 84 Yrs. 50 Yrs. ; 59 Yrs. ; 81 Yrs. ,.z Condition Av~. Avg. : Good -5,000 Avg. ; Room Count 6: 3; 1.00 5i 3: 1 00i 4: 2: 1.00 i 7: 3; 1.50i -2,000 · '~~oss Li~ng A,'ea 1,056 Sq Ft 8~4 Sq Ft. : +2,600 816 Sq Ft ; +3,600 1,500 Sq Ft j -6,700 -~ Basement & Rn~",ed 765 Sq. FI. Similar size Similar size Sirflilar size ~ Rooms BelowC~ade Unfinished Den : -1,500 Den -1,500 Unfinished ~ FunClional Utility Avg. Avg. Avg. : Avg. ' ~, Healin~/Coolin~ Gas FWA Gas FWA Gas FWA ClAir i -1,000 Gas FWA .~ Er,~,,E~ent~term Typ. for age Typ. for age : Typ for age ; Typ. for age ~ Gara~e/Carpod 2 Del. Garage 2 Del. Garage : 1 Del. Garage +2,000 1 Dat. Garage [ +2,000 ~ P~c~. Patio, O~, None None None ; None Fireplaces), etc. , Fireplace : -1,500 Porch : -1,500 Fence. ~ol, etc Fence None +500 Fence : Fence : Kit. Equip. Typical T~ical : T.~?ical : Typical : I;elAdj(Iotal) ~* (X). iS 3,400 t1+ ~[- iS 8,400 [ I+ [_Xj. iS 13.200 Adjusted Sales Prce G'oss: 8.8% G'oss: 17.0% G'0ss: 14.3% of Comparabfe Net: -3.1% $ 105,600 Net: -7.3% $ 107,100 Net: -11.0% $ 106,800 Comments on Sales Comparison (including the subject property's compatibdity to the ne,ghborhood, elc ): See Attached Addendum. ITEM SUBJECT COMPARABLE NO 1 COMPARABLE NO. 2 COMPARABLE NO. 3 Date, Pric~ and Data NIA N/A N/A N/A A~atys~s of any current agreement of sale, option, o¢' listing of the subject properly and anaty~s of any pro' sales of sub~ect and mmparab~es ~n o~e ~ of the date of apprasal: The subject and comparables have not sold other than as indicated above, INDICATED VALUE BY .~ALES COMPARISON APPROACH ................................................. $ 106,000 · INDICATED VALUE BY INCOME APPROACI'~If Applicable) Estimated Market Rent $ N/A /Mo x C.'oss Renl ~tip~ie' NtA = $ N/A T his apFaisal is mede ~.~ "as is' ~J ,~biect to ~e repaY, alterat~rts, t~s o' c~:~ditx)ns listed below ~ ,~bjed to cc~"nple~n pa' plans and Aoeci'~atJo~s. Cc~d~-~of~: This is a summary appraisal. This appraisal is made as-is, All mechanicals, unless specified, are assumed to be in proper working order. No liabili~ is assumed by this statement. Final ReconOliation:The sales comparison approach most assimilates a potential purchaser's expectations and determination of price. The income approach has no reliance, since properties such as the subject are typically owner-occupied, and no rental data exists. The ~ cost approach provides supped for the value conclusion via the sales comparison approach. ,~ The purpose of I~'i~s ap~aisal ~s to est~male the market value of the reel property that is the subject of this report, based on t~e above conditions and the cat.cation, contingent ,.~ and Ii~bng conditions, and market value definttiorthal a'e s~ated in the afiad'~ed Freddie Mac Form 439fi:ar, nie Mae Fo'm 10048 (Rewsed 6/93 ) 1(WE) ESTIMATE THE MARKET VALUE, AS DEFINED, OF THE REAL PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJEC'OF THIS REPORT, AS OF 10/31/2000 (WHICH IS THFr..~ATE OF INSPECTION AI~I~ THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS REPORT') TO BE $ 106,000 . ';~'-'~ Paul G. Schwartz (/ Name- ~nsped ~operty 5a'e Repo~t S;:~ned 11t06/2000 [;ale ReFo-t 5 ,~ned Slate Cert~ficat"::m :~ 20002323 Slate MN Stale Cef~ficat~on # Stale C,r State Li~nse # State C~' State L,cense # Stale PAGE 2 OF 2 Lake State Realty Ser~ices. Inc 11/1~/2080 1~:20 g12~8457~ WILS~ DEVELOP f~V PAGE 82 Page 1 of 8 Address: P~'oject Parcel REAL ESTATE SALE/PURCHASE AGREF-MENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as ofthe.~ day of between , ..... Seller, and the City of Columbia Heights, referred to as Buyer. WlTNESSETH: WHEREAS, Seller owns certain real estate situated at , , Minnesota, and legally described below; and WHEREAS, Buyer wishes to purchase and Seller is willing to sell to Buyer said real estate; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to dei~me their respective fights, duties and obligations related to the sale/purchase of said real estate. NOW, THEREFORE,. in consideration ofthe mutual promises and the respective afoeement$ contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Prooi;rlT The Seller hereby agrees to sell and the Buyer hereby agrees to purchase the following described real estate located in the City of . , State of Minnesota, to-wit: · 2000, by and , hereinafter referred to as , hereinafter 11/14/208~ 1~:20 612448~676 WILSON DEVELOt~ SE~V PAGE 83 2. P. urch~e Brier Page 2 of 6 The purchase price for the subject propeny shall be the sum of Thousand~nd 00/lO0 Doll~'s ($... ) payable at closing. .3, Closine The closing Shall be on or before or with in 30 days alter all title objections have been satisfied by the Seller, if any have been made by the Buyer. 4., Possession The Seller further agrees to deliver possession no later than ,2000, provided that all conditions of this agreement have been complied with. All charges for city water, city sewer, eleclricity, and natural gas shall be prorated between the panics as of date of possession, Seller agrees to remove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED FIER~IN from the property by possession date. Any persona] property not removed by the date of possession, shall be considered the property of the Buyer. 5. Deed/MRrketable Title Subject to performance by the Buyer, thc Seller agrees to execute and deliver a Warranty Deed conveying marketable title to said premised subject only to the following exceptions' (a) Buildin8 and zonin8 laws, ordinances, State and Federal regulations lb) Resmcfons relating to use or improvement of premises without effective forfeiture provision. (c) Reservation of any minerals or mineral fights to the State of Minnesota. (ct) Utility and drainage easements which do not interfere with present improvements. (e) Rights oftenants ss follows: (unless specified, not subject to tenancies) 6. Title The Seller shall, within a reasonable time after approval oft}tis agreement, furnish an abstract oft/tlc, or a Registered Property Abstract c ,elxitied to date to include proper searches covering bankruptcies, and State and Federal judgments and liens. The Buyer 11/14/28~ i4:2~ &124484576 WILS~ DEVELOP SER¥ PAGE Page 3 of 6 shall be allowed 15 days after receipt thereof for ~xamination of said title and the making of'any objections thereto, said objections to be made in writing or deemed to be waived. If any objections are so made the Seller shall be allowed 60 days to make such title marketable. Pending correction of title the payments hereunder re. quired shall be postponed, but upon correction of title and within 10 days after written notice to the Buyer, tM parties shall perform this a~re~ment according Io its lerms. Ii' Seller shall fail to' have said exceptions removed or satisfied within the time provided, Buyer may elect to do one or more of the following: (al remove or satisfy the exceptions on behalf of Setler and at Seller's cost and expense, all of which costs and expenses shall be deducted ffon~ the purchase price at closing; C0) eject to purchase ~he property subject tot he exceptions; and/or (c) de¢laxe this A~eemr. nt null and void (in which case neither party shall have any further liability or obligation to the other. In the event Buyer elects to remove or satisfy the exceptions on behalf of Seller in accordance with alternative (al above, Seller shall cooperate with and assist Buyer in all reasonable respects. 7. Rea, I Estate Taxe~ Rea] estate taxes due and payable in and for the year of closing shall be prorated bc-rwecn Seller and Buyer on a calendar basis to the actual date of closing. 8, Special Asses$~,,~,nts SeLler shall pay on date of dosing all installments of'special assessments. Seller shall pay on date of closing all othcr special assessments levied as of the date of closing. Seller shall provide for payment or'all special assessments pending aa of the date of'closing for improvements that have been ordered by the city or other assessLng authorities Seller shall pay on the datc of closing, any deferred taxes. 9. Seller Warranties Seller warrants that buildings, are or will be, constructed entirely within the boundary lines of the property. Seller wan'ants that there is a right of access to the property from a public right of way. These warranties shall survive the delivery ofthe deed or contract for deed. Seller warrants that prior to the dosing payment in full will have been made £or all labor, materials, machinery, fixtures or tools furnished within the 120 days immediately preceding the closing in connection with construction, aheration or r~aix of any structure on or irnprovemem to the property. 11/14/280D 14:28 6124484676 WILSC~q ]DEVELOP SERV PAC~ 05 Page 4 of 6 Seller warrants upon execmion o£this Agreement, Seller will not rent the property once it is Vacated by any person now occupying same. Seller warrants Seller has executed no option to purchase, right of lust refusal, or any other agreement giving any person or other entity the right to purchase or otherwise acquire any imerest in the property, and Seller is unaware of any option to purchase, right of first refusal, or other similar .rights affecting the property, except as otherwise noted in the rifle commitment for the property. Seller has received no notice of any action, litigation, investigation or proceeding &any kind pending against Seller, nor to the best of Seller's knowledge is any action, litigation, investigation, or proceeding pending or threatened against the Subject Premises, or any part thereof. - On the Date of Closing, there will be no service contracts in effect in connection with the Subject Premises, except those which are terminable on thirty (30) days' writ-tm notice. !0. Risk of Loss I.f There is any loss or damage to the properW between the date hereofand the date of closing, for any reason including fire, vandalism, flood, earthquake, or act of God, the risk &loss shal~ be on Seller. If property is destroyed or substantially damaged before the closing date, this Purchase Agreement shall become null and void, at Buyer's option, and earnest money shall be refunded to Buyer; Buyer and Seller agree to sign cancellation &Purchase Agreement. 1 I. T/rog 9f E~sence Time is of the essence in this Purchase Agreement. 1~2. Acceptance Seller understands and agrees that this Purchase Agreement is subject to acceptance by Buyer in writin8. Default Ifthe title to said property shall be found marke{able or be so made within said time, and said Buyer shall default in any of the agreemems and continue in default for a period of 10 days, then and in that case the Seller may terminate this contract and on such termination all the payments made upon this contract shall be retained by said Seller, as liquidated damages, time being of the essence hereof. This provision shall not deprive 11/14/280~ 14:20 6124484676 WILSON DEVELE~° SERV PAGE 06 Pate 5 of 5 either party ofthe right of enforcing thc specific performance of this contract provided such contrsct shall not be terminated as aforesaid, and provided action to enforce such specific perforn~tnce shall be commenced within six months after such right of action shall arise. }4. Environmental (~oncerns To the best of the Seller's knowledge there a~e no haff. ardous substances, underground storage taxdcs, or wells except herein noted: 15. WeU Disclosure Buyer acknowledges receipt of a well disclosure statement fi.om Seller attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement. 16, Individual Sewage Treatm~pt System Disclosure Seller discloses that there is not an individual sewage treatment system on or serving the Property. 57, As-l~,Basis It is specifically agreed that the Real Property is being conveyed to the Buyer by the Seller in "As-ls Condition" ('%vith all faults"). 18..Right of Entr~ Buyer is duly authorized agents shall have the right during the period fi.om the date of this Agreement to closing, to enter in and upon the Premises in ord~ to make, st Purchaser's expense, surveys, measurements, wetland delineations, soil tests, and other tests that Buyer shall deem necessary. Buyer agrees to restore my resulting damage to the Premises and to indemnify, hold harmless and defend Seller from any and al~ claims by third persons of~y oature whatsoever arising from Buyer's fight of entry h~eunder, including all actions, suits, proceedings, demands, assessments, costs, expenses and att omeys' fees. _L9,. Broke]7 Commissions ' In the evem Seller has retained the services of any agent, person, corporation or firm to assist in t~ne s~le of the property who, in tur~ is entitled to a commission by reason of this Agreement and the closing hereunder, Seller hereby agrees to indemn/fy and hold Buyer harmless from any l/abiJity arising therefTom 11/1~/2888 1~:28 612~48~676 WILSON DEVELOP SERV PAGE 07 Page 6 of 6 ~20. Entire Azre~nent This Purchase Agreement, any attached exhibits and any addenda or amendments signed by the parties, shall constitute the entire agreement between Seller and Buyer, and supersedes any other written or oral agreements between SeLler and Buyer. Tl~is Purchase Agreeme~ can bemodified only in writing signed by Seller and Buyer. 2L tncidg~nl Expenses All expenses of~amlnation of title, transfer tax, preparation and recording of deed, appraisal, closing fees, lot surveys, etc will be paid by the Buyer. Any cos1 incurred to remove any cloud on the title to convey a good and marketable title to said premised subject shall be the responsibili'cy of the Seller. 22. Elil~ihle for Relocslli0u Assistance The Sellers we eligible for relocation benefit5 as defined by The Uniform Real Property Acquisition and Relocation Act of 1970 as amended and MS. 117.52. SELLER: I hereby agree to purchase the said property for the price and upon the terms above mentioned, and subject to all conditions herein expressed. BUYERS: CITY COUlqCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT ~1 ~ ~' ~-~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER' S NO: CITY M3kNAGER ' S APPROVAL ~,,, ~ iT,.: BY: LI.D L. ADJUSTMENTS DATE: 11- 20,L~9~~ : NO : Attached are proposed 2001 wage schedules for non-union part-time temporary Library employees, seasonal Public Works employees, seasonal/temporary Recreation employees, and interns. The Library Director is recommending increasing the wage schedule for part-time temporary pages and chorepersons and library aides, whereby the hourly entry rate would be $8.00, $8.00 and $8.18 respectively (an increase from the current hourly rates of $6.28, $6.28 and $6.82) with a 3.5% increase recommended for the library supervisors. These adjustments are based, in part, on the difficulty we have been experiencing in obtaining pages, chorepersons, and library aides. These adjustments would make our rates for such positions competitive with similar jobs in the marketplace. The Public Works Director is recommending increasing the wage schedule for seasonal laborer by $.50 per hour, and warminghouse attendant and warminghouse lead attendant by $.75 per hour based in part, on the difficulty we have experienced obtaining seasonal employees. These adjustments would make our rates for seasonals in the Public Works Department competitive with other cities. The Recreation Director is recommending increasing the wage schedule for summer playground assistant by $.25 per hour. No other increases are recommended for Recreation seasonal/temporary employees. Staff is recommending adjusting the rates for interns by $2.00 per hour. These rates have not been adjusted since 1996. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of the resolution, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution 2000-85, adopting changes in wage ranges and establishing wages for seasonal and temporary employees for calendar year 2001. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 2000-85 ADOPTING CHANGES IN WAGE RANGES AND ESTABLISHING WAGES FOR TEMPORARY PART-TIME LIBRARY POSITIONS, SEASONAL PUBLIC WORKS POSITIONS, SEASONAL/TEMPORARY RECREATION POSITIONS, AND INTERNS WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights adopted a Wage Compensation Program for Non-Unionized City Employees effective January 1, 1980 (Resolution 80-47), which indicated that on an annual basis, changes will be adopted in Wage Ranges, based upon reliable survey data. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Columbia Heights establishes wage ranges for non-unionized temporary part-time Library positions, seasonal Public Works positions, seasonal/temporary Recreation positions, and interns, an indicated on Schedule I, Il, III, and IV, which are on file in the office of the City Manager; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such schedules be effective January 1, 2001. Passed this __ day of ,2000. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Gary L. Peterson, Mayor Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk 2001 SCHEDULE I Pages and Choreperson Entry 6 months 12 months 24 months $8.00/hour $8.47/hour $8.94/hour $9.41/hour Library Aide Entry 6 months 12 months 24 months 36 months $ 8.18/hour $ 8.70/hour $ 9.21/hour $ 9.72/hour $10.23/hour Library Supervisors Entry 6 months 18 months $15.05/hour $15.88/hour $16.72/hour 2001 SCHEDULE II ENTRY 1 2 3 4 5 6 YEAR YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS SEASONAL LABORER $8.25 $8.50 $8.75 $ 9.00 $ 9.25 $ 9.50 $ 9.75 (INCLUDING RINK MAINTENANCE) WARMING HOUSE $8.25 $8.50 $8.75 $ 9.00 $ 9.25 $ 9.50 $ 9.75 ATTENDANT WARMING HOUSE LEAD $9.25 $9.50 $9.75 $10.00 $10.25 $10.50 $10.75 ATTENDANT Schedule III 2001 Seasonal/Temporary Recreation Employee Wage Schedule Movement through the wage schedule is contingent upon satisfactory performance as judged by the City. Position Title Summer Playground Asst. Facility Supervisor Scorekeeper (per game) Baseball - Umpires - House League - Traveling Soccer Officials Softball Umpires - Youth Slow Pitch - Youth Fast Pitch Basketball Officials - House League - Traveling Football Adult Athletics Umpire/Officials (Softball, Basketball, Volleyball, and Football Performing Arts Instructor (Gylnnastics, Cheerleading, and Ballet) After Sclmol Instructor Summer Playground Supervisor Program Instructor Entry 6 Months 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years 4 Years $6.75 $7.00 $7.25 $7.50 $7.75 $8.00 8.00 8.25 8.50 8.75 9.00 9.25 8.00 8.25 8.50 8.75 9.00 9.25 $15.00/gaine $25.00/game $14.00/game $13.00/game $25.00/game $15.00/game $20.00/game $20.00/game (Wage range of $16.00 to $25.00 per game; wage to be set by the Recreation Director and approved by the Assistant to the Ci~ Manager.) (Wage range of $8.00 to $15.00 per hour; wage to be set by the Recreation Director and approved by the Assistant to the City Manager.) (Wage range of $7.00 to $20.00 per hour; wage to be set by the Recreation Director and approved by the Assistant to the City Manager.) (Wage range of $7.00 to $15.00 per hour; wage to be set by the Recreation Director and approved by the Assistant to the City Manager.) (Market rate - contingent upon approval of the Recreation Director and the Assistant to the City Manager.) AchninXSeasonalwageschedu lc01 2001 SCHEDULE IV INTERNS Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 3 Rate 4 Rate 5 $10.00 $10.50 $11.00 $11.50 $12.00 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 ORIGINATING DEPT.: /~_~ CITY MANAGER AGENDANO: SECTION: ~-iJA- I~-~ License Department~ APPROVAL ITEM: License Agenda BY: Kathryn Pepin DATE: NO: DATE: November 21, 2000 BY:~/'/~~~/~ BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Attached is the business license agenda for the November 27, 2000 City Council meeting. The applications for Contractors are new applicants and are recommended for approval. At the top of the license agenda you will notice a phrase stating "*Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application '[ This means that the data privacy form has been submitted as required. If not submitted, certain information cannot be released to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for November 27, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: TO CITY COUNCIL November 27, 2000 *Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application 2000 BUSINESS LICENSE AGENDA APPROVED BY CONTRACTORS ADDRESS FEES BUILDING OFFICIAL *D.J. Kranz co., Inc. *Northland Fire Protection *Steiniger Construction Co., Inc. 725 Hwy. 169 N. ~50.00 4445 West 77'" St. 50.00 829 Aldrin Drive 50.00 license.ag CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 NO:AGENDA SECTION: ~-I, _ /'t.? 1~- ~ ORIGINATING DEPT.: £~ ~. CITY MANAGER - License Department~ APPROVAL ITEM: License Agenda BY: Kathr!rn Pepin DATE NO: DATE: November 21, 2000 BY: BACKGROIIND/AIqALYSIS Attached is the business license agenda for the November 27, 2000 City Council meeting for the renewals for 2001. At the top of the license agenda you will notice a phrase stating "*Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application". This means that the data privacy form has been submitted as required. If not submitted, certain information cannot be released to the public. RECO~4ENDED MOTION: Move to approve the items as listed on the business license agenda for November 27, 2000. COUNCIL ACTION: TO CITY COUNCIL November 27, 2000 *Signed Waiver Form Accompanied Application 2001 BUSINESS LICENSE A6ENDA APPROVED BY CIGARETTE/TOBACCO SALES ADDRESS FEES POLICE DEPT. *Zachare Properties, Ltd. *Totem Superette *K-Mart Corporation *Santana Express *Hot Market 4005 Central Ave. 4635 Central Ave. 4747 Central Ave. 4901 University Ave. 5011 University Ave. 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 COURTESY BENCHES PUBLIC WORKS *U.S. Bench Corporation 22 various locations 550,00 GAMES OF SKILL POLICE DEPT. *Theisen Vending *Metro Coin Company *Metro Coin Company *Metro Coin Company 2101 N.E. 37th Ave. 4005 Central Ave. 4747 Central Ave. 5025 Central Ave. 90.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 MOTOR VEHICLE FUEL DISPENSING UNITS FIRE DEPT. *Columbia Heights Rental *Avanti Petrolieum d/b/a Food-N-Fuel *Holiday Station Stores 3901 Central Ave. 4001 University Ave. 4259 Central Ave. 50.00 200.00 180.00 SECONDHAND SALES POLICE, FIRE, BLDG. *Salvation Army ARC 3929 Central Ave. 100.00 ON SALE 3.2 BEER AND ON SALE WINE POLICE, FIRE, BLDG. *Udupi Caf~ 5060 Central Avenue N.E. 2,400.00 Page 2 ON SALE LIQUOR WITH SUNDAY SALES POLICE, FIRE, BLDG. *The StarBar and Grill *LaCasita Restaurant 4005 Central Avenue N.E. 5085 Central Avenue N.E. 6,700.00 6,700.00 TAXI DRIVERS POLICE DEPT. *DuWayne Leonard Urban *Mohsin Ali AI-Edawi *James Lee Gulladge *James Lee Newberg *Paul Morris Teague *Clifford Piper, Jr. *Robert James Harris *Brahim Ag Mahir *Burnell Edward Beerman *Kathleen Marie Thibodeau *Lahjoucine Boujnikh *John Douglas Kuntz *Geronimo Papa Bryant 3307- 6th St. N. 1525- 120t" Lane N.E. 2414 Fremont N. 3308- 91" Ave. N.E. 115- 2"" Ave. S.,//203 117- 116t" Ave. N.E. 53 Kelly Road 1796 Centennial Dr. 1250 Virginia St. N. 221 Old Hwy. 8 1400 Parkview Ln. 12834 Tyler St. 1651 Constance Blvd. N.E. 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 APPROVED BY TAXICAB VEHICLES ADDRESS FEES POLICE DEPT. *Suburban Taxi Corporation *Robert James Harris *Brahim Mahir *Burnell Edward Beerman *Lahoucine Boujnikh 15 Taxi Vehicles 1 Green and White //123 1 Green and White//125 1 Green & White//129 1 Green & White//133 ~1125.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Consent ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: ct' ~[ - t -1 Communit7 Development APPROVAL ITEM: Resolution 2000-86, Reimbursing BY: Kenneth R. Anderson ~1-~ BY: Certain Expenditures from Proceeds of DATE: November 22, 2000 Bonds Issued by the Cit7. ISSUE STATEMENT: Request Council adoption of Resolution 2000-86, Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City associated with the construction of a 50 unit senior assisted living rental housing facility as part of the Transition Block Redevelopment Project. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The Internal Revenue Service of the United States developed regulations that require prior approval (of the City of Columbia Heights in this case) to authorize expenditures to be reimbursed from tax-exempt bond proceeds issued at a later date. At some point in the future, it is proposed that the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota authorize the issuance of tax exempt 501 (c)3 tax-exempt bonds that will be the sole responsibility of Crest View Corporation or a related entity to pay all principal and interest payments. The attached Resolution 2000-86 authorizes expenditures incurred now to be reimbursed with these tax-exempt bond proceeds. You will note in the resolution that the City will retain any and all discretion necessary in regard to approving any future issuance of bonds. In short, this Resolution is required and necessary to allow expenses to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds to be issued at some point in the future. We anticipate the bond issue will be sold sometime in March or April of 2001. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 2000-86. MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution 2000-86, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution No. 2000-86, Being a Resolution Declaring the Official Intent of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by the City. Attachments: Resolution 2000-86. COUNCIL ACTION: H:\consent\Resolution 2000-86. i Ken Anderson - crest view reimbursement resolution.doc Page RESOLUTION NO. DECLARING THE OFFICIAL INTENT OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED BY THE CITY WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has promulgated Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2, providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, an approximately 50-unit senior rental housing facility (the "Facility") has been proposed to be constructed by Crest View, Crest View ONDC I, or a related entity (the "Borrower"); and WHEREAS, provided that nothing herein shall bind or limit the discretion of the City with regard to the Facility or the bonds that the City may issue in connection therewith, the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") believes that the Facility, and the issuance of tax-exempt bonds to assist in financing the Facility, will be in the best interest of and advance the health, safety, and general welfare of the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the City and the Borrower expect to incur certain expenditures which may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of issuance of tax-exempt bonds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City reasonably intends to make expenditures for the project described in Exhibit A (the "Project") and reasonably expects the expenditures by the Borrower for the Project, and reasonably intends to reimburse itself and the Borrower for such expenditures from the proceeds of debt to be issued by the City in the maximum principal amount described in Exhibit A. 2. The City Manager is authorized to designate appropriate additions to Exhibit A in circumstances where time is of the essence, and any such designation shall be reported to the City Council at the earliest practicable date and shall be filed with the official books and records of the City as provided in Section 3. 3. This resolution is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. 1 DJG-189493vl CLI62d8 Ken Anderson - crest view reimbursement resolution.doc Page 2 Approved by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota this __ day of ,2000. Attest: Mayor 2 DJG-189493vl CL162-18 Ken Anderson - crest view reimbursement resolution.doc Page 3 ] EXHIBIT A TO OFFICIAL INTENT RESOLUTION ADOPTED ,2000 Date of Declaration ,2000 Description of Project An approximately 50-unit senior senior rental housing facility located within the City of Columbia Heights Maximum Principal Amount of Debt to Reimburse Project Costs $6,000,000 Total Principal Amount of Bonds to be issued: $6,000,000 A-3 DJG-189493vl CL162-18 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION:~/ /~/~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: - Fire APPROVAL ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Dana Alexon Rental License Revocation NO: DATE: November 20, 2000 DATE: The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against Yong Kwon Yi regarding rental property at 4546 Tyler Street for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of November 20, 2000. The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the owner has brought the property/building into compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License Held by Yong Kwon Yi Regarding Rental Property at 4546 Tyler Street in that the Property is in Compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: (0- ~ Fire APPROVAL ITEM: Close Hearing BY: Dana Alexon BY: Rental License Revocation 7 0: DATE: November 20, 2000 DATE: The matter of the revocation of the license to operate a rental unit(s) within the City of Columbia Heights against Salman Ali regarding rental property at 1224-1226 Circle Terrace for failure to meet the requirements of the Residential Maintenance Codes was previously scheduled to commence at the City Council meeting of November 20, 2000. The public hearing on this property may now be closed in that the owner has brought the property/building into compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to Close the Public Hearing Regarding the Revocation or Suspension of the Rental License Held by Salman Ali Regarding Rental Property at 1224-1226 Circle Terrace in that the Property is in Compliance with the Residential Maintenance Code. COUNCIL ACTION: CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARINGS ~_~ ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER'S NO: CITY MANAGER'S ~ I A~PROVAL/~/ A ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF FRANCHISE BY: LINDA L. MAG BY: APPLICATIONS DATE: 11-21-00~.J uJ .~ DATE: NO: At the Council Meeting of April 24, 2000, the City Council authorized publication of a Notice of Intent to Franchise, soliciting applications from qualified entities interested in constructing a cable system and providing cable service within the territorial limits of the City. The notice set forth a deadline of May 26, 2000, for receipt of applications. Moreover, the notice indicated the City would hold a public hearing on July 10, 2000, to consider any franchise applications it received. The City received two applications. The applications received were from: Wide Open West Everest Connections Corporation At the Council meeting of July 10, 2000, the Public Hearing was continued to September 25, 2000, and then at the September 25, 2000, meeting was continued to November 27, 2000. The public hearing was continued as Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta (the City's attorneys for cable-related matters) and staff were still in the process of reviewing the applications and the legal, technical, and financial qualifications of the applicants. On October 30, 2000, staff received a request from Wide Open West to place their application on a temporary hold. Therefore, no further review was conducted nor determination made as to the legal, technical, and financial qualifications of Wide Open West. Attached is a report addressing the application of Everest Connections Corporation, and the result of the review of the legal, financial, and technical qualifications of Everest Connections Corporation. Such report was reviewed by the Telecommunications Commission at their meeting of November 16, 2000. At such meeting, the commission passed a motion recommending that the Council close the public hearing and find that Everest Connections Corporation is legally, financially, and technically qualified, to construct a cable system and provide cable service within the territorial limits of the City, and directing staff and Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta to proceed with negotiations of a cable franchise. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to close the Public Hearing to consider the franchise applications of Wide Open West and Everest Connections Corporation. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to place the franchise application of Wide Open West on temporary hold and to make no findings as to their legal, technical, and financial qualifications. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to find that Everest Connections Corporation is legally, technically, and financially qualified to construct a cable system and provide cable service within the territorial limits of the City, and to direct staff and Creighton, Bradley, and Guzzetta to proceed with negotiations of a cable franchise. COUNCIL ACTION: Report Relating to Everest Connections Corporation's Application for a Cable Franchise For the City of Columbia Heights Prepared For: Ms. Linda Magee City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Street N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Prepared By: Creighton BraTdley~ ~3~'~ Guzzetta, LLC Thomas D. Creighton Michael R. Bradley Stephen J. Guzzetta 5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 102 Minneapolis, MN 55416 (763) 543-1400 (763) 543-8866 November 15, 2000 PART I GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EVEREST'S APPLICATION FOR CABLE FRANCHISE, INCLUDING THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS IN FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTION Across the country, broadband system operators are approaching local franchising authorities and asking for competitive cable television franchises. Competing cable companies are often referred to as cable "overbuilders." This term is derived from the process necessary to provide competitive cable service. Unlike existing cable and telephone systems, in order to provide competitive cable and telecommunications services, the competing company must build a brand new network. An overbuilder is, in some cases, literally laying its cable over an incumbent provider's wires. With the convergence of video, voice and data technologies, the number of cable overbuilders has increased dramatically. Just two years ago, very few markets had competition. Today, many markets, both large and small, are being approached by several companies hoping to provide a competitive alternative to the incumbent cable service provider. New services are the driving force behind this unprecedented growth. As a result of convergence, cable operators can now offer cable television service, cable modem service, and telephone service over a single network platform. Soon cable operators will offer HDTV, video-on-demand, IP telephony and many other services made possible by recent advances in technology. Competition is increasing at a record pace and consumers are seeing competitive pricing and more innovative services than ever before. THE EVALUATION PROCESS The City of Columbia Heights (the "City") has received a cable television franchise application from Everest Connections Corporation ("Everest"). Everest's application was filed with the City pursuant to the Notice of Intent to Franchise first issued by the City on May 4, 2000. Once the application was received and accepted for review, the City initiated its substantive analysis of the information submitted by Everest. The City also began to prepare a proposed franchise ordinance that could serve as the basis for franchise negotiations. The City and Everest are currently negotiating the terms of a franchise ordinance that can be adopted the City Council. In the process of evaluating the franchise application submitted by Everest and negotiating a franchise ordinance, the following steps have been taken: Creighton, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC ("CBG") was retained to review Everest's legal qualifications, to set up the team to review Everest's technical and financial qualifications, and to draft and negotiate a franchise ordinance with Everest; CBG retained River Oaks Communications Corporation ("River Oaks") to examine the technical design of Everest's proposed system, the technical qualifications of Everest's personnel and the construction and maintenance practices that Everest will utilize; Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 1 11/15/2000 CBG retained Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC ("A&S") to examine Everest's financial capability to construct, operate and maintain the cable system it is proposing; CBG requested additional information from Everest concerning its financial, legal and technical qualifications and considered Everest's responses; The cable-related needs and interests of the community, as articulated by City staff and local government agencies were taken into consideration; and AT&T Broadband, the incumbent cable operator, was contacted to ascertain and discuss its concerns. These steps are discussed in more detail below. APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS The applicable legal requirements for examining an initial franchise application are contained in the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended (the "Cable Act"), Chapter 238 of the Minnesota Statues, and the City's Policies and Procedures Governing Application, Review and Recommendations Regarding Grant of Competitive Cable Franchises (the "Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures"). Under these requirements, the City cannot unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive cable franchise, nor may it award an applicant a franchise on material terms that are more favorable or less burdensome than the terms contained in the City's existing franchise with AT&T Broadband. The specific procedures to be followed in soliciting and reviewing cable franchise applications are contained in the Minnesota Statutes~ and the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures. Substantive criteria the City may use in evaluating applications are set forth in the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures and in federal law. I. Federal Cable Act. Several provisions affecting competitive franchising are found in the Cable Act. For instance, Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Act states: A franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 555 of this title [VI] for failure to comply with this subsection. 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (emphasis added). Se___~e Minn. Stat. § 238.081, Subd. 1-7, Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 2 11/15/2000 In awarding a franchise, a local franchising authority may establish construction schedules and construction requirements,2 and may require adequate assurances that an applicant: Will provide adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities or financial support; and 2. Possesses the financial, technical and legal qualifications to provide cable service. 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(B)-(C). A local franchising authority must also allow an applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area. 47 U.S.C. § 547(a)(4)(A). Additionally, in awarding a franchise, a local franchising authority must assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides. 47 U.S.C. § 547(a)(3). Stated differently, the City cannot allow a cable service provider to engage in economic redlining. II. Minnesota Law - Chapter 238 A. Franchise Procedure. Chapter 238 of the Minnesota Statutes contains a detailed process for soliciting and awarding cable franchises. This process, which was established in 1973 to award original cable franchises, is applicable to all entities seeking to construct and operate a cable system, and therefore must be followed by both the City and Everest. 1. Publication. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 238.081, Subd. 1, a franchising authority shall have published once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in each municipality within the cable service territory, a notice of intent to franchise, requesting applications for a franchise. See Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.v. City of Nashwauk, 1998 WL 865136 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). The City published a Notice of Intent to Franchise conforming to Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subds. 1-5, on May 4, 2000 and May 20, 2000. Attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit A is a copy of the City's Notice of Intent to Franchise. 2. Required information. Under state law, a notice of intent to franchise must include at least the following information: (1) the name of the municipality or municipal entity making the request; (2) the closing date for submission of applications; (3) a statement of the application fee, if any, and the method for its submission; "Se___~e 47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2). Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 3 11/15/2000 (4) a statement by the franchising authority of the desired system design and services to be offered; (5) a statement by the franchising authority of criteria and priorities against which applicants for the franchise must be evaluated; (6) a statement that applications for the franchise must contain at least the information required by state law; (7) the date, time, and place for the public hearing, to hear proposals from franchise applicants; and (8) the name, address, and telephone number of the individuals who may be contacted for further information. Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 2. The City's Notice of Intent to Franchise contained all of the foregoing information. Please see Exhibit A to this Report for additional detail. 3. Other recipients of notice. In addition to publishing the notice of intent to franchise in one or more newspapers, a franchising authority must mail copies of its notice of intent to franchise to any person it has identified as being a potential candidate for a cable franchise. Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 3. In this case, the City notified all known potential candidates of the City's desire to award "competitive" cable franchises. Specifically, the City mailed its Notice to the following people at WideOpenWest Minnesota, LLC and Everest: Mr. Chris Julian Mr. John Manka WideOpenWest 10475 Park Meadows Drive, #600 Littleton, CO 80124 Everest Connections Corporation Mr. Michael B. Roddy 5555Winghaven Blvd. O'Fallon, MO 63366 Ms. Jane Bremer Counsel for Everest Connections Corporation Larkin Hoffman Daly & Lindgren 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, MN 55431 4. Contents of franchising proposal. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 4, a franchising authority must require that proposals for a cable franchise be notarized and contain Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 4 11/15/2000 certain information, all of which is incorporated in the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures. Substantive amendments may not be made in a proposal after a proposal has been submitted to a fi'anchising authority and before award of a franchise. Analysis of Everest's proposal is addressed in Part II below. 5. Time limits to submit applications. A franchising authority or joint powers cable commission, as the case may be, must allow at least 20 days from the first date of published notice for the submission of franchise applications. In other words, the deadline for submitting franchise proposals cannot be earlier than 20 days after the date the City's Notice of Intent to Franchise was first published in a newspaper of general circulation. Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 5. To comply with this requirement, the City established a May 26, 2000, deadline for submitting franchise applications in its Notice of Intent to Franchise, which was first published on May 4, 2000. 6. Public hearing on franchise. A public hearing before a franchising authority affording reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard with respect to all applications for a franchise must be completed at least seven days before the introduction of a proposed franchise ordinance into the proceedings of the franchising authority. Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 6. The City opened the required public hearing on July 10, 2000. The heating will be closed on November 27, 2000. 7. Award of franchise. Franchises may be awarded only by ordinance, after holding any necessary public heatings. Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 7. The City will negotiate the necessary Everest franchise, which must be awarded by ordinance granted by the City. 8. Costs of awarding franchise. Nothing in Chapter 238 prohibits a franchising authority or its lawful designee from recovering from Everest the reasonable and necessary costs of the entire process of awarding a cable franchise. The City required Everest to file a $20,000.00 refundable application fee to cover the City's cost of reviewing Everest's application, and negotiating a franchise ordinance. B. Level Playing Field Statute. While under federal law a franchising authority may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise, Mi~mesota state law further restricts a franchising authority's ability to franchise with a level playing field provision that reads as follows: No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area serve& (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 5 11/15/2000 (3) franchise fees. Nothing in this paragraph prevents a municipality from imposing additional terms and conditions on any additional franchises. Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. l(b) (emphasis added). This language does not mean that the language or terms of a franchise must be the same between competitors. IlL Minnesota Case Law The following case summaries help to illustrate issues that have arisen in the past between incumbent and competing cable operators and municipalities in Minnesota. A. In Re: Dakota Telecommunications Group, 590 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). The issue of whether an incumbent has standing to contest the grant of a competitive franchise was determined in the case In re: Dakota Telecommunications Group, 590 N.W.2d 644 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999). In Dakota Telecommunications Group, the City Council of Marshall, Minnesota recommended that the City offer Dakota Telecommunications Group ("DTG") an agreement identical to the incumbent operator's for a period of 3 years and at the time of the incumbent's renewal, guarantee DTG an additional 12 years under new terms that apply uniformly to both DTG and Bresnan. Bresnan questioned DTG's financial capability to operate and sustain its proposed system and asked to examine DTG employees, city staff, and the city's consultant under oath as to DTG's financial ability, an alleged loan agreement between DTG and the City, and the relationship between DTG and the Marshall Municipal Utilities Commission. The City required a $500,000 performance and payment bond, denied Bresnan's requests and adopted an ordinance granting a cable franchise to DTG, which DTG accepted. The incumbent provider, Bresnan, appealed by writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that municipal bodies are granted broad discretion in dealing with matters of local importance. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414-15 (Minn. 1981); Arcadia Dev. Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221,225, 125 N.W.2d 846, 850 (1964). As a result, when examining quasi-judicial municipal proceedings, the court reviews the evidence only to determine whether it supports the findings of fact or the conclusions of law, and whether the municipality's decision was arbitrary or capricious. Dokmo v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 11, 459 N.W.2d 671, 675 (Minn. 1990). Decisions involving the grant of a cable television franchise are guided by Minnesota law and the Cable Act. Minn. Stat. §§ 238.01-.43 (1998); see also 47 U.S.C. §§ 521 - 573 (1994 & Supp. 1996) (directing states in adoption of cable television franchises). The Court in Dakota Telecommunications Group rejected DTG's and the City of Marshall's argument that Bresnan's appeal was barred from consideration because the City's grant of DTG's franchise was not quasi-judicial. See Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 414 (noting certiorari, because of its Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 6 11/15/2000 extraordinary nature, is only available to review judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings). Quasi- judicial proceedings involve an investigation into a disputed claim that weighs evidentiary facts, applies those facts to a prescribed standard, and results in a binding decision. See Minnesota Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Metropolitan Council, 587 N.W.2d 838, 841-44 (Minn. 1999) (clarifying Meath v. Harmful Substance Compensation Bd., 550 N.W.2d 275, 279-80 (Minn. 1996), and setting forth indicia of quasi-judicial proceeding). The Court ruled that since the procedure found in the Minnesota Cable Act involves testimonial and documentary evidence, and results in a binding decision, the City's grant of DTG's cable television franchise was a quasi-judicial proceeding. Next, the Court ruled in favor of DTG and the City that Bresnan lacked standing to appeal the City's decision. A party has standing to invoke judicial review of a municipality's decision only if that party suffers a legally cognizable injury from the decision. Churchill Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 533 F.2d 411, 416 (8th Cir. 1976); In re Sandy Pappas Senate Comm., 488 N.W.2d 795,797 (Minn. 1992); see also Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Mirmesota State Bd. of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn. 1977) (recognizing purpose of standing doctrine is to guarantee sufficient controversy between parties so issue is properly presented to court). Moreover, the interest the party seeks to protect must be within the zone of interests protected by the statute in question. Churchill, 533 F.2d at 416; Minnesota Fifth Congressional Dist. Independent-Republican Party v. Senate ex rel. Spannaus, 295 N.W.2d 650, 652 n. 1 (Minn. 1980); see In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 392 N.W.2d 558, 564 (Minn. App. 1986) (holding insurers have standing to contest commissioner's decision because insurers' impaired interests were intended to be protected by Minnesota's No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act). Because Chapter 238 was enacted to encourage competition, not to prevent an incumbent's loss of profits, the Court concluded that Bresnan had not asserted a legally cognizable injury sufficient to establish standing3. See Churchill, 533 F.2d at 416 (holding common carriers, whose sole motivation in case was economic self-interest, did not establish standing to contest commission's grant of permit under National Environmental Policy Act); see also New England Cable Television Assoc. v. Department of Pub. Util. Control, 717 A.2d 1276, 1284-85 (Conn. 1998) (concluding that, as general rule, creation of competing cable franchise does not constitute aggfievement to existing competitor sufficient to establish standing); United Cable Television Servs. Corp. v. Department of Pub. Util. Control, 663 A.2d 1011, 1019~20 (Conn. 1995) (holding existing cable franchise, not being within zone of interests protected by state's cable laws, has no 3 Chapter 238 intends to promote competition within the cable communications market. See Minn. Stat. § 238.01 (noting statute created to "encourage areawide service * * * and discourage concentration of control and ownership"); see also 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (forbidding state franchising authorities from granting exclusive franchises or unreasonably refusing to award additional, competitive franchises). Although Chapter 238 also intends to further the public's interest by only awarding franchises to responsible cable operators, it does not support an incumbent cable operator's attempt to secure a monopoly by challenging the fitness of new, competing franchises. Se___~e Minn. Stat. § 238.01 (encouraging rapid development of cable industry that is responsive to public's interest); see also 47 U.S.C. § 521(2) (noting purpose of Federal Cable Act is to assure cable industry is developing in response to local community's needs); see Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Auth, 306 U.S. 118, 139, 59 S. Ct, 366, 370 (1939) (stating franchise "exist[s] as a corporation, and * * * in the absence ora specific charter contract * * * creates no right to be free of competition"); cf. Twin Ports, 257 N.W.2d at 346 (concluding realtor, whose business lost money once agency issued competitor's license, had standing to contest agency's decision in light of statute restricting number of ambulance services for quality-assurance purposes). Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 7 11/15/2000 standing to raise claims as to general fitness of potential competitor); c.f. Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.v. City of Nashwauk, 1998 WL 865736 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998) (potential economic injury of cable company is a sufficient "injury in fact'). The Court also ruled that even if Bresnan had standing to contest the City's grant of DTG's franchise, the City supported its grant of DTG's franchise with substantial evidence and thus did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in making its decision. See Minn. Stat. § 14.69 (1998) (permitting reversal if agency decision was arbitrary or capricious); City of Mankato v. Mahoney, 542 N.W.2d 689, 691-92 (Minn. App. 1996) (noting decision may be reversed if unsupported by substantial evidence, or arbitrary and capricious); see also Reserve Mining Co. v. Herbst, 256 N.W.2d 808, 825 (Minn. 1977) (defining "substantial evidence"). Because the City properly focused on DTG's ability to construct and initially operate its proposed system, the Court concluded the City sufficiently considered substantial evidence of DTG's financial condition4. See Cable Communications Bd. v. Nor-West Cable Communications Parmership, 356 N.W.2d 658, 668 (Minn. 1984) (recognizing court attaches presumption of correctness to independent agency decisions); see also Union CATV, Inc. v. City of Sturgis, 107 F.3d 434, 441 (6th Cir. 1997) (emphasizing considerable deference granted to City Council in identifying community's needs, and granting cable franchise); Group W Cable, Inc. v. City of Santa Cruz, 669 F. Supp. 954, 971 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (recognizing city's interest in minimizing physical disruption that could occur if cable operator lacked financial resources). Finally, the Court rejected Bresnan's argument that the City violated its due process rights in refusing to hold a contested case heating following its decision to grant DTG's cable franchise. See Minn. Stat. § 14.02, subd. 3 (1998) (defining "contested case"); Cable Communications Bd., 356 N.W.2d at 666 (noting that, although Cable Act does not provide tight to contested case heating, a heating may be required by constitution). The Court found that the city considered Bresnan's franchise rights throughout its negotiations with DTG. Moreover, the Court found that although a franchise constitutes a property tight, Bresnan's nonexclusive franchise fights are not deprived by the introduction of another According to the Court: The Cable Act requires that franctfise applicants submit plans for the financing of their proposed systems. Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 4(9). The Cable Act also dictates that franchise ordinances contain a provision acknowledging the applicant's financial condition was considered and approved by the franchising authority in a full public hearing that afforded reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Minn. Stat. § 238.084, subd. 1(1) (1998). But neither federal nor state laws provide guidance on how a franchising authority is to "consider" an applicant's financial ability. Minn. Stat. § 238.084, subd. 1(1); 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(C). Before granting DTG a franchise, the City Council examined DTG's capital resources, its £mancing plans, an April 6 presentation of its financial position, an April 9 summary outline of its financial position, DTG's response to Bresnan's letter in opposition to the proposed franchise, and the City's internal report on DTG's financial ability. The City Council also required DTG to furnish a $500,000 performance and payment bond with the City, and guarantee the performance of its subsidiary's obligations. Although we agree DTG's prospective financial status does not necessarily guarantee future success, the Cable Act does not require such a guarantee. Minn. Stat. §§ 238.081, subd. 4(9); .084, subd. 1(1). Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 8 11/15/2000 nonexclusive franchise into the local cable communications market. See Contos v. Herbst, 278 N.W.2d 732, 742 (Minn. 1979) (stating "at a minimum the due process clause requires that a deprivation of property be preceded by notice and an opportunity for a hearing appropriate to the case"); L.K.v. Gregg, 380 N.W.2d 145, 150-51 (Minn. App. 1986) (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2709 (1972), and noting person must have legitimate claim of title to property interest to be entitled to contested case heating), review denied (Minn. Mar. 14, 1986); see also Village of Blaine v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 12, 272 Minn. 343,350, 138 N.W.2d 32, 37 (1965) (recognizing franchise as property right). Under these circumstances, the Court found that the City did not abuse its discretion in denying Bresnan's request for a contested case hearing. B. Triax Midwest Associates~ L.P.v. Ci.ty of Nashwauk, 1998 WL 865736 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). In Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.v. City of Nashwauk, 1998 WL 865736 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998), the incumbent cable operator brought a writ of certiorari challenging the City of Nashwauk's grant of a cable franchise to Range TV Cable, on the grounds that the City did not follow the procedures outlined in the Minnesota Cable Act. In this unpublished case, the Court of Appeals found that Triax had standing (see discussion above) and that the failure to publish proper notice as provided in the Minnesota Cable Act evidenced bad faith and rendered the City's Action invalid5. C. Triax Midwest Associates~ L.P.v. City. of Savage, 1998 WL 665052 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). In the unpublished case Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.v. City of Savage, 1998 WL 665052 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998), the Court of Appeals did not address competitive franchising, but it did outline the standard for certiorari review. The Court held that on certiorari, the Court must examine the evidence to ascertain whether it furnished any legal and substantial basis for the action taken6. The court will reverse when the evidence does not provide a substantial basis for the agency's decision as a matter of law7. The burden of making a record, like the burden of proof, falls on the agency8. IV. Federal Case Law The issue of standing on constitutional claims in the context of competitive franchising, was litigated in the Eighth Circuit in the case of Nor-west Cable Communications v. City of St. Paul, 924 F.2d 741 (8th Cir. 1991).9 In Nor-West Cable, the facts go back to 1979, when the City of 5 The violation of a directory statute does not automatically invalidate action taken under the statute. Technical defects in compliance that do not reflect bad faith, undermine the purpose of the procedures, or prejudice the rights of those intended to be protected by the procedures will not suffice to overturn governmental action. 6 Citing Honn, at 414. 7Id. 8 Citing Dokmo v. Independent Sch. Dist. No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin, 459 N.W.2d 671,676 (Minn. 1990). 9 The competitive franchising provision in Section 621 of the Cable Act was not in effect at the time of this decision. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 9 11/15/2000 St. Paul City Council initially granted a franchise to Nor-West, but the Mayor vetoed the action. Continental cable was ultimately awarded a franchise, which was affirmed by the Minnesota Cable Communications Board and by the Minnesota Supreme Court. See Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership, 356 N.W.2d 658 (Minn. 1984). In 1983, Nor-West brought suit alleging: 1. Violation ofdueprocess; 2. Violation of equal protection; 3. Violation of the First Amendment; 4. Violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 5. Pendent State Claims 2 (1988); and The District Court case was initially dismissed, but reversed and remanded by the Circuit Court of Appeals. See Nor-West Cable Communications v. City of St. Paul, 802 F.2d 462 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc., 476 U.S. 488, 90 L.Ed.2d 480, 106 S.Ct. 2034 (1986) (requiring a "thoroughly developed record" in First Amendment cases). On remand, the District Court dismissed all claims except for the First Amendment and Equal Protection claims. After an eight week jury trial, the jury found that Nor-West spent $265,000.00 in seeking a cable franchise, but also found that Nor-West was never willing, nor technically or financially able to build a competitive cable system and it was therefore not damaged by the City's failure to award it a second cable franchise. Nor-West Cable, 924 F.2d at 744. After the trial, in denying Nor-West's motion for j.n.o.v, and new trial, the District Court ruled that Nor-West lacked standing. On appeal, the Court reviewed the District Court analysis of the jury's findings, and the standard of review on appeal (findings upheld unless clearly erroneous), but of most interest to the parties involved in competitive franchising was the standing issue surrounding the First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. The Court held that "a plaintiff does not have standing unless he or she would have had a 'realistic chance' (citation omitted) of some benefit in the absence of the defendant's constitutional violations." Id. at 749. Therefore, since Nor-West was not willing or financially able to compete with Continental, the Court held that Nor-West was not likely to benefit from the grant of a second franchise and thus lacked standing. Id. V. Local Law In addition to Federal and state law, local law also must be considered. The local laws applicable to the application for an additional franctfise are the local Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures and the current franchise with the incumbent cable operator, AT&T Broadband. A. Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures The Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures adopted by the City supplement state and federal law. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 10 11/15/2000 1. Application Requirements To obtain an initial cable franchise, a written application containing all information required by the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures must be filed with the City. Under Section 4, Subd. 1 of the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures and state law, the application process is initiated by the City's publication of a Notice of Intent to Franchise that contains the specific requirements governing the submission of cable fi'anchise applications. According to the Notice of Intent to Franchise first published by the City on May 4, 2000, all franchise applications were to be filed with the City no later than 4:00 p.m. on May 26, 2000. To be acceptable for filing, every franchise application had to: (i) contain all required information (i.e., information specified in the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures and state law); (ii) be properly notarized; and (iii) be accompanied by a $20,000.00 application fee. 2. Contents of Application Any application submitted for the grant of an initial franchise must be signed by an authorized officer or principle of the applicant and be notarized and contain, at a minimum, the following information: l0 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) A statement that the Applicant seeks to construct a Cable System and to provide Cable Services within the City; the name, street address, e-mail address and telephone number of the individuals who are authorized to provide and certify information on behalf of the Applicant; plans for analog and digital channel capacity, including both the total number of analog and digital channels capable of being energized in the system and the number of analog and digital channels to be energized immediately; a statement of the television and radio signals for which permission to carry will be requested from the Federal Communications Commission, or any other required regulatory agency; a description of the proposed system design and planned operation, including at least the following items: (i) the general area for location of antennae and the head end, or description of programming delivery plan if otherwise; (ii) the schedule for activating two-way capacity and any other system capacity to be activated in conjunction with the Cable System; (iii) the type of automated services to be provided; (iv) the minimum number of video channels, other Cable Services, and other kinds of services to be made available to residents; (v) the number of channels and services to be made available for community/access programming; and (vi) a plan for funding of facilities and staff for community/access programming and/or a plan for interconnection and provision of such programming in cooperation with the incumbent Cable Company. ~o Se~e Section 5 of the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures and Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 4. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 11 11/15/2000 (6) (7) (8) (9) (lO) (il) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) 07) plans for the provision of Institutional Network capacity and services or other "in- kind" services and the terms, conditions and technical standards under which particular service is to be provided to governmental, educational, and other institutional entities; a list of all institutions receiving Institutional Network service; a schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided, and a proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of services; a time schedule for construction of the entire system with the time sequence for wiring the various parts of the area to be served; information supporting and indicating the applicant's financial, technical and legal qualifications and experience in the cable communications field, if any; an identification of the municipalities in which the applicant either owns or operates a Cable System, directly or indirectly, or has outstanding Franchises for which no system has been built; detailed plans for financing of the proposed system, which must indicate every significant anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or conditions with respect to the availability of the indicated sources of capital; a statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the applicant, if any, including the names and addresses of officers and directors and the number of shares held by each officer or director, and intracompany relationship including a parent, subsidiary or affiliated company; a statement of a form and substance acceptable to the City indemnifying the City fully against any claims or liabilities alleged as the result of City's exercise of these Policies and Procedures including any such claims or liabilities alleged or asserted by the incumbent Cable Company; an agreement to pay the City a Franchise fee in the same percentage of gross revenues as the incumbent providers; a notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to the requirements of the Application; and submission of an Application Fee in the amount of $20,000.00. The franchise application filed by Everest was in technical conformance with state law and the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedure's content requirements. By this we mean that Everest either supplied relevant information in response to each content requirement or provided an acceptable explanation as to why the requisite information could not be provided by the applicable deadline. 3. Application Review Process. The City is responsible for reviewing the franchise application submitted by an applicant. Review by the City of any application filed pursuant to the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures and the final determination by the City regarding whether to fi:anchise such applicant may be based on any relevant factors.~ ~ Such relevant factors may include comparisons of the level, quality and nature of cable services proposed by the applicant to the level, quality and See Section 4, subd. 2 of the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 12 11/15/2000 nature of services provided by the incumbent cable company, the needs and interests of the community and institutions, as identified solely by the City, and information regarding industry trends, state of the art technologies, services and other related information. A public hearing before the City affording reasonable notice and a reasonable oppommity to be heard with respect to an application must be scheduled in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 238.081, subd. 6, which the City did, as shown above.~2 The responsible City employee(s) and an applicant may negotiate specific franchise terms and conditions for recommendation and presentation to the City. In addition, during this period the responsible City employee(s) shall review all applications and may request such additional information necessary to make final recommendations to the City.13 B. AT&T Broadband's Franchise. The City is further restricted by level playing field language in its own franchise and related agreements with AT&T Broadband. Paragraph 12 of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Meredith Cable, now known as AT&T Broadband, dated November 14, 1994, provides as follows: Should effective competition develop within the City's cable service territory in the provision of video or cable services, as agreed to by both parties to this Memorandum at any time in the future, Meredith and the City agree to commence discussions regarding issues which give said competition an unfair advantage over Meredith. Should any other Multi-channel Video Programming Distributor ("MVPD") over which the City has regulatory jurisdiction provide service in the current cable service area, the City agrees not to grant more favorable terms to such MVPD than are granted to Meredith. EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Financial Evaluation. As shown above, under 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4), the City may consider a franchise applicant's financial qualifications in determining whether to grant a franchise. Accordingly, CBG, on behalf of the City, retained A&S to review the confidential and public financial materials and supporting documentation included in Everest's franchise application. In conjunction with its review, A&S prepared requests for supplemental financial information, which were transmitted to Everest. Everest submitted written responses to A&S's data requests. Atler reviewing all the financial information submitted by Everest, A&S prepared a report (i) analyzing Everest's financial representations, (ii) identifying potential issues of concern to the City, and (iii) recommending that certain conditions be placed on Everest if a franchise is awarded. As long as all conditions are met, we have concluded that Everest's application cannot reasonably be denied based upon its financial qualifications and the review thereof. See Section 4, subd. 3 of the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures. See Section 4, subd. 4 of the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 13 11/15/2000 2. Technical Evaluation. As shown above, under 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4), the City may consider whether Everest has the necessary technical qualifications to construct, operate and maintain a cable system. Accordingly, CBG, on behalf of the City, retained Mr. Thomas Robinson fi:om River Oaks to analyze Everest's application, and to evaluate the company's system design and proposed construction procedures and maintenance practices. After reviewing the application, Mr. Robinson concluded that additional information was necessary in order to verify whether: (i) the proposed cable systems would be capable of providing the services promised to the community; (ii) Everest's proposed construction procedures comport with applicable roles, and industry standards; (iii) Everest's proposed systems would be reliable, scalable, flexible and capable of complying with applicable Federal Communications Commission technical standards; (iv) there is sufficient qualified labor to construct the cable systems within the time frame proposed; and (v) the maintenance procedures proposed will minimize outages and other service problems. Consequently, Mr. Robinson, through CBG, transmitted detailed data requests to Everest. Everest responded to the data requests in a timely manner. Everest's responses were then reviewed by Mr. Robinson. Based on the information contained in Everest's application and its responses to data requests, Mr. Robinson determined that Everest's application cannot reasonably be denied on the basis of technical qualifications and the review thereof. 3. Legal Evaluation. Both federal law and the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures permit the City to consider a cable franchise applicant's legal qualifications in the process of determining whether to grant a cable television franchise.~ CBG, on behalf of the City, analyzed Everest's application materials to determine whether Everest was legally qualified. CBG's review identified certain areas where Everest's application was either deficient or ambiguous. To allay its concerns, CBG asked Everest to supplement and clarify its franchise application. Everest responded to CBG's request in a timely manner. Everest's responses to CBG's data requests are attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit B. Based on the information contained in Everest's responses, its franchise application cannot reasonably be denied on the grounds that it is not legally qualified. The fi:anchise that is ultimately negotiated will be subject to all restrictions under federal, state and local laws. 4. Cable-Related Community Needs and Interests. No formal needs assessment is legally required in connection with an application for a competitive franchise. The City did, however, consider the cable-related needs and interests of PEG programmers, the public schools and the City in the course of evaluating Everest's application. These needs and interests were developed informally through discussions with City staff. To determine whether articulated cable-related needs and interests could be met through Everest's proposal, CGB asked Everest specific questions about what type(s) of PEG support it 14 See 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(C) and Section 4, Subd. 2 of the Competitive Franchising Policies and Procedures. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 14 11/15/2000 would be willing to provide, over and above the franchise fee paid to the City. The information provided by Everest contributed to the City's negotiations with the company. During the course of franchise negotiations, the City will endeavor to ensure that the community's needs and interests are met in a manner that results in a level playing field, consistent with applicable law. It is the City's policy to impose material obligations on Everest that are not more favorable or less burdensome than those placed on AT&T Broadband so that no provider is placed at a competitive disadvantage. To summarize, the present and future cable-related needs and interests of the community will be considered and advocated during negotiations with Everest. The resulting franchise ordinance will advance these needs and interests, without placing Everest or AT&T Broadband at a competitive disadvantage. In particular, the agreement will ensure, among other things, that: (i) consumers' interests are protected; (ii) Everest's system is reliable, technically state-of-the-art and capable of providing a broad range of services as demand develops; and (iii) the community's PEG and institutional network needs are adequately supported. 5. Discussions with the Incumbent Operator. At various meetings since the receipt of Everest's application, AT&T Broadband was allowed to express any concerns it had about Everest's application and the City's competitive franchising process. By way of example, AT&T Broadband outlined its concerns in a letter dated July 18, 2000 to the City, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit C. AT&T Broadband was also present and given the opportunity to discuss any concerns it had at the public hearing. AT&T Broadband's concerns were considered by the City throughout the application process and will continue to be considered during the franchise negotiation process. In addition, AT&T Broadband has been kept informed of the entire process. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 15 11/15/2000 PART H ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION OF EVEREST CONNECTIONS CORPORATION FOR A CABLE FRANCHISE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report addresses the proposed grant of a cable television franchise to Everest Connections Corporation ("Everest"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Everest Global Technologies Group ("EGTG"). Everest filed a franchise application with the City of Columbia Heights (the "City") on May 26, 2000, asking the City to grant the company a franchise to provide cable services within the territorial boundaries of the City. The City referred Everest's application to Creighton, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC ("CBG") for review on June 8, 2000. As part of its review, CBG transmitted Everest's application and supplemental materials to Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC ("A&S") for a detailed analysis of the company's financial qualifications. CBG also transmitted the application to River Oaks Communications Corporation ("River Oaks") for a thorough evaluation of Everest's technical qualifications to construct, operate and maintain the cable system it is proposing for the City. After carefully scrutinizing Everest's application materials, and the reports submitted by A&S and River Oaks, the City is advised that it cannot reasonably deny Everest's application as long as certain conditions are met and the grant of a franchise to Everest complies with applicable law and is in the interest of cable subscribers and the City. The terms of a proposed franchise ordinance with Everest are currently being negotiated. The interests of all affected parties -- including City residents, cable subscribers, PEG programmers, the City and public schools - are being considered in an effort to achieve an equitable balance among all of those interests. We are also considering how the terms of any franchise ordinance with Everest will impact the City's franchise ordinance and related agreements with the incumbent cable operator, AT&T Broadband. This is a particularly important step, since, as described above, a level playing field must be established under state and local law. If the City were to grant a franchise to Everest that was more favorable or less burdensome than the franchise awarded to AT&T Broadband, it could be argued that the City would have to reduce certain burdens imposed on the incumbent provider, so that the obligations placed on both companies would be equivalent. The franchise terms that will ultimately be submitted to the City will reflect changes in law and technology that have occurred since the AT&T Broadband franchise was awarded. At the same time, however, the Everest franchise ordinance will contain commitments that are comparable (but not identical) to those in the existing franchise. This approach should permit the City to promote its interest in developing competition for cable service, while preventing Everest or AT&T Broadband from obtaining an unfair competitive advantage. In the end, the proposed grant of a cable television franchise to Everest will provide most if not all of the residents of the City with access to two state-of-the-art cable systems. CBG anticipates that the resulting competition between Everest and AT&T Broadband will benefit cable subscribers through better service, lower rates, and improved programming choices. The transaction also offers the City valuable institutional network capacity and additional funding for facilities and equipment for public, educational and government use. These facilities and the Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 16 11/15/2000 institutional network capacity that will be negotiated will improve communication between the City and the public. They will also reduce the City's expenditures for telecommunications services and equipment. A competitive franchise will offer substantial benefits to the City and its residents. Accordingly, we recommend that the City negotiate a franchise with Everest, consistent with the conditions discussed in this Report. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 17 11/15/2000 I. INTRODUCTION. After accepting Everest's application for review, the City referred it to Creighton, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC ("CBG"), the City's competitive franchising consultant, for consideration. After a thorough review process, the City is advised that it cannot reasonably deny a cable franchise to Everest based upon its £mancial, technical and legal qualifications to construct, operate and maintain a cable system in the City, so long as certain conditions are met. Everest's entry into the City's video programming service market will ultimately provide a number of benefits to subscribers. These benefits include improved quality of service, reduced rates, and increased programming choices. The City would also benefit from Everest's presence through the provision of institutional network capacity and financial support for public, educational and governmental ("PEG") access. Accordingly, the grant of a franchise to Everest will be in the City's best interests. The specific reasons for our conclusions are set forth herein. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON EVEREST CONNECTIONS CORPORATION AND ITS PARENT CORPORATIONS. As stated above, Everest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Everest Global Technologies Group ("EGTG"). The members of EGTG are GLA New Ventures, LLC and UtiliCorp United, Inc. Everest's management team has many decades of experience in the design, construction, and operation of cable television networks. In addition, Everest intends to contract with its affiliate, GLA Network Technologies, Inc., for certain management services including network design and business development. Everest will construct a comprehensive network throughout the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Everest has entered into discussions with other municipalities in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and has applied for franchises as notices to franchise have been issued. Everest will also construct a network throughout the Kansas City metropolitan area. In this regard, Everest has obtained a Cable Television Franchise from Kansas City, Missouri. In addition, Everest has made substantial progress in discussions with major municipalities in the Kansas City area. Everest has submitted formal applications for cable and telecommunications franchises in Overland Park, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas. Everest has demonstrated a substantial financial commitment to the Kansas City metropolitan area by entering into a four hundred million dollar ($400,000,000) agreement with Quanta Services, Inc. for the installation of Everest's Network. Everest has also entered into a multi- million dollar agreement with Axon Telecom for approximately sixty (60) miles of underground conduit in the Kansas City metropolitan area. Everest also intends to construct networks in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and Tulsa, Oklahoma. In this regard, Everest has submitted formal applications for cable and telecommunications franchises in Fort Lauderdale and is currently negotiating with Tulsa, Oklahoma. Furthermore, GLA Network Technologies, Inc., Everest's affiliate, was intimately involved in the construction of a competitive cable television network in Rapid City, South Dakota. That system contains many of the elements which Everest proposes to bring to the City. The Rapid City system has Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 18 11/15/2000 operated successfully for over a year, providing a full complement of cable and telecommunications services to its customers over a state-of-the-art eight hundred sixty (860) MHz network. Everest has significant financial resources available for its planned system in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. The company recently signed an agreement with UtiliCorp United, Inc., a major publicly traded utility based in Kansas City, Missouri, which will result in a three hundred million dollar ($300,000,000) equity commitment. This equity commitment together with Everest's positive working relationship with major lenders in the cable television industry makes it likely that Everest will be fully capable of financing the proposed system in the City. Everest proposes to construct and operate an eight hundred seventy (870) MHz hybrid fiber optic/coaxial cable network in the City. As part of the fi'anchising process, Everest will discuss in good faith the needs of the community and the City. This will ensure that the network constructed by the company is designed to provide the services which the community and the City believe most closely fit their needs, now and in the future. The cable system which Everest proposes will not only support extensive video and music services, it will also provide a comprehensive suite of telecommunications services. Included among the telecommunications services which Everest intends to offer are local telephone service, long distance (interstate, intrastate, and intraLATA), data transmission, and high-speed intemet access through cable modems. For the first time, the residents of the City will have a competitive option for cable services fi:om a provider offering more cable channels (the system will be capable of carrying over 300 video channels and 40 digital music channels) than the incumbent provider offers. Everest intends to offer approximately one hundred fifty (150) to one hundred eighty (180) video channels when service is initiated, with the phase-in of additional video channels as the system and the customer base in the City matures. Customers will also be able to order telecommunications service using the same network. Through the network efficiencies created by the provision of multiple services and pricing plans, and encouraging customers to order the entire complement of Everest services, Everest anticipates that the customer will find that Everest's service will supplant the cable and telecommunications services which the customer must now order fi:om multiple providers and will do so at a lower overall cost. According to Everest, the advantage of Everest's Network is that it offers the customer the best of all worlds: more service at lower cost fi:om a single provider. The customer will not have to have separate providers for local telephone service, long distance service, Intemet access, and cable television. Each of these services will be available, individually or in any combination, from Everest. Everest's network will be fiber rich, with high-capacity optical fiber running throughout the network to the nodes which directly serve the customer's homes and places of business. The network will consist of fiber to the node, and coaxial cable for distribution from the node to the customer. Everest's network architecture calls for fewer homes to be served from each node, wh/ch allows for a stronger, more reliable signal to the home. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 19 11/15/2000 III. ANALYSIS UNDER FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL LAW As we noted in Part I to this Report, federal state and local law specify various factors that can be considered when examining an application for an initial franchise. Based on the findings below and the contents of Everest's application and supplemental materials, these factors indicate that, subject to certain conditions, the City does not have a reasonable basis to deny the Everest application and the City would be justified in granting a franchise to Everest, provided that the franchise ultimately negotiated conforms with all applicable laws. A. Federal Law 1. Cable-Related Community Needs. As noted above, the City informally determined what its future cable-related needs and interests were during the course of reviewing Everest's cable franchise application. The informal ascertainment resulted in a number of significant findings, especially in the areas of PEG channel capacity, PEG access capital support, institutional communications and Internet access. In general, the City found that the needs and interests reflected in the current AT&T Broadband franchise still exist, and that additional needs for PEG funding, Internet access and high-speed data transmission between institutions should be satisfied through the competitive franchising process. The franchise agreement to be submitted will address the community's cable-related needs. In the end, all of the benefits provided to the City will be equivalent to or in addition to the benefits furnished by AT&T Broadband. This approach will comport with state law and the terms of the AT&T Broadband cable franchise, and satisfy theCity's foreseeable cable-related needs. 2. Everest's Technical Qualifications. On behalf of the City, CBG retained Mr. Thomas Robinson fi-om River Oaks to analyze Everest's technical qualifications. A copy of Mr. Robinson's report is attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit D. The following system characteristics were determined from Mr. Robinson's review: Everest indicates that its cable system will be constructed throughout the Twin Cities area with a top frequency of 870 megahertz (MHz) in a hybrid fiber coax (HFC) fiber to the neighborhood (FTTN) topology. No amplifier cascade will exceed one from the node. Everest's concept meets and exceeds the majority of what is considered the current state-of- the-art for such design elements in the cable industry. In some cases, systems are being constructed that would be considered fiber to the curb (FTTC) topologies, where there is no amplification beyond the optronics found at the node, and some others are being built as fiber to the home (FTTH) systems. However, these two cases are considered the exception rather the rule at this point and, while they both may provide enhanced capabilities over Everest's concept, they are also more expensive on a per-subscriber basis to implement. Additionally, the capacity of Everest's planned system as it stands would meet or exceed the capacities of incumbent cable systems in the areas under review. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 20 11/15/2000 The Everest cable system is planned and designed to be two-way active and to be capable of delivering a range of video, voice, long distance and high-speed data services to businesses and homes in the City. Everest's technical concept, as currently proposed, should be able to satisfactorily deliver such services. While Everest cannot point to an entire system built and operated by it that would exemplify its proposed architecture (Everest has begun construction of a similar system in Kansas City, Missouri), it indicates that one of its major affiliates, GLA Network Technologies, Inc., (GLA) will be integrally involved with the development of the Twin Cities' cable systems, and that GLA developed the Rapid City, South Dakota system for Black Hills Fibercom. This system has been up and operating successfully with the same type of architecture for over a year. Consistent with the industry state-of-the-art, the system is proposed to offer both analog and digital services. Everest's anticipated breakdown is 80 analog video channels delivered within the range of 55-550 MHz, and digital services delivered between 550 and 870 MHz. Overall, it plans to offer initially between 150 and 180 video channels. The sample channel lineup that was included as part of its franchise application is consistent with the current trend in the industry to provide over 70 analog channels, over 100 compressed digital video and audio channels, and provide space for telephone, data communications and video-on- demand services. There is significant capacity within the proposed system to facilitate the provision of this range of services. Everest's design specifications for the system indicate that worst case system performance, including both optical and coaxial cable links, will exceed FCC requirements at the end of the line, with one exception. This exception is discussed below. Detailed design specifications were provided and reviewed that properly support these proposed parameters. Additionally, the limited amount of active devices in the system should typically provide performance consistent with the parameters specified once the system is up and operating. Regardless, each jurisdiction is entitled to enforce the FCC's requirements, so Everest's system would have to meet such requirements at a minimum. Regarding the exception noted above, Everest's detailed design specifications indicate that one of the set-top terminal devices that it is considering for deployment has a worst-case in- channel frequency response specification that may not consistently meet FCC technical standards. Specifically, as of December 30, 1999, the FCC requires that in-channel fi:equency response tests include the contribution of the subscriber set-top terminal and that the resulting measurement be within a range of plus or minus two decibels fi:om 0.75 MHz to 5.0 MHz above the lower boundary fi:equency of each channel, referenced to the average of the highest and lowest amplitudes within the fi'equency boundaries. According to the specifications provided, the set-top device in question, when added together with the rest of the system, could conceivably not meet the in-channel specification under a worst-case scenario. The practical effect of a worst case scenario would not be known until the first FCC Proof-of-Performance test was conducted, after initial system activation and after these devices had been deployed. It should be noted that this is not a problem specific to Everest, but has been encountered by a number of operators within the industry, related to these and other set-top terminal devices. In a number of cases, operators have requested and received Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 21 11/15/2000 waivers from the FCC for a period of time that enables them to come into full compliance with FCC specifications, either by a swap-out of the affected units in the field or through modifications made to those units in coordination with set-top terminal vendors. Everest indicates that its Twin Cities Metropolitan Area network could encompass approximately 20,000 aerial and underground plant miles. Everest has not broken this number down by community, but it would certainly cover the jurisdictions for which we are performing the review. Everest plans a node size of approximately 125 homes per node. The nodes are capable of being further divided to accommodate new services and higher penetrations. Everest's design calls for a minimum of three strands of fiber to be deployed from each hub to each node. While this is less than some other operators' concepts (which employ six or twelve strands per node), Everest's homes per node count is significantly less than the homes per node count many in the cable industry have deployed or are currently deploying (500 homes per node or greater). Accordingly, we believe that three strands of fiber each to a node size of 125 homes would provide the flexibility needed going forward to accommodate potential increases in capacity needed at the node. Additionally, Everest indicates that it will have a significant amount of additional fiber infrastructure deployed to splice locations within 1,000 feet of each node, if greater fiber counts need to be deployed at a future point. To minimize or eliminate the effect of commercial power outages, Everest is planning to deploy a number of backup powering systems. Specifically, at the headend and hubs, diesel powered generators will provide backup power to the entire headend facility. To ensure completely uninterruptible power, battery backup will also be available. In the distribution system, centralized or clustered powering will be employed. Up to three optical nodes and the active devices within these node areas will normally be powered from a 90-volt supply fed by commercial power. In the event of a commercial power outage, a combination of battery backup and a natural gas generator backup will provide power to the distribution plant until commercial power returns. The combination of these various back-up power elements within Everest's planned system should significantly minimize or eliminate outages stemming from commercial power inten'uptions. The metropolitan area backbone ring infrastructure appears to provide sufficient fiber optic capacity to provide both common and dedicated services to the hubs serving various jurisdictions. The ting transport will operate in a redundant, fault-protected manner. There would be a single point of failure on the runs between the hubs and the nodes, but this is consistent with the architectural norm in the cable industry. Everest indicates that it will provide as many diverse paths out of the hubs to nodes as are available and economically feasible, in order to limit the effects of any potential cable cuts to the smallest number of customers possible. Regarding the headend, information provided by Everest indicates that a host of state-of-the- art equipment will be provided for signal transmission and reception functions. Everest performed a test at the prospective headend location in September 2000. The company Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 22 11/15/2000 indicates that this test showed that signal reception would not be affected by interference from other over-the-air communications at that site. Regarding the advanced fiber optic transport enabled by wavelength division multiplexing (WDM), Everest indicates that it believes it has sufficient fiber infrastructure, such that it does not plan to employ WDM at this time. However, Everest indicated that it will employ that or other technologies if required to meet future demands for services. Regarding equipment vendor commitments, Everest has recently reported that it reached an agreement with ADC Telecommunications to provide such equipment as the residential network interface devices, and with Lucent Technologies to provide key components of the I-IFC system. Concerning the technical plans for Institutional Network (1-Net) services, Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access origination links and system interconnections, Everest has to date indicated that it will match the PEG and I-Net requirements of the incumbent franchisees, and that it will be possible to provide intemonnections throughout its Twin Cities area systems at the nodal level. Regarding construction, Everest indicates that it has signed large-scale, definitive agreements with qualified local engineering and construction contractors and has begun some elements of network construction in the northwest Twin Cities suburbs under its Competitive Local Exchange Cartier (CLEC) authority previously secured from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In all, Everest plans to build approximately 4,000 system miles a year in the Twin Cities, which is aggressive, but with the available resources, could be achievable and would build out the franchises within the five year time frame proposed by Everest in its applications. Everest is also working with a conduit provider to secure access to underground conduits for its backbone throughout much of the Twin Cities area. Everest has begun working with pole owners and right-of-way officials in various jurisdictions, and although walkout and specific design activities for the majority of the system have not yet been done, Everest indicates that it knows that it will have significant make-ready costs and undergrounding costs. Everest indicates that it will comply with the right-of-way management requirements of each of the respective jurisdictions, and will work to minimize right-of-way disruption. That being said, any build of the magnitude that Everest is proposing will create discernible disruption to residents in each jurisdiction as the build is progressing. Accordingly, Everest should be responsible for effective communication and notification to appropriate jurisdictional authorities on construction plans and activity, as well as notification to affected residences in order to have the least impact possible on the citizens of each jurisdiction. The following information regarding cable system management, monitoring and maintenance was determined from Mr. Robinson's review: Everest's proposed system network management and status monitoring capabilities appear to be quite extensive and should enable monitoring of the system and response to system problems on a 7 x 24 basis. Specifically, a local staff within the Twin Cities will monitor Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 23 11/15/2000 the system extensively during normal working hours. This includes monitoring through to the optical nodes and power supplies in the distribution system, network interface devices at the side of the house and subscriber set-top terminals and cable modems. After hours, monitoring switches to Everest's national Network Operations Center (NOC) located in O'Fallon, Missouri. Everest indicates that the NOC is staffed continuously and that all of its networks will be monitored continuously. The NOC technicians will communicate with the local customer call center as well as the local technical staff to provide quick responses to local network problems. This type of extensive monitoring should also enable Everest to proactively find and diagnose degrading situations before they result in service interruptions. Only those systems that also monitor the amphfier devices after the node would be considered to have more extensive system monitoring. Such systems are very rare, and we did not find this to be an issue in the case of Everest, since the number of amplifiers from the node is minimal. Regarding preventative maintenance or planned outages, Everest indicates that it will implement both general and detailed procedures that require details of any planned changes to its network and how such changes will affect the network, and that all such changes must be approved by the NOC prior to the commencement of work. Additionally, it indicates that subscribers will be notified in advance and be given time estimates of work completion for any planned outages. This would be consistent with the best practices employed within the industry. Concerning its Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP), Everest indicates that all of its systems will have documentation that outlines system troubles, network outages and how such are to be handled. Included in this documentation will be internal/external escalation lists, police, fire and medical facilities, as well as all vendor contacts and quick resolution contacts that would be necessary related to appropriately handling major outages or emergencies. Regarding system performance testing, Everest indicates that it will provide all of its technicians with a step-by-step process for conducting such testing. Everest indicates that the documentation will provide consistent test and measurement practices for all of its networks and that all such testing will comply with FCC requirements. This and the DRP above would be consistent with good and required industry practices. Regarding the qualifications of technical personnel, the management team that Everest has put in place for it and its chief affiliate on the project, GLA, exhibit sigxfificant experience in cable television and telecommunications system development and operation. This includes significant prior experience of various personnel in different facets of the cable industry and telephone and telecommtmications industry, including both high level engineering and operational experience. Overall, then, Everest's personnel would appear to exhibit significant capability to design, engineer, construct and operate a high capacity, high quality cable system for the Twin Cities area as proposed. It is important, though, that Everest install personnel with the same type of expertise on a local level, so that the Twin Cities area systems will continue to benefit from such a high level of expertise. Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 24 11/15/2000 Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Robinson opines that, subject to certain conditions contained in his report, the City cannot reasonably deny Everest's application based upon its technical qualifications. 3. Everest's Financial Qualifications. CBG retained Mr. Garth Ashpaugh from A&S to review Everest's financial qualifications on behalf of the City. A&S has reviewed the financial data Everest submitted in its application and in response to the City's data requests. A&S's findings concerning Everest's financial fitness are contained in a report attached hereto and incorporated herewith as Exhibit E. In general, A&S concluded that Everest's business plan anticipates a capital structure of 50% debt and 50% equity. This level of equity presents a strong financial picture and allows Everest the flexibility to seek additional debt funding should its forecasts overestimate its revenue stream. After considering the findings in A&S's report, and the data included in Everest's application materials, we concluded that Everest is financially qualified to construct and operate the proposed system, as long as two conditions are met. First, Everest must post a performance bond that can be drawn upon by the City if specific franchise commitments are unfulfilled. Second, EGTG must guaranty Everest's performance over the life of the franchise. Provided these conditions are met, the City cannot reasonably deny the Everest application based upon the company's financial qualifications. 4. Everest's Legal Qualifications. CBG reviewed Everest's application and supplemental materials to determine whether the company is legally qualified to hold a franchise and to construct, operate and maintain a cable system in the City. In the course of that review, it was discovered that: Everest has obtained a certificate of authority from the Secretary of State of the State of Minnesota. Everest was incorporated in Delaware on March 11, 1999. Everest is an entity for profit. The registered agent is The Corporation Trust at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware. The laws of the State of Delaware govern the formation of Everest. Everest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Everest Global Technologies Group, L.L.C. ("EGTG"). The members of EGTG are GLA New Ventures, LLC and UtiliCorp United, Inc. Everest Connections Corporation has issued one hundred thousand (100,000) shares with a par value of one cent ($.01) per share. Everest plans to have 100% of the system serving the City to be owned by Everest Minnesota, LLC. The anticipated corporate structure is shown on Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated herewith. Everest will be a management group, overseeing the construction and design of the system. Everest Minnesota, LLC will have a local presence, which will assume increasing management responsibility as the system nears completion. Everest Minnesota, LLC, like Everest, is a Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 25 11/15/2000 wholly owned subsidiary of EGTG. No recommendation is being made regarding the necessity of Everest to file an FCC Form 394 application to the City upon transferring the franchise to Everest Minnesota, LLC. The following is a list of Officers of Everest Connections Corporation, none of whom owns more than five percent (5%) of the outstanding voting shares. 1. Jim A. Moffit, Chairman of the Board and CEO 2. Michael B. Roddy, President and CO0 3. David L. Howard, Vice President 4. Shayne B. Ban', Vice President 5. Charles Mon'ison, Vice President 6. David L. Howard, Secretary 7. Steven B. Fleschner, Treasurer 8. William E. Buckley, Assistant Secretary The following is a list of the Directors of Everest Connections Corporation, none of whom owns more than five percent (5%) of the outstanding voting shares. 1. Jim A. Moffit 2. Michael B. Roddy 3. David L. Howard 4. Shayne B. Barr 5. Charles Mordson Everest has the authority to hold a cable television fi:anchise from the City under 47 U.S.C. § 533, and all other applicable provisions of federal law and applicable federal regulations. Everest has applied for all necessary licenses, authorizations, approvals and waivers (e.g., CARS licenses, copyright approvals, etc.). Everest is qualified to obtain all necessary licenses, authorizations, approvals and waivers. Everest has received Approval for a Conditional Certificate of Authority to Provide Local Facilities based and interexchange Services by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Everest has never had a Federal Communications Commission license revoked for cause where the license was not reinstated. Everest has agreed to meet all obligations and conditions which may be imposed by the City to satisfy Minn. Stat. § 238.08(1)(b). Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 26 11/15/2000 Neither Everest, nor any subsidiary or affiliate of Everest or its parent, had any cable television franchise validly revoked by any franchising authority during the three-year period preceding the submission of its application. At no time during the ten year period preceding the submission of Everest's application has Everest or any of its officers or directors been convicted of any act or omission of such character that the Applicant cannot be relied upon to deal truthfully with the City and system subscribers. Neither Everest nor any of its officers and directors has ever failed to substantially comply with lawful obligations under applicable law, including obligations under consumer protection laws and laws prohibiting anticompetitive acts, fraud, racketeering or other similar conduct. Neither Everest nor any of its officers and directors has ever been found by a court or other entity of competent jurisdiction to have (i) presented misleading statements, or (ii) engaged in fraudulent conduct. · No elected official of the City holds a financial interest in Everest. No employee of the City involved in the franchising process holds a financial interest in Everest. No elected official of the City is employed by Everest, nor is any contractor or subcontractor that will be used by Everest. Everest does not have any affiliation or investments with any media, entertai~maent or telecommunications enterprise other than subsidiaries in other states similar to that being proposed in Minnesota. Everest is a corporation duly qualified to transact business in the State of Minnesota. Everest does not have any interest in or in connection with an application which has been dismissed or denied by any franchising authority. An adverse finding has not been made nor has an adverse final action been taken by any court or administrative body with respect to Everest in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding, brought under the provisions of any law or regulation relating to the following: any felonies, revocation, suspension or voluntary 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. There are no documents, instruments, contracts, or understandings relating to ownership or future ownership fights with respect to any attributable interest in Everest (including, Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 27 11/15/2000 but not limited to, non-voting stock interest, beneficial stock ownership interest, options, warrants, debentures). Based on the representations contained in Everest's application materials, the City is advised that Everest's application cannot reasonably be denied based upon Everest's legal qualifications. CBG will negotiate a cable franchise with Everest that complies with federal, state and local law. In the event that Everest misrepresented its legal qualifications, the City will be able to revoke Everest's franchise. Furthermore, to the extent that a misstatement of fact involves a violation of federal law (e.g., if Everest does not possess a necessary federal license), the City may draw on the performance bond that will be required in the franchise ordinance with the City. D. Discussions with the Incumbent Provider. As discussed above, in a letter dated July 18, 2000, AT&T Broadband raised a number of concerns about the competitive franchising process and the terms of any franchise ordinance that may be entered between the City and Everest. AT&T Broadband also appeared at the City's public hearing. To address AT&T Broadband's concerns, the City has discussed the competitive franchising process with AT&T Broadband, and indicated that Everest will not be given a competitive advantage. VI. CONCLUSION. After a thorough review of federal, state and local law, and Everest's application submissions, the City is advised that it cannot reasonably deny Everest's application based upon Everest's technical, financial and legal qualifications, provided that all conditions referenced herein are met. The final negotiated franchise, however, must meet the level playing field standards in state and local law. This office is currently negotiating a cable franchise with Everest and will recommend acceptance only if it meets the standards found in federal, state and local law. G:\Col-hts~Everest\Columbia Heights Everest Report.doc Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC Report on Everest Application for Cable Franchise Page 28 11/15/2000 Exhibit A Notice of Intent to Franchise Mov 13 O0 Ol:SSp Cit~ o? Columbia Heights S12-?B2-2BO1 p.3 NOTICE OF INTENT TO FRANCHISE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MENNESOTA The City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "City") is hereby soliciting applications from qualified entities that are interested in constructing a cable system and providing cable service within the territorial limits of the City. Notarized applications that contain all of the information required by Minn. Stat. § 238.081, Subd~ 4 and local policies and procedures, and that comply with all state and local requirements must be received by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 26, 2000, at City of Columbia Heights, 590 40th Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN 55421, Arm: Linda Magee. Each franchise application must be accompanied by an application fee in the amount of $20,000. This fee shall be paid to the City via a certified check made payable to the City of Columbia Heights. Every franchise proposal submitted by an applicant must include a design for a state-of- the-art cable system that is capable of reliably providing a panoply of cable services to subscribers. In reviewing each applicant's franchise application, the City will consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to: (i) comparisons of the level, quality and nature of cable services proposed by the applicant to that provided by the incumbent cable system operator; (ii) the cable-related needs and interests 6f the community, as identified solely by the City; and (iii) information regarding industry trends, state-of-the-art technologies, modem cable services and other related information. The City will hold a public hearing to consider any franchise applications it receives at 7:00 pm on July 10, 2000, at City of Columbia Heights, 590 40m Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN. All questions concerning the franchising process and any requests for information should be directed to Linda Magee, 590 40m Avenue NE, Columbia Heights, MN (763) 706-3609. ISSUED BY THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA Walter Fehst, City Manager Publish: Focus News, May 4 & 11, 2000. O:~.dmin~to ncco flntent~oFranchise4- 5430. wlxl Exhibit B Data Requests and Responses CREIGHTON, BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC 5402 PARKDALE [DRIVE, SUITE 102 MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55416 ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHONE: (763) 5,4.3q 4.00 THOMAS [~. CREIGHTON FAX: (763) 54.3-8866 MICHAEL R. BRADLEY * STEPHEN J. GUZZETTA** OF' COUNSEL MICHAEL P. KENNEDYt August 10, 2000 [-EGAL ASSISTANTS ROSE SPEIDEL NANCY L. WHAYLEN ~-EGISLATIVE CONSULTANT MAUREEN FLAHAVEN VIA FACSIMII,E Jane E. Bremer, Esq. Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lmdgren, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Mr. Michael B. Roddy Everest Connections Corporation 5555 Winghaven Boulevard O'Fallon, Missouri 63366 Re.' Request for Additional Financial Information on the Financial Qualifications of Everest Conneetimls Corporation Dear Ms. Bremer and Mr. Roddy: Creighton, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC, on behalf of the Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission, the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission, the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission, the North Suburban Commtmications Commission, the City of Minneapolis, the Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission, the North Metro Communications Commission, the City of Coon Rapids and the City of Columbia Heights (collectively "the Franchisers"), has engaged Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC ("A&S") to review the cable television franchise applications and supporting documents Everest Connections Corporation (the "Applicant") has filed with the Franchisers. After analyzing the applications the Applicant has submitted to date, the Franchisers have concluded that supplemental financial dam is needed to evaluate the Applicant's ability to construct, operate and maintain the metropolitan area cable system it is proposing. Accordingly, we are asking the Applicant to provide the information requested below. Al/of the requested information should be provided to Creighton, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC and to Garth T. Ashpaugh at A&S, 1133 Lomsiana Avenue, Suite 106, Winter Park, Florida 32789, no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, ' August 18, 2000. Please do not hold or accumulate requested information so as to provide it in one package on the August 18 deadline; rather, provide requested information as ,oon as it becomes available. This w/Il expedite the work of the application review team, and will hopefully allow the Franchisers to proceed in a timely manner with their evaluation of the Applicant's franchise applications. ALS0 CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT *' ¢,DMI'FFED IN MASSACHUSETTS AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Information Request August 10, 2000 Page 2 of 5 Please provide copies of the following documentation relative to the projected operations of the Applicant irt the Franchisers' communities and member cities for the proposed term of each franchise. 1. Please identify and explain the operating assumptions used in developing the pro forma operating statement provided to the Franchisers, including but not limited to, competitors (number and type), the date construction is initiated, and the date customer serwice is initiated. Please provide the latest 1 OK and 10Qs for the Applicant. Please prov/de detailed support for the "Summary Financial Information" by year for each year through and including 2010. This support should include pro forma Balance Sheets, Income Statements and Sources and Uses of Cash (Statement of Cash Flows). Please provide the following in reference to the pro forma financial statements filed by the Applicant: a. Concerning each type of revenue shown, please provide the following: i. Supporting calculations and documentation for the projected growth for each category of revenue for the years 2000 through 2010; ii. Supporting documentation for cable television services; ii/. Supporting documentation flor telephone services; iv. Supporting documentation for Intemet and data services; v. The amount of projected Internet revenue per subscriber per line per month for the years 2000 through 2010; vi. The number of homes passed and penetration rates by type of service for each year 2000 though 2010; and, vi/. The number of customers by year. b. Explain how equipment sales or rentals are included in the pro forma financial statements. c. Expla/n where advertising revenues are recorded and provide supporting documentation for the annual amount in projected revenues. d. Explain where home shopping revenues are recorded and provide supporting documentation for the annual amount in projected revenues. e. Concerning expenses, please, provide support for each category of operating expenses in snfficient detail that we may recalculate the component amounts. f. Please provide detail of non-operating expenses, including but not limited to: i. Depreciation and amortization expenses in sufficient deta/1 that we may recalculate the component amounts; Information Request August 10, 2000 Page 3 of 5 ~ 10. 11. 12. 13. ii. Corporate expense allocations in sufficient detail that we may recalculate the component amounts with explanations of what ti'tis amount relates to and how it is determ/ned; iii. Interest income with supporting documentation such that the amounts can be recreated; and, iv. Interest expense, including the associated debt and debt cost, such that the amounts can be recreated for each year. In reference to each of the above responses concerning the pro forma Fmancials, please indicate any anticipated changes to these amounts over the expected term of each franchise. Please provide the business plan and other documents supporting the "Benchmarking' sheet included in Attachment 17. The support should provide information by year from 2000 through 2010 by each line of service planned to be offered in each community and member city. Please identify and explain each source of cash or cash equivalent for the system that will serve the Franchiser communities and member cities (e.g., receivable, security, other asset, or reduced liability), including intra-company transactions that the Applicant may not have included as revenues in the anticipate~ d term of any franchise. Please provide a listing of ail affiliated companies of the Applicant and the Applicant's parent company doing business or available to do business in the Franchisers' communities and member cities during th%anticipated term of any franchise. Please identify and explain any transaction of an affiliated companY of the Applicant or the parent of the Applicant with any entity within the Franchisers' communities and member cities for the anticipated term of any franchise, identifying the service or product provided and the associated revenue. Please provide the proposed rate structure for the Franchisers' subscribers for each type of projected service offering by month by type of service for the anticipated term of any franchise, including but not limited to cable television programming, cable television equipment, residential and commercial telephone, local and long distance telephone, Intemet, high speed data and high speed data equipment. Please provide revenues of the Applicant by Franchiser by month by type of service for the anticipated term of each franchise. Jif information by Franchiser is not available, provide the planned rollout of services by month by community.] Please provide projected growth in customers in the Franchiser commumties and member cities by month and by type .of service for the anticipated term of each franchise, with supporting documentation for the projections. Regarding video cable services to be offered to subscribers over the term of any franchise, please identify: a. The number of channels per tier of service; In formation Request August 10, 2000 Page 4 of 5 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. b. The programming on each tier of service; c. The monthly rate for each tier of service; d. The monthly rate for rental of equipment by type of equipment; e. The monthly rate for any programming guide; f. The premium channels offered; g. The rates for each premium channel; h. The rotes for packages of premium charmels; i. The number of pay-per-view charmels; j. The rates for pay-per-view movies and events; and, k. The monthly rate for any other cable service offered, identified by type of service. Regarding local telephone service, please identify: a. The rates for local residential service; b. The rates for local business/commercial service; and, c. The calling scope of local service. For the anticipated term of any franchise, please: a. Identify all costs (expenses, interest, capital costs, etc.) paid to an affiliated entity by company by year;, ~ b. Provide copies of agreements for services with affiliated companies, including allocated management and parent costs; and, c. Provide cash payments to and from the parent company, such as dividends, earnings, repayments of loans, cash advances, etc. and identify each. Please provide any marketing or construction plans that may affect the Franchisers. If any plans are proposed, please prov/de financial projections of the costs. Please identify the sources and mounts of financing available to the Applicant for the construction and operation of the system in the Franchisers' communities and member cities, including lines and availability of credit for the expected term of any franchise. It is our understmading that the Applicant will be offering multiple services over its hybrid fiber-coaxial system. Accordingly, please: Provide detail on each type of revenue; b. Provide detail on discounts for each type of revenue; c. Explain how the revenues for each service will be accounted for and reported to the Franchisers; and, Information Request August 10, 2000 Page 5 of 5 19. d. Explain how discounts offered on any multiple service packages will be recorded and describe how such recording will impact the revenues of each service offering reported to the Franchisers in the computation of fees payable. Please explain the relationship the Applicant has with the 'incumbent telephone company (assumed to be Qwest) for terminating telephone calls outside of the Applicant's network, and provide any intercormection agreements. We encourage you to regard this data request as an opportunity to provide the Franchisers with the information they need to make a reasonable decision concerning the Applicant's franchise applications. At the same time, we caution you that failure to fully comply with this request could ultimately result in the denial of one or more of your applications, if you have not provided sufficient proof of the Applicant's financial qualifications. By issuing this information request, and accepting and reviewing any responses submitted by the Applicant, the Franchisers are not waiving an rights they may have under applicable laws and regulations. Unless otherwise stated in writing, the Franchisers expressly reserve all fights they may have under federal, state and local law throughout the franchising process. In particular, the Franchisers reserve the right to request additional information and to request further clarification of any information submitted pursuant to this data request. As always, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CREIGHTON, BRADLEY & GUZZE~TTA, LLC By: Thomas D. Creighton cc: Garth T. Ashpau~h, Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPA's, PLC G:~verest'qData Request #1.doc Everest Connection Corporation's Response to Request for Additional Finanical Information on the Financial Qualifications of Everest Connections Corporation Response: Everest Connection Corporation requested that its responses to this first Data Request be kept confidential. Everest Connections Corporation Response to Data Request No, 2 Franchisers Please provide technical and operational information describing how the customer service phone networks established by Everest Connections Corporation ("Applicant") will function. Everest will establish a "local" call center in the Twin Cities market to handle customer inquir/es. The office will be staffed with highly qualified customer service representatives capable of answering calls regarding all aspects of customer service such as bill inquiry, service install, term/nation, trouble ticketing, etc. During "after hours" and peak call times, calls will overflow to Everest's national call center located in O'Fallon, MO which is fully staffed with customer service representatives who can ensure that all customer requests for service are fulfilled. This will allow Everest to provide efficient and high quality customer care 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Please describe how Applicant's customer service phone networks will allow it to comply with the customer service standards that will be included in a franchise ordinance (including the FCC's minimum customer service standards and/or those standards included in the incumbent operator's franchise). ~ The Everest customer service phone network will be established and facilitated to ensure that any FCC standards or any standards that might be established in the franchise ordinance are met or exceeded. Describe what marketing plans, if any, have been developed for all cable service applications that will be offered in Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions, and explain what 'impact, if any, such plans will have on the construction and operation of the proposed system. Everest will be offehng competitive broadband voice, video and data services to residential and commercial consumers as the network becomes fully operational. Everest' s marketing plans are to begin with construction door hangers informing affected neighborhoods of the Company's construction progress, its service offerings, and contact information for any questions or concerns. As construction is completed, Everest will follow-up with "direct mail pieces" to neighborhoods informing them of special promotions and package offerings. Other advertising media to be implemented in the early construction phase will include - targeted mailings, sponsorships and special events to educate customers of their new competitive choice. Within the first few months of construction, the company will selectively place some broadcast and print advertising as an "Awareness Campaign". Later, as the services become more broadly available Everest will place more emphasis on broadcast and outdoor advertising. Everest intends to be involved in local events and sponsorships in the fi'anckise areas it serves or intends to serve. Please discuss Applicant's ability to obtain necessary materials (e.g. fiber- optic cables and laser transmitters) to build its proposed cable system in the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. Everest initiated conversations with vendors in the fall of 1999 during the capital raising process. The Company was aware of product & manufacturing bottlenecks on several critical network components. The Company placed orders for several of these components, specifically, fiber and coaxial cable, commercial air conditioning units, generators and batteries, etc. The Company aggressively negotiated detailed purchase agreements with vendors for other network components that included both pr/ce and delivery commitments (set-top boxes, cable modems, network interface devices, etc.). The Company has not announced its vendor selections, however, it is confident that it will be able to retain a sufficient inventory of mater/als. Please discuss in greater detail Appli..cant's ability to hire qualified labor to construct its proposed cable system within a reasonable period of time, which time will be specifically delineated in a franchise ordinance. See Response to Question No. 6 Please discuss in greater detail the availability of work crews and equipment to ensure compliance with any proposed construction schedule. Supply copies of any commitments regarding this particular project, if any exist at this time. Everest's ability to recruit a highly qualified workforce is driven by the reputation of its very talented management team, positive press reports for activities to date, as well as, industry trends towards the networks Everest is building. Additionally, the Company has executed several contracts with parties that will be critical to our success in retaining qualified labor. One such contract is with Quanta Services which brings considerable talent to the process of constructing the network. Quanta is a $1.5 billion company whose talent would be difficult to replicate in-house. The Company has executed two additional (unannounced) contracts with local fu-ms for the purpose of md-mapping, make-ready enghaeering, digitizing, design, and as-built drawings. Both of these firms have a considerable amount of capacity relative to Everest's immediate needs. Everest has retained these firms not only to supplement its capacity and that of its affiliate, GLA Network Technologies, Mc., but also in anticipation of a shortage of human resources as the business grows. The Company has no commitments specific to the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions' portion of this regional network. Do you have a manual of construction practices to be followed by construction crews? If yes, please provide one (1) complete copy of the manual. When was the last time this manual was updated? The Company's construction manual is currently under development. The Company will rely on its own personnel and those of Quanta Services' (Spalj construction) industry experience to construct the network to the highest industry standards. A copy of the Company's construction manual may be provided under seal when it is completed. Please provide a detailed technical description of how Applicant will monitor its proposed cable system in the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. What types of equipment will be used? What types of caPabilities will Applicant's monitoring equipment have? What types of performance characteristics will APplicant monitor? The nature of the Hybrid Fiber Coaxial (I-IFC) network is that it requires a combination of vendor's products to provide the variety of services proposed by the Company. Everest has chosen the most advanced monitoring software available, capable of monitoring every'~0mponent and every frequency of the network upstream and downstream, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Everest will not only be able to optimize network performance and efficiency, but will also be able to monitor all aspects of the network down to the equipment in the subscribers home. Through use of its Network Operations Center (NOC), Everest will be able to do fiber balancing and referencing, confirm headend linear operation RF levels, confLrm sweep responses, auto test RF levels, measure and record AC voltages, and perform downstream and upstream frequency response analysis. Everest will be able to complete Network Compliance and EOL tests including signal leakage, upstream ingress, upstream carrier to noise, and FCC Proof of Performance testing. Everest is placing one server in the individual cities of its system so in the event the O'Fallon, MO NOC loses communications to that system city, "on-calF' technicians will be able to temporarily assume the NOC functions until commanications are restored. All system cities will have documentation that outlines troubles, network outages, or changes in the network and how they are to be handled. Included in this documentation will be a Disaster Recovery Plan (DP, P) that will house all internal/external escalation lists, police, fire, medical facilities, as well as, all vendor contacts, and quick resolution contacts for any major outages or emergencies. Everest will be monitoring the network with several surveillance platforms. Everest's platform vendors have not been announced, but-will be upon the turn-up of the NOC in early to mid October. Everest has chosen an architecture that is total fault tolerant and will have tOtal redundancy to the city level. 10. 11. Where will battery back-up and standby power supplies be installed in the system? What is the standby time (how many batteries)? Everest will deploy centralized power with a combination of battery and natural gas generator backup to provide an uninterrupted power source to the Outside plant portion of the system. Additionally, battery backup will be installed at the headend location and in the hubs (buildings with electronic equipment) Four hours of battery backup will be provided in each of these locations along with on- site generator backup. The battery power w/il only be used tO bridge the time to automatic generator activation. The natural gas supply ensures virtual endless backup power (see #13, below). The quantity of batteries will vary depending of the power requirements for the equipment at each location. The typical headend location will be equipped with ten (10) -48V strings, each consisting of eight (8) stackable battery modules. The additional diesel generators make standby power virtually endless. (see #12, below) ~ Please more specifically describe Applicant's proposed headend facilities and equipment. The headend will consist of an advanced Motorola analog and digital video system consisting of nine stationary 4.5 meter satellite dishes, one agile 3.5 meter dish for back-up and a tower with broadband antennas attached to receive the off- air VI-IF and UHF broadcast signals. A combination of satellite receivers, encryption devices, modulators, de-modulators, combining networks, optical laser transmitters and optical laser receivers will be housed in an environmentally controlled building. Have any broadcast/satellite signal reception tests been performed at the planned headend location? If so, what were the results? The preliminary survey/test has been completed on the prospective headend site. This study reveals any microwave path interference possibilities prior to the determination oft. he full on-site study. The results came out negative. The full on-site survey/test was completed on September 14, 2000. The summary of 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. results concluded that there is no interference in the C-band at the measured site that will effect the reception of analog or digital satellite signals. What is the headend backup generator capacity (how long can it run the entire headend facility)? What type of fuel will the headend back-up generator use? The headend backup generator capacity is 600 kW with a 1,750 gallon diesel fuel tank. Availability of fuel would be the only limitation to the duration that the generator could power the headend facility. What is the transfer time to back-up power for each standby power supply to be installed throughout the system? For the outside plant portion of the system, battery backup will occur without interruption. Transfer time to generator backup has yet to be established by Everest, but should be in the five to fifteen minute timeframe and will also be an uninterrupted transfer. Additionally, the transfer to backup power will be immediate in each headend and hub location. Will a UPS backup and condition power for the entire headend? The entire headend will be powered from a -48V power plant equipped with battery backup and connected via automatic transfer switch to a standby generator. Inverters will be used to convert the -48V DC power to AC power for any equipment that requires AC power:~. Are system nodes scaleable? If so, how much can they be divided? Yes, the system is scalable to two individual return lasers and four individual return pipes using block conversion or digkal return technologies. Please fully describe all cable television-related end-user equipment to be offered to system subscribers. CONFIDENTIAL Please def'me the number of strands from Applicant's headend to each hub. How many strands will be activated initially (what is excess capacity)? Everest's system design calls for 96 strand fiber to be run from its headend to each hub. All 96 strands will be spliced into each hub and utilized for the Sonet Ring, additional HFC Optical Nodes and customer "dedicated service" requests. 18. Please define the number of strands from Applicants hubs to each node. 19. 20. Everest's system design calls for at least a 3 strand fiber to be run bom each hub to each node. Does the applicant plan to employ Wavelength Division Multiplexing No. Please verify the number of hubs proposed at the initial build-out and their locations. At this time the Everest Connections system design has not been finalized. The preliminary system design called for nine hubs with one hub being the main headend/switch site. No final decision has been made on the location of any of the nine hubs.. 21. Please verify the flexibility and scalability of the proposed system for growth and new technologies. The proposed CATV system will accommodate changes to channel lineup; channel additions; the addition of Ad Insertion, Video on Demand and Emergency Alert System (lEAS). The proposed system will be designed with sufficient bandwidth to accommodate additional broadband services brought on by growth (increased market share) and/or new technologies (voice over interact protocol (VolP)). The Company is deploying fib, er closer to customer premises than has ever been done before. The Company is confident in the flexibility and scalability of its network design for years to come. 22. 23. Will the system provide two-way interactive video for end users? While the Company is certainly capable of offering two-way interactive video by way of its system design, Everest is not anticipating this service offering at th/s time. Please qualify and quantify the maximum bandwidth and data transfer rate, and quality of service as a function of the number of users sharing a node or hub. The Company's network design is state of the art with some of the smallest nodes being built in the industry. The fewer number of homes passed per node substantially increases the bandwidth available to customers on the network. The Company's already small node design averaging approximately 125 homes passed is capable of being split twice to accommodate higher penetrations and new services. This design capability coupled with the industry direction toward 24. 25. voice over IP (VolP) and complete digitization of the channel line-up will continue to enhance the available bandwidth for other services. While the Company will not guarantee speeds, we are confident the network design and new equipment w/il provide throughput well in excess of our competitors. Please provide a local franchising authority contact name and telephone number for the cable systems planned, developed, constructed and/or operated by Applicant's parent corporation, subsidiaries and/or affiliates (e.g., GLA Network Technologies, Inc.) in Rapid City, South Dakota and Kansas City, Missouri. Everest Connections, its parent, nor any of its affiliates have franchise authority to operate in Rapid City, South Dakota. The local franchising authority contact for Everest Midwest, LLC's Kansas City, Missouri franchise is Mr. William Geary, 816-513-3118. Describe the practices and procedures proposed for routine preventative maintenance, including the type and frequency of system inspection and testing. Everest will have daily, monthly, quarterly, semi- annual, and annual maintenance procedures in place. The Everest Connections Network Operations Center (NOC) will be located in O'Fallon, MO. and will be staffed 7 days per week, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Everest's network will be monitored continuously allowing its NOC Technicians to be pr?~active in finding problems and correcting them often before any customers realize interruptions in or degradation of service. Communications between the NOC and the local Customer Call Center allows our customer service representatives to be aware of any network problems and prepare them to advise our customers appropriately. 26. Please describe your procedures for the provision of continuous, uninterrupted service to subscribers during the term of any franchise, for restoration of service should circumstances cause a service interruption, and for coordination with other utilities to restore service. Everest will be able to provide world class continuous, uninterrupted service to its subscribers by having a well trained technical staff, up to date surveillance platforms, a 24x7 staffed NOC, and a superior Customer Care group. The Everest Disaster Recovery Plan will have all vendors, utilities, escalation lists, etc. included with all processes for trouble/disaster resolutions. All "planned" outages will be accompanied with "General Method of Procedure" and a "Detailed Method of Procedure" documentation which details what changes are being made to the network, how this change will affect the network, and must be signed off on by the NOC before any work commences. The subscriber will be notified in advance and be given time estimates of work completion. 27. Please describe Applicant's proposed testing program for the cable System, including a summary of procedures for initial proof of performance tests, acceptance tests, continuing tests in response to subscriber complaints and other test planned. Test procedures should be submitted for all parameters to be tested, including all supporting documentation. Everest Connections Corporation will prov/de technicians a step-by-step process for conducting FCC Proof of Performance testing. The documentation will provide consistent test and measurement practices for all Everest networks. All field measurements will comply with both the FCC and Everest specifications and will be conducted on NTSC v/dot channels. Everest specifications shall exceed the FCC minimum requirements and meet system-specific criteria. To determine the minimum requ/rements for carrier to noise, composite second order, composite triple beat, in each netwo~rk, the headend, fiber link, type of amplifier, input/output levels, and the number of actives in cascade Mil all be considered. Everest will perform a comprehensive Proof of Performance test a minimum of twice a year at predetermined test points. The number of subscribers determines the number of test points. For 12,500 subscribers or less a minimum of 6 test points are required, a test point will be added to the network for each additional 12,500 subscribers. Initial testing w/il include extensive network activation and compliance testing, FCC Proof of Performance testing, and network sweep, balance and acceptance testing. ~ 28. Please list the design specifications (such as system engineering studies, manufacturer's unit specifications, and cascade end of line specifications) for the proposed system. Specifically, include for both the forward and reverse paths any parameters for: g. h. j. 1. bandwidth; carrier-to-noise ratio; carrier-to-cross modulation; carrier-to-composite triple beat; carrier to second order; hum; in-channel frequency response; system frequency response; signal leakage; signal levels (peak-to-valley, variation over time, tap drop specification) signal-to-noise; bit error rate; color tests (such as chrominance-luminance delay inequality); digital video specifications (as adopted in industry practice); and average and maximum amplffier cascade length. g. h. i. j. p. 5Mhz to 40Mhz return band/50Mhz to 870M1~ forward band Worst case calculation with 1550 supertrunk optical link. CNR = 49db, CTB = 53db, CSO = 53db see amp specifications Calculated with optical supertrunk - formula n/10 + 3db=3.2db Minimum FCC regulations including Everest operations guidelines. Tap levels minimum 18db ~ 870Mhz / 10db ~ 50mhz. Will meet vendor specific and FCC standards. Return noise accumulations will be monitored per node. Optical receiver (node) plus one active (.amp) device in cascade. Max/mum of eight amps per node. 29. 30. 31. Please describe the experience each key person you identified in your application has had with the construction and operation of a cable system (as opposed to other types of systems and networks). Your response for each key person should, at a minimum, include his/her knowledge and understanding of: customer service issues common to cable systems; system maintenance; industry construction practices; network design; applicable technical standards and codes; subscriber drop installation; cabli~ service marketing; and cable modern installation and service. See attached "Qualification Document" What portions of the cable system, if any, will be leased to atTfliated or unaffiliated entities planning to provide cable services? The Company's business plan is focused on service provision to (unaffiliated) retail customers. The Company has not developed a wholesale business plan whereby, it would sell spectrum or dark capacity of the network to affiliated or unaffiliated customers. Will any portions of the proposed cable system be leased from affiliated or unaffiliated entities? If so, who will be responsible for maintaining and repairing any parts of the proposed system that are leased? Who will be responsible for ensuring that leased portions of the proposed cable system comply with applicable technical and customer service requirements? The Company anticipates ownership of the entire network in the Twin Cities market and retaining responsibility for maintenance, repair, and franchise compliance. 32. What portions of the cable system will be owned or controlled by: (a) Applicant; or (b) its parent corporation or affiliates? It is intended that one hundred percent (100%) of the system will be owned by Everest Minnesota, L.L.C. 33. Please provide more detailed information on the location of system plant or explain at what time in this process that information will be available. Applicant is informed that it is under an ongoing obligation to supplement its applicant ff the requested information cannot be supplied at this time. At this time no specific information is available on the system plant. Everest's approach is to have plant construction planning essentially track with franchise grants as they are received. 34. Plea.se provide information on the availability of space in conduits and, where available, an estimate of the cost of any necessary rearrangement of existing facilities. This data was not submitted as part of Applicant's cable franchise application. Consequently, please provide the requested information or explain at what time in the process such information will be available. Applicant is informed thai it is under an ongoing obligation to supplement its application if the requested information cannot be supplied at thi~ time. The Company is currently seeking the availability of condu/t from new and/or existing providers in the greater Twin Cities markets. We will supplement this research following the approval of our interconnection agreement with the ILECs - particularly Qwest - and our pole attachment agreement with NSP. Utilization of these or any other duct will be based not only on availability, but also on economic factors such as price and terms of a contract, including the length of availability. 35. Has Applicant performed a survey of public rights-of-way, poles and other property to determine whether there is sufficient space for its proposed system? If there is no room for Applicant's system on or in a particular wireholding structure, what would Applicant propose to do? Everest has not performed a survey of specific network routes at this time. Everest will evaluate all the potential rights-of-way in order to determine the most cost- effective method of installing its network in the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. 36. Please describe more specifically the impact on the public rights-of-way of building and operating your proposed system. Everest has not finalized its routes or right-of-way sources so consequently, it would be impossible to describe the impact construction will have upon the public fights-of-way. Everest will use its best efforts to minimize disruption during the construction and operation of its network in the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. 37. Would Applicant agree to coordinate its construction with any other entity that is granted a franchise to use public rights-of-way? Everest would consider coordinating its construction efforts with other fight-of- way users if the terms of such an effort were economically justified and did not slow down or hinder Everest's ability to meet its conslamction schedules. 38. Describe in detail the line extension policy Applicant would propose for access to the cable system within each Franchiser community, and in any areas added to the Franchiser communities' jurisdiction in the future. The density/line extension policy issue is subject to negotiation, however, Everest would expect that it would have a line extension policy that is no more burdensome than the existing cable pro~¥ider in the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. 39. Provide a timetable showing the percentage occupied dwelling units within the Franchiser community and member jurisdiction that will be capable of receiving service from Applicant at the end of each year following the beginning of construction or explain when such information will be available. See response to Question No. 42. 40. How did you arrive at your density calculations? Please answer specifically for Franchiser community and member jurisdiction. See response to Question No. 42. 41. Referencing census tract data, please show the proposed schedule of system construction by census tract in three-month increments. See response to Question No. 42. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Please provide the latest schedule for each phase of system construction, including (but not limited to) strand mapping and design walk-out, applying for permits, etc. Everest would propose to build a new hybrid fiber coaxial cable television system in the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area within a period of sixty months from the date of the award of the franchise. Under that proposal Everest would build to approximately 20% oft. he dwelling units per year. An exact schedule can be developed when Everest receives its franchises. Will service be phased in as portions of the proposed system are completed? Yes. As portions of the network are constructed, services will be made available to customers in those completed sections. Please discuss all make-ready work Applicant has performed to date, if any. See response to Question No. 46. Please provide any make-ready maps that have been prepared for the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. See response to Question No. 46. Please provide any initial system design and construction maps that Applicant has prepared. Everest has not begun any engineering work within the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. Everest does not have an initial design map prepared for the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions at this time. Please identify points of contact (including name, title and function) who are technically familiar with your design and can respond to technical questions. Bill Slaton - Vice President, General Manager of Design Extender, responsible for completing HFC outside plant mapping and engineering in.preparation for construction. Assisted Everest operations with HFC architecture development. However, all requests for irLformation should still continue to be facilitated by legal counsel to ensure proper notice to all parties. Please identify the contiguous jurisdictions that will be served by the Twin Cities build-out of your system. Everest has applied for franchise authority in the following cabte franchise areas and plans to eventually build-out the geographic area covered by these cable franchises: Northern Dakota County Cable Commission, Quad Cities Cable Commission, North Metro Telecommunications Commission, Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission, South Washington County Telecommunications Commission, City of Chanhassen, City of Columbia Heights, City of Coon Rapids, Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission, City of Minneapolis, City of St. Paul, City of St. Lou/s Park, Southwest Suburban Cable Commission, City of Wayzata, North Suburban Communications Commission, City of Bloomington, and Northwest Suburbs Cable Commission. 49. Based on your answer above, please describe all available interconnection opportunities for PEG, 1-Net and other services, including specific methods and capacities of such interconnections. Signals will be managed at the headend in such a way that it will be possible to carry different signals to different nodes within the cable area network, thereby allowing for interconnect/on throughout the system at the nodal level. 50. Regarding the provision of open access to your system for a variety of ISPs, how specifically do you plan to accomplish this technically? The Company is not anticipating providing "Open Access" at this time. 51. Please describe more fully the system~ components from' source inputs at the headend to outputs at the subscriber terminal that will be implemented to provide all services delivered over the system. This description should include, but not be limited to, the provision of analog video, digital video, video-on-demand, cable modem service and telephone services. The service will leave the headend via the fiber management system through 1310 optical transmitters to optical nodes receivers, from the optical node to the coaxial distribution plant consisting A/C powers supplies, RF amplifiers stations, directional couplers, and passive multi-media taps to the subscribers service drop. A telephone/cable subscriber will have a network interface device (NID) at the point of entry of their home; this will convert digitally modulated RF signals and analog baseband signals for routing within the home. The cable subscriber will have a set top terminals which will perform tuning and convert digital signals to an analog video format and will provide menuing and ordering capabilities. Everest Connections Corporation Response to Data Request No. 3 Franehisers 1. Please explain whether Everest Connections Corporation ("Applicant") has the authority to hold a cable television franchise in the Franehisers' communities and member jurisdictions under 47 U.S.C. § 533, and aH other applicable provisions of federal law and applicable federal regulations. Yes. 2. Has Applicant applied for ali necessary licenses, authorizations, approvals and waivers, (e.g., CARS licenses, copyright approvals, etc.)? Please provide copies of ali license, approval, authorization and waiver applications Applicant has filed with federal and state agencies. Yes, Everest has applied for all known licenses, authorizations, approvals and waivers necessary to apply for franchising authority. Attached please find copies of the following documents: (1) Approval for a Conditional Certificate of Authority to Provide Local Facilities Based and Interexchange Services; (2) Approved Foreign Corporation Registration to Transact Business in Minnesota. 3. Is Applicant qualified to obtain all necessary licenses, authorizations, approvals and waivers? Yes, Everest is qualified to obtain all known necessary licenses, authorizations, approvals and waivers. 4. What licenses, authorizations, approvals and waivers, if any, has Applicant received, to date? In Minnesota, Everest has received Approval for a Conditional Certificate of Authority to Provide Local Facilities based and interexchange Services by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. 5. Has Applicant ever had a Federal Communications Commission license revoked for eanse where the license was not reinstated? No. 6. Please provide proof (e.g., a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office) that Applicant is authorized to transact business in the State of Minnesota. Provided as response to Question No. 2. 7. Is Applicant willing to meet all obligations and conditions which may be imposed by the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions to satisfy Minn. Stat. § 238.08, Subd. l(b)? Everest wiI1 comply with the requirements contained in Mirm. Stat. §238.08(I)(b). 8. Have there been any changes in Applicant's management and/or corporate structure since Applicant filed its applications with the Franchisers? If so, please describe each change and any impact it may have on Applicant's qualifications to construct, operate and maintain a cable system. Since Everest filed its application with the Franchisers, Everest Holdings I, LLC was formed as a wholly owned subsidiary of Everest Global Technologies Group, LLC. Everest Midwest LLC, Everest Minnesota, LLC and Everest Oklahoma, LLC are wholly owned operating subsidiaries of Everest Holdings I, LLC. Everest I Engineering & Design, LLC and Everest I Leasing & Financing, LLC were formed as wholly owned subs/diaries of Everest Holdings I, LLC. Everest Minnesota Licensee, LLC, a wholly owned license holding subsidiary o£ Everest 1V~?mesota, LLC has been formed to hold all Minnesota licenses. These changes in corporate structure will have no effect on Everest's qualifications to construct, operate and maintain a cable system. 9. Is Applicant proposing to serve each member jurisdiction represented by the cable commissions identified above? If not, please list, by cable commission, each member jurisdiction that Applicant will not serve, and provide a detailed description explaining why Applicant will not serve the member jurisdiction. In addition, please provide (by cable commission) the demographic make-up, by income and race, of any member jurisdiction that Applicant is not proposing to serve, along with the demographic make-up, by income and race, of the remaining member jurisdictions that would be served by Applicant's system. Everest intends to serve all Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions represented in this data request. 10. For each Franchiser community and member jurisdiction that Applicant is proposing to serve, please specify whether Applicant is requesting a franchise for the entire community/member jurisdiction. If Applicant is requesting a franchise for a particular community/member jurisdiction that does not encompass the entire geographic area of the community/member jurisdiction, please indicate what areas of the community~member jurisdiction will not be served. Everest Connections is requesting a cable franchise to serve the entire area covered by the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. 11. If Applicant's proposed franchise area for a particular Franchiser communtiy/member jurisdiction wffi not encompass the entire community/member jurisdiction, please provide the following information: (I) the demographic make- up, by income and race, of the areas of the community/member jurisdiction that would not be served by the system; and (ii) the demographic make-up, by income and race, of the areas of the community/member jurisdiction that would be served by the system. Not applicable. 12. Please provide a written description detailing Applicant's proposed franchise area in each Franchiser community and member jurisdiction. Everest Connections is proposing to build a Hybrid Fiber Coaxial Cable network to each home and business within the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions subject to mutually agreeable density requirements. ~ 13. Has Applicant, or any subsidiary or affiliate of Applicant or its parent, had any cable television franchise validly revoked by any franchising authority during the three year period preceding the submission of its application? No. 14 At any time during the ten year period preceding the submission of Applicant's application has the Applicant or any of its officers or directors been convicted of any act or omission of such character that the Applicant cannot be relied upon to deal truthfully with the Franchisers and system subscribers? No. 15. Has the Applicant or any of its officers and directors ever failed to substantially comply with lawful obligations under applicable law, including obligations under consumer protection laws and laws prohibiting anticompetitive acts, fraud, racketeering or other similar conduct? 16. Has Applicant or any of its officers or directors ever been found by a court or other entity of competent jurisdiction to have (I) presented misleading statements, or (ii) engaged in fraudulent conduct? 17. Does any elected official of the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions hold a financial interest in Applicant? 18. Does any employee of the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions involved in the franchising process hold a financial interest in Applicant? Does any employee of the Franchiser cable commissions involved in the franchising process hold a f'mancial interest in Applicant? 19. Does any cable commissioner hold a financial interest in Applicant? 20. Is any elected official of the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions employed by Applicant or any contractor or subcontractor that will be used by Applicant? 21. In its application, Applicant suggests that it might transfer any franchise awarded by the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions to a Minnesota operating company. Why would Applicant request such a transfer? Would the Minnesota subsidiary agree to become a signatory to any franchise ordinance granted by the Franehisers' communities and member jurisdictions? Everest Connections Corporation is a management group that will oversee the construction and design of the system. For tax, financing and liability reasons, a separate operating entity has been formed to handle operations. The operating affil/ate will agree to become the signatory of the fi:anchise agreement. 22. Please provide copies of any management agreements Applicant has with existing aflrdiates or subsidiaries. Everest is developing a management agreement among its affiliates consistent with certain debt facility covenants currently being negotiated. Upon completion of these agreements Everest can provide copies of the management agreement under confidential seal to the Franchisers consultant. 23. Will public, educational and governmental access Channels retain their current channel designation on Applicant's proposed system? The PEG channel designations on the proposed Everest channel line-up are for illustrative purposes only. Everest is flexible as to where the PEG channels are located, and it will make every effort to ensure that PEG channel locations will match the incumbent cable provider. However, such locations should not conflict with the "local broadcast" channel designations and preferably, such channels should be contiguously located. 24. Please describe, with specificity, those PEG access facilities Applicant is willing to provide (e.g., studio space and fib~r-optic upstream feeds from video origination points). When would these facilities be provided? See response to question no. 27. 25. What type(s) and amounts of financial support does Applicant propose to provide for public, educational and government access, over and above the franchise fee paid to the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions? When would this support be provided? See response to question no. 27. 26. If Applicant does not propose any financial contributions, please describe any in-kind support that Applicant would provide to support public, educational and governmental access (e.g., production and editing equipment packages). When would this support be provided? See response to question no. 27. 27. Describe the conditions under which Applicant would agree to be bound to provide additional facilities and equipment for PEG use. Everest is prepared to negotiate the Franchiser's PEG requirements and Everest's appropriate contribution within the Minnesota Statutes' requirements for equitable contribution from all cable providers. 28. Please identify the spectrum space to be provided for reverse/upstream PEG access uses, and the manner in which Applicant proposes to provide reverse/upstream capability from locations specified by the Franchisers' communities and member jurisdictions. This description should delineate the specific equipment to be provided which is associated with signal transmission (e.g., modulators and' demodulators). Video transport support would be provided by Everest independent of the upstream portion of the HFC network, leaving this bandwidth available for critical voice, internet, video and administrative traffic on the upstream portion of Everest's network. The equipment used for such video transport would be standard point to point broadband optic laser (transmit) and receiver (optical node) equipment. Additional premise equipment that would be provided includes Video/audio/data diplexer, optical switch, optical connectors, and associated cabling. 29. Describe the method (e.g., fiber or coaxial cable) by which the existing PEG access facilities and Applicant's proposed sY§tem will be linked, This description should include the channel capacity in both forward and reverse directions for the locations to be linked. A meeting with the current provider of ex/sting PEG facilities is required to provide a technically correct response to this question. In the absence of that meeting the assumption is that there would be a two way fiber optic link between Everest and existing facilities to import current PEG programming into the Everest PEG channel. Where this link would be built and the timing of such can not be answered until Everest obtains full knowledge of how to access this video feed. As this would be a dedicated (bulk as separate fiber and cable) link and not shared with Everest retail layer network signal activity all forward and reverse capacity of such a link would be available to the Franchisers. 30. Please list other investments or affiliations, direct or indirect, with any media, entertainment or telecommunications enterprise in which the Applicant or its parent corporation or anY afl.fflate owns three (3) percent or more of equity interest. In responding to the is request, Applicant need not disclose affiliations is has previously identified in its franchise application. Everest Connections does not have any affiliations or investments w/th any media, enterta/nment or telecommunications enterprise other than subsidiaries in other states similar to that being proposed in Minnesota. 31. Describe the proposed management structure, organizational structure and operations for Applicant. Emphasis should be given to the proposed method of translating local needs and concerns into corporate decisions throughout any franchise term. Include a description of the proposed relationship between local management and the head office or parent company. Everest Connection Corporation will initially manage the build-out and management of Everest Minnesota L.L.C.'s Operations. Everest Minnesota wilt have a local presence, which w/ll assume increasing management responsibility as the system nears completion. A General Manager (GM) will be responsible for the day to day Everest Minnesota Operations. The GM will report directly to the Chief Operating Officer. 32. Please provide the names and addresses of the ten largest holders of an ownership interest in the Applicant and its affiliates. Applicant and its affiliates are wholly owned subsidiaries of Everest Global Technologies Group LLC 0EGTG). The members of EGTG are GLA New Ventures, LLC and UtiliCorp United, Inc. 33. To the extent not covered in your responses previous [sic] questions, please identify any other business affiliation and cable system ownership interest of Applicant's parent corporation and affiliates, and the officers and directors of Applicants affiliates. Everest Midwest LLC, Everest Minnesota, LLC and Everest Oklahoma, LLC are wholly owned operating subsidiaries of Everest Holdings I, LLC, which is wholly owned by Everest Global Technologies Group. Each operating subsidiary is in the process of obtaining franchise agreements and is in various stages of the consWuction of a system. The officers and directors of Everest were provided in the original fi~anchise application. Qualification Document Everest Connections Corporation and GLA Network Technologies Jim ~. Moffit, CIA, Cltairman of the Board, CEO and President Nearly three decades as corporate executive, financial officer, business and financial planner, specialist in regulatory matters, accotmmnt, expert witness, consultant and auditor. Previous experience includes two years as President and CO0 of Brooks F~er Properties, a start-up competitive access provider;, twenty years with a large independent telephone company, and four years with an international accmmting firm. Former Pres/dent of Contet Corporation Central Region for four years until Contel was merged into GTE in 1991. Other positions with Contel included five years as Vice President-Financial Director, Western Re,on; two years as Assistant Vice President-Revenue Requirements, Western Reg/on; four years as AssiStant Vice President-Financial Planning, Western Region; and five years as corporate Chief Accountant; also involved in acquisition and disposition activities. Four years with Arthur Andersen and Company audit staff. BS in Accounting, with honors, from Northeast Missouri State University and an MBA from Washington University. CPA licensed to practice in Missouri. Named as one of the telecommunication industry's "Rising Stars" by Telephony Magazine in 1989. Cttarles lltorrison, Executive g'~ce President Executive responm'bility for Design Extender and Teledata divisions of GLA, providing computer aided design and draffing services for the cable television and telephone industries; also provides management consulting services for cable television operators and investors. More than thirty-five years experience in cable system management and operations, analys/s of potential cable system acquisitions, design and implementation of telephone and cable television infrastmcnn-e, engineer~g project management, labor/management relations, and cable eqttipment testing and quality control. Former cofounder and Senior Vice Pres/dent of Cencom Cable Associates, Inc. for ten years; provided management support for all Cencom operations, management of St_ Louis opemtious, acquisition studies, programming and program production. Six years as General lVlanager of Columbia Cablevision, Inc. and First Capital Cablevision, wholly owned subsidiahes of TC Industries; also respons~le for the design and construction of these systems_ Five years as Senior Project Manager for Telecom Engineering, Inc., another subsidiary of TC Industries, respons~le for the design and installation of telephone and cable infrastru~ throughout the U.S. Eleven years with CATV division of Spencer Kennedy Laboratories in positions of increasing respons~-bility in manufacturing, testing, quality control and engineering. Associate degree in Engineering from Northeastern University, other electronic engineering courses, industry seminars and training programs. ACE and Emmy awards, for programrning work in St. Louis area. Member of Society of Cable Television Engineers and National Academy of Cable ProgI~mming and inducted member of Cable Television Pioneers Club. ~}lichae! B. Roddy, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development Nearly two decades of telecommunications experience in a variety of operational and support disciplines. Experience includes operations managemeng business development, stmlegic planning, regulatory, pricing, cost .~mnlysis, pricing & tariff development Former President of USLink and Vice President of TDS Telecom where he was respona'ble for a $35 million regional provider of CLEC local, tong distance, and interact services with 120 employees and 25,000 accounts. During this t/me frame he initialed the successful conversion of USLink from a regional long distance provider to the second largest CLEC in Minnesota Prior exper/ence included Director of New Business Development for TDS TELECOM where responsfbilities included the development of TDS' CLEC initiatives and the Madison, WI overbuild. Previous management experience includes: Director - Access and Settlements respom~le for intercompany negotiations and state regulatory policy nationwide, and Man,3g_ *er~ Regulatory Affairs overseeing and pursuing the interes~ of TDS TELECOM in a 5 state reg/on in the Northeast_ Additional experience in financkal and cost analysis roles with Fidelity Telecommunications Company (Fidelity Investments) and CONTEL's Eastern Region complement his overall telecom portfolio. B.S. in Accounting from Villanoya Univer'~y and M.B.A. from the University of Wisconsin, Madison in the executive management pro, am. Detm Stone. bm'net, Senior lftce Presider Executive rea'pom~ility for GLA'$ EagiaeeaSag and Field Services Division. Over three decades of telephony experience in corlxrate maaagemem; eagineea-ing, field services, project managment; con.mmction superv/sion, and twelve years in the automated mapping/facilities management arena. Principal, founder and former President, CEO and Director of Graphic & Data Solutions (GDS), a faro specializing in software application development, support and information convention for the telecommunications indmstry. Product offexings included Telemap - automated mapping/facilities management/geographical informalion systems, Teledata- converls existing maps and records to Telemap system, and Telesystem-q - software solutions for management of billing, rating, plant and financial requirements. Twenty-three yearn with Telcom Engineering, Inc. with respon~-bilities in var/om engineering, conmmction impecfion and project management positions, both domestic and international, including poxition~ as Director and Vice Pr~ident o£~eering. Associates Degree in Electron/c.~ from Bailey Irkstitute of Technology, Advanced Management courses from Purdue Univerxity, pluz numerous technical and management comes throughout cm'eer. Member of Independent Telephone Pioneer Association. .. Dennis D. Mc. ffit, JD, Director of Legal Affairs and Genial Counsel Responsfbflitie~ include supervision of Human Resources Department, contract negotiations, contract admini-~tion, mergers, ac~ons and other corporate legal.matters. Nearly a decade of legal experience, including serving as counsel for numerous leading institutions, general cotmsel for a hospital, service as an assismm city attorney and adjunct profe~or oflaw for Northern Michigan Unive~ty. BA from the University of Northern Iowa_ ID from the Thomas M. C'ooley Law School. Admitted to practice law in the state of Michigan, reciprocity application pending for the State of MiasourL Shayne B. Bart, senior I/me President Responsl~ble for management of GLA's Information Systemn Division. More than fifteen years experience developing information systems for the telecommunications industry. Seven years of eatregrenearial experieace as founder, CO0, and Executive Vice Preset of Graphic and Data Solutions, a firm spedalizing in software application developmenffsuppon and information conversion for the telecommtmications industry. Eight years with Tetcom Sex'vices, Inc. ia mmmgement and technical positions including Vice President-Business Development, Division Vice-Pr~id~t, Division Manager, Senior Systems Pmalyst, and Programmer. Sig~iflcaut accomplishments include ca-authoring software applications for subscriber and carrier acce~ billing, rating, plant, trouble, etc.; co-authoring an automaxed mappin~facflities management system; ahd overseeiag the implementation of these systems in more than 100 telephone companies acrosa the United States. Grantor_ed with Honors from the Minnesota School of Business, has completed come work at Marym21~ e College, and iz cmzraitly atlending Webster University. Sa. razz E. Arndt, Vice President Responsibilities include strategic market assessment and development of interactive broadband services for GLA clients. Two decades of professional telecommunications experience in planning, deveIopment and market implementation for domestic and international voice, video, and data communications opportunities. Expertise in market planning, research and implementation for new technology implementation, product/service management, strategic pricing, advertising, collateral and sales support management, and promotional planning. Expertise in conducting technology needs assessments for market areas in determining market usage and corresponding technology solutions for competitive telecommunications, catv, distance learning, telemedicine, LAN interconnections, smart communities, and other multimedia network services. Awarded numerous national and regional excellence awards for outstanding performance in marketing communications, new business venture pJanning, network services sales and support. M]3A from Southern minois University ma,~a cum lande and BA in Business Administration and Marketing fi:om Stephens College summa cum lande. Member of American Marketing A~sociation, USDLA Advisory Board. Stephens College Alnmni Association Board member Who's Who of American Women 1997, Beta Gamma Sigma management honor society, and Vice President of the Greyhound Foundation. Dick Rogers, ~tce President ~ Business Development Responsible for City Assessments, I]EC, ISP, contracting, negotiations and client relations. A seasoned sales management executive with more than fifteen years of successful experience in both the telecommunications and dam processing industries. Major strengths in new business development, sales management and sales oftetecommnnications products and services in new markets to the Inter-Exchange carriers and end users. B.S. in Business Administration from the University of Missouri, St Louis. Carl Naes, I/ice President- CLEC Operations Respons~le for CLEC operations planning, implementation, program management and ongoing CLEC operations support_ Previously respons~le for network deployment and operations for Brooks Fiber Properties operations in Knoxville, TN, with P&L respons~ility, management of operations, customer sexvices and sales. Started Brooks investments in the market as the ~ person on the ground and worked with local, citizenship and corporate groups in the market to implement the deployment of the CLEC network. Provided direct involvement with government, ROW and boding entrance a~eement negotiations. Other experience includes thirteen years in ~e position of General Manager for Crown Cable television and Plant Manager, and chief Technician for Certcom Cable. Associates Applied Science degree from Jefferson College. Member ofNCTA, SCTE, and ALTS. David E. Goodbread, l/~tce President Operations GLA Responsible for contract negotiation and administration, recruiting, and management of telecommunications engineering, DC power and lxansmission installation, LAN & WAN, central office installation and construction projects for RBOCs, CAPs, CLECs, REA companies, universities~ state and government agencies and other major clients. Projects include COE and OSP engineer~g, COE and DC power equipment installation, fiber optic cable installation, LAN & WAN applications, inspection and testing fiber and copper cable. Responm-ble for management of $20,000,000+ major splicing and construction projects for SBC, GTE and Bell South. More than twenty-five years total experience including more than thirteen as owner and operations manager of Telco Construction firm providing engineering and des/ga, locating utilities, underground and aerial utility construction, splicing, and installation repair services to GTE, SBC, AT&T, Bell South, and REA companies throughout the United States and Me,co. Also served as scheduling engineer, OSP Engineer, area construction and splicing manager for SBC and prime contract firms for GTE and Bell South. Served as personnel recruiter for large OSP and [SP personnel company in Midwest_ Completed engineering extension carriculum in Transmission of Electronic Energy at Texas A&aM University and studied Business Technology at the University of Honston. Participated in several in-house management and engineering schools and several Ret-Tec DC Power Installationmanagement classes. Kathleen ~ Troughton, Director- Financial and Regulatory Analysis Kespons~le for Gl_~ads policy and practice development, fina~c/al modeling, financial planning, regulatory support, and regulatory p!arm/ng for client projects and activities. More than fourteen yea~ experience with tetecommtmicatiom industry. Most recent experience includes Special Project Manager ~ local exchange telephone company with cal01e television and natural =*as subsidiaries. Developed Custom Calling and Centrex tari~ following installation of SESS central office switch. Prepared lan~nmge and rates for new haan-al ~ local di~bution company's tariff. Created fiaaac/al fea~ility studies for exploration of new business developmenm. Also prepared feasfoiliry study that led to the award of municipal natural gas fiaachise. Negotiated contra~ for natural gas supply and trarmportation, tower lease a~eements and cable television programm/ng. MBA degree from Webster Univemty ia St. Missouri and BSBA degree in Finance/Management from Southeast Missouri State Univemty. Kar~n Richardson, Director - Switch Planning Respon-q~'bflities include strate~c~t~-iness planning, technology assessment and recommendations, switched technology and sy~em plmm/ng, vendor and product evaluation, and system implementation support services. Over twenty years of telecommnnications experience in technical and corporate p!nnning, network switch plann/ng, bm/ness case development, Centrex/PBX engineering and design, and new service implementation with Sonthwestem Bell and Brooks F~er Properties. BS degree ia Eleclrical Eag/neer/ng from the University oflVlissouri at Rolla. Dan $chafer, Director- Transport Planning Respo~s~le for technology assessment, vendor and product evaluation and system implementation support serv/ces for SONET and I-IFC. Nearly two decade~ varied technical and'management experience in corporate planning, customer service, transmission and central office eagiaeer/~ with Brooks/WorldCom, GTE and CONTEL. Most m-cent position for Brooks/WortdCom was as Senior Sales Engineer, Carrier Interconnect. Top Secxe~ S.I. clearance with US Navy. Thirty years military communications experience. BS from Indiana State University, Term Hante, IN. MBA University of Indianapolis, Indiatmpoli.s, IN. Diana F'aughan, Director - Financ. ial Planning and ~znalysis Respons~301e for ~c b~ plm~ ~c~ m~e~g ~d v6n~ ~ ~ ~fig~ce se~ces for cH~t ~oj~ ~d ~. Ov~ ~v~ y~ ~efi~ce ~ acco~ ~ ~ ~d plnnnin~ Mo~ recent ~ce ~c~d~ ~o ~ ~ ~o~ S~or F~ ~ ~ Bmo~ ~er ~ope~ pm~g ~o~ ~d long ~ge fox--g, ~ bu~em ~d deveBp~ ~nin~ pl~ m ev~e ~ono~c fe~. Fo~ y~ ~ a pubic acco~g fi .... on ~e ~ ~ BS ~ Acco~g from Sou~w~ ~o~ S~e U~. CPA ~c~ m ~ce ~ ~ Dominic Bartolotta, Director Oper~tions, Tra~sla~ns & NOC Over thirty years of telephony experience - trained and experienced in various switching technologies, including 5'ESS, DMS 100, 200, 500, Siemens EWSD, 1/lA ESS and 2F2B ESS. Also experienced in Switching Control Center (SCC/NOC) management, Field Dispatch Centar management, FieldOporafion's management and Software Engineering. Dominic has obtained supplemental education ~d in areas such as central office maintenance management, management systema, advanced management and labor relations, planafl~ and rfirecring performance, situational leademhip, grievance proces~ and . quality lxaining Christina L. Moszczenaki, S~ior Consulting Associate Ten years of experience in coaaaltixtg engineer/ng, and tectmical management positions. Formexty Manager Long-Range Technical Planning and Switching Engineer~g at Southwe~mm Bell (SWB). Kespons~le for planning the fiber optic inter-office network in the St. Louis metropolitan ama and engineering of IA ESS and 5 ESS switching equipme~rt projects. BS degr~ ia lnduaxdal.Eagineering from Univerair7 of Missouri at Columbia and MBA from Southern Illinois Llniversity at Edwardsvflle.. Keith il'lonton, Network ~F, ranagernent Consultant Current responsibilities in the development and ongoing management of fiber optic record-keeping system for CLEC operators. These responsibilities include overall record management of fiber routes, manhole and fiber optic hub terminations. Performs CLEC office/equipment, colocates and customer inventory audits. Previous experience includes coordination of ordering, instal/ation and maintenauee of Network Services including access service ordering, IXC and LEC coordination, troubleshooting CO ectafipment and trouble analys/s. Spec/al access design for voice, analog and digital data ckcuits. Designs covered loop, central office, inter-office and customer premise to customer premise. Experienced in testing spec/al services with respect to frequency attenuation and distortion, envelope delay distortion, impulse and steady state noise and harmonic d/stortion_ Graduate of Washin~on Univers/t-y, St_ Lou/s 1974. Telecommunication education includes Basic Engineering, Applied Data Fundamentals, Wireband Data Fundamentals, and F~er Optics Technology. kYilliam'Slaton, Vice President and General 2gIanager- Design Exlender Eighteen years experience of increasing respons~ility in the CATV technology indusa-y. Responsible for the overall management of the GLA's division - Design Extender. Oversees operations of field eng-ineer/ng, architectural development, design and drafting for all clients of Design Extender. Experienced in material costing and bid responses and contracts, as well as, formulation of operating budgets. Graduate of Belleville Area College with an Associates of Art of Applied Science - Drugdng Technologies with honors - 1995. Current member of the Society of Cable Tetexdsion Engineers and the National Cable Telecommunications Association. T~rn Thompson, Director of CZEC Operations Twenty years of increasing respons~'bility in the telecommunications business. Formerly provided project management expertise and implemented Brooks F~ers' Central Office build-out for their most profitable CLEC system build-out. Extensive experience in Inside Plant (ISP) installation, implementation, and testing. Currently responsible for inside plaut integration and build-out of host site and seven remotes using Hybrid F~er Coax technology with a fiber backbone. Principal, founder and former President of Thompson Communications serving the interconnection business for nine years selling PBX's and Key systems including dam applications (10BaseT, Lanastic, Novell, etc_).' Dave Leifer, Director of Outside Plant Respous~ble for GLA's outside plant engineering and project management for CAP and CLEC companies. Project responsibilities include specification and imtallafion of ill)er optic cable systems and related infrastructure collocation sites, building entrances, inspection/testinWacceptance of networks. More than twelve years of telecommunication experience which includes budget analysis, Outside Plant (OSP) and transmission planning and design, and OSP and facility engineering. Bachelor of Science degree from University of Missouri-Ro!la majoring in Engineea-ing Management, with a Mechanical Engineering preference. Professional member of the Missouri Society of Telephone Enghaeers, Board of Directors of the Missouri Valley Federal Credit Union, Engineering Management Alnmni Association member and Corporate Development Council for the University of Missouri- Roils. Robert Oberhaus, ]/_tanager-HFC Operations Consulting Seventeen years experience in network planning and development, business plan-devetopmenk architectural design of head-end equipment; technical specifications, Outside Plant product selection and pr/ce negotiations. Extensive background with FCC liaison requirements~ system registration, community ID number assi?ment, CATV public file requirements, CLI, POP, and FAA tower filings. Diversified baclt~:~ound includes a wide variety of chnies for a major Missouri cable company including all activities for city operations consisting of administration, sales and marketing~ network operations, budget preparations, and forecast planning. Associate Arm certificate in Business from East Central College. Has accumulated numerous A~MA comes in management training, finance, accounting; fiber optic and broadband telecommunications. Member of the Society of Cable Tetevis/on Engineers, the National Cable Television Association, and the Missouri Cable Television Association. Amy J~anMns, Provisioning Supervisor/Manager Telecommunications provisioning expertise starting from ground level customer service respons~ilities to Methods and Procedures supervisor. Previous experience includes customer service order entry, circuit design and coordination, and implementation of order entry coordination for CAP and CLEC operations. Recent respons~ilifies include management of customer coniact handling and development of all CLEC orgnnimrion support policies. AccompEshments include the development ofcorporam Methods and Procedures and Quality Care Pro~--q for Brooks WortdCom and GLA International clients. Bachelor of Science degree in Communicahons Management fi-om Southwest Misso~ State University Ke~tt Gruenewald (Director of C°rporate Purchasing) Kent brings 23 years worth of cable experience to GLA_ Most recently before GLA he was a cou~uacted Cable Design Sub for companies such as Charter Commnnications and Time Warner Cable. In this position, Kent was responm]01e for the desi~ and draffing of the companies' cable television systems. Before his consul.ting career Kent worked for nearly 15 yearn with Tune Warner Cable as their Division Director of Purchasing outofAtlanta, Georgia. Kent is a Chattahoochee Technical Institute 0Vlar/etm, Georgia) graduate with an emphasis in Technical Design and Draffing. John D. ~'eehan, Director Reg~tlatory Affairs - Ever~ Connections John came to Everest Connection~ from TDS TELECOM and had be~n there since 1996 as Manager- F. xtemal Relations, with responm'bilities for both internal and exmmal re~-mlatory/legislafive activity for over 125,000 access Lines in the states. He has acquired over 18 years in the telecommunications industry including six ye,am of Iinancial/tegulmory msponm'bility, five years of financial consulting and seven yeats of field experience with an independent telephone company. He also is working on a Master of Science in Telecommunications Management from LTn2wca~iiy of Maryland - Univerxity College, College Park,. Chad Noles (Director of Of TS & Data) Was recently a data engineer for an MSO in the Southeastern US. I-Em q~mlifications include ATM certification from FORF_JlVIarconi Commlj~icatiOIl~, cable modem certification from 3Corn, good working knowledge of I-IFC inside and outside plant, and supervised day-to-day operations ofmultipIe construction jobs. Prior work experience includes working with Knology Inc., as a Data Engineer, Bennett Construction as a Site SupervisOr, and with Mill~en and Company Inc, where he was a Network Admini.qlrator. Along with his work experience, Chad studied core curriculum at Southern Union State College in Wadley, AL, then studied Auto CAD in LaGrange, GA at West Georgia Tech. J~ P. Best, CPA, V'tce Pr~d_e_nt, F'manciM and Regulator Planning Responm'bilities include financial and regulatory plann/ng activities for GLA clients. Works with technical and operating groups to ensure economic viability of client'S un~g. Develop bnsineas and faumc/al plans and nrtdre~ing regulatory n~ds and projects. Over thr~ d~:ades exp~enc~ as con.mttang executive and financial officer, expeax witne~, and auditor. Conmlting efforts include operational r~views and development of financial models and bnsiness plana for ~e telecom servic~ Cmt~aational voice, CLEC, DSL, wireless) the sale ofDBS servic~z by local telephone companies, pricing of proposed acquisitions, work/ng with investment banke~ and venture capitali~ to finance expansion c~ ~iml-up of operating companies. Formm~y, the Pr~id~ and CEO ofPetrolcum Commanicatiom, a ceIlular service provider in the Gulf of Mexico, after having spent eleven yearn in finance at Pacific Telecom, Inc. (now a part of Century Telecommunications). Functioned as CFO of Pacific Telecom whea~ included acquisitions and divestittu~ financial, slate and f~deral regulatory and tax repolting. In adc~on he has six years experience with Contel Corporate Intnmal Audit function and e~ert witness te~imony in telephone rote cases, as weIl az rite years on the Arthur And~mon & Co. audit staff5 BS in AccotmlSng fi'om the University of Evansville~ CPA member of AICPA and Califom/a Society of CPA'S Jules J. Ghysetinctc, Vice President, Technical and Business Planning Responsibilities Mclude technical assessment and development of Business Plans for GLA clients. Works closely with finance, reg~datory, engineering and operations personnel to assess the client's needs and develop the most cost-effective approach to meeting those needs. With over 45 years as a consultant, executive and engineering officer in the communications industry, consulting experience includes work with cities, utilities and others in the delivery of voice, data and video services. Has served as aboard member and performed projects related to telecom network design and operations in several foreign countries. Ten years experience as the President of an Executone multi-location telephone equipment sales company. Fourteen years with Contel including service as Vice President-EngSneering and Vice President- Network Design. Life member ofl2EE, a founding member of the ISDN Conference and member of BICSI. Studied Electrical Eng/neering at Washin~on University. Don :gIoyer, PE, Director- Planning & Engineering Responsibilities include strategic business planning, technology assessment and project management. A senior level telecommunications executive with over V,venty years in the communications industry managing the service, maintenance and design aspects of fiber optic digital networks primarily with Contel Corporation in the central and western re~ons of the United States. M]BA in finance firom the University of Utah, BS in Applied Mathematics from the University of Missouri at Ko[la, Registered Professional Engineer in Electrical Engineering. Kent Taylor, Networtr Management Consultant Provides record management and maintenance functions for GLA clients and internal CLEC operation. Experienced in coordination and engineering installation of telecom services, to the customer, including LEC and IXC data provisioning. Respons~ilities for providing and mainta/ning database provisioning for customers c/rcuit layouts, LEC cross-connect information, IXC channel assignments and more. Provides and ma/nmins detail back-up data, maps, records and manuals necessary for restoration due to cable cats and equipment management, analog and digital toil facility technician, mainframe technician, and select special engineering projects. Career lraining includes: equipment engiueering, circuit equipment engineering, digital technology and cross connect fundamentals, digitrd multiplex light wave system, DACS operations and maintenance, light-wave and multiplexed operations and maintenance, SON-ET training and more. Brian }Wdson (Director of CATV Systems) Work/ng knowledge of modern broadband communications technologies and process management skills for introducing new technologies. Over five years of experience in an I-IFC Network that included network construction, activation, characterizations and technical operations. Network technologies include telephony, high-speed data, and interactive video, video on demand, status monitoring and interdiction. Good communicatioR, interpersonal, organizational and analytical skills. Good working knowledge of personal computers, hardware and software. Working knowledge of Web Site development and Internet technologies. Senior member o£the Society of Cable Telecommunications Engineers and a member of the National Cable Television Institute Board of Reviews. 5ec:r~u. ry at" State I~ OI~IGN COI~POIIA2~OiV RI~~OlV TO TI~iNS.4 CT I~U~ ~ ~O~ PLEASE TYPE OR PRJNT IN BLACKINK. FILING FEE; $200 1, YCU ML.I~ ATTAC~ A C:ERTIFIC.,ATE OF CAIDC)O STANDING ORSTA'D.J~ L~SLIED BYTHE FiI. JNG OFFICER IN THE STATE' OR JLJFU6DICT[ON IN WHICH THIS COMI=ANY ~ ~~. The name and addrP_~s air'~e registered agent and r~htemd ~ h fl~ ~ of ~o~ ~ c r co~o~ ~s~ ~. .... ~3_!3. 6. This c~l~ratian is a (check one) ._.__llOrl-p~f~ X f~-Fm~ ex~tity. 1 cerllty that I am au~dzed ia execute thb a~n and l ~ ~8rtl~lhat ] mtdemla~ ~rat by a[gnhfl 1his. appJ/,~"~/on. ! an'~ sul:~ to ~ p~ of p~~ ~ ~ a~l~ ~der ~S. ~ name of ~ ~m~n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e S~ ~ S~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ an ~ ~e ..... ~ of ~e Oir~=:rs cfi-- Corpai-~l~ ~ ~ .... t carlffy that ~ ~ l~e actLlaltext ~ the approved res~du~n. BEFORE THE ~SOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Gregory Scott Edward A_ Garvey Ioet lacobs Marshall Johnmn LeRoy Koppendrayer · Chair Commissioner Commissioner commissioner Commissioner Jane E. Bremer, Counsel to Everest Connections _Larken, Hof:fman, Daly & I.indgren, Ltd. 1500 Nol'west Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431-A 194 SERVICE DATE: ^l J6 - t 2000 DOCKET NO. P-5889/NA4)0-348 In the Matter of a Request by Everest Connections Corporation for Approval for a Conditional Certificate of Authority to Provide Local Facilities Based and' Interexchange Services The above entitled matter has been considered by the Commission and the following disposition made: ApProved The Commission agrees with and adopts the reci~'mmenclations of the Department of Commerce which are attached and hereby incorporated in the Order. BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION Secretary (SEAL) This document can be made available in alternative formats (i_e., large print or audio tape) by calling (651) 2974596 (voice), (651) 297-1200 (TTY), or 1-800-627-3529 (TTY relay service). MINNESOTA DEPARTI~EENT OF COM~IERCE June 23, 2000 RECEIVED JUN 2 $ ZOO0 Butt W. I-Iaar Executive Secretm-y Minnesota Public Utilities Commission 350 Metro Square Building 121 7th Place East -. St_ Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147 R.E: Comments of the mimaesota Depaatment of Commerce Docket No. P5889/NA-00-348 Attached are the comments of the Minnesota Depm ha'tent o£ Commerce in the fonowtng matter. Everest Connections Corporation is petitSoning the Public Utilities Comm~sion for a conditional certificate of authority to operate as a telecommunications carrier to provide local facilities based telecommunications services and interexchange services. The petition was filed on March 23, ,.2000. The petitioner is: Jane E. Bremer CoUnSel to Everest Connections Larken, Horf.~an, Daly & Ltndgmn, Ltd. 1500 Norwest Financial Center 7900. Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, M/xmesota 55431-1194 The Depax ha~ent recommends that the petition by Everest Connections Corporation for a conditional certificate of authority to provide local facilities based sercice be approved. Smcgrelyr~ J'FG/sm Attachment Suite 200 · 121 7th Place East v St. Paul. Minnesota 55101-2145 · (651) 296-7107 · (651) 297-1959 fax · (651) 297-3067 TrY An equal opportunity employer BF_ O SOTA PtmL C UTrr,rI S COM dISS ON Co~s OF THE MrNN SOTA DEPAR OF DOCKET NO. P5889/NA-00-348 BACKGROUND On March 9_3, 2000, Everest Connections Corporation (Everest Connections or the Company) filed a petition for a conditional certificate of authority as a telecommurdcafions carrier in Mirmesota. Everest Connections wants authority to provide facilities based local service in the metro areas served by U S WEST, Sprint, and GTE exchanges in Minnesota. A conditional certificate of authority is pet-dtted under Minn. Rule 7812.,0300, subp. 4, when the submission and Commission approval of tariffs and intercompany agreements is necessary for providing the services identified in the applicant's petition for certification_ The Company will provide the necessary tariff a_nd will negotiate an interconnection agreement with incumbent carriers prior to offering local service. II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES Pursuant to M/xan. Stat. § 237.16, subd 1. Co), the Commission must determine if Everest Cormections possesses the technical, managerial, and financial resources to provide the proposed telephone services. The CommSssion must also determine that Everest Cormections w/il operate under ters~ks and conditions that are consistent with fair and reasonable competition, universal service, the provision of affordable telephone service at a quality consistent with Commission rules, and the Commission's rules. III. DISCUSSION OF LAW AND DEPARTMENT POLICY A petition for authority to provide local fardli{Ses based serv/ce includes authority to provide Iocal service through the resale of a local exchange carrier's servSces, the purchase and recombination of a local exchange carrier's network elements, or the use of the local service prov/der's own facilities. It also authorLzes the petitioning company to provide local resale, local niche, and interexchange services. The info~mation Docket No. P5889/NA-00-348 Analyst Assigned: John F. Gr/nager Page 2 required for local fac/lit/es based service is identified in Minm Rule 7812.0300, subpart 2, items A to N. Each of the i ~*ems required of the company are addressed below. Item A- A corporation ks required to provide the contact information for its officers. These are listed on page 1 of the filing. Item B. Everest Connections is a corporation and it has included its Certificate of ~ation and its Certificate of Good Stand~ with ifs al:rplication. Item C. The Company is a start-up company and lists no affiliates. Item D. Everest Cormections wants authority to provide facilities based local service in the service areas of U S WEST, Sprint, and GTE. The specific service offering of Everest Connections will include local service for residential and business customers. Item E. The Company has satisfactorily provided a description of its business history. Profiles of the key personnel indicate that the Company has the managerial abih'.'ty for the proposed unde_rmking. Item F. The Company has submitted pro-forma firmncials consismnt with its status as a start-up company. The Depat'h, tent of Commerce finds that the statements are acceptable to comply with the requirements of the statute and Commission rules. Item G. The services the Company intends to provide include local and long distance services for residential and business customers. Item H. The Company will provide a tariff for Commission approval prior to its authority becom/ng operational. Item I. This item requires companies to have a service area map that dearly shows the boundary lines of the area that the company holds itself out to serve. Tke Company has provided a map, but the map does not dearly delineate the proposed serrice territories. The Company should provide a map that dearly dollrteates the areas of lVEmnesota that it wishes to serve. Item J. Th/s item requires companies to provide a date by which it expects to provide service throughout the proposed se.w/ce territory. The Company has not yet provided flais kffommtion. Item K. The rule requ/res the applicant to provide a description of the policies, persohnel, and equipment or arrangements for customer service and equipment maintenance, including information demonstrating the applicant's ability to respond to customer complaints and inquiries promptly and to perform rwintenance nece,__ ~ary to emmare compliance with the quality requirements set forth in the Commission's rules. Everest Connections has provided this information on page 5, 6, and 7 of the filing. Item L. The Company has filed a copy of its certificate to conduct business from'the lVlirmesota Secretary of State with its application_ Docket No. P5889/NA-00-348 Analyst Assigned: John F. Grinager Page 3 911 Plan. The Company has not filed a 911 plan with its apphcation, although it did provide documentation that it was developing a plan at the time of filing its petition. Minn. Rule 7812_0550 states that the Comm~sion shall not pe_m~t a CI,EC to begin providing local service until the Commission has approved a 911 plan_ The Company should provide a 911 plan for its approval prior to providing local service. IV. SUMIVLARY AND DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION The Department recommends that the Commission fi_nd that the Company has the finandal, tec~hnical, and manageriM resources for the proposed undertaking and approve the Company's application for a conditional certificate of authority for facilities based local and long distance service. Prior to providing local service the Company must provide the following:. 1) A 911 plan for Commission approval prior to the time that the Company provides local service. 2) Interconnection agreements with local exchange companies in whose service territories Everest Connections will provide local facilities based service, prior to providing service in those areas. 3) A copy of a tariff for Commission approval prior to the time that the Company provides local service_ 4) A date by which it plans to provid~ service throughout its proposed serwice territory. 5) A map which dearly delineates the e~xchanges it Proposes to serve. The Company may provide long distance service upon Commission approval of a tariff. STA'TE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss COUNTY Of RAMSEY ) AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE !, Linda Chave~ on the 23rd day of June, 2000, served the attached Deparl~nent of Commerce - Comments Docket Numbers P5889/NA-00-348 X by depositing in the United States Mail at the City of St. Paul, a true and correct copy thereof, properly enveloped with postage prepaid. by personal service by express mail by de,very service to all persons at the addresses indicated below or on the attached list: Exhibit C AT&T Broadband Letter Dated July 18, 2000 MediaOne Law & PubLic Policy Department 10 River Park Plaza St. Paul, MN 55107 Telephone: (612) 312-5280 Facsimile: (612) 312-5288 David G. Seykora Vice President - Law & Public Policy July 18, 2000 MediaOne This is BroadbamL This is the way. Linda Magee, Assistant to the City Manager Columbia Heights Cable Commission City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Dear Ms. Magee: We understand that the City of Columbia Heights has been approached recently by GLA - Everest, Wide Open West and perhaps others seeking authorization to operate a cable communications system in the City. While MediaOne/AT&T welcomes the challenge of increased competition, we believe it is incumbent upon the City to ensure a "level playing field" whereby any franchise or authorization granted to any competing cable operator or other provider of similar services does not favor the new operator in terms of franchise benefits or burdens or regulatory rights and obligations. If the City were not to assure such a "level playing field," the benefits that could come from increased competition would not be realized. As a threshold matter, we would like to bring to your attention that Minnesota Statutes outline many specific required franchising procedures and considerations. Minnesota Statutes also provide that: (b) No municipality shall grant additional franchise for cable service for an area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees .... Nothing in this paragraph prevents a municipality from imposing additional terms and conditions on any additional franchises. (Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08(1)(b)) Federal law also places an obligation on the City to assure that a cable operator not engage in so-called "redlining" or "cherry-picking" and requires the City to assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of residents due to the income of residents in a particular area. And, of course, the City cannot constitutionally favor one First Amendment speaker over another by imposing disparate regulatory burdens. We have a strong interest in all cable communications issues in the city of Columbia Heights as well as a level regulatory playing field. In order to assist us in fully understanding all issues which may affect cable communications or our business in the city of Columbia Heights, pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Section 13.01 et seq., we request copies of all government data related to any inquiry or application by any person or entity other than MediaOne/AT&T for a franchise or other authorization to provide cable service or similar services in the City. This request would include, but not be limited to, any letters, proposals, staff reports, tapes or other materials collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by the City regarding such inquiry or application. We request that you provide us copies within one week or as soon as reasonably possible, and if there is a charge for the copies or other arrangements must be made, please let us know. We also request specific advance written notice of all meetings and executive sessions of the City, City Council, any of its commissions or committees at which an inquiry, application or grant of a cable communications franchise or authorization for cable service or similar service may be discussed or considered. On behalf of MediaOne/AT&T please let me express once again our appreciation for the opportunity to serve the community. We look forward to continuing to provide excellent cable service to our customers and being an important part of the community for many years to come. Please feel free to call me at 651-312-5280 if you have any questions or concerns regarding our request. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, David G. Seykora Exhibit D Technical Qualifications Report Exhibit E Financial Qualifications Report ;~L..39/00 THU 11:04 FAX 407 6454070 ~uuz Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC Certified Public Accountants and Consultants November 8, 2000 AS1020-02 Thomas Creighton, Esq. Creighton, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC 5402 Parkdale Dr/ve, Suite 102 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 S[lbjcct: Financial Review of Everest Connections Corporation Dear Mr. Creighton: Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC ("A&S") were m~gaged to perform a financial review of Everest Connections Corporation ("Everest") on behalf of the Ramsey/Washington Counties Suburban Cable Commumcarions Commission, the South Washinffron County Telecommunications Commission, the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission, the North Suburban Commumcations Commission, the City of Minneapolis, the Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission, the North Metro Communications Commission, the City of Columbia Heights, and the City of St. Louis Park (collectively "the Franchisers'). This review is in conjunction with Everest's applications for fi-anchises to operate cable television syste~n~ within the corporate boundaries of the Franchisers utilizing public rights-of-way. The Minnesota operating subsidiary of Everest is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Everest Global Technologies, LLC. Everest plans to offer cable television services, residential and commercial telephone ser-,dces (local and long distance) and hight-speed Interact Our analysis relied on the financial inibrmation provided by Everest in response to the Franchisers' requests tbr intbrmation. The inl'brrnation provided indicates that the Everest will initiate construction of its broadband network in 2001, completing the,~ build-out in 2003. Service will be initiated to subscribers in 2002. SUMMARY The financial statements provided by Everest and reproduced in our analysis indicate that the construction of the cable television systems in Franchisers' communities relics on funding of the parent company. Everest's business plan anticipates a capital structure of 50% debt and 50% equ/ry. This level of equity presents a strong, financial picture and allows Everest the flexibility to seek additional debt funding should its forecasts over estimate its revenue stream. 133 Louisiana Avetxue, Suite 106, Winter Park, FL 32789 Telepb. orte: (407) 645-2020 Fax: (407) 645-4070 Emait: ascpas@ascpas.com ii~/09100 THU 11:05 FAX 407 6454070 ~003 Thomas C. Creighton, Esq, Creighton. Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC November 8, 2000 Page 2 of 3 SCOPE OF SERVICES AND FINDINGS Our review was based on information provided by the Franchisers and Everest. Everest provided tbrecast revenues, expenses, capital expenditures and subscribers for the per/od of 2000 through 2010. Since we did not have any historical intbrmation, we analyzed the projected financial statements, including the tbrecast of revenues, expenses and capital expenditures. Everest plans to offer cable television and telecommunication services to subscribers in the greater Minneapolis-St. Paul area, including high-speed Internet service and digital c',~le service. Everest has included such service oft'erings in its projected data. Some of these are competitive offerings and there is additional competition developing in wired cable television and telecommunications. Everest is projecting that it v~411 complete its build-out in 2003 and provide services to 33.4% of the homes it passes, although it admits that it has not anticipated any other over-builders in its forecast. This is an ag~'essive forecast consider/ng the existing incumbent cable television and telephone companies and the build-out of other planned systems in Franchisers areas. Due to the expedited schedule o£ this matter, we have not separately analyzed or tested Everest's projections. We have also not specifically addressed the impact of competition in our analysis, but obviously such influences could negatively impact revenues and income derived from Everest's operations. This could impact the financial stability, of Everest's operation. As such, we are unable to determine how Everest will be impacted when it is faced with competition from incumbent opera~ors and others. Our projected financial statements, utilizing the inlbrmation provided by Everest, are attached. CONCLUSION Thc projected financial data of Everest shows cash shortages for the period of 2001 tba-ough 2004, which are oft~et by additional debt and equity funding. The projected level of cash depends on the fbrecasted revenue stream. Should the revenues be less than forecasted, Everest will need additional funding above the levels provided in the projected Iinancials. Since it is anticipating maintaining a strong level of equity, Everest should have the ability to obtain additional debt, if necessary. While Everest shows a strong financial position, the Franchisers need assurances that this support will be available tbr the build-out of the systems in their communities. As such, we recommend the Franchisers obtain these assurances prior to or in conjunction with the approval of the fi-anchise applications. zl/09/00 T]IU 11:05 FcL~ 407 6454070 ~oo4 Thomas C. Creighton, Esq, Creighton, BradIey& Guzzctta, LLC November 8, 2000 Page 3 of 3 We apprcciated the opportunity to assist you and the Franchisers in this project. If you have any qucstions or need any additional infonrmtion, please call me at (407) 645-2020. Very truly yours, ASHPAUGH & SCULCO~ CPAs~ PLC ,.,ii ~ .., ~ Garth T. Ashpaugh, CPA Pres/dent & Owner Attachments Evcrcs[ Financial R.¢vtex~ Rcporl :~,/09/00 THI. J 11:05 F.4.I 407 6454070 ~005 "i[/09/00 THU 11:06 F.~[ 407 6454070 ~iL~09/O0 T]~ 11:07 FAX 407 6454070 ~007 Exhibit F Everest Corporate Structure UtiliCorp United, Inc. Parent of Everest EVEREST GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, LLC ("EGTC") GLA NEW VENTURES LLC Franchise Application EVEREST CONNECTIONS CORPORATION ("Everest") 100% - management agreement I ~ Everest Minnesota, LLC EVEREST CONNECTIONS CORPORATION OF VIRGINIA GLA NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Ri er Oaks Communications Corporation Philadelphia Office: 5 Great Valley Parkway, Suite 282 Malvem, Pennsylvania 19355 Phone: 610-648-3819 Fax: 610-648-3815 E-Mail: trobinson@rivoaks, corn Other Office Locations: Colorado Springs, Colorado Denver, Colorado Review Of The Technical Qualifications Of Everest Connections Corporation Conceming Its Applications For Cable Franchises In The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area River Oaks Communications Corporation ("River Oaks") has been working with the firm of Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC ("CB&G") on the review of applications made by Everest Connections Corporation ("Everest") for cable television franchises for Communities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota Metropolitan are~i.~ The purpose of our review was to assess the technical qualifications of Everest to construct, operate and maintain a cable system and to meet the cable-related community needs of the Communities concerning any cable television franchise that may be issued. Overall, our review incorporated: review and analysis of technical information provided in the franchise applications for these Communities; review and analysis of additional technical information, documents and drawings; initial and follow-up discussions with technical and other representatives of Everest; and comparison of Everest's proposed system technical concept with accepted, state-of-the-art industry practices and pertinent regulatory requirements. Overall, we conclude that Everest is technically qualified to construct, operate and maintain a cable ~ River Oaks has reviewed the technical qualifications of Everest to provide cable television service to areas in the State of Minnesota under the authority of the City of Minneapolis, the Ramsey-Washington Counties Suburban Cable Communications Commission, the South Wash/ngton County Telecommunications Commission, the Bumsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission, the North Suburban Communications Commission, the Quad Cities Cable Commtmications Commission, the North Metro Telecommunications Commission, the City of Coon Rapids, the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Columbia Heights (collectively, the "Communities"). system in the Communities and to provide cable television service to the Communities. Specifically, based on our review and analysis of all the information obtained from the activities described above, we make the following technical findings. 1. System Characteristics The following system characteristics were determined from our review: · Everest indicates that its cable system will be constructed throughout the Twin Cities area with a top fi-equency of 870 megahertz (MHz) in a hybrid fiber coax (HFC) fiber to the neighborhood (FTTN) topology. No amplifier cascade will exceed one from the node. Everest's concept meets and exceeds the majority of what is considered the current state-of- the-art for such design elements in the cable industry. In some cases, systems are being constructed that would be considered fiber to the curb (FTTC) topologies, where there is no amplification beyond the optronics found at the node, and some others are being built as fiber to the home (FTTH) systems. However, these two cases are considered the exception rather the rule at this point and, while they both may provide enhanced capabilities over Everest's concept, they are also more expensive on a per-subscriber basis to implement. Additionally, the capacity of Everest's planned system as it stands would meet or exceed the capacities of incumbent cable systems in the areas under review. · The Everest cable system is planned and designed to be two-way active and to be capable of delivering a range of video, voice, long distance and high speed data services to businesses and homes in the City. Everest's technical concept, as currently proposed, should be able to satisfactorily deliver such services. While Everest cannot point to an entire system built and operated by it that would exemplify its proposed architecture (Everest has begun construction of a similar system in Kansas City, Missouri), it indicates that one of its major affiliates, GLA Network Technologies, Inc., (GLA) will be integrally involved with the development of the Twin Cities' cable systems, and that GLA developed the Rapid City, South Dakota system for Black Hills Fibercom. This system has been up and operating successfully with the same type of architecture for over a year. · Consistent with the industry state-of-the-art, the system is proposed to offer both analog and digital services. Everest's anticipated breakdown is 80 analog video channels delivered within the range of 55-550 MHz, and digital services delivered between 550 and 870 MHz. Overall, it plans to offer initially between 150 and 180 video channels. The sample channel 2 lineup that was included as part of its franchise application is consistent with the current trend in the industry to provide over 70 analog channels, over 100 compressed digital video and audio channels, and provide space for telephone, data communications and video-on- demand services. There is significant capacity within the proposed system to facilitate the provision of this range of services. · Everest's design specifications for the system indicate that worst case system performance, including both optical and coaxial cable links, will exceed FCC requirements at the end of the line, with one exception. This exception is discussed below. Detailed design specifications were provided and reviewed that properly support these proposed parameters of operation. Additionally, the limited mount of active devices in the system should typically provide performance consistent with the parameters specified once the system is up and operating. Regardless, each jurisdiction is entitled to enforce the FCC's requirements, so Everest's system would have to meet such requirements at a minimum. · Regarding the exception noted above, Everest's detailed design specifications indicate that one of the set-top terminal devices that it is considering for deployment has a worst case in- channel frequency response specification that may not consistently meet FCC technical standards. Specifically, as of December 30, 1999, the FCC requires that in-channel frequency response tests include the contribution of the subscriber set-top terminal and that the resulting measurement be within a range of plus or minus two decibels from 0.75 MHz to 5.0 MHz above the lower boundary frequency of each channel, referenced to the average of the highest and lowest amplitudes within the fi'equency boundaries. According to the specifications provided, the set-top device in question, when added together with the rest of the system, could conceivably not meet the in-channel specification under a worst case scenario. At this point, it is impossible to know if or when a worst case scenario would ever arise. The practical effect of the set-top terminal devices Everest may deploy would not be known until the first FCC Proof-of-Performance test was conducted, after initial system activation and after these devices had been deployed. It should be noted that this is not a problem specific to Everest, but has been encountered by a number of operators within the industry, related to these and other set-top terminal devices. In a number of cases, operators have requested and received waivers from the FCC for a period of time that enables them to come into full compliance with FCC specifications, either by a swap-out of the affected units in the field or through modifications made to those units in coordination with set-top terminal vendors. · Everest indicates that its Twin Cities Metropolitan Area network could encompass approximately 20,000 aerial and underground plant miles. Everest has not broken this number down by community, but it would certainly cover the jurisdictions for which we are performing the review. Everest plans a node size of approximately 125 homes per node. The nodes are capable of being further divided to accommodate new services and higher penetrations. Everest's design calls for a minimum of three strands of fiber to be deployed from each hub to each node. While this is less than some other operators' concepts (which employ six or twelve strands per node), Everest's homes per node count is significantly less than the homes per node count many in the cable industry have deployed or are currently deploying (500 homes per node or greater). Accordingly, we believe that three strands of fiber each to a node size of 125 homes would provide the flexibility needed going forward to accommodate potential increases in capacity needed at the node. Additionally, Everest indicates that it will have a significant amount of additional fiber infrastructure deployed to splice locations within 1,000 feet of each node, if greater fiber counts need to be deployed at a future point. To minimize or eliminate the effect of commercial power outages, Everest is planning to deploy a number of backup powering systems. Specifically, at the headend and hubs, diesel powered generators will provide backup power to the entire headend facility. To ensure completely uninterruptible power, battery backup will also be available. In the distribution system, centralized or clustered powering will be employed. Up to three optical nodes and the active devices within these node areas will normally be powered fi:om a 90 volt supply fed by commercial power. In the event of a commercial power outage, a combination of battery backup and a natural gas generator backup will provide power to the distribution plant until commercial power returns. The combination of these various back-up power elements within Everest's planned system should significantly minimize or eliminate outages stemming fi:om commercial power interruptions. The metropolitan area backbone ring infi:astrucmre appears to provide sufficient fiber optic capacity to provide both common and dedicated services to the hubs serving various jurisdictions. The ring transport will operate in a redundant, fault-protected manner. There would be a single point of failure on the runs between the hubs and the nodes, but this is consistent with the architectural norm in the cable industry. Everest indicates that it will provide as many diverse paths out of the hubs to nodes as are available and economically feasible, in order to limit the effects of any potential cable cuts to the smallest number of customers possible. Regarding the headend, information provided by Everest indicates that a host of state-of- the-art equipment will be provided fOr signal transmission and reception functions. Everest performed a test at the prospective headend location in September, 2000. The company 4 indicates that this test showed that signal reception would not be affected by interference fi.om other over-the-air communications at that site. Regarding the advanced fiber optic transport enabled by wavelength division multiplexing (WDM), Everest indicates that it believes it has sufficient fiber infi-astmc~e, such that it does not plan to employ WDM at this time. However, Everest indicated that it will employ that or other technologies if required to meet future demands for services. Regarding equipment vendor commitments, Everest has recently reported that it reached an agreement with ADC Telecommunications to provide such equipment as the residential network interface devices, and with Lucent Technologies to provide key components of the HFC system. Concerning the technical plans for Institutional Network (I-Net) services, Public, Educational and Government (PEG) Access origination links and system interconnections, Everest has to date indicated that it will match the PEG and I-Net requirements of the incumbent fi-anchisees, and that it will be possible to provide interconnections throughout its Twin Cities area systems at the nodal level. We understand that further detail on specific PEG, I-Net and interconnection concepts will be available as particular fi'anchise terms are negotiated and companion design details are developed. At that time, we would be able to provide a detailed technical analysis in this regard. 2. Construction Regarding construction, Everest indicates that it has signed large-scale, definitive agreements with qualified local engineering and construction contractors and has begun some elements of network construction in the northwest Twin Cities suburbs under its Competitive Local Exchange Cartier (CLEC) authority previously secured fi.om the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In all, Everest plans to build approximately 4,000 system miles a year in the Twin Cities, which is aggressive, but with the available resources, could be achievable and would build out the franchises within the five year time flame proposed by Everest in its applications. Everest is also working with a conduit provider to secure access to underground conduits for its backbone throughout much of the Twin Cities area. Everest has begun working with pole owners and right-of-way officials in various jurisdictions, and although walkout and specific design activities for the majority of the system have not yet been done, Everest indicates that it knows that it will have significant make-ready costs and undergrounding costs. Everest indicates that it will comply with the right-of-way management 5 requirements of each of the respective jurisdictions, and will work to minimize right-of-way disruption. That being said, any build of the magnitude that Everest is proposing will create discernible disruption to residents in each jurisdiction as the build is progressing. Accordingly, Everest should be responsible for effective communication and notification to appropriate jurisdictional authorities on construction plans and activity, as well as notification to affected residences in order to have the least impact possible on the citizens of each jurisdiction. 3. System Management, Monitoring and Maintenance The following information regarding cable system management, monitoring and maintenance was determined from our review: · Everest's proposed system network management and status monitoring capabilities appear to be quite extensive and should enable monitoring of the system and response to system problems on a 7 x 24 basis. Specifically, a local staff within the Twin Cities will monitor the system extensively during normal working hours. This includes monitoring through to the optical nodes and power supplies in the distribution system, network interface devices at the side of the house and subscriber set-top terminals and cable modems. After hours, monitoring switches to Everest's national Network Operations Center (NOC) located in O'Fallon, Missouri. Everest indicates that the NOC is staffed continuously and that all of its networks will be monitored continuously. The NOC technicians will communicate with the local customer call center as well as the local technical staff to provide quick responses to local network problems. This type of extensive monitoring should also enable Everest to proactively find and diagnose degrading situations before they result in service interruptions. Only those systems that also monitor the amplifier devices after the node would be considered to have more extensive system monitoring. Such systems are very rare, and we did not find this to be an issue in the case of Everest, since the number of amplifiers from the node is minimal. · Regarding preventative maintenance or planned outages, Everest indicates that it will implement both general and detailed procedures that require details of any planned changes to its network and how such changes will affect the network, and that all such changes must be approved by the NOC prior to the commencement of work. Additionally, it indicates that subscribers will be notified in advance and be given time estimates of work completion for any planned outages. This would be consistent with the best practices employed within the industry. · Concerning its Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP), Everest indicates that all of its systems will 6 have documentation that outlines system troubles, network outages and how such are to be handled. Included in this documentation will be internal/external escalation lists, police, fire and medical facilities, as well as all vendor contacts and quick resolution contacts that would be necessary related to appropriately handling major outages or emergencies. Regarding system performance testing, Everest indicates that it will provide all of its technicians with a step-by-step process for conducting such testing. Everest indicates that the documentation will provide consistent test and measurement practices for all of its networks and that all such testing will comply with FCC requirements. This and the DRP above would be consistent with good and required industry practices. Regarding the qualifications of technical personnel, the management team that Everest has put in place for it and its chief affiliate on the project, GLA, exhibit significant experience in cable television and telecommunications system development and operation. This includes sigrfificant prior experience of various personnel in different facets of the cable industry and telephone and telecommunications industry, including both high level engineering and operational experience. Overall, then, Everest's personnel would appear to exhibit significant capability to design, engineer, construct and operate a high capacity, high quality cable system for the Twin Cities area as proposed. It is important, though, that Everest install personnel with the same type of expertise on a local level, so that~ the Twin Cities area systems will continue to benefit from such a high level of expertise. Canclusions and Recommendations Based on the information provided, River Oaks finds overall that Everest is technically qualified to engineer, design, construct, install and operate a cable television system in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Unlike a fi:anchise renewal, where the existing system can be evaluated and past experiences can be indicators of future technical performance, Everest, as a company, is largely new to the acquisition and development of cable franchises, and therefore has to be evaluated based on the qualifications of its personnel, and the projected viability of its proposed system technical development, operational and maintenance concept. In that vein, we find, based on the information available to us, that Everest's system concept is sound and, if effectively implemented, would provide high quality, high capacity cable service to residents of the Twin Cities. In order to ensure that Everest's concept moves forward as proposed, we make the following technical recommendations: 7 Enforceable language characterizing the above-described system elements and features should be placed in the franchise agreement between each jurisdiction and Everest. Full scale system designs for each jurisdiction should be provided to them for their review prior to the beginning of major system construction and installation. Detailed PEG Access origination, I-Net and system interconnect specifications that are viable for each jUrisdiction and that are equivalent to and compatible with those of the incumbent should be estabhshed within the franchise agreement, or be required by the agreement to be established during the beginning of the franchise (preferably within the first three to six months). Each jurisdiction should be provided a detailed schedule of construction for review and approval by appropriate cable administration, public works and right-of-way management officials. The schedule should also include detailed system activation plans. Prior to construction in any given area, comprehensive notification should be made by Everest to appropriate jurisdictional officials and affected residences and businesses. Once construction begins, we recommend that monthly updates be provided for each jurisdiction's review so that progress can be assessed, and further discussed where necessary. Everest should then provide annual reports to each jurisdiction that reconciles actual system development, construction and operation with its prior projections, and details plans and projections for the coming year. Everest may need to work with local Public Works officials to ensure that 90 volt powering to the homes and natural gas backup generators placed in the right-of-way are consistent with local code requirements. If Everest encounters a practical problem related to non-compliance with FCC in-channel frequency response standards, it will need to work with its set-top terminal vendor, and potentially request a waiver from the FCC, so that it will be able to ultimately come into full comphance with FCC requirements. As soon as its local management team for the Twin Cities area is solidified, Everest should provide a list of key technical personnel's qualifications for jurisdictional review. CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL Fire NO: (o- ITEM: Establish Restrictive Accounts forExcess BY: Charles Thompson BY~~ft.~ Fire Pension Residual Assets and Adopting NO: a Plan for the Expenditure of Such Assets DATE: November 20, 2000 DATE: Background: Minnesota Law 1999 Chapter 222 entitled, "Omnibus Retirement Bill", has made substantial changes to public employee pensions in Minnesota, including the total merger of the Columbia Heights Fire Pension Plan. One of these changes permits the return of the excess funding from the fire consolidation amount to the local jurisdiction. The portion of excess funding available for the return to the City of Columbia Heights is approximately $678,959. Analsis: Prior to receiving these funds, the city must hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution, and adopt a plan for the funds. The plan for the excess funds will be used to assist the Fire Department in the funding of the Fire Capital Outlay Fund. Also, a portion of the excess funds will be used to assist the Fire Department in funding the purchase of a new SUV. This vehicle will be a 2001 Ford Expedition to be purchased under the State Consortium Bid for a total of $46,254.01, plus any applicable tax and license fees ($31,247.00 for the vehicle purchase and $15,007.01 for the customization of the SUV). Vehicle will be purchased from North Central Ambulance Sales and Service, Lester Prairie, Minnesota. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Resolution #2000-82, there being ample copies available to the public; RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to adopt Resolution #2000-82, a resolution establishing restrictive accounts for excess fire pension residual assets and adopting a plan for the expenditure of such assets; and furthermore, to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for purchase of a 2001 Ford Expedition, under State Consortium Bid, for a total of $46,254.01, plus any applicable tax and license fees, from North Central Ambulance Sales and Service of Lester Prairie, Minnesota. COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION 2000-82 BEING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RESTRICTIVE ACCOUNTS FOR EXCESS FIRE PENSION RESIDUAL ASSETS AND ADOPTING A PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF SUCH ASSETS WHEREAS, Minnesota Law 1999 Chapter 222, titled Omnibus Retirement Bill, has made substantial changes to public employee pensions in Minnesota, including the total merger of Columbia Heights Fire Pension Plan; and WHEREAS, one of these changes permits the return of the excess funding from the fire consolidation account to the local jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the portion of excess funding available for return to the City of Columbia Heights is approximately $678,958, WHEREAS, the city of Columbia Heights has held an advertised public hearing on November 27, 2000, at which public hearing the proposed use of the fire residual assets were discussed and a spending plan approved. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, adopts the following plan for the receipt and use of these excess fund assets. The excess funds may be used to assist the Fire Department in the funding of the Fire Capital Outlay fund. 2. The excess funds may also be used to assist the Fire Department in funding the Purchase of a new SUV. Dated this 27th Day of November, 2000 Offered by: Second by: Roll Call: Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Gary L. Peterson CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of November 27 2000 AGENDA SECTION: ~ ~. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT , CITY MANAGER NO. " POLICE ~,,,/APPROVAL:6 ITEM: Public Hearing, Federal Law Enforcement BY: ThomasM. Johns~p~/'~)~)BY://~.~', NO. Block Grant for Equipment Purchase DATE: November 15,200tffx DATE:~/~/Z ~'~ BACKGROUND On September 18, 2000, the City Council approved the acceptance of a federal equipment block grant in the amount of $21,578 with a match of $2,398. This was approved at the September 18, 2000, meeting. On November 1,2000, a review committee made up of department members, the City Attorney, a district judge, a junior high principal, Anoka County Corrections, the Anoka County Sheriff's Office, a local businessman, a local pastor, and a representative from Immaculate Conception Church and School met to revie~v this list and offer any ideas for changes. The list was approved as stated. On November 13, 2000, the City Council set a public hearing date of November 27, 2000, as required by the grant. ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION The Police Department has met all of the requirements of this grant except the public hearing, which is being held today. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to close the public hearing, to adopt Resolution 2000-81 being a resolution to accept the U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement Block Grant for $21,578 with a local match of $2,398, and approve the list of equipment to be purchased ~vith this grant. TMJ:mld 00-260 COUNCIL ACTION: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT AMOUNT AVAILABLE INCLUDING MATCH AND TAX $23,976 FEDERAL EQUIPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR 2001 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 4 each Gooseneck Lights for squad cars 4 each 35mm cameras: 2 for patrol, 2 for investigations Units of storage shelving for the investigation area 2 each MP-5 night sights Shelving/cabinets for range room Computer software for bar code reading property/evidence Speed trailer CHPD hookup from laptops to mainframe Sales tax Grand Total $ 200 $ 280 $1,500 $ 300 $ 500 $ 1,734 $14,000 $ 4,000 $ 1,462 $23,976 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-81 BEING A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND APPROPRIATING MATCHING FUNDS WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights Police Department has been granted $21,578 in an equipment block grant from the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose of funding equipment, and WHEREAS, a condition of the grant is that the City provides $2,398 in local match for this grant, and WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights Police Department has provided the U.S. Department of Justice a proposal for implementation of funding this grant, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights that: The City of Columbia Heights enter into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice for the project entitled "Local Law Enforcement Equipment Block Grant Program" for the period October 1, 1999, to September 30, 2001. 2. That $2,398 be appropriated from unexpended funds in the Police Department 2000 budget to pay the local match. Passed this 27th day of November, 2000 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patty Muscovitz, Council Secretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Meetin of: November 27 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Public Heatings ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO: tv - .~ Communit~ Development APPROVAL ITEM: Emergency Ordinance -1427, BY: Kenneth R. Anderson ~ BY: ~/,~:~/~ Extend Moratorium on Telecommunication DATE: November 15, 2000 Towers ISSUE STATEMENT: Request to extend moratorium on Telecommunication Towers and Antennae from December 7, 2000 through and including March 30, 2001. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On May 18, 2000 the Telecommunications Commission reviewed the Telecommunications Towers/Antennae section of the draft Zoning Ordinance to provide comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Since this time, legal consultant Steve Guzzetta has reviewed and prepared a draft Tower Siting Ordinance to insure compliance with all state and federal regulations. Staff is now . reviewing the proposed draft Ordinance in anticipation of future adoption. The timeline for adoption is expected -/v ~ November/December 2000. The Ordinance will be reviewed by the Telecommunications Commission on November 16, 2000 with a second reading to be held later by the City Council. The City Council suggested the moratorium be extended at the meeting November 13, 2000, and as such the Emergency ordinance should be considered for the second reading and approval on November 27, 2000. The Telecommunications Commission had recommended the extension for commercial towers only. The draft Ordinance has not been changed to limit the moratorium only to commercial towers/antennae and thus will apply to all towers/antennae. This is being adopted as an Emergency Ordinance effective December 7, 2000 which is the date the existing moratorium is scheduled to lapse. The proposed Emergency Ordinance no. 1427 will continue the moratorium without interruption. When the Tower Siting Ordinance is eventually adopted, the ordinance language will allow for the moratorium to lapse. RECOMMENDED: Community Development staff is recommending the City Council consider extending the moratorium for installations of towers, wireless telecommunications facilities, antennae, or dishes from December 7, 2000 to March 30, 2001. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to waive the reading of Emergency Ordinance 1427, there being ample copies available to the public. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Move to approve Emergency Ordinance 1427, Being an Emergency Ordinance of the Columbia Heights City Council for extension of the moratorium on the placement, construction, and modification of towers and wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Columbia Heights from December 7, 2000 to March 30, 2001. Attachments: Emergency Ordinance 1427 COUNCIL ACTION: H:\consent\Emergency Ord. 1427 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 1427 BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE MORATORIUM ON THE PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF TOWERS AND WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FROM DECEMBER 7, 2000 to MARCH 30, 2001. The City of Columbia Heights does Ordain: Section 1: WHEREAS, on February 8, 1996, Congress enacted the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. No. 104-104, to deregulate the telecommunications industry, providing a more competitive environment for wired and wireless telecommunication services in the United States; and, WHEREAS, increased competition in the market for wireless telecommunications services may create an increased demand for antenna sites on towers and other antenna support structures necessary for providing wireless service via existing and new technologies; and WHEREAS; the Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves the authority of the City to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers, antenna support structures, and wireless telecommunications facilities in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and, WHEREAS, the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance currently allows public utility structures as a Conditional Use Permit in every zoning district within the City except for the I-2, Industrial District which does not allow public utility structures; and, WHEREAS, the City Council detemfines it is necessary to complete further research and analysis as to appropriate zoning and performance standards for towers and wireless telecommunications facilities within the City as identified within the proposed Tower Siting Ordinance, Ordinance Number 1427. Section 2: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED THAT in an effort to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public the Columbia Heights City Council hereby imposes an extension to the moratorium on the placement, construction, and modification of towers and wireless telecommunications facilities within the City of Columbia Heights, with said moratorium commencing and effective December 7, 2000 through and including March 30, 2001 and recognizing said moratorium will effect only those applications for the placement, construction, and modification of towers and wireless telecommunications facilities submitted to the City after the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after December 7, 2000 and extending through and including March 30, 2001 or the effective date of the Tower Siting Ordinance, whichever occurs first. Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk GSCommunity Development\Oral 1427Ext. Towers Moratorium Mayor Gary L. Peterson CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings (~o ORIGINATING DEPT.: ~ ~CITY MANAGER NO: (~ Community Development ~'~ APPR.OVAL ITEM: Reconvene First Reading, Ordinance # 1424 BY: Tim Johnson ,'rT.:r By': .,~/~..~.4 NO: Tower Siting Ordinance DATE: November 17, 2000 Issue Statement: This is a request for the City Council to consider adopting a Telecommunication Tower Siting Ordinance that the City currently needs in order to address Telecommunication and Antennae requests. Backeround: The project has a rather extensive background, in which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Telecommunications Commission have reviewed the proposed ordinance and had a chance to comment and recommend changes to the ordinance. The City Council met on November 13, 2000, and recommended to table the first reading of Ordinance # 1424 to allow for further review by the Telecommunications Commission. Analysis: The City of Columbia Heights has been involved in an extensive process to update the City Zoning Ordinance. The City's Attorney for cable and telecommunications issues, Steve Guzzetta has prepared this Tower Siting Ordinance for the City which has been proposed to be adopted independently, and eventually incorporated into the new Zoning Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the draft Telecommunications Ordinance on October 3, 2000 with staff, and the Attorney, Steve Guzzetta, and has determined the ordinance to be consistent with new federal telecommunications standards. There is currently a moratorium in place on telecommunications and antennae that expires December 7, 2000. Staff is recommending that this moratorium be extended until final adoption of the Tower Siting Ordinance. At the November Planning Commission meeting, staff and Planning and Zoning Commission members expressed some concern with Annual Registration Requirements in Section 15 of the Ordinance 1424, pages 24-25. The concern was expressed that staff may have a difficult time in trying to establish a monitoring system to keep track of all Wireless Telecommunications Facilities and Wireless Communications Towers on an annual basis. The Telecommunications Commission met on November 16, 2000, and reviewed questions posed by Ken Henke with Attorney, Steve Guzzetta. After review and discussion, the Telecommunications Commission passed a motion recommending that the City Council hold its first reading of Ordinance # 1424 on November 27, 2000, at 7:00 p.m. and proceed with the second reading and its adoption. Recommended Motions: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance 1424, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to establish Monday, December 11, 2000, at approximately 7:00 p.m. as the second reading of Ordinance 1424, Columbia Heights Tower Siting Ordinance. Attachments' COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. 1424 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TOWER SITING ORDINANCE Table of Contents 1. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 2 2. Definitions .......................................................................................................... : ................. 3 3. Applicability ........................................................................................................................ 6 4. Exempt fa-om City Review ................................................................................................... 7 5. Permitted Locations ............................................................................................................. 7 6. Existing Towers ................................................................................................................... 8 7. Co-Location Use, Modification and Relocation of Existing Towers .................................. 9 8. Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Existing Tower ................. 10 9. Wireless CommunicationsFacilities on Antenna Support Structures ................................ 11 10. Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Antenna Support Structure ............................................................................................................. 12 11. Utility Pole-Mounted Wireless Communication Facilities ................................................ 14 12. Application for Utility Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Facility ....................... 15 13. Construction of New Towers ............................................................................................. 16 a. Conditions of Approval for Wireless Communications Towers .................................. 16 b. Requirements for Separation Between Towers ............................................................ 16 c. Standards for Co-Location ........................................................................................... 17 d. Tower Design and Type ............................................................................................... 18 e. Landscaping Minimum Requirements ......................................................................... 19 f. Visual Impact Standards .............................................................................................. I9 14. Application Process for New Towers ................................................................................ 21 15. Annual Registration Requirement ...................................................................................... 24 a. Wireless Communications Facilities ............................................................................ 24 b. Wireless Communications Towers .............................................................................. 24 16. General Requirements ........................................................................................................ 25 a. Duration of Permits ...................................................................................................... 25 b. Assi~ment and Subleasing ......................................................................................... 25 c. Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................... 25 d. Federal and State Requirements ................................................................................... 26 e. Licenses or Franchise ................................................................................................... 26 f. Discontinued Use ......................................................................................................... 26 g. Abandoned Tower or Antenna ..................................................................................... 26 h. FCC Emissions Standards ............................................................................................ 27 i. Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 28 j. Emergency ................................................................................................................... 28 k. Equipment Cabinets ..................................................................................................... 29 1. Equipment on Site ........................................................................................................ 29 m. Inspections ................................................................................................................... 29 n. Security ........................................................................................................................ 29 o. Advances in Technology .............................................................................................. 30 17. Review of Applications ...................................................................................................... 30 18. Appeals .............................................................................................................................. 30 19. Revocation ......................................................................................................................... 30 AN ORDINANCE OF TFIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, REGULATING THE ZONING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES; PROVIDING INTENT AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING IVIIN1MUM STANDARDS FOR LOCATION, VISUAL IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; PROVIDING MEVIMUM STANDARDS FOR TI:IE LOCATION, VISUAL IMPACT AND APPROVAL OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS AND FACILITIES; PROVIDING FOR SHARED USE OF 'WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; PROVIDING FOR INSPECTIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN TIlE CITY CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota (the "City") has received numerous inquiries fi:om wireless communications service providers for the location and construction of wireless communications towers in the City;, and WHEREAS, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, expressly preserves the zoning authority of local governments relating to wireless communications towers and related facilities; and WHEREAS, the City has a limited number of potential sites that would be acceptable for the installation of wireless communications towers and facilities; and WHEREAS, the citizens of the City have expressed great concern about the location of wireless communications towers and related facilities within the City, related to preserving the residential character of the community, promoting the integrity of the City's residential neighborhoods and addressing safety issues; and WHEREAS, the limited number of potential wireless communications tower and wireless communications antenna sites requires the City to address the needs of competing wireless service providers; and WHEREAS, City statT and the Planning and Zoning Commission have studied and recommended appropriate siting policies to permit the placement of wireless communications towers and related facilities in locations that will balance the interests of public safety, aesthetics, property values and the provision of wireless communications services by the use of such facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the current zoning provisions within the City Code are inadequate as they relate to compatibility of wireless communications tower siting with surrounding properties, proliferation of towers and encouraging co-location of antennas; and WHEREAS, City staff has drafted amendments to the City Code determined to be necessary to protect the aesthetic, health, safety and welfare concerns found to exist. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 9.116(16)(a)(ix) of the City Code is hereby repealed. Section 2. Chapter 9 of the City Code is hereby mended to include a new Section 9.615, to read as follows: "9.615 Wireless Communications Towers and Antennas. 1) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development and installation of wireless communications towers, antennas and related facilities. The regulations and requirements contained herein are intended to: (i) regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless communications towers and related wireless communications facilities in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public and the aesthetic quality of the City; and (ii) encourage managed development of wireless communications infi'astrucmre, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless communications marketplace in the City of Columbia Heights. It is intended that the City shall apply these regulations to accomplish the following: a) Minimize the total number of towers throughout the community through siting standards; b) Encourage the location of towers in non-residential areas and with compatible uses; c) Provide for the appropriate location and development of wireless communications towers, antennas and related facilities within the City, to the extent possible, to minimize potential adverse impacts on the community, d) Minimize adverse visual impacts of wireless commmaications towers and related facilities through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camoufla~ng techniques utilizing current and future technologies; e) Promote and encourage shared use/co-location of towers and antenna support structures; Maintain and preserve the existing residential character of the City of Columbia Heights and its neighborhoods and to promote the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; g) Promote the public safety and avoid the risk of damage to adjacent properties by ensuring that wireless communications towers and related wireless communications facilities are properly designed, constructed, modified, maintained and removed; Ensure that wireless communications towers and related wireless communications facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses; i) Encourage the use of alternative support structures, co-location of new antennas on existing wireless communications towers, camouflaged towers, and construction of towers with the ability to locate three or more providers; J) Maintain and ensure that a non-discriminatory, competitive and broad range of wireless communications services and high quality wireless con-anunicafions infi'astmcture consistent with federal law are provided to serve the community;, and k) Ensure that wireless communications facilities comply with radio fxequency emissions standards as promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission. This Section is not intended to regulate satellite dishes, satellite earth station antennas, residential television antennas in private use, multichannel multipoint distribution service antennas, or amateur radio antennas. 2) Definitions. For the purposes of this Section the following terms and phrases shall have the meaning ascribed to them herein: Accessory Structure means a structure or portion of a structure subordinate to and serving the principal structure on the same lot. Accessory Use shall have the meaning set forth in the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Antenna means a device fabricated of fiberglass, metal or other material designed for use in transmitting and/or receiving communications signals and usually attached to a wireless communications tower or antenna support structure. Antenna Support Structure means any building or structure, excluding towers, used or useable for one or more wireless communications facilities. Buffer or Buffering means a natural or landscaped area or screening device intended to separate and/or partially obstruct the view of adjacent land uses or properties from one another so as to lessen the impact and adverse relationship between dissimilar, unrelated or incompatible land uses. City means the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, and any and all departments, agencies and divisions thereof. City Code means the Columbia Heights City Code, as amended fi:om time to time. City Council or Council means the Columbia Heights City Council or its designee. City Manager means the City Manager of the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota or the City Manager's designee. Co-location means the use of a single wireless communications tower, antenna support structure and/or site by more than one provider. Conditional Use means those uses that are generally compatible with other uses permitted in a zoning district, but that require indicidual review of their location, design, configuration, intensity and structures, and may require the imposition of conditions pertinent thereto in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular location. This definition shall only apply to this specific Section and shall not apply to other Sections or provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Conditional Use Permit means a permit specially and individually granted by the Council after a public hearing thereon by the Planning Commission for any conditional use so permitted in any. zoning district. In approving a conditional use permit, the Council may impose reasonable conditions to accomplish the objectives of this Section with respect to use, screening, lighting, hours of operation, noise control, maintenance, operation or other requirements. Equipment Cabinet or Shelter means a structure located near a wireless communications facility that contains electronics, back-up power generators and/or other on-site supporting equipment necessary for the operation of the facility. Existing Tower means any tower designated as an existing tower by subsection 6 of this Section for which a permit has been properly issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, including permitted towers that have not yet been constructed so long as such approval is current and not expired. After the effective date of this Ordinance, any tower approved and constructed pursuant to the provisions of this Section shall thereafter be treated as an existing tower for purposes of regulation pursuant to this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance. 4 Guyed Tower means a wireless communications tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground anchors or other means of support besides the superstructure of the tower itself. Land Use and Development Ordinance meam Chapter 9 of the Columbia Heights Code, as it may be amended from time to time. Microwave Dish Antenna means a dish-like antenna used to transmit and/or receive wireless communications signals between terminal locations. Monopole Tower means a wireless communications tower consisting of a single pole or spire supported by a permanent foundation, constructed without guy wires and ground anchors. Non-Conformity shall have the meaning given in Mirm. Stat. § 394.22, Subd. 8, or successor statutes, and shall be governed by the provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance (Non-Conformities). Ordinance means this Ordinance No. Panel Antenna means an array of antennas designed to direct, transmit or receive radio signals from a particular direction. Pico Cell means a low-power cell whose coverage area extends 300 to 500 yards. Planning Commission Commission. means ~e Columbia Heights Planning and Zoning Provider (when used with reference to a system) means a person or entity that provides wireless communications service over a wireless communications facility, whether or not the provider owns the facility. A person that leases a portion of a wireless communications facility shall be treated as a provider for purposes of this Section. Satellite Dish means an antenna device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured that is shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia-shaped and is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic signals. This definition is meant to include, but is not limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVR0s and satellite microwave antennas. Serf-support/Lattice Tower means a tower structure requiring no guy wires for support. Stealth or Camouflaged Tower, Equipment Cabinet or Facility means any wireless communications tower, equipment cabinet or facility designed to h/de, obscure or conceal the presence of the tower, antenna, equipment cabinet or other 5 3) related facility. The stealth technology used must incorporate the wSreless communications tower, equipment cabinet and facility into and be compatible with the existing or proposed uses of the site. Examples of stealth facilities include, but are not limited to: architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and wireless communications towers designed to look like light poles, power poles, trees, flag poles, clocks, steeples or bell towers. Utility Pole-Mounted Facility means a wireless communications facility attached, without regard to mounting, to or upon an eleca-ic transmission or distribution pole, street light, traffic signal, athletic field light, utility support structure or other similar facility located within a public fight-of-way or utility easement approved by the Planning Commission. The facility shall include any associated equipment shelters regardless of where they are located with respect to the mount. Whip Antenna means an omni-directional antenna used to transmit and/or receive radio signals. Wireless Communications Facility means a facility that is used to provide one or more wireless communications services, including, without limitation, arrays, antennas and associated facilities used to transmit and/or receive wireless communications signals. This term does not include wireless communications towers, over-the-air reception devices that deliver or receive broadcast signals, satellite dishes regulated by 47 C.F.R. § 25.104, devices that provide direct-to- home satellite services ("DBS") or devices that provide mulfichannel multi-point distribution services ("MMDS") as defined and regulated by 47 C.F.R. § 1.4000, as amended. Wireless Communications Services means those services specified in 47 U.S.C. §§ 332(c)(7)(C) and 332(d)(1)-(2), and any amendments thereto. Wireless Communications Tower means a guyed, monopole or self- support/lattice tower, or extension thereto, constructed as a freestanding structure, supporting one or more wireless communications facilities used in the provision of wireless communications services. Zoning Administrator means the person appointed by the City Manager as provided in the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Applicability. The requirements of this Section apply to the extent provided herein to all new, existing, replacement, re-located or expanded and/or modified wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities. The requirements of this Section apply throughout the City. It is the express intent of the City to impose, to the extent permitted by applicable law, all requirements of this Section to all land within the 6 City, whether pubhcly or privately held, including, without limitation., private property, City property, church property, utility property and school property. a) Non-Essential Services. Wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities will be regulated and permitted Pursuant to this Section and not regulated or permitted as essential services, public utilities or private utilities. b) Attempt to Locate on Existing Tower or Antenna Support Structure. Every owner/operator seeking to locate a wireless communications facility within the City must attempt to locate on an existing wireless communications tower or antenna support structure as required by subsections 7 through 8 of this Section. Exempt from City Review. The following activities shall be permitted without City approvals: a) Amateur Radio - the installation of any antenna and its supporting tower, pole or mast to the extent City regulation is preempted by state or federal law. b) Residential Television Antennas - the installation of residential television antennas in private use to the extent preempted by state and federal law. c) Satellite Dishes - the installation of satellite dishes to the extent preempted by state or federal law. d) Mobile News-the use of mobile services equipment providing public information coverage of news events of a temporary or emergency nature. 5) Permitted Locations. The following applies to all wireless communications towers, including re-located or expanded and/or modified towers, but not to existing towers: Wireless communications towers less than 120 feet in height shall be a permitted use in the I-1 and 1-2 zoning districts. b) Wireless communications towers greater than or equal to 120 feet in height shall be a conditional use in the I-1 and 1-2 zoning districts. c) Wireless communications towers less than 80 feet in height shall be a permitted use in the CBD and GB zoning districts. d) Wireless communications towers greater than or equal to 80 feet in height shall be a conditional use in the CBD and GB zoning districts. e) Wireless communications towers less than 80 feet in height shall only be allowed as a conditional use in the R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4 and LB zoning districts. Wireless communications towers greater than or :qual to 80 feet in height shall not be a permitted use in the R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4 and LB zoning districts. g) Except where superseded by the requirements of county, state or federal regulatory agencies possessing jurisdiction over wireless communications towers, equipment cabinets and wireless communications facilities, such towers, equipment cabinets and facilities shall be stealth towers, stealth equipment cabinets and stealth facilities camouflaged to blend into the surrounding environment using stealth technology in a manner pre-apprOved by the City on a case-by-case basis. h) Utility pole-mounted facilities shall be permitted as accessory uses in all zoning districts. Applications for such facilities shall be subject to the conditions set forth in this Section. 6) Existing Towers. Except where otherwise noted, existing towers shall not be rendered non- conforming uses by this Section. The City encourages the use of these existing towers for purposes of co-locating additional wireless communications facilities. Any and all towers erected and in use or approved on or before the effective date of this Ordinance shall be treated as existing towers. These towers shall be considered conforming uses with respect to this Section and the City shall allow co-location on these towers subject to the requirements of subsection 7 of this Section so long as the providers utilize the most visually unobtrusive equipment that is technologically feasible. b) Owners of existing towers shall be required to comply with the requirements and procedures set forth in subections 13 and 14 ("Construction of New Towers" and "Application Process for New Towers") to replace an existing tower. c) Owners of existing towers shall be required to comply with the applicable requirements and procedures set forth in subsections 6, 7, 8 and 13 ("Existing Towers, .... Co-location Use, Modification and Relocation of Existing Towers," "Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Existing Tower," and "Construction of New Towers") to modify or relocate an existing tower or to co-locate a wireless communications facility on an existing tower. d) Increases in height of an existing wireless communications tower, modification of an existing wireless communications tower or conversion of an existing wireless communications tower to a stealth or camouflage structure shall be treated as a new tower and subject to all the applicable requirements of this Section. e) Owners of existing wireless commtmications towers shall be required to comply with the requirements set forth in subsection 15 ("Annual Registration") and subsection 16 ("General Requirements"). 8 7) Co-Location Use, Modification and Relocation of Existing Towers. Any owner of an existing tower or antenna support structure containing additional capacity suitable for installation' or co-location of wireless communications facilities shall permit providers to install or co-locate said facilities on such towers or antenna support structures; provided that no existing tower or antenna support structure shall be used to support wireless communications facilities for more than three separate providers. Any co-location of wireless communications facilities shall be subject to mutually agreeable terms and conditions negotiated between the parties. b) Any existing tower may be modified or relocated to accommodate co-location of additional wireless communications facilities as follows: (i) An application for a wireless communications permit to modify or relocate a wireless communications tower shall be made to the Zoning Administrator. The application shall contain the information required by subsection 14(b)-(c) of this Section. The Zoning Administrator shall have the authority to issue a wireless communications permit without further approval by the Council or the Planning Commission, except as provided in this Section. Any denial of an application for a wireless communications permit to modify or relocate a wireless communications tower for purposes of co-location shall be made in accordance with subsection 14(e) of this Section. (ii) The total height of the rhodified tower and wireless communications facilities attached thereto shall not exceed the maximum height allowed for a permitted wireless communications tower in the zoning district in which the tower is located, unless a conditional use permit is granted by the City. (iii) Permission to exceed the existing height shall not require an additional distance separation from designated areas as set forth in this Section. The tower's pre-modification height shall be used to calculate such distance separations. (iv) A tower which is being rebuilt to accommodate the co-location of additional wireless communications facilities may be moved on the same parcel subject to compliance with the requirements of this Section. (v) A tower that is relocated on the same parcel shall continue to be measured from the original tower location for the purpose of calculating the separation distances between towers as provided herein. 9 8) Application to Locate Wireles~ Communications Facility on Existing ToWer. An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an existing tower must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall, at a minimum~ contain the following: (i) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (ii) Location of the existing tower, along with the tower owner's name and telephone number;, (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject tower;, (iv) A sworn and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications facility will conform to any and all other construction standards set forth by the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in the amount set by the Council for each wireless communications facility listed on the application; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or franchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City; ~ (vii) A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless communications facility, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed wireless communications facility and the supporting tower, topography, and any other information deemed by the City to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower; .(ix) A certification that the applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance; and 10 9) b) (x) A cc:'tification that the site described in the application is located on an existing tower and the owner/operator agrees to the co-location of the subject wireless communications facility. c) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility that proposes to co-locate said facility on an existing tower and that satisfies the requirements set forth in this Section, shall receive expedited treatment in the review process. d) So as to further expedite the permitting process and to promote the efficient use of existing sites, the City encourages the users of existing towers to submit a single application for approval of multiple users on a single existing site. Applications for approval at multiple user sites shall be given priority in the review process. The fee to be submitted with a multiple user application shall be the fee specified in this subsection multiplied by the number of users listed in such application. e) A petitioner shall submit any additional information requested by the City for purposes of evaluating the permit request. In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an existing tower, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. Wireless Communications Facilities on Antenna Support Structures. b) All wireless communications facilities to be located on antenna support structures shall be subject to the following minimum standards: (i) Wireless communications facilities shall only be permitted on buildings which are at least thirty-five (35) feet tall. (ii) Wireless communications facilities shall be permitted on the City's water tower; provided that the City may impose reasonable conditions which ensure that such facilities do not interfere with access to or maintenance of the tower. (iii) If an equipment cabinet associated with a wireless communications facility is located on the roof of a building, the area of the equipment cabinet shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height, four hundred (400) square feet in area nor occupy more than ten percent (10%) of the roof area. All equipment cabinets shall be constructed out of nonreflective materials and shall be designed to blend with existing architecture and located or designed to minimize their visibility. Antenna dimensions. 11 10) (i) Unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the City, whip antennas and their supports must not exceed 25' in height and 12" in diameter and must be constructed of a material or color which matches the exterior of the antenna support structure. (ii) Unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the City, panel antennas and their supports must not exceed 8' in height or 2.5' in width and must be constructed of a material or color which matches the exterior of the building or structure, so as to achieve maximum compatibility and minimum visibility. (iii) Unless a conditional use permit is obtained fi.om the City, microwave dish antennas located below sixty-five (65) feet above the ground may not exceed six (6) feet in diameter. Microwave dish antennas located sixty- five (65) feet and higher above the ground may not exceed eight (8) feet in diameter. c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, wireless communications facilities and related equipment shall not be installed on antenna support structures in residential zoning districts, unless a conditional use permit is obtained from the City. d) Wireless communications facilities located on antenna support structures, and their related equipment cabinets, shall be located or screened to minimize the visual impact of such facilities and equipment cabinets upon adjacent properties. Any such screening shall be of a mater/al and color that matches the exterior of the building or structure upon which it is situated. Wireless communications facilities and related equipment cabinets shall be of a stealth design, and shall have an exterior finish and/or design as approved by the City. Application to Locate Wireless Communications Facility on Antenna Support Structure. An application for a wireless commtmications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an antenna support structure must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall, at a minimum, contain the following: (i) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (ii) Location of the antenna support structure, along with the property owner's name and telephone number; (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject property; 12 (iv) A swom and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications facility will conform to any and all requirements and standards set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in an amount set by the Council for each wireless communications facility listed on the application; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or franchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City;, (vii) A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless cornmunications facility, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed wireless communications facility and the rooftop and building, topography, a current survey, landscape plans, and any other information deemed by the City to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower; (ix) A certification that the app..licant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; and (x) A certification that the site described in the application is located on an existing antenna support structure and the owner/operator agrees to the location or co-location of the subject wireless communications facility. b) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility that proposes to co-locate said facility on an antenna support structure and that satisfies the requirements set forth in this Section, shall receive expedited treatment in the review process. c) So as to further expedite the permitting process and to promote the efficient use of existing sites, the City encourages the users of antenna support structures to submit a single application for approval of multiple users on a single existing site. Applications for approval at multiple user sites shall be given priority in the review process. The fee to be submitted with a multiple user application shall be the fee described in this Section multiplied by the number of users listed in such application. 13 d) e) 0 utaity a) h) c) e) An applicant must submit a proposed stealth design for camoufla~ng its wireless communications facility, unless this requirement is preempted by the operation of applicable laws or regulations. A petitioner shall submit any additional information requested by the City for purposes of evaluating the permit request. In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility on an antenna support structure, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Facilities. Utility pole-mounted wireless communications facilities may be permitted as accessory uses in all zoning districts if the provider uses pico cell equipment. Such facilities shall only be permitted in public fights-of-way that are at least 100 feet in width. To the greatest practical extent, utility pole-mounted wireless communications facilities shall be sited where they are concealed from public view by other objects such as trees or buildings. When it is necessary to site such a facility in public view, to the greatest practical extent it shall be designed to limit visual impact on surrounding land uses, which design must be approved by the City. The height of a utility pole-mounted facility shall not exceed two (2) feet above the pole structure. Equipment cabinets associated with utility pole-mounted wireless communications facilities which are located within the public fight-of-way shall be of a scale and design that make them no more visually obtrusive than other types of utility equipment boxes normally located within the right-of-way and shall be located in a manner and location approved by the City. To the greatest practical extent, equipment cabinets associated with utility pole-mounted facilities which are located outside of the public right-of-way shall be concealed from public view or shall be architecturally designed using stealth technology or buffered to be compatible with surrounding land uses, except that such shelters located in residential zoning districts must be screened fi'om the view of residents and pedestrians. Equipment cabinets associated with utility pole-mounted wireless communications facilities which are located outside the public right-of-way shall meet the setback requirements for accessory buildings and structures for the zoning district in which the equipment cabinet is located. Generators associated with equipment shelters must meet with the requirements of the City Code. 14 12) Application for Utility Pole-Mounted Wireless Communications Facility. An application for a wireless commurdcations permit to locate or re-locate a utility pole-mounted wireless communications facility must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall, at a minimum, contain the following: (i) Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; (ii) Location of the utility pole-mount, along with the property owner's name and telephone number;, (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject property;, (iv) A sworn and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications facility will conform to any and all requirements and standards set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in the amount set by the Council for each wireless communications facility listed on the application; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or franchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City;, (vii) A scaled site plan clearly 'hadicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless communications facility, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed wireless communications facility and utility pole-mount, topography, a current survey, landscape plans, and any other information deemed by the City to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including 'specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower;, (ix) A certification that the applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; and 15 (x) A certification that the site described in the application is located on a utility pole-mount and the owner/operator agrees to the location of the wireless communications facility. b) An application for a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a wireless communications facility that proposes to co-locate said facility on an already existing utility pole-mount and that satisfies the requirements set forth in this Section, shall receive expedited treatment in the review process. c) A petitioner shall submit any additional information requested by the City for purposes of evaluating the permit request. In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to locate or re-locate a utihty pole-mounted wireless communications facility, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. 13) Construction of New Towers. (a) Conditions of Approval for Wireless Communications Towers. (i) Setback. The distance between the base of any proposed wireless communications tower, measured fi.om the center of a tower, and the nearest lot line shall be at least equal to the height of the tower, provided that this distance may be reduced to a specified amount if an applicant provides a certification fi.om the tower manufacturer or a qualified engineer stating that the tower is designed and constructed in such a way as to crumple, bend, col'lapse or otherwise fall within the specified distance. In no event shall the distance between the base of a proposed wireless communications tower, measured from the center of the tower, and the nearest lot line be less than twenty (20) percent of the tower height. (ii) Structural requirements. All wireless communications tower desi~m~s must be certified by a qualified engineer specializing in tower structures and licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota. The certification must state the tower design is structurally sound and, at a minimum, in conformance with the City's Building Code, the State Building Code, and any other standards outlined in the Land Use and Development Ordinance, as amended from time to time. (iii) Height. The height of permitted wireless communications towers shall be as specified in subsection 5 of this Section. 16 b) Requirements for Separation Between Towers. c) (i) Except for wireless communications facilities located on roof-tops or utility pole-mounted facilities, the minimum wireless communications tower separation distance shall be calculated and applied irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries. (ii) Measurement of wireless communications tower separation distances for the purpose of comphance with this Section shall be measured fi:om the base of a wireless communications tower to the base of the existing or approved wireless communications tower. (iii) Proposed towers must meet the following minimum separation requirements fi.om existing towers or towers previously approved but not yet constructed at the time a development permit is granted pursuant to this Section: MINIMUM TOWER SEPARATION DISTANCE Height of Height of Minimllm Exizting Tower Proposed Tower Separation Less than 50' Less than 50' 100' " 50'-100' 200' " 101'-150' 400' " 151 '-200' 800' 50'-I00' Less than 50' 100' " - 50'-100' 400' " 101'-150' 600' " 151 '-200' 800' 101'-150' Less than 50' 100' " 50'-100' 400' " 101'-150' 600' " t 51 ~-200' 800' 151'-200' Less than 50' 100' " 50'-100' 600' " 101'-150' 800' " 151 '-200' 1000' For the purpose of this subsection, the separation distances shall be measured by drawing or following a straight line between the center of the base of the existing or approved structure and the center of the proposed base, pursuant to a site plan of the proposed wireless communications tower. Standards for Co-location. This subsection is designed to foster shared use of wireless communications towers. (i) Construction of Excess Capacity. Any owner of a wireless communications tower shall permit other providers to install or co-locate antennae or wireless communications facilities on such towers, if available 17 space and structural capacity exists; provided, however, that no wirel:ss communications tower shall be used to support wireless communications facilities for more than three separate providers. Any co-location of wireless communications facilities shall be subject to mutually agreeable terms and conditions negotiated between the parties. All new wireless communications towers shall be constructed with excess capacity for co- location as follows: (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Less than 80 feet in height One additional user 80 feet to 119 feet in height Two or more additional users (up to a maximin of three users) 120 feet in height or greater Three additional users Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, all new monopole towers over 80 feet in height and existing monopole towers that are extended to a height over 80 feet shall be designed and built to accommodate at least two providers, and up to a maximum of three providers if technically possible. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, all new guyed towers, and existing guyed towers that are replaced or modified shall be designed and built to accommodate three providers. Site area. The site or leased footprint shall contain sufficient square footage to accommodate the equipment/mechanical facilities for all proposed providers based upon the structural capacity of the tower. Setbacks. If it is determined that a proposed wireless communications tower cannot meet setback requirements due to increases in tower height to accommodate the co-location of at least one additional wireless communications service provider, minimum setback requirements may be reduced by a maximum of fifteen (15) feet, unless such a reduction would decrease the distance between the base of the tower and the nearest lot line to less than twenty (20) pement of the tower height, in which case set-back requirements may be reduced to a distance that is equal to or greater than twenty (20) percent of the tower height. Tower Design and Type. (i) All proposed wireless communications towers shall be monopole towers or stealth towers. Self-supporting towers or guyed lattice towers shall only be permitted as a replacement of like structures. (ii) Utility pole-mounted facilities or extensions on utility poles to accommodate the mounting of wireless communications facilities shall be of the monopole type. 18 (iii) Antennas shall be of the m-cell variety whenever feasible or mounted internal to the wireless communications tower structure. (iv) Stealth wireless communications towers, equipment cabinets and related facihfies shall be required in all zoning districts. e) Landscaping Minimum Requirements. Wireless communications towers shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the tower compound from surrounding property. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip at least ten (10) feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. Existing mature growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In some eases, such as wireless communications towers sited on large, wooded lots, natural growth around the property perimeter may be a sufficient buffer. All areas disturbed during project construction shall be replanted with vegetation. The owner of a wireless communications tower is responsible for all landscaping obligations and costs. A landscaping plan for the purpose of screening the base of the tower from view shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the tower. The City may waive the enforcement of this condition if it is deemed unnecessary. f) Visual Impact Standards. To assess the compatibility with and impact on adjacent properties of a proposed wireless communications tower site, an applicant seeking to construct, relocate or modify a wireless communications tower may be required to submit a visual impact analysis. The requirements of this subsection shall be required for any application to construct a tower greater than 80 feet in height. The applicant may request a review of a proposed wireless communications tower location, prior to submission of an application, to determine whether or not a visual impact analysis will be required. The applicant shall be advised of the requirement to submit a visual impact analysis by the City within ten (10) working days following the City's receipt of the applicant's application for construction of a new wireless communication tower or the relocation or modification of an existing tower. (i) Whenever a visual impact analysis is required, an applicant shall utilize digital imaging technology to prepare the analysis in a manner acceptable to the City. At a minimum, a visual impact analysis must provide the following information: The location of the proposed wireless communications tower illustrated upon an aerial photograph at a scale of not more than one inch equals 300 feet (1" = 300'). All adjacent zoning districts within a 3,000 foot radius from all property lines of the proposed wireless communications tower site shall be indicated; and 19 (ii) (iii) A line of site analysis which sk"ll include the following information: certification that the proposed wireless communications tower meets or exceeds standards contained in this Section; identification of all significant existing natural and manmade features adjacent to the proposed wireless communications tower site and identification of features which may provide buffeting and screening for adjacent properties and pubhc rights-of-way; identification of at least three specific points within a 2,000 foot radius of the proposed wireless communications tower location, subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator, for conducting the visual impact analysis; copies of all calculations and- a description of the methodology used in selecting the points of view and collection of data submitted in the analysis; graphic illustration of the visual impact of the proposed wireless communications tower, at a scale that does not exceed 5 degrees of horizontal distance, presented fi-om the specific identified points; identificatiori of all screening and buffering mater/als under the permanent control of the applicant (only screening and buffering materials located within the boundaries of the proposed site shall be considered for the visual impact analysis); and identification of all screening and buffering materials that are not under the permanent conla'ol of the applicant but are considered of a permanent nature due to ownership or use patterns, such as a public park, vegetation preserve, required development buffer, etc. Screening and buffering materials considered in the visual impact analysis shall not be removed by future development on the site. However, screening and buffering materials considered in the visual impact analysis shall be replaced if they die. An applicant shall provide any additional information that may be required by the Zoning Administrator to fully review and evaluate the potential impact of the proposed wireless communications tower. 2O 14) Application Process for New Towers. The use of existing structures to locate wireless communications facilities shall be preferred to the construction of new wireless communications towers. To be eligible to construct a new wireless communications tower within City limits, an applicant must establish to the satisfaction of the City that the applicant is unable to provide the service sought by the applicant from available sites, including co- locations within the City and in neighboring jurisdictions; and the applicant must demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that no other suitable existing tower or antenna support structure is available, including utility poles; and that no reasonable alternative technology exists that can accommodate the applicant's wireless communications facility due to one or more of the following factors: (i) The structure provides insufficient height to allow the applicant's facility to function reasonably in parity with similar facilities; (ii) The structure provides insufficient structural strength to support the applicant's wireless communications facility; (iii) The structure provides insufficient space to allow the applicant's wireless communications facility to function effectively and reasonably in parity with similar equipment; (iv) Use of the existing structure would result in electromagnetic interference that cannot reasonably be corrected; (v) The existing structure is unavailable for lease under a reasonable leasing agreement; (vi) Use of the structure would create a greater visual impact on surrounding land uses than the proposed alternative or otherwise would be less in keeping with the goals, objectives, intent, preferences, purposes, criteria or standards of this Ordinance, the Land Use and Development Ordinance and land development regulations; and/or (vii) Other limiting factors. b) An applicant must submit any technical information requested by the City or its designated engineering consultant as part of the review and evaluation process. c) An application for a wireless communications permit to construct a wireless communications tower must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on the designated form and shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: 21 (i) Name, address and te'ephone number of the applicant; (ii) Proposed location of the wireless communications tower, along with all studies, maps and other information required by subsections 13 and 14 of this Section (applicant shall submit information for only one proposed tower per application); (iii) Number of applicant's wireless communications facilities to be located on the subject tower and the number of spaces available for co-location; (iv) A sworn and certified statement in writing by a qualified engineer that the wireless communications tower will conform to all requirements set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law; (v) An application fee in the amount set by the Council; (vi) A copy of all licenses and/or fi-anchises required by federal, state or local law for the construction and/or operation of a wireless communications system in the City;, (vii) A scaled site plan clearly indicating the location, type and height of the proposed wireless communications tower, on-site land uses and zoning, elevation and stealth design drawings of the proposed tower, topography, and any other information deemed by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary to assess compliance with this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance; (viii) An inventory of the applicant's existing towers and wireless communications facilities, if any, that are either within the jurisdiction of the City or within one mile of the City limits, including specific information about the location, height, and design of each wireless communications facility or tower; (ix) The names, addresses and telephone numbers of all owners of existing towers or antenna support structures within an area equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the search ring for the wireless communications facility proposed to be located on the proposed new tower; (x) Written documentation in the form of an affidavit that the applicant made diligent, but unsuccessful efforts for permission to install or co-locate the proposed wireless communications facility on all existing towers or antenna support structures located within an area equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the search ring for the proposed site of the wireless communications facility, 22 d) e) (xi) Written, technical evidence from a qualified engineer that the proposed wireless communications facility cannot be installed or co-located on an existing tower or antenna support structure located within the City and must be located at the proposed site in order to meet the coverage requirements of the proposed wireless communications service, together with a composite propagation study which illustrates graphically existing and proposed coverage in industry-accepted median received signal ranges; (xii) A written statement from a qualified engineer that the construction and placement of the proposed wireless communications tower will comply with Federal Communications Commission radiation standards for interference and safety and will produce no significant signal interference with public safety communications and the usual and customary transmission or reception of radio, television, or other communications services enjoyed by adjacent residential and non-residential properties; and (xiii) A certification that the applicant will comply with all applicable federal, state or local laws including all the provisions of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance. A proposed wireless communications tower that exceeds the height limitations for a permitted tower in the GB, CBD, I-1 or I-2 zoning districts, or any proposed wireless communications tower under eighty (80) feet in the R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4, or LB districts, shall only be allow, ed upon approval of a conditional use permit. The City Council may establish any reasonable conditions for approval that are deemed necessary to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the conditional use, to protect neighboring properties, and to achieve the objectives of this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Such a conditional use permit shall be required in addition to a wireless communications permit. In granting or denying a wireless communications permit to construct a wireless communications tower, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written record of decision including findings of fact. Proposed wireless communication towers that meet the standards and requirements contained herein, including location and height limitations, may be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator. Proposed wireless communication towers that do not meet the standards and requirements contained herein, including location and height limitations, may be denied administratively by the Zoning Administrator, provided that the written record of decision including findings of fact is accepted by the Council. 23 15) Annual Pegistration Requirement. Wireless Communications Facilities. To enable the City to keep accurate, up- to-date records of the location of wireless communications facilities within City limits, on an ann.al basis, no later than February 1 of each year, or upon change in ownership of wireless communications facilities, the owner/operator of such facilities shall submit documentation to the Zoning Administrator providing: (i) Certification in writing that the wireless communications facility conforms to the requirements, in effect at the time of construction of the facility, of the State Building Code and all other requirements and standards set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law by filing a sworn and certified statement by a qualified en~neer to that effect. A wireless communications facility owner/operator may be required by the City to submit more frequent certification should there be reason to believe that the structural and/or electrical integrity of the wireless communications facility is jeopardized. The City reserves the fight upon reasonable notice to the owner/operator of the wireless communications facility to conduct inspections for the purpose of determining whether the wireless communications facility complies with the State Building Code and all requirements and standards set forth in local, state or federal laws; and (ii) The name, address and telephone number of any new owner, if there has been a change of ownership of the wireless communications facility. Annual payment of a registration, fee, as set by the Council, for each wireless communications facility located within the City shall be submitted to the City at the time of submission of the documentation required above. b) Wireless Communications Towers. To enable the City to keep accurate, up-to- date records of the location and continued use of wireless communications towers with/n City limits, on an annual basis, no later than February 1 of each year, or upon change in ownership of a wireless communications tower, the owner/operator of each tower shall submit documentation to the Zoning Administrator providing: (i) Certification in writing that the wireless communications tower is structurally sound and conforms to the requirements, in effect at the time of construction of the tower, of the State Building Code and all applicable standards and requirements set forth in the City Code, and federal and state law, by filing a sworn and certified statement by a qualified engineer to that effect. The tower owner may be required by City to submit more frequent certifications should there be reason to believe that the structural and/or electrical integrity of the tower is jeopardized; 24 (ii) The number of providers located on the tower and their names, addresses and telephone numbers; (iii) The type and use of any wireless communications facilities located on the tower;, and (iv) The name, address and telephone number of any new owner of the tower, ii'there has been a change of ownership of the tower. An annual payment of a registration fee, as set by the Council, for each tower located within the City shall be submitted to the City at the time of submission of the documentation required above. 16) General Requirements. The following conditions apply to all wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities in the City: Duration of Permits. If substantial construction or installation has not taken place within one year after City approval of a wireless communications permit, the approval shall be considered void unless a petition for time extension has been granted by the City Council. Such a petition shall be submitted in writing at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the approval and shall state facts showing a good faith effort to complete the work permitted under the original permit. b) Assignment and Subleasing. No wireless communications facility, tower or antenna support structure or wireless communications permit may be sold, transferred or assigned without prior notification to the City. No sublease shall be entered into by any provider until the sublessee has obtained a permit for the subject wireless communications facility or tower or antenna support structure. No potential provider shall be allowed to argue that a permit should be issued for an assigned or .subleased wireless commtmications facility or tower or antenna support structure on the basis of any expense incurred in relation to the facility or site. c) Aesthetics. Wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities shall meet the following requirements: (i) Signs. No commercial signs or advertising shall be allowed on a wireless communications tower or a wireless communications facility. (ii) Lighting. No signals, lights, or illumination shall be permitted on a wireless communications tower or a wireless communications facility, unless required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the lighting alternatives and design chosen must cause the least obtrusiveness to the surrounding community. However, an applicant shall obtain approval fi-om the City if the Federal Aviation Administration requires the addition of standard obstruction 25 d) e) f) g) marking and lighting (i.e., red lighting and orange and white striping) to the tower. An applicant shall notify the Zoning Administrator prior to making any changes to the ori~nal finish of the tower. (iii) Graffiti. Any graffiti or other unauthorized inscribed materials shall be removed promptly or othenvise covered in a manner substantially similar to, and consistent, with the ori~nal exterior finish. The City may provide a wireless communications tower or equipment cabinet owner and/or operator written notice to remove or cover graffiti within a specific period of time or as required by other appropriate sections of the City Code as presently existing or as may be periodically amended. In the event the graffiti has not been removed or painted over by the owner and/or operator within the specified time period, the City shall have the right to remove or paint over the graffiti or other inscribed materials. In the event the City has to remove or paint over the graffiti, then the owner and/or operator of the wireless communications tower or equipment cabinet or structure on which the graffiti existed, shall be responsible for all costs incurred. Federal and State Requirements. All wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities must meet or exceed the standards and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communications towers and facilities. If such standards and regulations change, then the owners of the wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities subject to such standards and regulations must b .'.r~g such towers and facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to maintain or bring wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance and shall be subject to enforcement under the City Code. Penalties for violation may include fines and removal of the tower or wireless communications facility at the owner's expense. Licenses or Franchise. An owner of a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility must notify the City in writing within 48 hours of any revocation or failure to renew any necessary license or franchise. Discontinued Use. In the event the use of a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility is discontinued, the owner and/or operator shall provide written notice to the City of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use shall be discontinued. Abandoned Tower or Antenna. The City may require removal of any abandoned or unused wireless communications tower or wireless communications 26 facility by the tower or facihty owner within thirty (30) days after notice fi.om the City of abandonment. A wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility shall be considered abandoned if use has been discontinued for one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days. (i) Removal by City. Where a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility is abandoned but not removed within the specified time frame, the City may remove the facility or remove or demolish the tower and place a lien on the property following the procedures (but not the criteria) for demolition of an unsafe building/structure of the City's housing code. (ii) Towers Utilized for Other Purposes. Where a wireless communications tower is utilized for other purposes, including but not limited to light standards and power poles, it shall not be considered abandoned; provided, however, that the height of the tower may be reduced by the City so that the tower is no higher than necessary to accommodate previously established uses. (iii) Restoration of Area. Where a wireless communications tower or facility is removed by an owner, said owner, at no expense to the City, shall restore the area to as good a condition as prior to the placement of the tower or facility, unless otherwise instructed by the City. (iv) Surety or Letter of Credit for Removal. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a surety or letter of credit shall be submitted by the property owner(s) or tower operator(~) to ensure the removal of abandoned wireless communications towers. The surety or letter of credit shall be utilized to cover the cost of removal and disposal of abandoned towers and shall consist of the following: a. submission of an estimate from a certified structural engineer indicating the cost to remove and dispose of the tower; and either a surety or a letter of credit, equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost to remove and dispose of the tower. The form of the surety or the letter of credit shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney. h) FCC Emissions Standards. At all times, owners and/or operators of wireless communications facilities shall comply with the radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission. (i) Testing required. All existing and future wireless communications facilities shall be tested, not less frequently than annually, to determine if the radio frequency emissions from such facilities are in compliance with 27 i) J) all applicable federal, state and local regulations. Facihties that are in existence on the effective date of this Ordinance shall be tested within three months after the effective date of hereof, and annually thereafter as provided herein. (ii) Regulations. All existing and future providers shall perform the testing required by this Section. Procedures shall include supplying necessary testing equipment which has current certification fi.om an independent testing laboratory and shall include operating the equipment. (iii) Annual Statement. All providers shall submit an annual statement to the Zoning Administrator from an independent Federal Communications Commission EMR-certified and qualified engineer demonstrating compliance with the testing requirements of this Section. (iv) Costs. All testing and analysis of test results shall be at the cost of the provider conducting the test. (v) Inspections. The City reserves the fight to conduct random radio frequency emissions inspections. The cost for such random inspections shall be paid fi.om the wireless communications annual registration fees, unless an owner and/or operator is found to be in non-compliance with Federal Communications Commission RF emissions standards, whereupon the non-compliant owner and/or operator shall reimburse the City in full for the cost of the inspection. Maintenance. All wireless communications facilities, wireless communications towers and antenna support structures shall at all times be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair, and, maintained in stealth condition (if stealth or camouflage is a permit requirement). The same shall not menace or endanger the life or property of any person, and shall retain original characteristics. All maintenance or construction on a wireless communications tower, wireless communications facility or antenna support structure shall be performed by licensed maintenance and construction personnel. The City shall notify a provider in writing regarding any specific maintenance required under this Section. A provider shall make all necessary repairs within thirty (30) days of such notification. Failure to effect noticed repairs within thirty (30) days may result in revocation of a tower owner's or provider's permit and/or removal of the tower, wireless communications facility or antenna support structure. Emergency. The City reserves the right to enter upon and disconnect, dismantle or otherwise remove any wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility should the same become an immediate hazard to the safety of persons or property due to emergency circumstances, as determined by the Zoning Administrator or his designee, such as natural or manmade disasters or accidents, when the owner of any such tower or facility is not available to 28 immediately remedy the hazard. The City shall notify any said owner of any such action within twenty-four (24) hours. The owner and/or operator shall reimburse the City for the costs incurred by the City for action taken pursuant to this subsection. Equipment Cabinets. Equipment cabinets located on the ground shall be constructed out of non-reflective materials and shall be screened fi.om sight by mature landscaping and located or designed to minimize their visibility. All equipment cabinets shall be no taller than ten (10) feet in height, measured from the original grade at the base of the facility to the top of the structure, and occupy no more than four hundred (400) square feet in area, unless a waiver is granted by the City upon written request fi.om a provider. 1) Equipment On Site. No mobile or immobile equipment or materials of any nature shall be stored or parked on the site of a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility, unless used in direct support of a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility or for repairs to the wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility currently underway. m) Inspections. The City reserves the right upon reasonable notice to the owner/operator of a wireless communications tower or antenna support structure, including utility poles and rooftops, to conduct inspections for the purpose of determining whether the tower or other support structure and/or related equipment cabinet complies with the State Building Code and all applicable requirements and standards set forth in local, state or federal law and to conduct radiation measurements to determine whether all antenna and transmitting equipment are operating within Federal Communications Commission requirements. n) Security. (i) An owner/operator of a wireless communications tower shall provide a security fence or equally effective barrier around the tower base or along the perimeter of the wireless communications tower compound. (ii) If high voltage is necessary for the operation of the wireless communications tower or antenna support structure, "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" warnings signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or barrier and shall be spaced no more than 20 feet apart, or on each fence or barrier fi.ontage. (iii) "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be permanently attached to the fence or barrier and shall be spaced no more than 20 feet apart. (iv) The letters for the "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER" and "NO TRESPASSING" warning signs shall be at least six (6) inches in height. 29 The two war~ing signs may be combined into one sign. The warning signs shall be installed at least 4.5 feet above the firfished grade of the fence or barrier. o) Advances in Technology. All providers shall use and apply any readily available advances in technology that lessen the negative aesthetic effects of wireless communications facilities and wireless communications towers to the residential communities within the City. Every five (5) years, the City may review existing structures and compare the visual impact with available technologies in the industry for the purpose of removal, relocation or alteration of these smactures in keeping with the general intent of this Section. Such removal, relocation or alteration may be required by the City pursuant to its zoning power and authority. Review of Applications. The City shall process all applications for wireless communications towers and wireless communications facilities in a timely manner and in accordance with established procedures. The reason for the denial of any application filed in accordance with this provision shall be set forth in writing, and shall be supported by substantial evidence in a written record. 18) Appeals. At any time within 30 days after a written order, requirement, determination or final decision has been made by the Zoning Administrator or other official in interpreting or applying this Section, except for actions taken in connection with prosecutions for violations thereof, the applicant or any other person affected by such action may appeal the decision in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use and Development Ordinance. 19) Revocation. A material breach of any terms and conditions of a permit issued for a wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility under this Ordinance and the Land Use and Development Ordinance may result in the revocation by the City of the right to operate, utilize or maintain the particular tower or wireless communications facility within the City following written notification of the violation to the owner or operator, and after failure to cure or otherwise correct said violation within thirty (30) days. A violation of this Section shall be subject to enforcement in accordance with the Land Use and Development Ordinance. Penalties for a violation of a permit or this Section may include fines and removal of the wireless communications tower or wireless communications facility at the owner's expense." Section 3. CAPTIONS. The captions throughout this Ordinance are intended solely to facilitate reading and reference to the sections and provisions of this Ordinance. Such captions shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Ordinance. Section4. CALCULATION OF TIME. Unless othexwise indicated, when the performance or doing of any act, duty, matter or payment is required under this Ordinance, and a per/od of time or duration for the fulfillment of doing thereof is prescribed and is fixed herein, the time shall be computed so as to exclude the first and include the last day of the prescribed or fixed period of duration time. 30 Section 5. SEVERABILITY. If any term, condition or provision of this Ordinance shall, to any extent, be held to be invalid or unenforceable by a valid order of any court or regulatory agency, the remainder hereof shall be valid in all other respects and continue to be effective. In the event of a subsequent change in applicable law such that the provision which had been held invalid is no longer invalid, such provision shall thereupon return to full force and effect without further action by the City of Columbia Heights and shall thereafter be binding on the permittee and the City. Section 6. REPEAL OF LAWS IN CONFLICT. All City laws and ordinances in conflict with any provision of this Ordinance arc hereby repealed to thc extent of any conflict. Section 7. INCLUSION IN THE CITY CODE. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the City Code of the City of Columbia Heights. The sections of this Ordinance may renumbered or relettered to accomplish such, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or any other appropriate word. Section 8. NO RECOURSE AGAINST THE CITY. Every permit shall provide that, without limiting such immunities as the City or other persons may have under applicable law, a permittee shall have no monetary recourse whatsoever against the City or its elected officials, boards, commissions, agents, employees or volunteers for any loss, costs, expense or damage arising out of any provision or requirement of this Ordinance or because of the enforcement of this Ordinance or the City's exercise of its authority pursuant to this Ordinance, a permit, or other applicable law, unless the same shall be caused by criminal acts or by willful gross negligence. Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity. Section 9. EFFECTIVE DATE. The provisions of this Ordinance shall become effective upon adoption. 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: November 13, 2000 November 27, 2000 Offered by: Second by: Roll Call: Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Gary L. Peterson 31 CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting off November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings , ORIGINATING DEPT.: ~ CITY MANAGER NO: <9- ~'[ Community Development ~ APPROVAL ITEM: Ordinance # 1425, Second Reading BY: Tim Johnson 7'"f BY: :fi~'~.~ ~"'// NO: Vacating certain alleys and easements DATE: November 20, 2000 t~ ,2'..~'~. Issue Statement: NEI and Real Estate Equities are requesting to vacate certain alleys and easements identified in Ordinance # 1425. Background: The project has a rather extensive backgro'und, in which public hearings were started in April 2000. Analysis: According to the City of Columbia Heights requirements, vacations of alleys and easements require the City Council to adopt an ordinance identifying any proposed vacations. The vacation of certain alleys and easements proposed requires two readings by the City Council before adoption. The applicants have proposed to vacate all drainage and utility easements on Lot 1, Block 2, Northwestern Addition as dedicated in said plat. This vacation is only proposed to vacate current City utility easements, not utility company easements. The other vacations are two alley right-of-ways identified in the legal descriptions provided in Ordinance # 1425. In conjunction with this vacation, the newly adopted plat will create new easements of record. Recommendation: Recommend to approve certain alley and easement vacations identified in Ordinance # 1425. Recommended Motions: Move to waive the reading of Ordinance 1425, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to approve Ordinance 1425, which is an Ordinance vacating certain alleys and easements for Northwestern Addition, as the proposal is in compliance with the City Subdivision and Engineering Requirements. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. 1425 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.853 CITY CODE OF 1977, VACATING CERTAIN ALLEYS AND EASEMENTS The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: Section 1: The City of Columbia Heights herewith vacates the public alleys over, across, and under the following described property, to wit: All of the alley adjacent to Lots 1 and 2, Block 38, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ANNEX TO MINNEAPOLIS, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, lying between the westerly extensions of the north line of said Lot 1 and the south line of said Lot 2; All of the alley adjacent to Lots 29 and 30, Block 39, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ANNEX TO MINNEAPOLIS, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, lying between the easterly extensions of the north line of said Lot 30 and the south line of said Lot 29. All of the drainage and utility easements on Lot 1, Block 2, NORTHWESTERN ADDITION as dedicated in said plat. Section 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after thirty (30) days after its passage. First Reading: November 13, 2000 Second Reading: Date of Passage: Offered By: Seconded By: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meeting off November 27 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: (.~ ~- ~' 'i~lllll~- Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Ordinance #'s 1411 and 1423, 2ha Reading BY: Tim Johnson Tj'" BY:~//~/~e~ NO: Rezoning requests DATE: November 20, 2000 Issue Statement: This is a request to rezone the properties at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, 4156 Central Avenue NE, and 4157 Jackson Street NE from R-2 (single and two-family residential) and CBD (Central Business District), to R-4 (multi-family residential). Background: The project has a rather extensive background which is summarized in the attached staff report. Analysis: According to the City of Columbia Heights requirements, rezonings require the City Council adopt an ordinance identifying the proposed rezoning. The rezoning of the parcels described above requires two readings by the City Council before adoption. There are two ordinances describing the parcels to be rezoned. Ordinance # 1411 is an Ordinance from the original rezoning request to allow for the rezoning of 825 41st Avenue NE from R-2 (single and two-family residential) to R-4 (multi-family residential), and the rezoning of 4150 Central Avenue NE and 4156 Central Avenue NE from CBD (Central Business District) to. R-4 (multi- family residential). Ordinance # 1423 is an Ordinance rezoning the Ostrander parcel at 4157 Jackson Street NE, from R-2 (single and two-family residential) to R-4 (multi-family residential). Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance # 1423 (attached), which is an ordinance rezoning the subject property at 4157 Jackson Street NE to R-4 (multi-family residential). Staff also recommends approval of Ordinance # 1411 (attached), which is an ordinance rezoning the subject property at 825 41 st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, to R-4 (multi-family residential). Recommended Motions: Rezonings Move to waive the reading of Ordinance # 1423, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to approve Ordinance # 1423, which is an ordinance rezoning 4157 Jackson Street from R-2 (single and two-family residential) to R-4 (multi-family residential), as the rezoning is consistent ~vith the City Comprehensive Plan. Move to waive the reading of Ordinance # 1411, there being ample copies available to the public. Move to approve Ordinance # 1411, which is an ordinance rezoning 825 41st Avenue from R-2 (single and two-family residential) to R-4 (multi-family residential), and rezoning of 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE from CBD (Central Business District) to R-4 (multi-family residential), as the rezoning is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: ORDINANCE NO. 1423 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853, CITY CODE OF 1977, PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: That certain property legally described as Lots 29 and JO, Block 39, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis To authorize and direct staff to amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from R-2, One ard Two Family Residential District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from m~d after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: November 13, 2000 Second Reading: November 27, 2000 Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1411 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853, CITY CODE OF 1977, PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: Section 4: Section 5: Section 6: Section 7: That certain property legally described as Lot 1, Block 2, Northwestern Addition. To authorize and direct staff to amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from R-2, One and Two Family Residential District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. That certain property legally described as Lot 2 and the south 11 feet of Lot 1, Block 38, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis. To authorize and direct staff to amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from. CBD, Central Business District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. That certain property legally described as Lot 2, except the south 11 feet, Block 38, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis. To authorize and direct staff to amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from CBD, Central Business District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. First Reading: November 13, 2000 Second Reading: November 27, 2000 Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk See staff report attached to Case #2000-0408, Final PUD, City Council Letter. ORDINANCE NO. 1423 BEING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 853, CITY CODE OF 1977, PERTAINING TO THE REZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY Section 1: Section 2: Section 3: That certain property legally described as Lots 29 and 30, Block 39, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis To authorize and direct staff to amend the official zoning map to reflect the change in zoning from R-2, One and Two Family Residential District, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, upon the effective date of said ordinance. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days alter its passage. First Reading: November 13, 2000 Second Reading: November 27, 2000 Date of Passage: Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Mayor Gary L. Peterson Patricia Muscovitz, Deputy City Clerk See staff report attached to Case #2000-0408, Final PUD, City Council Letter. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS Meeting of: November 27, 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Public Hearings ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER NO:/or'J- Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Public Hearings Second Reading BY: Kenneth R. Anderson Ordinance No. 1426, Being an Ordinance DATE: November 21, 2000 Designatin~ Permit Parking Only. ISSUE STATEMENT: This is a request to conduct the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1426, Being an Ordinance Designating Pemfit Parking Only from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Holidays on the north side of 41 ~t Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the south side of 41st Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley ~vest of Central Avenue and on the east side of Jackson Street south of 42nd Avenue N.E. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The City of Columbia Heights has been working with a developer, Real Estate Equities Development Company, Inc. of St. Paul, Minnesota on our proposed redevelopment project within the "Transition Block" between 41 st Avenue N.E. and 42"d Avenue N.E. and immediately west of Central Avenue to Jackson Street N.E. The Transition Block involves the development of 22 affordable rental townhouses and a 50 unit assisted senior living facility. The project requires certain rezoning, preliminary and final plat, tax increment financing plan, and preliminary and final planned unit development approvals. In order for the developer to meet the conditions within the purchase agreement with N.E.I. College of Tectmology, it is necessary that permit parking be designated for a total of 44 spaces on 41st Avenue and Jackson Street immediately adjacent to N.E.I. This on-street permit parking combined with the on-site parking improvements will allow N.E.I. to maintain a combined minimum of 500 spaces for use by staff and students. Accordingly, the PUD Agreement specifies that a parking ordinance will be established ~vhich designates permit parking only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays along the referenced street right-of-ways. As this permit parking requires approval by ordinance, the Traffic Commission considered this request submitted by the developer at their meeting of November 6, 2000. The Traffic Commission's recommendation to deny this request was submitted for action by the City Council on November 13, 2000. You will find attached a draft of Ordinance 1426 as well as a notice dated November 27, 2000 that was mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties within 300 feet of the area to be designated for permit parking only. RECOMMENDATION: The Council scheduled the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 1426 for November 27, 2000. MOTION: Move to ~vaive the Reading of Ordinance No. 1426, there being ample copies available to the public. MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance No. 1426, Being an Ordinance designating permit parking from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, on the north side of 41st Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the south side of 41s~ Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the east side of Jackson Street south of 42nd Avenue N.E. Attachments COUNCIL ACTION: H:',consent\Ordinance 1426-2nd Reading PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ([--) · ENGINEERING ° STREETS 637 38TH AVENUE N. E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3806 (763) 706-3700 FAX 706-3701 · PARKS November 15, 2000 Dear Owner,'Occupant At their regular meeting on November 13, the City Council discussed the multi-family housing and assisted-living care facility proposed for the easterly part of NEI's property. To provide additional parking tbr NEI, the Council passed the first reading ora proposed parking ordinance allowing 44 on-street parking spaces be desibmat,::d as "Permit Parking Only, 7:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M., Monday - Friday, Except Holidays". The school is requesting 33 parallel parking spaces on 41 ~t Avenue betxveen Quincy Street and Central Avenue (18 on the north side and 15 on the south side) and 11 parallel parking spaces on the east side of Jackson Street, south of 42"a Avenue be permitted parking for NEI. A plan showing the location of the parking spaces is shown belo~v. ,7' The second and final reading of the ordinance will be at the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. on November 27, 2000. The Council welcomes your comments concerning the parking ordinance and the proposed redevelopment. The meeting is held at City Hall in the Council Chamber. If you have any questions concerning the proposed parking ordinance or the redeveloprnent of the NE! property, please call Ken Anderson, Community Development Director at 763-706-3672. Sincerely, Assistant City Engineer THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY 1N EMPLOYMENT O~ THE PROVISION OF SERVICES TDD (763) 706-3692 Phone message from Diane Thompson who lives on Van Buren St. left on Kathy Young's phone on 11/10/00 at 12:28 p.m. re. designating permit parking only letter she has received on parking around NEI on 41 st Ave.. She requests "residents only" parking permits on Van Buren St. because we already get NEI overflow with students parking in front of our homes and we don't have a place to park. The residents on Van Buren St. should get "resident permit only parking" on Van Buren St. to accommodate us because if you put permit only on other streets, there will be overflow on our street in front of us and we won't be able to park. That is my request. I think it's a very necessary thing to be done. It is also fair for the residents in the community as NEI is taking up so much space even though they have given up some for development, they are benefitting from this. Residents should remain in possession of our parking on Van Buren St. Phone call from Jim Wilson (782-6858) of 4056 Central Ave. left a message on Friday, 11/10/00 at 3:32 p.m. on Kathy Young's voice mail. Mr. Wilson is not sure he can make the meeting on Monday night regarding the NEI parking. He opposes it - 5 spaces near comer and 3 spaces closest to Central Avenue. NEI has sold for a profit. It's their problem where their people park and there is a City parking ramp nearby. Columbia Ventures, LLC 220 Wexford Heights Dr. New Brighton, MN 55112 RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2000 PUBLIC WORKs November 10. 2000 Kathy Young City of Columbia Heights Columbia Heights, MN Re: Parking on municipal streets Dear Ms. Young: As the owner of the building oat 4056 Central Ave.N.E., I object to the 5 and 3 spaces designated as parking for NEI. The spaces along the side of our building are for one hour only, and there is little parking on Central. I would expect that usually these spaces are available, and would not object to people parking at the spaces, but would object to them being exclusively used for one business. Obviously the owners of the NEI building are selling their land at a profit. It therefore cannot be justified to take city streets as their parking area as a form of eminent domain without some consideration to the city for the maintenance and rental of the city streeets. There is a city parking lot not that distant which can be used excess parking, or long term parking. / Sincoqely, '/_tx~ .,,* Jim Wilson PUBI,!C WORKS CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ([--) ' ~, " ENGIN~CF, RI~(, 637 38th AVENUE N. E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3806 (763) 706-37~ FAX 706-3701 · PARhlS November 7, 2000 Dear Owner/Occupant As you may know, a portion of thc NEI parking lm is proposdd l'~r redevelopment i?~?.: vnaiti-!'z=nti!v hou~<in~z and an assisted-living care facility· NEI is giving tip approximately 1/3 of their east t~ar":dni.~ lot fi;;' Ihc-;edc¥chJ~m~ent projerzt. As pat1 of the agreement, NE1 i:; rctiucstit~g 44 on-street parking spaces h,: dcs;is~:r~a!ed as; "Permit Pa, rking Only, 7:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M., Monday - Friday, Except [lolidays". 'l'he school is ]'ccues'~-Jn~ 33 pa:aiiei parl,:ing spaces on 41~t Avenue between Quincy Street and Ccntzal Avenue (1S on the north >'~dc zz~-t3' 1~5 on the :,ot;;.h side) and 11 parallel parking spat:cs on thc east side of Jackson Street, south of42"a Ax c:nuc bc pormittcd parking CqEI. A plan showing the location ol'the parking spaces is shown below. Sincerely Assistant Ci tv Engi n~ ~..~' OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TRAFFIC COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2000 The meeting of the Traffic Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Ed Carlson. I. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Carlson, Goodman, Stumpf, Anderson, Sturdevant Kathyjean Young, Assistant City Engineer Don Jolly, City Council Member II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 2, 2000 MINUTES Motion by Goodman, second by Stumpf, to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2000 meeting. Motion carried unanimously III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. OTHER OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS mo REQUEST TO DESIGNATE "PERMIT PARKING ONLY, 7:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M., MONDAY - FRIDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS" ON 41sT AVENUE AND JACKSON STREET ADJACENT TO NEI As part of the proposed redevelopment at the NEI site, the school is requesting 33 parallel parking spaces on 41 st Avenue between Quincy Street and Central Avenue (18 on the north side of 41s~ Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and 15 on the south side of 41st Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley west of Central Avenue) and 11 parallel parking spaces on the east side of Jackson Street, south of 42nd Avenue be designated as "Permit Parking Only, 7:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M., Monday - Friday, except Holidays". This request is to meet the number of parking spaces required by NEI as part of the development a~eement. Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission November 6, 2000 Page 2 VI. Police Chief Johnson was not present at the meeting but spoke with Chairperson Carlson by phone and stated that he was not in favor of on-street parking as he felt it would set a precedent. Chairperson Carlson stated he felt parking was on a first come first serve basis and was against the request for on-street parking. He also noted that the City has a 6-hour parking ordinance and, as this request exceeds that parking limit, an ordinance change would be necessary should the parking by permit be implemented. He suggested that this request go directly to the City Council but a letter be sent notifying residents in the area of the proposed permit parking. Commissioner Sturdevant informed staff prior to the meeting that he was not in favor of permit parking. Both the Public Works Department and the Police Department have reservations entering into this type of an on-street parking permit system. Staff encouraged a Public Hearing be called to receive comments from the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Carlson indicated he did not see the need for the Traffic Commission to hold a Public Hearing and suggested it be discussed at the November 13th meeting of the City Council. Mr. Chuck Dettman of NEI along with Chris Winter of Real Estate Equities and Shirley Barnes of Crestview were present at the meeting to answer any questions. Kathyjean Young, Assistant City Engineer, indicated that at present parking is sufficient with 460 spaces available to NEI. She suggested that if the spaces required by NEI are part of the development agreement, that nothing be done at this time and the parking permits be looked at when the enrollment increases. Motion by Stumpf, second by Goodman, to deny the request to designate "Permit Parking Only, 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday - Friday, Except Holidays" on the north side of 41 st Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the south side of 41st Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the east side of Jackson Street, south of 42"d Avenue and to notify property owners within 300' of the proposed permit parking that the request is on the agenda of the City Council on November 13, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER NEW BUSiNESS None Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission November 6, 2000 Page 3 VII. VIII. REPORTS A. Co CITY ENGINEER The first Monday in January falls on a holiday. Staff requests an alternate day be designated for the Traffic Commission meeting. At the December meeting an alternate date of January 3rd will be considered. POLICE CHIEF None. COMMISSIONERS Chairperson Carlson mentioned that the A & W restaurant on 40th Avenue is going to re-open. He was wondering about exiting on 40th Avenue. As no changes are being made to the existing property, there is no problem with the exit in its present location. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Goodman, second by Carlson, to adjoum the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Traffic Commission Secretary CITY COUNCIL LETTER Meetin off November 27 2000 AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Case # 2000-0408, FinalPUD BY: Tim Johnson 5'3' BY: ~~....~ NO: 825 41't Ave NE, 4150 Central Ave NE, 4157 DATE: November 20, 2000 Jackson, and 4156 Central Ave. NE Issue Statement: This is a request for conditional use approval of a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the construction of a 50 unit senior assisted living building and 22 affordable rental townhome units. Backeround: The project has a rather extensive background which is summarized in the attached staff report. The Planning Commission had recommended in April 2000, that the City Council adopt the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan. The City Council heard the reque.s.t in April, June, and November 2000, and recommended to approve the Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Development on November 13, 2000. The Planning Commission will be meeting on Monday, November 27, 2000, at 6:00 p.m to review and approve the conditional use permit for the Final Planned Unit Development. The Planning Commission will take action on this request at 6:00 p.m., and the City Council will then take action on the Final Planned Unit Development Plan at the meeting starting at 7:00 p.m. Analysis: The attached staff report contains a technical zoning analysis for the proposed project. In addition to information contained in the report, there are some issues that will need resolution prior to final approval of the development. These are summarized below. 1. On-street parking. There are 44 on-street permit parking spaces proposed along 41~t Avenue NE and Jackson Street NE. The Traffic Commission reviewed the proposal on Nov. 6, 2000, and recommended denial of the proposal for NEI on-street permit parking. The City Council had a first reading for the proposed parking ordinance on November 13, 2000, and decided to pass the first reading of the parking ordinance which is scheduled for a second reading 9n November 27, 2000. 2. Utilities. At the April 4, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and at the November 13, 2000, City Council meeting, a number of citizens voiced concerns about the ability of the storm water and sanitary sewer systems to handle any increase from the proposed project. The utility plans have been reviewed by the Public Works Department which has determined that the proposed development will not increase the amount of stormwater runoff, and the sanitary sewer and water utilities are adequately designed. Recommendation: During their meeting of November 13, 2000, the City Council reviewed the proposal and voted to recommend approval of the Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan. The Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000, prior to the City Council and will submit recommendations on the Final Planned Unit Development to the City Council. Motion: Final Plan for the Planned Unit Development Move to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the Final Planned Unit Development and accompanying PUD Agreement at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, 4157 Jackson Street, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions. City Council adoption of Ordinances 1411 and 1423, rezoning the subject properties to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District. City Council adoption of Parking Ordinance #1426, to allow for 44 NEI only on-street permit parking spaces. Directional changes in the public alley shall be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier and guardrail shall be provided at the point where the alley turns away from Central Avenue to travel AGENDA SECTION: Items for Consideration ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER NO: Community Development APPROVAL ITEM: Case # 2000-0408, Final PUD BY: Tim Johnson Z4' BY: NO: 825 41St Ave NE, 4150 Central Ave NE, DATE: November20, 4157 Jackson, and 4156 Central Ave. NE 2000 around the proposed senior building, as well as a fence erected along the alley abutting Outlot B for safety measures. All engineered plans and specifications are subject to City Engineer review and approval. The turning radius at the comer of the 14 foot wide alley intersection with the 23 foot wide alley (Outlot D) is subject to City Engineer review and approval. Landscape materials and plantings must be guaranteed to survive a minimum of two years. Replacement plantings to be installed at the sole expense of the developer in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. Successful negotiation and approval of a development agreement(s) between the applicant and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority/City of Columbia Heights. Attachments · Completed application form; Police Department comments; Fire Department comments; and Public Notice. · Also please refer to plans attached: PUD Agreement; Final Plat; Final Grading and Utility Plans; Site Plan; rental unit elevations and floor plans; and a Final Landscaping Plan. COUNCIL ACTION: Case: 2000-0408 Page: I STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE NOVEMBER 27, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING Case #: 2000-0408, Conditional Use Permit for Final Planned Unit Development GENERAL INFORMATION Owner: NEI College of Technology "Applicant: Address: 825 41't Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Owner: Address: Larry & Patricia Truehart 4156 Central Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Real Estate Equities 325 Cedar St., Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55101 (651) 227-6925 Owner: Address: Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (590 40th Avenue NE) 4150 Central Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Parcel Addresses: 825 41st Avenue NE, 4157 Jackson Street NE, 4156 Central Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE Zoning: 825 41't Avenue NE is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential 4156 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District 4150 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District 4157 Jackson Street NE is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential Comprehensive Plan: C - Commercial, MDR - Medium Density Residential SUrrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Zoning North: R-2 and RB South: CBD and R-3 East: CBD West: R-2 Land Use North: Residential and Commercial South: Comm., Res., Institutional East: Commercial West: Residential Explanation of Request: BACKGROUND Case: 2000-0408 Page: 2 This is a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the construction of a 50 unit senior assisted living building and 22 units of affordable rental townhomes. The rental townhomes will consist of four buildings (see attached site plans). Buildings 1 and 2 will contain six units each, and Buildings 3 and 4 will both contain five units. The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Planned Unit Development in April 2000, and the City Council approved the Preliminary Planned Unit Development at their November 13, 2000 meeting. The affordable rental units will be developed at ! 3.33 units per acre. The development will be a combination of 19 Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units and 3 Hollman units Multiple Housing Opportunities Program (MHOP). The following provides an approximate summary of rents. M_HOP Units · One 2-bedroom unit $260 per month · One 3-bedroom unit $260 per month · One 4-bedroom unit $260 per month LIHTC Units · Seven 2-bedroom units $655 per · Five 3-bedroom units $755 per · Four 3-bedroom deluxe units $755 per · Three 4-bedroom units $830 per month month month month The assisted living senior building will consist of 50 units consisting of a total of 68 beds. There will be a total of 41 assisted living units and 9 memory care units. Case Histo~_ : During the spring of 1998, the Minnesota Design Team visited Columbia Heights for a weekend and held two town meetings to facilitate community discussion and make recommendations for improvements. One of their recommendations was the creation of a transition block on the subject property which would consist of a variety of life cycle housing opportunities. In response to this recommendation, the City applied for $771,000 of Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds from the Metropolitan Council to help finance the project. At the time of the application, the project consisted of 18 affordable rental units, 70 affordable independent living senior units, and 26 owner-occupied townhomes. In December, 1998, the City was informed that we were awarded a grant in the amount of $575,000 for the project, $30,000 of which was budgeted for the completion of a Master Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Columbia Heights. Please note that the grant application was prepared in cooperation with Real Estate Equities Development Company (the applicant) and Crest View Corporation which is partnering with Real Estate Equities on the assisted living senior building. 825 41 st Avenue NE contains NE[ College of Teclmology which has occupied the property since 1982. The original building was constructed in 1926 and was added to in 1951. It was first used Case: 2000-0408 Page: 3 as the High School for Independent School District 13 and was later turned into the Junior High School. 4150 Central Avenue NE is currently a vacant lot owned by the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA). 4156 Central Avenue NE is currently occupied by Citywide Locksmith, which has agreed to sign a letter of intent to sell this property. The closing date is set for December 20, 2000. The property at 4157 Jackson Street has recently been acquired by Real Estate Equities. ANALYSIS Surrounding Property: The surrounding property on the east is zoned CBD, Central Business District and is used commercially. The property to the north is zoned both RB, Retail Business, and R-2, One and Two Family Residential. The property zoned RB is currently being constructed as an office complex. Most of the property to the north is used residentially. The property to the south is also a combination of commercial, residential, and institutional. The area to the west of the subject property is zoned R-2 and is used residentially. Technical Review: Rezoning As mentioned above, 4157 Jackson Street and 825 41 ~t Avenue NE are zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential; 4156 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District; and 4150 Central Avenue NE is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The applicants have requested to rezone all four properties to R-4, Multiple Family'Residential, which requires a second reading at the City Council meeting on November 27, 2000 for passage. Applicable permitted uses in the R-4 District include multiple family dwelling structures, nursing homes, and public and private schools. Multiple family dwelling structures and nursing homes are not permitted in the R-2 or CBD Districts, so the rezonings are necessary to accommodate the proposed uses. The draft 2000 Comprehensive Plan designates the area for future transit-oriented development and it is also identified as a potential redevelopment area. The Plan states that areas designated for transit- oriented development will include service-oriented commercial/retail development with high- density residential development providing the balance of the development. The proposal is consistent with this recommendation. Planned Unit Development The purpose of a Planned Unit Development is to encourage flexibility in the design and development of land in order to promote its appropriate use. The following requirements apply to the Plarmed Unit Development. 1. The tract of land shall be served with city sewer and water and have not less than 75 feet of public right-of-way frontage. The subject property is served by city sewer and water, and the property geatly exceeds 75 feet of frontage. 2. No principal building shall be nearer than its height to the rear or side lot line when such line abuts an R- 1 or R-2 District. Provided that the rezonings are approved, the proposed lots will not abut an R-1 or R-2 District. Case: 2000-0408 Page: 4 No building within the development shall be nearer to another building than ½ the sum of the height of the two buildings. The project as proposed meets this requirement. Private accessways should be 24 feet or more in width. All accessways proposed shall have final review and approval by Public Works. No building shall be located less than 15 feet from the back of the curb on roadways and accessways, and 3 feet on service roads. The proposed senior building will be roughly 20 feet from the back of the curb along Central Avenue and 37 feet from the back of the curb along 42nd Avenue NE. The proposed Building 2 of the rental units will be roughly 30 feet from the back of the curb along 41't Avenue NE, and the proposed Building 4 is 25 feet from the existing alley. .. Guest parking ratio shall be one space for each four units with no unit having a distance greater than 200 feet to such space. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 spaces for each dwelling unit in the R-4 District, one of which shall be a garage, so 33 spaces are required for the rental units (17 garage spaces). Also, 6 additional spaces are required for the guest parking ratio. The proposal includes 44 spaces (22 garage) for the rental units which meets minimum parking requirements as 39 total spaces are required. An open space system shall be designed showing recreational areas equal to at least 10% of the site area and served by a pedestrian oriented path system. It is intended that natural areas be included as part of the open space system. The proposal includes a sidewalk system which will serve the rental units, connecting that portion of the development to 41st Avenue NE. Also included in the proposal is an open area between buildings 4 and 3 on Lot 1 which is approximately 6,800 square feet in size. Please note that the subject property does not currently contain any "nhtural" areas, but the applicants have proposed landscaping in a manner that will make it a passive amenity for the project. The pond area is roughly 9,539 square feet in size. This along with the open area combines for approximately 17% open space. The applicants have submitted a landscape plan that proposes plantings along 41" Avenue and plantings in and surrounding the townhome buildings. There are also plantings proposed around the senior complex. The applicants have not proposed any landscaping along 42nd Avenue between Jackson Street and Van Buren Street NE. A sewer-water public utility system to serve the project shall be submitted, said system shall indicate a fire hydrant distribution to the approval of the Fire Chief and in total to the City Council. The proposed systems have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Fire Departments. A street light system shall be submitted for approval and all wires shall be below g-round. Staff has reviewed a revised lighting plan that does not exceed three foot candles at the property line. Parking and Traffic Circulation As mentioned above, guest parking ratio shall be one space for each four units with no unit having a distance greater than 200 feet to such space. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance requires 1.5 spaces for each dwelling unit in the R-4 District, one of which shall be a garage, so 33 spaces are required for the rental units (17 garage spaces). Also, 6 additional spaces are Case: 2000-0408 Page: 5 required for the guest parking ratio. The proposal includes 44 spaces (22 garage) for the rental units which meets minimum parking requirements, as 39 total spaces are required. The amount of parking proposed for the rental units meets requirements. For the purposes of parking and zoning requirements, the assisted living senior building is being compared to a nursing home. Please note that the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically identify assisted living senior facilities as a use, so the most closely related use would be a nursing home. A nursing home requires at least one parking space for each two beds for which accommodations are offered. However, according to assisted living industry standards, one parking space is required for each two units provided. The proposed assisted living building will have 50 units, so a total of 25 parking spaces are required for the building, with 25 spaces proposed. The proposal indicates that 456 spaces will remain on-site for use by NEI College of Technology. The Zoning Ordinance requires vocational schools to have one parking space tbr every 2 1/8 students based upon actual enrollment which is the ~eatest number of students enrolled and are in attendance at one time. According to information provided to staff, NEI currently has 350 full-time students and 250 part-time students (600 total). Based on the minimum parking regulations, they are required to have 282 on-site spaces. As mentioned above, 456 spaces will remain on-site which exceeds minimum parking requirements for NEI. NEI College of Technology has maintained the position that they will need 500 parking spaces to meet projected parking demands. As a result, the development proposal includes 44 on-street 'NEI permit parking only' spaces from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, which will be utilized on Jackson Street and 41st Avenue NE. The proposed development will utilize an existing access from 42nd Avenue and a new access will be created off41 st Avenue. Please note that the Traffic Commission has reviewed the proposed accesses and recommended approval. Miscellaneous The Police Department has stated that they are supportive of the assisted living senior building component of the project, but they suggest that secure parking and adequate lighting be provided to deter theft and vandalism. They also stated that they have some concerns with the affordable rental component. They are concerned that the City currently has several areas of high density residential that take a great deal of City resources. Please refer to the attached Memo dated March 27, 2000, from the Police Chief for more detailed information regarding these concerns. Summary: The positive aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the City Comprehensive Plan and Life Cycle Housing Study. 2. The development will provide needed housing opportunities for seniors. 3. The proposal will provide new residential development near the downtown area which creates the possibility of increased activity to support area businesses. Case: 2000-0408 Page: 6 The negative aspects of this proposal are as follows: 1. The proposal maximizes the amount of space available to accommodate parking demand. 2. Removing the owner-occupied townhouse units which were part of the original application eliminate much needed life-cycle community housing options. 3. The on-street parking proposal would allow parking only for NEI use between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, which would prevent parking by the general public on the public right-of-way during these hours. CONCLUSION Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Final Planned Unit Development subject to the conditions listed in the recommended motion. At this point, the Planning and Zoning Commission will be meeting November 27, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. to recommend City Council action on the Final Planned Unit Development at approximately 7:00 p.m. Recommended Motions: Move to recommend City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Final Planned Unit Development and accompanying PUD Agreement at 825 41st Avenue NE, 4157 Jackson Street NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, subject to the following conditions. 1. City Council adoption of Ordinances # 1411 and 1423, rezoning the subject properties to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District. 2. City Council adoption of Parking Ordinance # 1426, to allow for 44 'NEI on-street permit parking only' spaces. 3. Directional changes in the public alley shall be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier and guardrail shall be provided at the point where the alley tums away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building, as well as a fence erected along the alley abutting Outlot B for safety measures. 4. All engineered plans and specifications are subject to City Engineer review and approval. 5. The turning radius at the comer of the 14 foot wide alley intersection with the 23 foot wide alley (Outlot D) is subject to City Engineer review and approval. 6. Landscape materials and plantings must be guaranteed to survive a minimum of two vears. Replacement plantings to be installed at the sole expense of the developer in accordance ~vith the approved landscaping plan. 7. Successful negotiation and approval of a development agreement(s) between the applicant and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority/City of Columbia Heights. Attach merits: · Application form: Police Department and Fire Department Comments; Public Notice Also please refer to plans attached: PUD Agreement; final plat; final grading and utility plans; site plan; rental unit elevations and floor plans; and a landscaping plan. CITY OP COLUI~IA HEIGHTS Application For: Rezoni~tg Variance Privacy Fence ----' Condi:ional Use Permi= Subdivision Approval , St~e Plan Appr~al ~. Stree: Address of SubJecz Property: 825 41 st, , Street. Columbia Hei.ghts.,, 2. Legal De$crip~ion of Suhjec: Proper~y, Lot 1&2, Block 38, and Lots 29&30, Block 39, Columbia Heights Annex to 'Minneapolis, Lot 1, Block 2 Northwestern A~%~,: Anoka County, Minnesota ~ame~ Columbia Heights Transition Block LLC Add:ess: 325 Cedar Street - Suite 400 St. 'Paul, MN 551 01 Phone.. 651 -227-6925 4. O~o,e r: Name: Address: Phone, Descript£on of Request: Request for Final PUD approval for proposed 22 unit apartment building and a 50 unit assisted living building Applicable City Ordinance Numbez~Section Present Proposed lonln~ ~-~ Reason for Reques=: 8. Exhibits Submi:ted (maps, diairams, etc.) Acknowledgment and $i~nature:' The undersisned hereby represents upon all of the penal~ies of !ay, for the pu~ose o£ inducini ~he City o[ Columbia Heith~s ~o take ~he ac~£on herein requested, tha~ all s~a~ements herein are true and tha~ all work herein mentioned vill be done in accordance w£~h ~e Ordinances o£ ~he City o£ Columbia Heights and the laws of ~he S~a~e of Hiu~.~esota. '~ ~ .. Taken MEMBERS Thomas Ramsdell, Chair Ted Yehle Donna Schmitt Stephan Johnson Tamara Ericson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Hall Conference Room of City Hall, 590 N.E. 40th Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000. The order of business is as follows: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Final Planned Unit Development on the property located at 825 N.E. 41" Avenue, 4150 Central Avenue, 4157 Jackson Street, and 4156 Central Avenue for the construction of a 50 unit assisted living building and 22 rental townhome units. All persons having an interest in the program will be given the opportunity to be heard. If you have any questions, you may contact Tim Johnson, City Planner, at 763-706-3678. 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 706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/706-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) COLU~IBIA HEIGHTS POLICE DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: ,roe Hollman, City Planner / Thomas M. Johnson, Chief of Police(~0 Case #2000-20407 and 2000-0408, Rezoning of N-EI Property March 27, 2000 The Police Department has no issues with case #2000-0407. Reference case #2000-0408, the Police Department is supportive of the 50 unit assisted living senior building designated for the southwest comer of this property. We would suggest the addition-if it is not akeady in the plan-of underg-round secure parking for both residents and employees. As you ,know from past experience, vehicle theft, vehicle break in, and vehicle damage can be a major problem in areas such as these. We are also concerned with the outside parking setup in the area being next to the rental town homes and our past experience with thefts and damage to autos in the NEI parking lot. We ~vould recommend some high intensity lighting in this area to deter theft and vandalism. We do not feel that the location of the rental units will give the seniors a sense of security within their homes. We have some major concerns with the "at'fordable rental town home" concept. Our concerns are that our city now has several areas of high density rental that take a peat deal of city resources. We feel the proximity of the rental units to the senior units and the business area predestines this area to be a high crime area. We would suggest minimally that at least every, other town home be owner occupied. Ownership bnngs with it accountability and responsibility. We would suggest a possible program such as "sweat equity." or Habitat for Humanity, for assisting with get-ting home o~vners into these properties-not just renters. The Police Department also has a problem ~vith the diagonal parking proposed for in front of NEI. With the traffic volumes in this area and the naruraI increase that will take place if the project goes forward, we foresee many more accidents in this area caused by people backing out and into oncoming traffic. At this time this area requires a relatively low amount of police and city resources. Every driving school we are aware of suggests pulling out into traffic rather than backing into traffic. This will also have a dramatic effect during our xvinter months when no parking is allowed on the streets from November to April. We feel it would be in the best interest of the people using these facilities to have limited on street parking and directing them to parking lots and ramps in the area. The Police Department understands the need t'or the housing listed. We requested your utmost attention the issues we may be creating if the plan goes as proposed. TMJ:mld 00-93 CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (61~2) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 Thomao flams~ll, Chad' Ted Yehle Donna Schratt Stephan Joh.~on Tama~a Exic~o~t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Planning and Zoning Commission will conduct a public hearing in the City Hall Conference Room of City Hall, 590 I~.E. 40th Avenue, at 6:00 p.m. on Monday, November 27, 2000. The order of business is as follows: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Final Planned Unit Development on the property located at 825 N.E. 41 ~ Avenue, 4150 Central Avenue, 4157 Jackson Street, and 4156 Central Avenue for the construction of a 50 unit assisted living building and 22 rental townhome units. All persons having an interest in the program will be given the opportunity to be heard. If you have any questions, you may contact Tim Johnson, City Planner, at 763-706-3678. 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 706-3611, to make arrangements. (TDD/70§-3692 for deaf or hearing impaired only.) THE CITY O¢ COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOEB NOT DISCRIMIiNATE ON THE BASIS Of DISABILITY IN EMPLOYMENT OR THE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER COLUMBIA HEIGHTS FIRE DEPARTMENT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: TIM JOHNSON GARY GORMAN NEI PRELIMINARY PLANS NOVEMBER 3, 2000 The Fire Department has reviewed the plans for the NEI development. At this time it appears all previous issues have been addressed. The Fire department approves the plans as presented. Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page I PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into this __ day of ., 2000, by and between the City of Columbia Heights, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), NEI College of Technology, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation ("NEI") and Columbia Heights Transition Block LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the "Developer")L WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the NEI is the fee owner of certain real property in Anoka County, Minnesota, legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (the "NEI Parcel"); and WHEREAS, the Developer2 is the fee owner certain real property legally described on the attached Exhibits "B-1" and "B-2" (the "Developer Parcels"); and WHEREAS, NEI and the Developer are assembling the NEI Parcel and the Developer Parcels from several owners and have platted the same as the "Northwestern 2nd Addition" attached hereto as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the Developer intends to transfer3 the real estate as legally described on Exhibit "B-I" (the "Rental Townhomes Parcel") to Columbia Heights Housing Limited Partnership I, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Rental Townhomes Owner") for development into multifamily rental townhomes; and WHEREAS, the Developer intends to transfer4 the real estate as legally described on Exhibit "B-2" (the "Senior Housing Parcel") to Crest View ONDC I, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the "Senior Housing Owner") for development into a senior assisted living facility; and WHEREAS, as used herein, the NEI Parcel, the Rental Townhomes Parcel and the Senior Housing Parcel are collectively referred to herein as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Developers, on behalf of the Rental Townhomes Owner and the Senior Housing Owner, has made application to the City for approval of a development plan and a site plan for the Property; has requested rezoning of the Property from R-2, One and Two Family Residential, to R-4, Multiple Family Residential, and from Central Business District ("CBD") to R-4; has applied for a Conditional Use Pemfit to provide for a planned unit development ("PUD") project and PUD Agreement relating to the Property pursuant to Section 9.116(17) of the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance (the "Conditional Use Permit"), and has t Parties to agreement are to include NEI, the City and fee owners of Developer Parcels on date of execution. Columbia Heights Transition Block LLC shall not be a party if rights under purchase agreement are fully assigned to Rental Townhomes Owner and Senior Housing Owner at or prior to closing and such parties purchase Developer Parcels]. : Recital to be deleted if Purchase Agreement has been fully assigned. 3 Recital to be clarified of Rental Townhomes Owner is fee owner on date of execution. 4 Recital to be clarified of Senior Housing O;vner is fee owner on date of execution 5 Define Columbia Heights Transition Block LLC as "Developer" here, if not a party to agreement. 1 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC '~ '~" -, requested approval of the subdivision of the Property according to the plat of Northwestern 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, NEI has requested rezoning of the NEI Parcel from R-2, One and Two Falnily Residential, to R-4, Multi-family Residential, has consented to the application of the Developer for a Conditional Use Permit for a planned unit development project and PUD Agreement relating to all of the Property pursuant to Section 9.116(17) of the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance (the "Conditional Use Permit"), and has requested approval of the subdivision of the property according to the plat of Northwestern 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, the City has agreed to allow the Developer to vary the standards fbr development which would be expected if the Property were developed according to the City's R- 4 zoning district in conformance with the City of Columbia Heights Code, but only if the Developer and NEI agree to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, on the __ day of __, 2000, by resolution no. , the City Council granted approval of a site plan for the Property ("Site Plan") in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated by reference (sometimes called "Final Plan" per Ord. Sec. 9.116(17)), granted approval of the Conditional Use Permit for this planned unit development project and PUD Agreement, granted plat approval for the plat of "Northwestern 2nd Addition", all subject to execution of this Planned Unit Development Agreement by the Developer, NEI and the City; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations contained herein, the parties agrees as follows: 1. ZONING, USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS mo Planned Unit Development. This PUD Agreement is an agreement described in City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Section 9.116(17) Planned Unit Development. Authorization of a Planned Unit Development and therefore a Planned Unit Development Agreement may be by conditional use permit pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.3595 (subd. 1). Subsequent to the execution of this Planned Unit Development Agreement, enforcement shall be by Planned Unit Development standards [(Columbia Heights Ord. Sec. 9.116(17)], and not by conditional use standards [(Columbia Heights Ord. Sec. 9.105(5)]. Title. NEI warrants that it has fee title to the NEI Parcel and Developer warrants that it has fee title to the Rental Townhomes Parcel and the Senior Housing Parcel. Co Comprehensive Plan Compliance. The City's Comprehensive Plan is dated September 30, 1992. At pages 28 through 31 the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the Property be rezoned to R-3. However, the City recognized that this land 6 References throughout to obligations of the "Developer" shall be deleted if the Developer is not a party to this Agreement. All obligations of Developer to "cause" the Rental Townhomes Owner or the Senior Housing Owner to perform shall be changed to direct obligations of such parties. 2 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 3 ! Do is in a redevelopment area and, at the suggestion of the Columbia Heights Redevelopment Authority, the City believed that a better use of this Property in conjunction with redevelopment along Central Avenue would be to rezone the Property to R-4. The Property was rezoned to R-4 earlier in the year 2000. Further, the City's Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which has been sent to the Metropolitan Council for review but which is not yet back approved, further contemplates redevelopment in the Central Avenue area in general and in this specific neighborhood in particular. The City finds that the rezoning of this property to R-4 together with this PUD Agreement creates a proper use of this land and is in full compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended. Zoning. The Rental Townhomes Parcel and Senior Housing Parcel shall be used solely for multiple family residential uses, including accessory uses related thereto, and shall be regulated by the terms and conditions of the City's zoning regulations for R-4 Multiple Family Residential, subject to the specific limitations on use in this PUD Agreement. The NEI Parcel is presently being used and may continue to be used as a private nonprofit vocational school as a permitted use in Zone R-4. Present and future use of the NEI Parcel shall be regulated by the terms and conditions of the City's zoning regulations governing real property in the R-4 "Multiple Family Residential Use" zone, except as otherwise provided by this PUD Agreement. Procedural Compliance. Heretofore the City has received, reviewed and approved all necessary applications for concept plan and preliminary plan approval. To the best of the City's knowledge, all such applications are true and correct. On the __ day of ,2000 the City approved the preliminary plan as required by Ord. Sec. 9.116(17)(a). This PUD Agreement and the Final Plan which it accompanies were approved by the City Council at its regular City Council meeting on the day of __~, 2000 in conformance with Section 9.116(17)(a)(i). Overall Development Standards/Variances. The City accepts that the preliminary plan requirements specified in Ord. Sec. 9.116(17)(b) and (c) have been satisfied. The City accepts Outlot A as a "private accessway" pursuant to Ord. Sec. 9.116(17)(c)(iv), acceptable for: (a) the Rental Townhouse Parcel for R-4 residential purposes; (b) the NEI Parcel for school purposes; and (c) both parcels for all uses which are permitted in the R-4 zoning district. The City shall allow the Developer and/or NEI to widen Outlot A to 28 feet to be a "private roadway" at the discretion of either party. 2. The City accepts that each of the three separate parcels has at least 10% open 3 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 4 i 4 Doc #1252922 v3 space as required by City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. Sec. 9.116(17)(c)(vii). Notwithstanding the requirement in City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. Sec. 9. __ that the open spaces on the three parcels be conveyed by the owners thereof to the City, the City shall not require such conveyance on the condition that each parcel maintain at least 10% open space as required by City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. Sec. 9.116(17)(c)(vii). A new Drainage and Ponding Easement with survey exhibit is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The parties hereto accept this drainage and ponding arrangement as being for their mutual benefit. The parties understand that a significant obligation of the drainage and ponding easement is that in the event of a so-called "100 year storm", the retention pond will back-up due to the outflow limitation in the Drainage and Ponding Easement. The back-up water will generally extend from the pond westerly into what is presently NEI's parking lot. Understanding the burden the Drainage and Ponding Easement places on the NE! Parcel, the Developer and the City agree that NEI, at its sole cost and expense (subject to such agreements to the contrary as shall be made subsequent to this Agreement), may expand the size of the stormwater retention pond westerly onto Outlot C and thereby comply with the outflow limitations the Drainage and Ponding Easement requires, but at the expense of the loss of the parking spaces on Outlot C. In the event NEI so elects, NEI will nevertheless be obliged to comply with City parking requirements by installing more parking spaces elsewhere or potentially reducing its student enrollment. o In satisfaction of the requirement in City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. Sec. that, in connection with any subdivision, a park dedication fee shall be payable before issuance of the plat for the subdivision, the parties agree that the Developer shall pay to the City a park dedication fee in the amount of $0.00. Use and Development Standards. Rental Townhomes. The Developer or the Rental Townhomes Owner shall develop the Rental Townhomes Parcel according to the approved Site Plan and the development standards set forth in this Section G. As used in this section, the term "Townhomes" means the multifamily rental townhomes developed by Developer or the Rental Townhomes Owner on the Rental Townhomes Parcel. The Site Plan depicts the layout. Density. Developer or the Rental Tovcnhomes Owner shall construct on the Rental Townhomes Parcel four buildings consisting of twenty-two (22) unit multifamily rental housing Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 5 I 5 Doc #1252922 v3 townhomes and one garage building pursuant to the Site Plan. [Notwithstanding the requirement in City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. __ that density in an R-4 zoning district must not exceed units per acre, the Rental Townhomes Parcel density of 14.943 units per acre is permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement.] b. Setbacks. Co e° (1) No principal building shall be nearer than its height to the rear or side lot line when such lot lines abuts an R-1 or R-2 zoning district. (2) No building shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from the back of the curb on roadways and accessways, and three (3) feet on all service roads. (3) No building shall be nearer to another building than one- half (1/2) the sum of the height of the two buildings. (4) No building shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from the back of the curb on roadways and accessways, and three (3) feet from the back of the curb on service roads. (5) Notwithstanding the requirement in City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. 9.110 (4)(iii) that the side yard shall be one-fourth the height of the building or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater, the building identified as Rental Townhome Number 1 on the attached Site Plan may have side yards of 8 ½ feet on the west property line and 9 1/2 feet from the east property line of the Rental Townhomes Parcel, and the buildings identified as Rental Townhome Number 3 and Rental Townhome Number 4 may have side yards of 6 feet. Height. The height of the Rental Townhomes is restricted to 35 feet or three (3) stories measured from the elevation of the curb line of 41 st Avenue NE. Access and Parking. Access to the Rental Townhomes shall be via Outlot A for all public and private purposes. The Rental Townhomes will have a minimum parking requirement of thirty-nine (39) parking spaces which shall be comprised of garages and open parking spaces all as shown on the Site Plan. Screening. Notwithstanding the requirement in City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. 9.117 (3) that there be screening where any business is adjacent to or across the street or alley from and within three hundred (300) feet of property zoned or developed for residential use, screening shall not be required between the Rental Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 6 I Townhomes on the easterly property line of the Rental Townhomes Parcel and the property which is used for cormnercial purposes to the east of the Rental Townhomes Property. Senior Housing. The Developer or the Senior Housing Owner shall develop the Senior Housing Parcel according to the approved Site Plan and the development standards set forth in this Section G. As used in this section, the term "Senior Housing" means the assisted living facility to be developed by Developer or the Senior Housing Owner on the Senior Housing Parcel. The Senior Housing Parcel shall at all times be used primarily as a residential living facility for persons aged 55 and older. The Site Plan depicts the layout. Density. Developer or the Senior Housing Owner may construct on the Senior Housing Parcel a fifty (50) unit assisted living facility pursuant to the Site Plan. b. Setbacks. do (1) No principal building shall be nearer than its height to the rear or side lot line when such lot lines abuts an R-1 or R-2 zoning district. (2) No building shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from the back of the curb on roadways and accessways, and three (3) feet on all service roads. (3) No building shall be nearer to another building than one- half (1/2) the sum of the height of the two buildings. (4) No building shall be located less than fifteen (15) feet from the back of the curb on roadways and accessways, and three (3) feet from the back of the curb on service roads. Height. The height of the Senior Housing Building is restricted to 40 feet measured from the elevation at the west side of the Senior Housing Building. The height of the Senior Housing Building exceeds the R-4 standard by __ feet, but is pem~itted pursuant to this PUD Agreement. Access and Parking. Access to the Senior Housing Building shall 42nd Avenue N.E. and the public alley lying westerly and southerly of the parcel. The Senior Housing Building will have a minimum parking requirement of twenty-five (25) parking spaces, but no outside loading dock, all as shown on the Site Plan. Nine (9) of the twenty-five (25) required parking spaces may be via a permanent parking easement over part of the NEI Parcel as shown on the Site Plan. The current City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code does not include regulations governing the use of the Senior Housing be via 6 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 7 Building as an assisted living facility. The most similar use addressed in the City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code is a nursing home. The parking requirements for a nursing home are stated at City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. 9.116(4). As these parking requirements do not specifically apply to the Senior Housing Building, the City and the Developer have agreed to use the industry standard for assisted living facilities as the requirement for the number of parking stalls required for the Senior Housing Building. The industry standard is one (1) parking space per two (2) assisted living residential units. The Senior Housing Building contains a total of fifty (50) assisted living residential units and, therefore, a total of twenty-five (25) parking spaces will be required for the Senior Housing Building. NEI College of Technology. NEI shall be permitted to maintain and use its existing four story school building for a nonprofit private vocational school which teaches day and evening classes for adult students in technology subjects. The present enrollment is about 600 students. The Site Plan depicts the existing layout. ao Density. The City acknowledges that the present school has an enrollment of about 600 students. The City hereby permits NEI to increase its enrollment to up to 1,000 students subject to NEI maintaining the parking spaces described below. Setbacks. The existing building and other improvements on the NEI Parcel elthe~ setbacks, or are permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement, including the proximity of the existing school building to the road on Outlot A. Moreover, notwithstanding the requirement in City of Columbia Heights Zoning Code Ord. 9.110 (4)(iii) that the side yard shall be one-fourth the height of the building or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater, in the event that NEI dedicates the road on Outlot A to the public for a public road in a plat or otherwise, the setback for the school building in its current location and height, as depicted on the attached Site Plan, shall be permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement. Height. The existing school building is 60 feet 6 inches high to the parapet, four stories high, and 80 feet high to the top of the chimney, all as measured from the level of the parking lot on the north side of the existing building as shown on the Site Plan. The height exceeds the R-4 standard, which provides for a maximum height of thirty- five (35) feet or three stories, but is permitted pursuant to this PUD Agreement. do Parking. Before the plat of Northwestern 2nd Addition, NEI had an integral 6.453 acre site with land area for at least 500 parking 7 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 8 ! II. spaces. In furtherance of the City's desire for senior citizen housing and rental townhomes, the City will permit noncompliance with the City's parking standards pursuant to Ord. Sec. 9.116(2) through 9.116(4) as follows: NEI will have 456 on-site parking spaces as shown on the Site Plan. The parking spaces on Outlot C (west of the pond on Outlot B) and Outlot F (west of the townhouse building on the Rental Townhouse Parcel) shall be considered on-site parking spaces for the NEI Parcel. In addition, the City will enact a permit parking system for Jackson Street and 41st Street N.E. specifically and solely for the benefit of the NEI Parcel with 44 permit parking spaces allocated to NEI, bringing NEI's parking space total up to 500 spaces. The permit parking ordinance provides 44 on-street parking spaces for the sole and exclusive use of NEI between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, pursuant to the ordinance and permits described below. The 44 spaces of off-site parking are permitted to meet NEI's parking obligation. Further, it is agreed by the City that the NEI Parcel with 500 parking spaces as aforesaid shall be entitled to a maximum student enrollment of 1,000 students to accommodate future growth of NEI or any successor school. Access. Access for school use shall be via 41st Avenue N.E., Jackson Street, the public alley west and south of the Senior Citizen Parcel and Outlot A lying between the NEI Parcel and the Rental Townhomes Parcel for all public and private purposes. Future Improvements. NEI shall be entitled to improve and remodel, or demolish and reconstruct the existing school building, so long as the size, number of stories and height of such remodeling or new building does not exceed the existing height described above and location shown on the Site Plan. The maximum permitted student population shall be 1,000 students. If NEI changes the use of the school to multi-family residential use as permitted in zone R-4, then NEI must conform to the R-4 zoning requirements. go Successor. NEI shall be able to freely transfer the NEI Parcel subject to and together with the rights and obligations herein set forth to any successor owner who uses the NEI Parcel as a school without approval of the City. Legal Conforming Use and Improvements. The City accepts the current use of the NEI Parcel and the existing and contemplated improvements thereon as legal conforming uses and improvements pursuant to this PUD Agreement. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS 8 Doc #1252922 v3 j Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 9 I III. Plans. The Developer agrees to construct, or to cause either or both of the Rental Townhomes Owner and/or the Senior Housing Owner to construct, all improvements within the Property as shown on the Site Plan in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. The Site Plan may not be modified by the Developer without the prior written approval of the City. All labor and work must be done and performed in a workmanlike manner and in strict confom~ance with the Site Plan. The City agrees to promptly review any request from the Developer to modify the Site Plan and to notify the Developer of its approval or disapproval within 30 business days of the date of receipt of such request. If the City fails to respond in writing within 30 business days of receipt of such request, the modification shall be deemed approved. Staking, Surveying and Inspections. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, must provide, or cause the Rental Townhomes Owner or the Senior Housing Owner to provide, all staking, surveying and inspections for the improvements in order to ensure that the completed improvements conform to the Site Plan. Time for Developer's Performance. The Developer agrees to commence work, or to cause the Rental Townhomes Owner or the Senior Housing Owner to commence work, on the improvements shown on the Site Plan on or before (__) days following the date of recording of this Agreement, unless the Developer or the Rental Townhomes Owner or the Senior Housing Owner otherwise requests and the City consents in writing, and will have all work completed, or cause the Rental Townhomes Owner or the Senior Housing Owner to have all work completed, and the improvements shown on the Site Plan completed to the satisfaction and approval of the City on or before twenty-four (24) months after the commencement of construction on the Property. The City may at its discretion extend the date(s) specified for completion upon receipt of written notice from the Developer or from the Rental Townhomes Owner or the Senior Housing Owner, of the existence of causes over which any of them has no control that will delay the completion of the work. D. Improvements on NEI Property. The Developer also agrees to construct the improvements on the NEI Property as shown on the Site Plan in accordance with plans and specifications approved by NEI. As between the Developer, NEI and the City, it is the Developer's obligation to construct and reconstruct the improvements on the NEI Property to accommodate the required number of parking spaces as set forth herein. Developer shall stripe the city street for the permit parking spaces and install necessary signage for same. A. New Ordinance. The City [ms en~qr~ted the ordinances attached hereto as Exhibit "F", entitled the "Ordinance 1426 Being an Ordinance Designating Permit Parking Only From 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, Except Holidays on 41st Avenue N.E. and Jackson Street N.E. Adjacent to 825 4Pt Avenue N.E." (herein, the "Parking Ordinance"), for the sole and exclusive 9 Doc#1252922v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 10 IV. benefit of the NEI Parcel during the days and times as set forth therein. The City has determined that the Property is large enough to accommodate the Townhomes and Senior Housing and NEI's use of the NEI Parcel as a school, and that such new use of the Property is necessary and helpful additions to the housing mix and development of the City. To replace certain parking spaces previously available to NEI due to Developer's acquisition of some of the land from NEI, the City has specifically agreed to provide for forty-four (44) permit parking spaces for NEI via the Parking Ordinance. Issuance of Permits. On the date hereof and on August 1 of each year hereafter, the City shall issue to NEI or its successor school forty-four (44) blank parking permits and hereby specifically authorizes NEI or its successor school to issue those permits to such of its faculty and students as it deems suitable for parking pursuant to the terms of the Parking Ordinance. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES Denial of Permits. Breach of any term of this Agreement by NEI or the Developer, or any of the Rental Townhomes Owner or the Senior Housing Owner assuming the Developer's obligations hereunder, or failure to comply with City ordinances shall be grounds for denial of building or occupancy permits for buildings within the subdivision until the breach has been cured. Rights Cumulative. No remedy conferred in this Agreement is intended to be exclusive and each shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy. The election of any one or more remedies shall not constitute a waiver of any other remedy. Force Majeure. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Article IV, if by reason of force majeure any party hereto shall be unable in whole or in part to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and if such party shall give notice and full particulars of such force majeure in writing to all other parties within a reasonable time after the occurrence of the event or cause relied upon, the obligations under this Agreement of the party giving such notice, so far as they are affected by such force majeure, shall be suspended during the continuance of the inability, which shall include a reasonable time for the removal of the effect thereof. The suspension of such obligations for such period pursuant to this subsection (b) shall not be deemed an Event of Default under this Article IV. The term "force majeure" as used herein shall include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts or other industrial disturbances, acts of public enemies, orders of any kind of the government of the United States of America or of the State or any of their departments, agencies, governmental subdivisions, or officials, or any civil or military authority, insurrections, riots, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquakes, fire, storms, floods, washouts, droughts, civil disturbances, explosions, partial or entire failure of utilities, or any other cause or event not reasonably within the control of the party claiming such inability. 10 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC page 11 i Breach by City. Breach of any term of this Agreement by the City shall be actionable by the owners of the NEI Parcel and/or the Developer Parcels. Such complainants shall specifically be entitled to seek and obtain relief against the City in civil proceedings requiring a writ of mandamus for mandatory action and/or an injunction to prevent action by the City. Vo MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Amendment. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties having an interest in the respective parcels, and by the City. Agreement to Run with Land. This PUD Agreement is to be recorded among the land records of Anoka County, Minnesota. The provisions of this Agreement shall run with the land, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of NEI and the Developer and their successors in interest, including the Rental Townhomes Owner and the Senior Housing Owner, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City of Columbia Heights, in perpetuity. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable, and in the event that any provision of this Agreement is found invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Notices. All notices, certificates or other communications required to be given to City and Developer hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when delivered or when deposited in the United States mail, first class, with postage fully prepaid and addressed as follows: To City: City of Columbia Heights 590 40th Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421-3878 To DeveloperT: Columbia Heights Transition Block, LLC c/o Real Estate Equities, Inc. 400 Degree of Honor Building 325 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55101 To NEI: NEI College of Technology 825 41st Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Attn: President 7 To be changed if Developer is not a party to provide notice address for other parties to this Agreement. 11 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 12 I Fo The City, NEI and the Developer, by notice given hereunder, may designate different addresses to which subsequent notice, certificate or other communications should be sent. Compliance with Laws. The Developer and NEI shall comply with all laws, ordinances and regulations of the state of Minnesota and the City applicable to the Property. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota, without regard to choice of law provisions. Non-waiver. If any party waives any default or nonperformance by another party in writing, such waiver shall be deemed to apply only to such event and shall not waive any other prior or subsequent default. [Signature pages follow.] 12 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC page 13 I IN WITNESS OF THE ABOVE, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date and year written above. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA a Minnesota municipal corporation By: Its: Mayor and By: Its: City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of , 2000, by , the Mayor, and by ., the City Manager, of the CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public [signatures continued on next page] This document was drafted by: Lindquist & Vennum P.L.L.P. (RGM) 4200 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 13 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 14 ] NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, Minnesota nonprofit corporation By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of 2000 by the President of NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public [signatures continued on next page] 14 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 15 COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TRANSITION BLOCK, LLC,8 a Minnesota limited liability company By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of , 2000, by , the of COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TRANSITION BLOCK, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. Notary Public ~ To be changed if Developer is not a party to Agreement. 15 Doc ~,1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 16 1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF NEI PARCEL [to be inserted] A-16 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 17I EXHIBIT B-1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF RENTAL TOWNHOMES PARCEL [to be inserted] B-17 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 18 t EXHIBIT B-2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SENIOR HOUSING PARCEL [to be inserted] B-18 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 19 I EXHIBIT C PLAT OF NORTHWESTERN 2ND ADDITION [to be inserted] C-19 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 20 t EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN C-20 Doc #1252922 v3 Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft).DOC Page 21 I EXHIBIT E DRAINAGE AND PONDING EASEMENT C-21 Doc #1252922 v3 j Ken Anderson - Planned Unit Development Agreement (L&V 109 Draft). DOC Page 22 EXHIBIT F PARKING ORDINANCE [to be inserted] TC3:700718 v04 11/22/2000 C-22 Doc#1252922v3 NOV-21-2000 14: 09 ELNESs SWENSON GRAHAM " 612 468,8 P. 03×03 I,h I~llll]IImlHIlll : ~J 1, I BI*I~ ~1;I I~l;lIIIl: ' ' ' ' NOV 81 00' 08: 00P~Bu..~ I ti i. Il, ~;- .I . . ~/~-~;-~~.,. .............................. ....... .'. .......... ~_.~ ~ :i~.,l~.~ ~ Ifil - 'i Il l%1 ~ · ~ ~ ' L ~,J ~ ~,,..,.-~: ~ . · . - . d,,,; ~,,J i '~{":?,Y',,~ { -': - · ~Jt I~ '~ "~' i ~ ! ' ' ~. ~ ,,.~I,~ ,, - , .~ ,t ' - -, ,, ~ . . . .J. .. ~'.-- / ~'J '"'""'""'"'"'"'"""'""":'" ........ -'"='~ ...... "" ..... ;I, ril.l,l,Jml~:l'-I,I, f .k.I H,H.I,I,,H'I-! ]-I-F'I I-I-L[-I-{.]-{~ I m"~Iltlil I,, II ~Ii'!~l~ ,{I J{ {I', tlt!!iiii { l!i;l'"" i i I lJllJfllt i,, It Jl'lll'l'lil'l'l' . dd ~lililililililili.'! ::1,11:1.,,1:1:!:1:1:1:1:1 I:1:1.;I 1,1:11,1,1'1,1.. ~ Iii 1ili ililililililllili i iliI IllillliliIilililiI 1,1,1,11,1,1 I,I,1,I,I~ '":1:1 l,I;l,{,'l,l,l,l,l,I I'l,l,l I~l~l i,ii,l.,[:..i,[,i,i.l,l,- , ,,, ~lllFItltlJl.lal~ TOTAL P.03 ~00:~0 C 24.0 ~ 1~ 22 00, ~ 88~ £~£ ~ .~ ' .r-"': . .LandScape· Plan · . WI:::IHU~E]. NOSNBMS SS3N93' 80 :~I 000E-~C-AON 909g-got' (IS<J) :XYJ 0099-g0~' ([~9) :3iNOHd ~S YJ. OS]NNI~I 'NYOY3 J / 03 F- I I Ii I I -e IX r-~ -) '1 ¸':0 ,~) /I--q(- -- _J I' '~ Il 1f U -I 0 0 w w I A~'!'I¥ Z I og gl'gL ~-~ ~r Og'~Ot M.[£,00.005 ~o-~ E~.~. ceo · O~'ZOI ~ ~.Z~.£~.OOg--- ~ ..... -, Lg · ~" I 3.Zg.z~.OON /' - 09'96 -7- ¥ lOlinO Gg'LO~ ~ ,z 01T, Z/'/0 6g'Ot£ ]fi6Z.£~.OON ·/I I ,'% 0'6 -I F--I U ~ o ~ T I I I I ss ss ss SS .. e.~%. SS. 0'6~L = 'A39-~'-I I II q r: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 2000 CALL TO ORDER - The Regular Meeting of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) was called to order by Vice President Pat Jindra at 6:37 p.m., Tuesday, October 17, 2000, in Conference Room 1, City Hall. 950 40'h Avenue N.E.. Columbia Heights~ Minnesota. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Staff Present: Patricia Jindra, Marlaine Szurek, Don Jolly, Gary Peterson, Julienne Wyckoff, and John Hunter Robert Ruettimarm Walt Fehst, Executive Director Ken Anderson, Deputy Executive Director Anita Kottsick, Parkview Villa Public Housing Administrator Shirley Barnes, Crest View Management Randy Schumacher, Community Development Assistant CONSENT AGENDA (These items are considered to be routine by the EDA Board of Commissioners and will be enacted as part of the Consent Agenda by one motion). Move to Adopt the consent agenda items as listed below. 1) Approval of Minutes I) Regular meeting of September 19, 2000 2) Special Meeting of September 25, 2000 3) Amended minutes of August 16, 2000 MOTION by John Hunter, seconded by Marlaine Szurek, to approve the minutes as amended and presented in writing. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. 2) Financial Report and Payment of Bills a. Financial Statement ~ September, 2000 b. Payment of Bills - September, 2000 MOTION by Marlaine Szurek, seconded by Julienne Wyckoff, to approve Resolution 2000-16, Resolution of the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA) approving the financial statements for September, 2000 and approving payment of bills for September, 2000. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. 3) Approve Payment #5 to Millar Elevator Service Company. Mr. Anderson submitted Payment #5 for elevator modernization for Parkview Villa. He explained that yesterday the staff received a letter from Mr. Ted Smith, President of Elevator Advisory Group, in regards to the repairs needed to f'mish the project, and requesting payment in the total amount of $34,025.00. Staff is recommending that 10% of the total contract amount be retained until the final punch list items are resolved. This retainage amount totals $25,838; therefore, only $8,187 will be disbursed at this time with the remaining $25,838 to be disbursed upon final approval of punch list items. The following punch list items need to be inspected before ffmal payment is disbursed: 1) Elevator does not respond to hall calls from the upper floors. 2) Controller duct needs a cap. 3) Large ground wire was loose on the controller. 4) Traffic analysis report which will tell them and staff how long people have to ~vait for the elevator to respond to the call. 5) Cleaning the control doors. 6) Several of the car doors have hand smudges, so they will need to be cleaned. Mr. Smith recommended that we do a worm and gear replacement on elevator number one at approx. $ I0,000. This is basically a screw that goes out from the motor with a gear on it. Staff will work with Anita and the possibility of using the Capital Grant Funds. Economic Development Authority Minutes October 17, 2000 Page 2 MOTION by Julienne Wyckoff, seconded by Marlaine Szurek, to accept the work for Pay Application #5 and to authorize payment of $34,025.00 to Millar Elevator Service Company of Cleveland, Ohio, with $8,187 authorized for immediate disbursement and $25,838 upon satisfactory completion of punch list items as determined by staff. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. In Discussion, John Hunter asked how long do we hold the 10% of the billing? Mr. Anderson responded that we keep it until the project is completed and everything is working properly. REPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY B. Anita Kottsick, Parkview Villa Public Housing ,&dministrator. Anita was going to attend a demo of a HUD software program on October 10, 2000, but it ~vas canceled. Instead, she was able to view a tape from the same demo program that Aleksandr Chemin from the I.S. Department had attended earlier. The Elevator modernization project passed inspection. Anita will be meeting with the company's representatives for review of the f'mal punch list items. The south elevator was down on 10-7-2000 with a resident inside, the phone did not work and the Fire Department was called out to service the elevator. After investigating the phone in car #3 (South) she found out that it does not work. Millar Elevator Service has been contacted to set up the phone to call the main office number. Anita suggested a temporary alternative of leaving a cell phone in the elevator for emergency use. A Building Watch Program was held on October 4, 2000. The results of the building survey were shared and it was decided that there was not enough interest to develop a system at this time. The Maintenance Coordinator is looking at the price of additional higher fencing being installed at 4607 Tyler. Numerous complaints from current residents have come in relating to people trespassing through the property. The #2 circulation pump motor is down in the South building due to a power surge. Maintenance has removed it and will take it to a local motor repair company. Apartment #104's heating system has a leak. The header needs to be replaced to maintain a comfortable building temperature. The heating system will be repaired after the header on the boiler has been replaced. A header is on order and will be installed the week of October 9, 2000. Anita stated the she has received a report from Charlie Thompson, Fire Chief, regarding the response time of the call on September 16, 2000. The Fire Department actually arrived in 4 minutes and 44 seconds instead of the 12 minutes as reported by residents at last month's meeting and the Rescue Team was there in 2 minutes and 12 seconds. He was also a guest speaker at the October 9~' Resident Council meeting to educate residents on fire safety and answer any questions residents had. Dana Alexon, Assistant Fire Chief, is scheduling ~vith Anita to give residents a demonstration on the Fire Department their power point software program. Anita stated that she has solved the problem with the garbage overflow by the dumpster. It can be brought down to the 1st floor trash chute. Larger items that need to be disposed must be coordinated with the office and those items will be put into the back dumpster. Ms. Barnes reported that if passed on Thursday at their Crest View Board meeting, effective Thursday, October 26, 2000, Anita will work at Parkview Villa full time and Kari will service Crest View full time. Both Anita and Kari will back up each other when necessary. The Board felt that this was a good decision in all aspects both for management and for the residents. She also expressed her thanks to Charlie Thompson, Fire Chief, for his safety presentation at the Residents Council and his report to Crest View Corporation on the fire call from last month. Another subject raised by Mr. Jolly was that some residents are still concerned about the loose carpet in the front Economic Development Authority Minutes October 17, 2000 Page 3 entrance. Over the years, Ken has talked to Bill Gault in regards to this and at one point they recommended that we have someone like Home Depot come in and actually cut, seam and glue the carpet down. However, the only way to really fix the problem is to replace the carpet. Mr. Hunter stated that we need to be sure that we do not purchase carpet seconds because his experience is that it is cheaper and doesn't last as long. Ms. Barnes stated that she and Anita would see what could be done about it. CITIZEN FORUM TO ADDRESS EDA ON MATTERS NOT ON AGENDA. RECOGNITION, PROCLAMATIONS. PRESENTATIONS. GUESTS - None. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION C. Other Resolutions. 1) 2001 Budget Presentation. Mr. Anderson stated the Budget packet is very explicit as to the departments, funds, etc. It is necessary for the EDA to pass the Resolution with the recommendation to the City Council approving the Proposed Budget for taxes payable in 2001. The EDA on August 28, 2000 adopted Resolution 2000-1 t setting the recommended EDA Levy at $119,295 which is the same amount approved for the 2000 Budget year. He went through the summary highlighted budget sections and explained any major changes. In the past we had submitted two different draft Budgets; one for Community Development and one for Economic Development. This years draft was put together for the whole Community Development Depmtment. Ken stated that the following sections need changes: Fund 203-46330 Parkview Villa North the expenses total $349,552. Reductions in the proposed line items need to be made to reduce the total to $333,592 which is the amount of anticipated revenue for 2001. There was a calculation error in this section. He recommended that we make the cut in the area of repair and maintenance. Specifically, cupboards and paint to some of the units. We could also use some of our Capital Grant Funds that we have used in the past to help pay for these items. This reflects a reduction of $15,960 in expenses or we could leave it the way it is and spend our fund balance down. Anita and the Board members did not have a problem with reducing the budget by the $15,960. Ken stated that from the CLAP Grant we are expecting $128,560 in funds which is not reflected in the budget. This could also possibly be used for these items. Marlaine Szurek asked Anita if she had all of the notes from the Capital Funds meetings? Anita stated that she thought that Michelle had kept some records and she will look for them. Marlaine Szurek stated that these would be very helpful. Fund 20146310 Community Development Administration show total expenses of $102,572. These expenditures need to be revised and decreased to a total amount of $101,257 which is the same amount as the anticipated revenue to be received in the recommended Levy. He recommended that the amount of $80,378 for Personal Services be reduced to $79,063. Fund 10141940 General Government Buildings Section- $41,261 should be under Capital Outlay not Contingencies & Transfers (printing error). Fund 20446314 Economic Development Authority. The EDA levied a total of $119,250 at its meeting in August. The expenditures only come up to $119,045. Therefore, he recorrunended that we add to the expenditures so that the total shows $119,250 as adopted in the Levy under the other services category. Mr. Fehst asked how often are we changing the rents of the residents in Parkview Villa? Mr. Anderson indicated that the rents have never gone up since the start of the program. Mr. Hunter asked about how the 30% of the seniors income works for Public Housing, does that reflect what they pay for rent? Anita explained that each tenant is re- evaluated each year rents adjusted based on income changes. Economic Development Authority Minutes October 17, 2000 Page 4 Under Fund 235-43685 Temporary Housing; the only costs reflected is for sales tax, snow removal and lawn mowing for units that the EDA and City own. This amount has gone down due to the City/EDA selling some of the properties recently. Mr. Anderson recommended that the EDA adopt the proposed Budget with the amended changes. Mr Fehst reported that Ken, Bill Elrite, and himself did review the budget once already. They made some cuts and changed around some funds to other areas where needed. In Discussion, Pat Jindra questioned Fund 101-41940 as the amount for electricity seemed high. Mr. Anderson stated that the electric line item was adjusted 3% higher and"gas was 5% higher as recommended by the Finance Department. The Commissioners felt that maybe the increase wasn't going to be enough. Mr. Fehst stated that all departments may have to adjust their budgets in this area. At this time, we haven't received an actual stated amount of increase from the utility companies. Mr. Hunter questioned what is going to happen to the insurance rates? Who will cover this? John has heard that it will be going up 15 to 20%. Walt Fehst stated that every year we do compare our insurance with the Minnesota League of Cities program. Mr. Fehst responded that he felt that we have good insurance and didn't feel that there would be a problem if the rates went up. MOTION by Marlaine Szurek, seconded by Julienne Wyckoff, to waive the reading of Resolution 2000-17, there being ample copies available to the public. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION by Marlaine Szurek, seconded by Julienne Wyckoff, to adopt EDA Resolution 2000-17, Being a Resolution of the Columbia Heights EDA adopting a Budget for 2001 as amended. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. D. Bid Considerations. 1) Award Bid for Asbestos Removal at 3950 Lookout Place. Mr. Schumacher gave the report. On October 28, 2000, the Fire Dept. is proposed to use the property at 3950 Lookout Place as a practice bum site. The property at 3944 Lookout Place will also be used in this way. For the property at 3950 Lookout Place, the EDA is responsible for the removal of the asbestos prior to the bum. Staff has gone out for bids for the removal of the asbestos and would like to recommend D.A. Abatement Company of Columbia Heights to be used for the removal. They were the low bidder at a total cost of $1,975.00. Because this bid amount is under $2,000 we are able to use CDBG Funds. They will furnish all labor, materials, services, and equipment necessary for asbestos decontamination and waste disposal services. All work will be in accordance with OSHA regulations, Minnesota Department of Health Asbestos Abatement Rules, and other applicable Federal and State regulations and they will ensure proper clean up, transportation and disposal of asbestos and asbestos contained materials. Mr. Jolly questioned if the utilities have been disconnected yet? Randy responded that the utilities have been turned off. Marlaine Szurek suggested that we contact residents as to the date of when the burn will take place. Mr. Fehst will make sure that this issue is addressed. MOTION by Gary L. Peterson, seconded by Don Jolly, to except the low bid for D.A. Abatement for the removal of all asbestos contaminated material located at 3950 Lookout Place; and furthermore, to authorize the President and Executive Director to enter into an agreement for the same. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. E. Other Business 1) Approval of the Downtown Master Plan "Town Square" Concept. Mr. Anderson reported that the City applied for and received Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds from the Metropolitan Council to prepare a Master Redevelopment Plan for the downtoxvn area. Staff has been working with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. and a 22 member task force in preparation for this plan. A town meeting Economic Development Authority Minutes October 17, 2000 Page 5 was held on November 17, 1999 for citizens to review and comment on the proposals. The Task Force recommendations were discussed at work sessions on January 17 and August 7, 2000. The version dated April, 2000 and received on August 2, 2000 includes a reformatted market analysis section and expanded streetscape section with a suggested list of trees to be planted. The Town Square concept focuses on the area west of the intersection of 40a' Avenue and Central Avenue. The intent is to create a new mixed-use district on 40~' Avenue west of Central which combines new centralized civic uses, new public open space, commercial development, and new downtown multi-family residential development into a revitalized center. The Huset Park Neighborhood Association meeting was held on Thursday, October 12, 2000.. EDA staff was asked to give a presentation on the concept, answer questions and better acquaint residents with the concept plan. Residents were quite concerned with the potential impacts on their individual properties. Ken feli that after the presentation was over that the residents did have a better understanding of the concept, however, he felt that they were still worried about the impact to their properties. The City Council has already reviewed this plan and approved the "Town Square" Concept. However, because the EDA and City Council is involved, staff is recommending that the EDA approve the concept also. Mr. Fehst also recommended that the EDA approve the Concept. He felt that Mr. Anderson and staff had done a very good job in presenting this plan. Pat Jindra stated that she had never seen the Downtown Master Plan Book. Staff stated that it was sent out to her and that we will provide her with another copy. In Discussion, some of the Board members were approached by residents worrying about losing their homes to the new Town Square Concept. Mr. Fehst stated that he has talked to a few residents in regards to this and explained that no they aren't necessarily going to lose their homes. He has already asked Ken Anderson and Tim Johnson to look into what we can do about this concern of the citizens of Columbia Heights. In particular, Marilyn Peters was very upset with the possibility of losing her home. Mr. Jolly stated that he had talked to her about this and indicated that this was only a projected plan and may or may not be implemented as presented. Some concerns that were brought up by commissioners was that the residents felt were not informed of the proposed development. It was stated by Marlaine Szurek that it was publicized, voted on, public hearings held on it, door to door explanations, etc. Basically, the board felt that the City did all that they could to make the residents aware of the possible plan. Mr. Jolly stated that he felt in the future the City may have to send notices to the residents by certified mail and keep the return cards on file. Julienne Wyckoff asked about items under section 6 of the Concept Plan, what is going on with creating ownership space within the Mall? Mr. Fehst stated that the owner is not interested anymore in doing this but that he has asked Becky Loader to do a report on bagel and coffee shops in the metro area with the possibility of contacting them to see if they would be interested in relocating in the City of Columbia Heights. Marlaine Szurek felt that either the Library or Don's Appliance would be ideal sites for a coffee or bagel shop. MOTION by Marlaine Szurek, seconded by Julienne Wyckoff, to table this item until next month after President Ruettimann and Vice President Jindra have reviewed the plan. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. 2) Sale of Property - 4216 Central Avenue N.E. Mr. Schumacher reported that on August 16, 2000 the EDA Board approved extending the Purchase and Development Agreement for the property at 4216 Central Avenue N.E. between Mr. Bruce Nedegaard and the EDA until September 30, 2000. The intention for the property is to combine it with the adjacent property which Mr. Nedegaard also owns, construct an office building with sufficient space for his business and additional office space which would be made available for lease. The project had a few minor changes from the plans that staff received last year such as the name change from Bruce Nedegaard to B.N.A. All departments have reviewed the revised plans. Staff is prepared to close this week on the property and is asking the Board to approve the development agreement extension until October 31, 2000. MOTION by Don Jolly, seconded by John Hunter, to approve the extension of the amended Purchase Agreement between Mr. Bruce Nedegaard- (B.N.A.) and the Columbia Heights EDA until October 31, 2000 for the property Economic Development Authority Minutes October 17, 2000 Page 6 located at 4216 Central Avenue N.E., PIN no. F35-30-24-14-0077. Ail Ayes. MOTION CARRIED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Report of the Deputy Executive Director. 1) Change in Phone System for Parkview Villa Staff phones Anita Kottsick reported that sometime in November, the I.T. Department is proposing to change the main phone number for Parkview Villa. Residents will have to be notified and the flyers and letterhead changed before this change happens. 2) Summary of Section 8 Adminis'~ration Transfer. Randy Schumacher reported that the transfer of the Section 8 administration is £mally complete to the Metropolitan Council. The next step will be to transfer the HRA to the EDA per HUD formal criteria. The paperwork for the transfer was started last year but ended up being put on hold until this transfer of the Section 8 Program took place. Staff will start again on the transferring process with HUD. 3) Status of Mortgage and Assignment of Mortgages files with Anoka County. The two mortgages that were sent to Anoka County for filing on 9-7-2000 were received back in the Community Development Department last Thursday, October 12, 2000 and were sent certified mail to MHFA the same day. As of today, staff has received confu'mation that the MHFA received them. Therefore, the City has f'mished the final steps necessary for the mortgage processing. The Shemey Gafkjen Mortgage payoff of $4,759.22, was paid to Compu-Link Loan Service as directed by the EDA Board last month. Mr. Anderson requested that the Board think about trying to take Mr. Gafkjen to court to obtain reimbursement of mortgage. discussion, it was decided not to pursue recovering the money from Mr. Gafkjen. B. Report of the Executive Director. I) Fire Safety Training Seminar and Fire Inspection at Parkview Villa North. Mr. Fehst stated that the report was already given to the Board by Anita Kottsick under the Parkview Villa report of management. C. Committee/Other Reports. I) Residents Council Minutes of September 4 and 11, 2000 for review only. Pat Jindra explained that these were the minutes of the meetings that she attended even though she isn't required to attend them but every 3 months. Other issues Mr. Peterson asked the status of the Hemak house. Mr. Schumacher stated that we do not have a Purchase Agreement with them yet. Peterson said he was asking because he has received reports that there are some questionable activity going on in the home. Therefore, he felt that the EDA should try to move quickly with the purchase of the property. Ms. Wyckoffhas also heard about some possible problems at the property. Mr. Fehst will have the Police Department look into this matter. :MEETINGS The next EDA meeting is scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 21, 2000, in Community Room B at Parkview Villa and a special meeting on Monday, November 6, 2000, to review the TIF Cash Flow Report. Economic Development Authority Minutes October 17, 2000 Page 7 ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Maflaine Szurek, seconded by John Hunter, to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. A11 ayes. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully submitted, Cheryl Bakken Recording Secretary H:~,EDAminutes\ 10-17-2000 COLU IBIA H£iGH?$ PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD Oi MINUTES November 1, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Chair, Barbara Miller at 7:00 p.m. Those present were Patricia Sowada, Barbara Miller, Nancy Hoium, Catherine Vesley, Richard Hubbard, John Hunter and Becky Loader. It was moved, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes of the October 3rd, 2000, meeting as mailed. The budget meeting minutes were reviewed. There were no corrections or additions. Interim bill list of October 16, 2000, was reviewed. It was moved, seconded and passed that it be paid. The bill list of October 23, 2000, was reviewed. It was moved, seconded and passed that they be paid. The bill list of November 13, 2000, was also reviewed. It was moved, seconded and passed that they be paid. The accounting was reviewed. Old Business: Update on page staffing was provided. The current staff of 4 pages has been recognized for the extra work and effort that they have provided during the current staff shortage. Page staff is currently operating at half capacity. Becky has met with Linda Magee to discuss strategy and a proposal of what can be done to attract better-qualified applicants is being drafted. Six applications have been received at the current time; an interview has been scheduled for the one person who qualified. 2. There has been no feedback on the proposed 2001 library budget at this time. The thank you letter from the Anoka County Library for the flowers that were sent for the open house of the Rum River branch was shared with the Board. 4. The thank you to the Sister City Committee for the donations they gave to the library was reviewed. 5. Computer training for staff for conversion from WordPerfect to Microsoft Word is being completed. Teen Read Week is being celebrated at Columbia Heights Public Library this week. The Children's Department is sponsoring several activities including a poetry and 2 minute mystery contest. New Business: 1. The crossover statistics were reviewed. The library adopted a Technology plan in 1997. In order to receive State money through MELSA for technology the plan must be revised. MELSA offered a training workshop for the procedure that must be used to update the Technology Plan, which is due 12/31/00. Intbrmation System staff at the City and the County are being utilized as a resource. Two Anoka County Libra~ branch librarians and Becky comprise the committee. Each person has a section they will be preparing. E- rate must also be applied for, but the County will pursue that portion. The sequence of events will be to have the policy ready by the end of the year, the draft will be presented to the County Library Board and then the Columbia Heights Public Library Board would adopt Anoka County Library's plan by resolution. A report on the former Marshall's site was given. There are several questions and concerns that need to be addressed at this time. A dialog between City Staff and the owner of the site is being pursued. The Board will be updated as necessary. Becky attended the DRA users conference on 10/12/00. DRA is the automation vendor for our circulation system. They are in the process of developing a new "windows" based system that we will be changing to. The product is being introduced in phases. The public catalog will be the first phase that will be implemented. The acquisitions and circulation system will follow. Staff judged the fire safety posters for the fire department again this year. Winners were chosen from the 4th and 5th grade students of Columbia Heights Schools and one grand prize winner was selected. Anoka County Historical Society is negotiating with the City of Anoka and the Anoka County Library to have a "deposit" collection in their building. Board members Barb Miller and John Hunter will not be at the December Board meeting. The meeting will be conducted by Vice-Chair, Patricia Sowada. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jeanine M Schmidt Secretary to the Library Board of Trustees. Tire Ci~, of Columbia Heights does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its services, pro~'ams, or activities. Upon request, accommodation will be lerovided to allow individuals with disabilities to particiFate in all Ci~ of Columbia Heights 'services, programs, and activities. OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TRAFFIC COMMISSION NOVEMBER 6, 2000 The meeting of the Traffic Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Ed Carlson. I. ROLL CALL Members Present: Members Absent: StaffPresent: Carlson, Goodman, Stumpf, Anderson, Sturdevant Kathyjean Young, Assistant City Engineer Don Jolly, City Council Member II. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 2, 2000 MINUTES Motion by Goodman, second by Stumpf, to approve the minutes of the October 2, 2000 meeting. Motion carried unanimously Ili. OLD BUSINESS None IV. OTHER OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS REQUEST TO DESIGNATE "PERMIT PARKING ONLY, 7:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M., MONDAY - FRIDAY, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS" ON 41sr AVENUE AND JACKSON STREET ADJACENT TO NEI As part of the proposed redevelopment at the NEI site, the school is requesting 33 parallel parking spaces on 41 st Avenue between Quincy Street and Central Avenue (18 on the north side of 41st Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and 15 on the south side of 41st Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley west of Central Avenue) and 11 parallel parking spaces on the east side of Jackson Street, south of 42nd Avenue be designated as "Permit Parking Only, 7:00 A.M. - 3:00 P.M., Monday - Friday, except Holidays". This request is to meet the number of parking spaces required by NEI as part of the development agreement. Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission November 6, 2000 Page 2 VI. Police Chief Johnson was not present at the meeting but spoke with Chairperson Carlson by phone and stated that he was not in favor of on-street parking as he felt it would set a precedent. Chairperson Carlson stated he felt parking was on a first come first serve basis and was against the request for on-street parking. He also noted that the City has a 6-hour parking ordinance and, as this request exceeds that parking limit, an ordinance change would be necessary should the parking by permit be implemented. He suggested that this request go directly to the City Council but a letter be sent notifying residents in the area of the proposed permit parking. Commissioner Sturdevant informed staff prior to the meeting that he was not in favor of permit parking. Both the Public Works Department and the Police Department have reservations entering into this type of an on-street parking permit system. Staff encouraged a Public Hearing be called to receive comments from the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Carlson indicated he did not see the need for the Traffic Commission to hold a Public Hearing and suggested it be discussed at the November 13th meeting of the City Council. Mr. Chuck Dettman of NEI along with Chris Winter of Real Estate Equities and Shirley Barnes of Crestview were present at the meeting to answer any questions. Kathyjean Young, Assistant City Engineer, indicated that at present parking is sufficient with 460 spaces available to NEI. She suggested that if the spaces required by NEI are part of the development agreement, that nothing be done at this time and the parking permits be looked at when the enrollment increases. Motion by Stumpf, second by Goodman, to deny the request to designate "Permit Parking Only, 7:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M., Monday - Friday, Except Holidays" on the north side of 41st Avenue from Quincy Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the south side of 41st Avenue from Jackson Street to the alley west of Central Avenue and on the east side of Jackson Street, south of42"d Avenue and to notify property owners within 300' of the proposed permit parking that the request is on the agenda of the City Council on November 13, 2000. Motion carried unanimously. OTHER NEW BUSINESS None Official Proceedings Columbia Heights Traffic Commission November 6, 2000 Page 3 VII. VIII. REPORTS A. CITY ENGINEER The first Monday in January falls on a holiday. Staff requests an alternate day be designated for the Traffic Commission meeting. At the December meeting an alternate date of January 3ra will be considered. B. POLICE CHIEF None. C. COMMISSIONERS Chairperson Carlson mentioned that the A & W restaurant on 40th Avenue is going to re-open. He was wondering about exiting on 40th Avenue. As no changes are being made to the existing property, there is no problem with the exit in its present location. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Goodman, second by Carlson, to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Traffic Commission Secretary THE MINUTES OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FROM THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2000 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Dennis Stroik, Chairperson. ROLL CALL: Commission Members: Council Representative: City Representative: AT & T Broadband Rep: Legal Counsel: Dennis Stroik, Bradley Peterson, Reuben Ruen, Ken Henke, Dan Swee, and Bob Buboltz Julienne Wyckoff Linda Magee and Jean Kuehn Kathi Donnelly-Cohen Stephen Guzzetta APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Bob Buboltz, seconded by Brad Peterson, to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 21, 2000. All ayes. OLD BUSINESS A. Channel Check Channel 60 was slow to sink in. And there was a big variation in volume, especially noted on Channels 31 &32. B. Correspondence Log and Complaint Follow Up. #138-Doury-Work done in his yard without his knowledge. Kathi has contacted Mr. Doury, and the situation has been resolved. C. Status of Ordinance Regulating Telecommunications Towers/Antennaes On August 14, 2000 Linda sent a draf~ of the ordinance Steve Guzzetta wrote to all Telecommunication Commission members for their review and comments. Comments were submitted by Ken Henke and Linda forwarded these to the appropriate people for their review and possible incorporation into the ordinance. At the meeting in September, the Telecommunication Commission members thought the ordinance was better detailed and were satisfied with it. The Planning and Zoning Commission addressed this ordinance at their November meeting and made a recommendation to the Council. However, at the City Council meeting of November 13th, the ordinance was tabled due to concerns submitted by Ken Henke that he felt had not been addressed. Staff was directed to send the ordinance back to the Telecommunications Commission for their review and comments. Therefore, at the meeting there was some discussion regarding the issues Ken was questioning. 1. In 47USC section 332, it references Wireless Communications Services. He feels this pertains to cell phone services, so why are we addressing it in such obscure terms? Steve explained that he would recommend to leave it as written as this terminology is general enough to cover many services rather than a specific service, as technology in the next 10-15 years will probably continue to change at a rapid pace. This would eliminate the need to change the ordinance. TELECOMMUNICATIONS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2000 PAGE 2 2. Ken questioned why increasing the height of an existing tower is treated as a new tower and if the existing tower height is increased, additional distance separation or setbacks are not necessarily required to be increased. Steve explained that permission must be given before modifications can be made to an existing tower or before constructing a new tower. Modifying existing towers are preferable to putting up additional new ones. But a request to modify a tower excessively could be denied during the application process that would be required in this ordinance. 3. Ken questioned the term "expedited treatment". Isn't that term a matter of opinion? And wouldn't it give someone the grounds to argue that something wasn't being expedited? Steve explained that this would be addressed by the city's or department's policies and procedures. 4. There was no size regulations for antennas placed on utility poles or towers. How can you regulate size of independent towers/antennae and not those placed on other structures? Steve explained that there is no need to specify a size as it would be determined at the time of the application whether the proposed tower/antenna is of proper size, design, and meets aesthetics and density requirements. This would be decided on a case by case basis. 5. Generator noise would fall under the noise ordinance already adopted by the city. This ordinance is enforced by the Police Department. 6. Visual Impact seems poorly defined. Steve explained this is done on purpose in that it gives the city the right to decide what is aesthetically acceptable or not. It also provides a written record that is required by law that would give the city the right to deny an application, if deemed necessary. This way applicants are aware that this issue will be considered as part of the approval process. Ken questioned whether people are notified in the affected area and have the opportunity to voice their opinions regarding these towers. The commission members were told that yes, they are notified of the public hearings where these requests would be reviewed by the Plamfing and Zoning Commission before making a recommendation to the city council. Ken was concerned about an annual registration fee. The P & Z Commission recommended the City Council establish the amount of the fee. The Ordinance does say that a fee can be set, but does not set the figure. This way the fee can be set and changed by Resolution as deemed necessary by the Council. Although Ken did not agree with some of the responses to his questions, he does understand why it was drafted the way it was. He felt that staff will need to have some policies and procedures established to provide adequate information and uniformity to those making application. Motion by Ken, seconded by Bob to recommend the City Council hold the first reading of Ordinance 1424 at the next council meeting and to direct the council to proceed with the second reading and adoption of the ordinance. All ayes. D. Status of Franchise Fee Audit Carolyn from Ashplaugh and Sculco is preparing the final report. It should be completed next week. There were some underpayments found, but Steve has not seen the report yet. He will report on it at the next meeting. It was noted that no major errors were detected and that the errors that were found were not deliberately made. E. Other Old Business There was no other old business. TELECOMMUNICATIONS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2000 PAGE 3 NEW B BUSINESS Request from Wide Open West for Application to be placed on temporary "Hold" Steve explained that additional information needed to be provided by Wide Open West and that this information was not available. They have, therefore, requested that their application be put on hold. Steve has not had any further communications from them since the request was made. Report of Legal, Technical, and Financial Qualifications of Everest Connection Corp. The continued public hearing will take place November 27t~ on the applications received from Wide Open West and Everest Connection Corp. As Wide Open West has asked that their application be placed on hold, no finding will be made as to their legal, technical, and financial qualifications. The report on the Legal, Technical, and Financial Qualifications of Everest Connection was passed out at the meeting. Steve informed the members that three requests for information were made, and that all of them were responded to in a timely fashion. Everest is qualified in all three areas to hold a franchise in Columbia Heights, and to construct and operate a system. They claim it will be a better system than the one we now have with AT & T Broadband. They also said they would match what AT & T now does in terms of government drops, I Net lines, and Access Channels. They have already started construction of their system in the northern sections of the metro area. Motion by Ken, seconded by Bob to recommend the City Council close the public heating and find that Everest Connection Corp. is legally, financially, and technically qualified to construct a cable system and provide cable services within the territorial limits of the city, and to direct staff and Creighton, Bradley and Guzzetta to proceed with negotiation of a cable franchise with Everest Connection Corporation. All ayes. C. Receipt of 3a Quarter Franchise Fee The 3~d quarter franchise fees were enclosed in the agenda packets for the commissioners to review. There are no franchise fees for telephone service as that is regulated by the PUC. D. Notice of Price Increase for Adult Pay Per View The notice of the price increase for Adult Pay Per View was enclosed in the agenda packet. Effective November 1, 2000 the price for each movie or event ordered on Spice will increase from $6.95 to $7.99 and the Hot Network will increase from $9.95 to $11.99. E. Change in Billing System for Digital Telephone Service Notice was received that AT & T will be converting their billing system for Digital Telephone Service to ICOMS billing system. This notice was for informational purposes only. F. Notification of Digital Service Packages A letter was enclosed in the agenda packets explaining the new digital service packages that began November 8th. These digital services will be in addition to the analog services already purchased by the customer. A digital receiver is required in order to receive any of the digital programming services. The digital receiver would be equipped to receive both the digital and analog services. TELECOMMUNICATIONS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2000 PAGE 4 Annual Holiday Dinner It was decided to hold the Annual Holiday dinner at Jax Cafe on Thursday, December 14th at 6:30 pm. Linda and Shelley will handle the reservations and will be sending out information in the next week or SO. Other New Business Web Site Update- Phase 2 is well under way. The items to be added at this time include: Link to the Chamber of Commerce, City Budget and Financial Reports, City Code, City Maps, Application form for Commission/Boards, Council Agendas and Minutes, City Newsletter, Link to School District # 13, and Links to Government Representatives. We are linked to the League of MN Cities now, so people can access our web site through them also. Additional items that will be worked on during 2001 will include: City Code, Public Safety Statistics, and possible registration for Park and Recreation programs. Our web site address has also been added to our city stationery and will be included in the city newsletter and other mailings when possible. REPORTS A. Report of Commissioners Educational-The amount put into the 2001 budget for equipment purchases for educational access has been left in the budget thus far. Any expenditures would need to be requested through the proper application process. Government-Local election results were put on Channel 16 and on the web site the evening of the election in a very timely basis. Library-Nothing to report Public-Nothing to report Report of AT & T Broadband- Kathi reported that Sneak Preview is being taken off and will be replaced with MSNBC. Co Report of the Cable Attorney Steve reported that MACTA is forging ahead with issues that need to be brought before the legislature. Several MACTA representatives have already met with Mr. Bemstein and he has committed to work with them on some of the legislation being drafted. Do Report of the Assistant to the City Manager Linda reported that the city will need to enter into a new Letter of Agreement with Creighton, Bradley and Guzzetta for legal services as the last agreement with Mr. Creighton was when he was with the Bernick and Lifson law firm. This is being done mainly as a "housekeeping item" for clarification purposes and to avoid any confusion in regards to the provision of these services. The commission expressed their satisfaction with the services provided by Creighton, Bradley and Guzzetta, and recommended the continuation of legal services by them. Motion by Dan Swee, seconded by Brad Peterson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 pm. All ayes. ~:'espectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson S ~cretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS 590 40TH AVENUE N.E., COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, MN 55421-3878 (612) 782-2800 TDD 782-2806 MEMBERS Tom Rarnsdell, Chair Donna Schmitt Ted Yehle Stephan Johnson Tammera Ericson PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES November 8, 2000 The November 8, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ramsdell. Members present were Schmitt, Ericson, Yehle, and Ramsdell. Commissioner Johnson was not in attendance. Also present were Kathryn Pepin (Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission), and Tim Johnson (City Planner). MOTION by Yehle, seconded by Ericson, to approve the minutes from the meeting of October 3, 2000 as presented in writing. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed. NEW BUSINESS Ac Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit Case #2000-1127 Allen O. Rue RE: 4000 N.E. 6th Street Columbia Heights, Mn. City Planner, Tim Johnson, presented the request of Mr. Allen Rue for a Conditional Use Permit to operate the former A & W Restaurant building at 4000 N.E. 6'h Street as a drive-in restaurant on a seasonal basis from approximately April to October. He stated that the surrounding property on the south, west and east is zoned RD, Retail Business and is used commercially. The property to the north is zoned and used residentially. The subject property is located in the RD, Retail Business District. Section 9.113(2) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-in business in the RB District and is subject to the following requirements: Hours of operation shall be confined to the period between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. for those serving food or drink. The proposed hours of operation for the Hy-lander Drive-In are proposed to be Monday through Thursday from 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; Friday and Saturday from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; Sunday from 10:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. This proposal meets requirements. The entire area shall have a drainage system approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has no concerns regarding this proposal as this lot is existing and there are no surface or grade changes proposed. The entire area other than that occupied by the structure or plantings shall be surfaced with a material which will control dust and drainage to the approval of the City Engineer. The entire lot is currently hard surfaced which meets this requirement. THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF OISABILITY IN EMPL©YMENT OR tHE PROVISION OF SERVICES EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 2 A box curb at least six (6) inches above grade shall separate the public walk from the lot except at approved entrances or exits. Box curbing or zero lot line landscaping would not be required as the majority of the lot currently has unrestricted access onto 40m Avenue and 6th Street. Staff would not recommend the installation of box curbing in front of the building along 40th Avenue as this would restrict walk-up access to the business. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential use. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that the minimum yard and density requirements are as follows: Lot frontage shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet and lot width shall be a minimum of fifty (50) feet. subject parcel has approximately 129 feet of lot frontage and width on 40th Avenue. No structure shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty-five (35) feet whichever is lesser. The existing structure is well under this requirement at approximately fifteen (15)feet. No building shall be erected within ten (10) feet of any alley abutting the narrowest width of the lot. existing building meets this requirement. The The Side Yard Setback shall be 0 feet. The closest Side Yard Setback is 6.4 feet from 6t~ Street which meets requirements. Rear Yard Setback shall be ten (10) feet. property line which meets requirements. The floor area ratio shall not exceed 1.0. requirements. Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is not proposing any structural changes, however there will be exterior enhancements made to the building as they pertain to redesign and remodeling. The applicant is proposing to repair the roof as well as renewing the canopy and its lights. Visual improvements would include replacement of front sidewalk, seal coating the existing driveway, as well as adding building and directional signage. The proposal would The existing building is approximately 18 feet from the rear The building has a 0.07 floor area ratio which meets The Front Yard Setback shall be fifteen (15) feet. The existing structure is approximately 2.4 feet from the front property line. However, the structure is considered legal non-conforming as Ion9 as the structure is not added onto. Minimum lot area shall be 6,000 square feet. The existing parcel is 5,184 square feet falling short of the requirement. However, the lot is considered legal non-conforming and is considered "grandfathered". PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 3 include repair of broken curb and pavement, along with seal-coating and re-striping. There is an existing privacy fence that is located on the rear of the property which satisfies the ordinance for bufferin9 residential properties from commercial properties. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that parking requirements for a restaurant are at least one space for each three seats based on capacity design. However, the drive-in proposed does not have interior seating, so it would be exempt from this requirement. From the site plan proposed, there will be nine (9) drive-in service lanes. He added that there are currently no off-street parking requirements !or drive-in restaurants. He indicated that Staff has spoken to the Public Works Department regarding existing access directly onto 40th Avenue for the proposed business. Public Works has no issues as all of the drive-in spaces of A & W formerly had direct access onto 40t~ Avenue and the new proposal will utilize the same pattern. He directed their attention to the site plan for the property. Mr. Johnson stated that solid waste material is required to be so located and fenced as to be removed from public view and shall be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained for such purposes. The site plan shows an existing dumpster on the northwest corner of the lot which the Hy-Lander Drive-In will continue to use. They will be required to fence the dumpster. The site plans submitted also show lighting on site to remain as is, with proposed lighting under the canopy to be repaired for the walk up window. The current Zoning Ordinance does not address minimum landscaping standards for existing commercial sites. It was Mr. Johnson's opinion that the City Comprehensive Plan designates this area for future Commercial development adding that one goal of the Land Use and Redevelopment Plan is to improve the commercial viability of the 40th Avenue corridor while protectin9 nearby residential neighborhoods and the Plan promotes the rehabilitation of existing development land in the City. The proposal should not negatively impact any adjacent residential areas and will provide an appropriate reuse of an existing commercial drive-in building. The proposal seems consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Johnson stated that staff has reviewed Section 9.104(3)(f) of the Zoning Ordinance which addresses non- conforming uses, and has determined that the existing structure is non-conforming, hut the former use and proposed use of the structure conform to the RB District. However, the lot is non-conforming as it is less than 6,000 square feet in size. Because of the lot size, the proposed drive-in use is severely restricted at this site. In addition, the existing building is non-conforming as it relates to setbacks. However, the applicant has not proposed to add onto the existing structure. Future additions would not be possible due to the lot size. Chairperson Ramsdell asked about parking on 40th Avenue in front of the building and drive lanes. He suggested that signage be installed for "no parking" in that area. Commissioner Schmitt suggested that parking be allowed in the area in front of the building for pick-up of food from the walk-up window. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 4 The proposed owners, Allen Rue and Mike Clairmont, were present to state their intentions as far as exterior renovations stating that the canopy would be repaired as well as the roof, deteriorated wood replaced, siding work, etc. Mr. Rue stated that the interior appears to be very clean with little work necessary on the inside. They assured the Commissioners that the building will look 110% better when completed. They added that they would like to allow parkin9 on the street in front of the site when they are not open in order to accommodate the neighborin9 businesses. Council Representative Szurek had concerns regardin9 their proposal and requested additional paperwork to be submitted prior to the CUP being forwarded to the City Council indicating the proposed renovations and a completion rendering. She also requested staff to arrange ~or the Building Official to conduct a walk thru of the building to compile a list of items that must be replaced/repaired. Mr. Rue questioned the amount of signage they would be allowed for the site. Planner Johnson stated that the pole sign existing would have to be removed as it was non-conforming to the Sign Ordinance Section of the Zoning Code but wall signage on the building would be allowed. ChairPerson Ramsdell opened the public hearing. The public hearing was closed as no one was present to speak regarding this case. Motion by Yehle, seconded by Ericson, to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of The Hy-Lander Drive-In at 4000 N.E. 6th Steeet, 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 existing freestanding sign on the west side of the lot must be removed as it is non-conforming. All future signage must be submitted on the City prescribed application form and must fully comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Staff would recommend to post no parking signs along 40'h Avenue for the drive-in spaces to continue to have direct access to 40m Avenue without being blocked in by parked vehicles. Solid waste material shall be so located and fenced as to be removed from public view or shall be kept in an enclosed building. Hours of operation shall be confined to the period between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 a.m. Lighting shall be accomplished in such a way so as to have no direct source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential properties. Prior to opening, all repairs deemed necessary by the City Building Official must be completed. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 5 Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. **THIS ITEM TO APPEAR ON THE NOVEMBER 13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. Public Hearing RezoninglPlat Case #2000-1128 Real Estate Equities Re: 825 N.E. 41" Avenue Columbia Heights, Mn. Mr. Johnson presented the request of Real Estate Equities for Preliminary and Final Plat approval of the overall site encompassing NEI, the proposed new senior living building, the rental townhomes, and the Ostrander parcel. The Preliminary and Final Plat proposes to vacate some existing easements, and to establish some new easements. There are also alley vacations proposed as well as new alley right-of-way dedication with the Plat. There is an additional request for rezoning of the Ostrander parcel at 4157 Jackson Street NE from R-2 (single and two-family) to R-4 (multi-family), which was recently purchased by Real Estate Equities but wasn't included as part of the original rezoning approval. The Ostrander piece covers lots 29 and 30, Block 39, Columbia Heights Annex to Minneapolis. Mr. Johnson provided some background regarding the project stating that during the spring of 1998, the Minnesota Design Team visited Columbia Heights for a weekend and held two town meetings to facilitate community discussion and make recommendations for improvements. One of their recommendations was the creation of a transition block on the subject property which would consist of a variety of life cycle housing opportunities. In response to this recommendation, the City applied for ,~771,000 of Livable Communities Demonstration Account funds from the Metropolitan Council to help finance the project. At the time of the application, the project consisted of 18 affordable rental units, 70 affordable independent living senior units, and 26 owner-occupied townhomes. In December, 1998, the City was informed that we were awarded a grant in the amount of ,~575,000 for the project, $30,000 of which was budgeted for the completion of a Master Redevelopment Plan for Downtown Columbia Heights. He noted that the grant application was prepared in cooperation with Real Estate Equities Development Company (the applicant) and Crest View Corporation which is partnering with Real Estate Equities on the assisted living senior building. Mr. Johnson further stated that 825 N.E. 41" Avenue contains NEI College of Technology which has occupied the property since 1982. The original building was constructed in 1926 and was added to in 1951. It was first used as the High School for Independent School District 13 and was later turned into the Junior High School. The property located at 4150 Central Avenue N.E. is currently a vacant lot owned by the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority (EDA). The property located at 4156 Central Avenue N.E. is currently occupied by Citywide Locksmith. He noted that the applicant has unsuccessfully attempted to enter into a purchase agreement with the property owner of 4156 Central Avenue N.E. As a result, the applicant has requested that the EDA use the power of eminent domain to acquire the property. However, as of the preparation of this agenda, negotiations are in process to complete a voluntary sale. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Johnson stated that the surrounding property on the east is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and is used commercially. The property to the north is zoned both RB, Retail Business, and R-2, One and Two Family Residential. The property zoned RB is currently vacant, but is the site of a planned office buildin9. Most of the property to the north is used residentially. The property to the south is also a combination of commercial, residential, and institutional. The area to the west of the subject property is zoned R-2 and is used residentially. Rezonin§ City Planner Johnson stated that the City Comprehensive Plan designates 4157 Jackson Street for future medium density development. Medium density residential development should consist of four, six, and eight-family townhouse buildings. The Plan states that appropriate zoning for medium density residential is R-3, Multiple Family Residential. Appropriate zoning for the high density residential designation is R-4, Multiple Family Residential. Applicable permitted uses in the R-4 District include multiple family dwelling structures, nursing homes, and public and private schools. Multiple family dwelling structures and nursin9 homes are not permitted in the R-2 or CBD Districts, therefore, the original rezoning was necessary to accommodate the proposed uses. As previously mentioned, 825 N. E. 41" Avenue is zoned R-2, One and Two Family Residential; 4156 Central Avenue N.E. is zoned CBD, Central Business District; and, 4150 Central Avenue N.E. is zoned CBD, Central Business District. The original request to rezone all three properties to R-4, Multiple Family Residential was approved by the Planning Commission and passed onto the City Council in the spring of 2000. The matter will be taken up again at the next Council meeting on November 13, 2000. This new approval would incorporate the proposed rezoning of the Ostrander parcel as well as the former rezoning of the rest of the NEI site. Because the owner-occupied townhouse units have been removed from the proposal, the concept is less consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan than when the grant application was submitted. However, because the subject property is designated for both commercial and medium density residential, and because the development is being processed as a Planned Unit Development, rezoning the property to R-4 is more appropriate than the R-3 designation. It is staff's opinion that the project is still generally consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that the draft 2000 Comprehensive Plan designates the NEI site for future transit-oriented development, and it is also identified as a potential redevelopment area. The Plan states that areas designated for transit-oriented development will include service-oriented commercial/retail development with high- density residential development providing the balance of the development. He stated that the proposal is consistent with this recommendation. Althou9h the Ostrander piece hasn't been proposed for development other than for parking lot purposes, it will be reviewed as part of an overall site rezoning at the next City Council meeting. Plat Planner Johnson stated that the plat submitted indicates that the site will be divided into the following lots: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 7 1. Lot 1, Block 2 will be approximately 1.6 acres in size and will contain the 22 rental units. 2. Lot 1, Block 3 will be roughly .65 acres and will contain the assisted living buildin9. Lot 1, Block 1 will be roughly 5.4 acres and will contain NEI College of Technology, the Ostrander parcel, and related on-site parking. A number of new easements are being proposed, and some existing easements will need to be vacated. Outlot A- drainage and utility easement for the relocated storm water pond. He noted that the storm water pond is currently located where the assisted living building is proposed. The size and location of the proposed pond is subject to final review and approval by the Public Works Department. The existing drainage and utility easement for the storm water pond and related piping needs to be vacated. A proposed drainage and utility easement is proposed around the rental units for a proposed sanitary sewer line and water main to serve the four buildings. There is a portion of a drainage and utility easement that encroaches into the proposed Lot 1 that will need to be vacated. Hedlund Engineering has submitted a list and description of all easements and right-of-ways to be created and vacated in the Final Plat approvals. Having reviewed the proposed plat, Mr. Johnson stated that staff has identified some issues that need to be addressed as part of the approval of preliminary and final plat. Alleys- Currently, there is a north/south alley that is located west of the existing commercial properties along Central Avenue which connects 41'~ and 42"d Avenues. The proposed senior buildin9 is located over the existing alley, so that portion of the right-of-way will need to be vacated. He noted that staff has safety concerns about the proposed alley which will contain two 90 degree turns. So staff will recommend as part of any final approvals that the directional changes be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier (guardrail) be provided at the point where the alley turns away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building. Staff would recommend that a guardrail be placed next to the drainage pond (Outlot B), as a safety measure. The second alley that needs to be vacated is the north/south dead end alley abutting the Ostrander parcel (Lots 29, 30; Block 39) on the east side, and perpendicular to 42nd Avenue. This alley needs to be vacated in conjunction with the plat and the rezoning as it currently serves no purpose. The vacation of this alley would allow for future NEI off-street parking according to the site plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 8 MnDOT Metro Division has reviewed the Final Plat proposed and has submitted comments in a letter dated October 30, 2000. In their review, MnOOT found the Plat acceptable and did not offer any suggestions for change. I have also spoken with Paul Bertleson from the Anoka County Surveyor's office regarding the Final Plat, and he did not express any concerns. Anoka County surveyors and engineers will review the Final Plat before it is filed to ensure that it meets their requirements. Miscellaneous Mr. Johnson stated that the Police Department has not expressed any concerns with the Plat or proposed rezoning. He referred to the memo dated March 27, 2000, from the Police Chief for more detailed information regarding these concerns. He added that the Fire Department has not expressed any concerns with the Final Plat or the proposed rezoning. The Fire Department initially had concerns regarding the lack of fire lanes along 41~' Avenue, but this issue appears to be addressed in the newest site plans. However, these are not plat issues. In summary, Mr. Johnson stated that the positive aspects of this proposal would be that the rezoning of 4157 Jackson will allow for the entire I~EI parcel to maintain consistent zoning, and allow for future transit oriented development to occur. In addition, the negative aspects of this proposal would be that the rezoning of the Ostrander parcel will not create any new tangible benefit or development as it is being proposed to be used for overflow parking for NEI. Mr. Johnson stated that Staff would recommend approval of Ordinance 1411 which is an Ordinance rezonin9 the subject property to R-4, Multiple Family Residential, as the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the City Comprehensive Plan and would be subject to the successful acquisition of 4156 Central Avenue through the eminent domain process. Commissioner Schmitt was concerned that noise from traffic on Central Avenue would be a problem for the senior building. ChairPerson Ramsdell opened the public hearing. The public hearing was closed as no one wished to speak regarding this issue. Motion by Ericson, seconded by Yehle, to recommend to the City Council the adoption of Ordinance # 1423 which is an Ordinance rezoning 4157 Jackson Street NE to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District, as the property has been acquired by Real Estate Equities, and the proposal is generally consistent with the intent of the City Comprehensive Plan. Motion by Ericson, seconded by Ramsdell, to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat for the NEI site and all that property identified on the plat as submitted at 825 - 41" Avenue NE, 4150 Central Avenue NE, and 4156 Central Avenue NE, and including 4157 Jackson Street NE, subject to the following conditions: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING* MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 9 1. City Council adoption of Ordinance #1411, rezoning the subject property to R-4, Multiple Family Residential District. 2. The applicants will need to demonstrate interest in the property (i.e. ownership) before the City Council will approve the Final Plat. 3. Successful negotiation of a development agreement(s) between the applicant and the Columbia Heights Economic Development Authority. 4. The creation and vacation of pertinent drainage and utility easements shall be added to the plat and shall be approved by the City and the Public Works Department. 5. The creation and vacation of alley right-of-ways as shown on the plat. 6. Directional changes in the public alley shall be clearly signed and marked, and a traffic impact barrier shall be provided at the point where the alley turns away from Central Avenue to travel around the proposed senior building. A guardrail shall also be provided next to the drainage pond (Outlot B) as a safety measure. 7. The traffic circulation system and all right-of-ways shall be clearly signed and marked on the plat. 8. Utility companies shall be notified prior to any utility easement vacations that currently house utilities. 9. The Plat should be amended to reflect and spell out Block for legal description on plat. 10. The City Attorney and City Engineer shall review and approve the plat before recording. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion passed. *THESE ITEMS TO APPEAR ON THE NOVEMBER 13, 2000 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. C. Site Plan Review Case #2000-1129 Washburn McReavy RE: 4101 Central Ave. Columbia Heights, Mn. City Planner, Tim Johnson, presented the request of Washburn McReavy for site plan approval to allow the former Norwest Bank Building to be converted into a Washburn McReavy Funeral Home at 4101 Central Avenue N.E. The proposed building is roughly 6,480 square feet with the proposed garage addition. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 10 He stated that the property to the north and east is zoned CBD, Central Business District, and is used commercially. There is also adjacent property to the east that is zoned R-4, Multi-Family and is used residentially. The surrounding property to the south and west is zoned CBD, and is used commercially. The subject property is zoned CBD. According to Section 9.112(1) of the Columbia Heights Zoning Ordinance, funeral homes are not listed as a specific permitted use in this district. However, they are listed as a permitted use in the LB (Limited Business District). He informed the Commission that Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the permitted uses in the CBD and believe that Funeral Homes are similar in nature to the uses generally permitted in this district. Because the existing Taylor Funeral Home located on 40t~ Avenue is currently in the Central Business District, the Washburn McReavy Funeral Home proposed in the CBD appears to also be an appropriate use. The intensity and land use impact of a funeral home in the Central Business District seems to be consistent with the listed permitted uses and can be considered a permitted use. The new draft zoning ordinance also addresses funeral homes as being allowed in the CBD District. Mr. Johnson stated that the Minimum Yard and Density Requirements are as follows: The Floor Area Ratio shall not exceed 6.0. The proposed Floor Area Ratio is .17, which meets the minimum requirements. Minimum frontage shall be twenty (20) feet. The current site has approximately two hundred feet of frontage, meeting requirements. The Front Yard Setback shall be one (1)foot. The existing building is approximately eight (8) feet from the front property line, meeting requirements. Mr. Johnson added that parking requirements for undertaking establishments are based on the maximum seating capacity of the business. According to Section 9.116(4)(v) of the Zoning Ordinance, one (1) parking space is required for each five (5) seats. A site plan submitted indicates that Washburn McReavy Funeral Home will have a maximum fixed seating capacity of one hundred fifty four (154). The site plan proposed shows forty three (43) off- street parking spaces, of which two are handicapped. In addition, one (1) space is required for each 250 square feet of floor area not used for seating. According to staff calculations, thirty nine (39) parking spaces are required, therefore, the site plan meets the requirements. Although the ordinance does not require it, the access aisles proposed for this newly configured lot are at least twenty four (24) feet. The Zoning Ordinance requires that all open off-street parking areas shall provide a bumper curb of five (5) to seven (7) inches high around the perimeter of the parking area and a curb of no less than five (5) feet from a building that has parking around it. The site plan indicates that there will be perimeter concrete curb provided along with a curb and concrete sidewalk along the building. Mr. Johnson informed the Commission that Staff has reviewed the new garage addition proposed on the east side of the building which will be built to match the existing structure and which meets all required setbacks from property lines. The garage addition will be used for casket display and funeral vehicle storage. With this addition, new landscaping is being proposed. New trees and landscaping will be planted on the north and west sides of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, :7000 Page 11 building, as well as new sodding and an irrigation system. New lighting is also proposed on site, along the Central Avenue entrance as well as the along the perimeter of the lot for security and aesthetic purposes. Mr. Johnson added that Staff will need to follow up to ensure that the lighting plan does not exceed three (3) foot candles at the property line. At this point, staff hasn't reviewed any specific plans for signage, although the applicant has indicated that they are planning on installing flush mounted signage into the existing vacant cans which housed the former signage. Mr. Johnson stated that Staff recommends approval of the site plan to allow for Washburn McReavy Funeral Home to occupy the former Norwest Bank Building and to construct a 1,680 square foot garage addition at 4101 Central Avenue N.E., subject to the conditions listed in the recommended motion. He added that the Public Works, Police and the Fire Departments have received the plans and have expressed no concerns with the proposal. Staff also spoke with a MnDOT official regarding this change in use which abuts a trunk highway. The MnDOT official indicated that he didn't anticipate any changes or concerns with this proposal, however, MnOOT will do a final review before occupancy. Commissioner Schmitt asked staff if the building was large enough to serve the purpose of a funeral home. Bill McReavey was present and stated that they operate multiple locations in the area and that the Robbinsdale site was smaller than this location but the most efficient. He added that they should not have any problem with an operation at this site. Chairperson Ramsdell opened the public hearing. The public hearing was closed as no one was present to speak regarding this case. Motion by Ramsdell, seconded by Yehle, to approve the site plan to allow Washburn McReavy Funeral Home to occupy the existing building at 4101 Central Avenue N.E. and to allow for the construction of a 1680 square foot garage addition, subject to the following conditions: A lighting plan will need to be reviewed and approved by staff before any additional lighting is installed on the site. 2. MnDOT site plan review of site access for change in use will be required prior to certificate of occupancy. All proposed signage must be submitted on the City prescribed application form and must fully comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Staff Reports: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 12 A. PUD A§reement for NEI. Mr. Johnson referred to a copy of a Planned Unit Development Agreement prepared by attorneys for the City of Columbia Heights, NEI College of Technology and the Columbia Heights Transition Block LLC who is the developer. This agreement outlines the specific development standards and concessions proposed to be given to NEI and its counterparts as part of the redevelopment process. He informed the Planning and Zoning Commission that specific concessions related to variances include setback variances for the townhome buildings, parking arrangements, open space conveyance and park dedication. The major concession allows NEI to be able to rebuild their building in the same footprint and at the same height as the existing structure if the structure would be destroyed or damaged in any way which was a major issue for NEI who was unwilling to follow through on any deal without this language. Mr. Johnson stated that it would be necessary for the Commission to make a motion regarding the agreement and forwarding it on to the City Council for final review. Mr. Ken Anderson, Community Development Director informed the Commission that the Traffic Commission, at their meeting of November 6, 2000, denied an on-street parking request for the project. The request consisted of 44 on- street parking spaces on 41'~ Avenue between Quincy and Van Buren Streets and eleven spaces on the east side of Jackson Street just south of 42"~ Avenue. All the proposed on-street parking spaces are proposed to be parallel parking and by permit only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday for staff and employees of NEI. These spaces would fulfill the §00 space obligations of NEI He added that final action would be taken by the City Council at their meeting of November 13, 2000. Chairperson Ramsdell was concerned with the many unknowns as far as the parking section. Ken Anderson stated "that the Parking Agreement itself is really outside the bounds of responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission and that is why it was referred to the Traffic Commission. Staff is receommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission take action on other issues as outlined by Mr. Johnson in the agenda". He suggested that they not base their decision on the one issue of parking. Commissioner Schmitt was confused by the 1,000 student limit on Page 9 and asked if off-site students were considered as off-site could happen in the future. Ken Anderson stated that the 1000 student population came from when NEI originally located in Columbia Heights when their enrollment was closet to 1000 where now it is half that. He assumed that NEI was comfortable with the 1000 figure because if there were more than 1000 students on site, the parking would not comply. He felt it was not necessary to include off-site student enrollment in the agreement. Keith Jans, representing Real Estate Equities, was present. He stated that he had just had the opportunity to review the agreement and wanted to point out some clarifications or changes. On Page 3 of the agreement in the third whereas, the name of the plat should be Northwestern 2"" Addition instead of the "Real Estate Equities Addition" as stated. In addition, on Page 9, paragraph d, reference is made to the number of on-site parking spaces which should read 456 parking stalls on-site with 44 off-site permit spaces. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 13 Ken Anderson stated that the City Attorney will be closely reviewing the document for any necessary changes prior to the signature of the final document. Commissioner Schmitt asked about the underground indoor parking that was recommended by the Police Department and if that was for the senior housing. She also asked if the parking allowances included parking spaces for staff. Ken Anderson stated that underground indoor parking was proposed very early on in the project. After further study it has now been determined that underground indoor parking was not feasible as there is not a need. He explained that as most of the people in the senior housing complex average 70 years of age and do not have vehicles or drive any longer. The parking needs for this building have been determined to be approximately one parking space for each two units for a total of 25 parkin9 spaces and would be on-site surface parking. He added that these spaces would include those for staff. Marlaine Szurek, City Council liaison, interjected that Royce Place has a parking lot that is virtually empty and mostly used by staff. She felt that most seniors give up their cars when they move into this type of housing. Chairperson Ramsdell agreed stating that approximately three occupants of Royce Place still drive. Shirley Barnes, CEO of Crestview, was present and stated that the need for additional parking is not needed as she has seen at Royce Place. There the average age is 84 years and the people there need day to day assistance with such things as dressing and some suffer from memory loss. She stated that the national statistic for assisted living parking spaces is .5 space per unit. Ken Anderson informed the Commission that, if in the future, items of concern would arise that would be of mutual concern to all parties in the agreement, the PUD could be reviewed. Motion by Ramsdell, seconded by Yehle, to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Planned Unit Development Agreement between the City of Columbia Heights, NEI College of Technology and Columbia Heights Transition Block LLC and to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to enter into an agreement for the same. Voice Vote: Ali Ayes. B. Tower Ordinance. City Planner, Tim Johnson, presented the revised Tower Ordinance for review. He indicated the areas the Planning Commission had requested changed at the October meeting. He added that a moratorium on Telecommunications and Antennae is in effect until December 7, 2000. He stated that on Page 7, Item §e was changed to allow towers less than 80 feet in Residential Districts and the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 14 LB District by Conditional Use Permit rather than by variances as previously proposed. Page 8, Item 5f was added to not allow towers greater than or equal to 80 feet in height in Residential or Limited Business Districts. Commissioner Yehle also noted that concerns were stated regarding the maximum number of co-locators on a tower or existing support which is addressed on Page 9, Item 7a. Commissioner Schmitt asked if there were any existing towers. Commissioners Yehle and Ramsdell stated there were and gave the locations. Discussion was again held regarding Page 24, Item 15a, Annual Registration Requirements. Concerns were voiced at the previous meeting regarding the need for this requirement and what other cities require such annual registration. Staff did not see the need for this provision as it would add another layer of paperwork to what is already required. Concerns with notification to the city when use of a tower or wireless facility is discontinued are addressed in 16 f on Page 26. The Commissioners were not certain if the annual registration requirement was necessary and were in favor of referring it to the City Council for further discussion as to the necessity. Ken Henke, member of the Telecommunications Commission, was present. He stated that the annual registration would apply to all towers and communication structures and the process could become quite cumbersome. He also felt the Telecommunication Commission has not had adequate opportunity to "grill" the attorney and get questions answered. To the best of his knowledge, the Telecommunications Commission has not seen the revised ordinance. Mr. Henke indicated that he had concerns that he wanted to document but had not had adequate time to review this revised ordinance. Tim Johnson stated that he had contacted Linda Magee, Staff liaison to the Telecommunication Commission, and she indicated that they had adequately reviewed this ordinance. The Commissioners recommended that Mr. Henke submit his documented concerns to the City Council so that the proposed ordinance can be passed on for action. Motion by Ericson, seconded by Yehle, to recommend to the City Council the approval of Ordinance #1424, Columbia Heights Tower Siting Ordinance for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, subject to review of Section 15, Annual Registration Requirements, as Ordinance #1424 as presented is generally consistent with Federal Telecommunication standards, and reflects the City of Columbia Heights development standards as they relate to telecommunication requests. Voice Vote: All Ayes. C. Zonin§ Ordinance. Due to the late hour of the meeting, this item was tabled until a work session scheduled for November 27, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in the main City Hall Conference Room. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING- MINUTES NOVEMBER 8, 2000 Page 15 Motion by Yehle, seconded by Schmitt, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Voice Vote: All Ayes. Motion carried. Respect~,ubmitted, Kathryn Pepin .~' Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission kp City of Columbia Heights Park and Recreation Commission October 25, 2000 The meeting was called to order by Eileen Evans at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Eileen Evans; Jerry Foss; Gary Mayer; Scott Niemeyer; Gary Peterson; Keith Windschitl, Recreation Director Roger Peterson; Bruce Magnuson Members absent: Bob Ruettimmm; Kevin Hansen, Public Works Director/City Engineer Also present: APPROVAL CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Magnuson, second by Niemeyer to approve the consent agenda. All ayes, motion carded. LETTERS AND REQUESTS REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF FEE OR FEE-WAIVED USE OF MURZYN HALL, CHILDREN'S SAFETY CENTERS. Members reviewed the letter from Children's Safety Center. Eileen Evens stated that the Park and Recreation Commission had previously approved the policy where the Recreation Director could approve this arrangement of a $40.00 entry fee and $15.00/hr. The Recreation Director indicated that this was a temporary solution for the space needs of this organization. He also indicated that they would only be charged if Murzyn Hall was not open for that specific day. OLD BUSINESS JOINT BUDGET WITH PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. Members will discuss the proposed 2001 budget at the joint meeting with the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission scheduled for 7:00 p.m. tonight. The Recreation Director indicated that the proposed budget for 2001 has been decreased by $3824.00 from the 2000 budget. PAGE TWO NEW BUSINESS ROGER PETERSON HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION. The Recreation Director introduced Roger Peterson, our new Park and Commission member. REPORTS RECREATION DIRECTOR The Recreation Director reported that Janice McGhee-Fetzer has taken a position with Anoka County. Eileen Evens said that she would write a letter to Janice on behalf of the Park and Recreation Commission thanking her for commitment to the City of Columbia Heights. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER Public Works activity report from Director of Public Works was passed out to the Park and Recreation Commission. The memo discussed the progress of Gateway Park and Prestemon Park. COMMISSION MEMBERS Roger Peterson discussed the skate parks in Ashland, Oregon. Pictures of thc park in Ashland were passed around. The St. Anthony skate park project was also discussed. Members have heard problems of graffiti, injury, littering, and obscene language at the St. Anthony skate park. Jerry Foss brought up the Back to the Parks budget and mentioned that he would like to see the $10,000 put back that the City Manager has cut from the 2001 budget. He feels that this is a good program and just needs to be promoted better within the community. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Magnuson, second by Foss to adjourn. All ayes, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Keith~~t~~ MEMO CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Parks and Recreation Commission Kevin Hansen, Director of Public Works October 20, 2000 for Commission meeting of October 25, 2000. Public Works Activity Report Gateway Park: Many improvements have been made to this small area of land as a "Gateway" to the Community. Plantings are essentially complete with some shrub and tree replacements scheduled for the spring. The underground irrigation system has been tested and checked out and should really add to making a beautiful park in 2001. The sign will be completed the week of the 23rd with precast top and bottom mantel placement and tuckpointing around the polished granite sign. A gravel base was placed in lieu of wood chips for the temporary sidewalk area through the park. Items left to place will be lighting for the sign, flagpoles, and a concrete design and color for the walk-,ray. Prestemon Park: Improvements at Prestemon continue with over 500 wetland and native species planted last xveek. This work was through a DNR Conservation Partners Grant for xvetland and upland restoration around the pond constructed in 1999. A information kiosk will be designed and placed next year desc~5bing the type and value of the plantings. Approximately 30 additional trees, mainly oaks, will be planted this fall to further enhance the park setting. The playground area is finally completed and has been well received by the neighborhood. The walking trail was extended around the playground area for access and viewing of the pond area. Benches and picnic tables remain to be placed for seating around this area. Areas where turf has not been established have been reseeded, although the lack of rain is not helping. KRH: kh h/Public Works.rkevinlv'l:mks/P& P.._m[*./10/25100t staff repot t.dac