Loading...
1984-06-05CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AGENDA JUNE 5, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Order. 2. Roll Call. 3. Adoption of Agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes, May 22, May 29. 5. Consent Calendar: a. Acknowledgement of the Code Enforcement Officer's monthly report for May. b. Acknowledgement of the Park Commission minutes from May 8th. c. Acknowledgement of the Planning Commission minutes from May 22nd. d. Acknowledgement of the NDC -4 minutes from April 25, May 2, and May 9th. e. Approval of the List of Claims. f. Approval of the List of Contractor's Licenses. End of Consent Calendar. 6. Public Comments. 7. Unfinished and New Business: a. Consider process for change in Fire Department officers. (Additional information will be available Tuesday evening). b. Request from B. Friel for Council consideration of an Ordinance restricting hours of street and highway construction. (Representatives will be present). c. Memo on Watermain Extensions - Wagon Wheel Trail/I-35E (Bebel). d. Memo on Computer Acquisition. e. Memo on Spring Clean -Up Ordinance repeal. f. Memo on Guard house at Target Warehouse. g. Status report on Downtown Task Force. h. Memo on Visitation Drive. i. Memo on Mn/DOT Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 61825. J. Memo on MEED Employee. k. Memo on July 3rd Council meeting. 8. Council Comments and Requests. 9. Adjourn. Page No. 2028 May 22, 1984 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Special Meeting Held Tuesday, May 22, 1984 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the special joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was held at 7:15 o'clock P.M., at City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order at 7:18 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Lockwood, Councilmembers Hartmann and Blesener. Councilmembers Mertensotto and Witt were absent. All Planning Commission members were present. DISCUSSION OF City Administrator Frazell introduced Mr. Guy Peterson and Ms. HOUSING COMPONENT Anna Stern, of the Metropolitan Council housing staff. OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Mr. Peterson began by showing the Council and Planning Commission the Metropolitan Council's slide presentation "Where Will Our Children Live." Peterson and Stern then followed up with some further slides and statistics about the cost and demand for housing in the Twin Cities area. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 Following, the Council and Commission had a lengthy question and answer period with the representatives of the Council's housing staff, regarding types of things communities could do to make housing more affordable, and the "fair share housing allocation" that needs to be incorporated into Mendota Heights' Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Lockwood moved to direct that the housing component of the Comprehensive Plan, as originally prepared in draft form by Planner Howard Dahlgren, be brought out for review and comment by the Planning Commission, with the Commission to forward it to the Council with a recommendation. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. The group discussed the fact that the draft housing component was put together by Planner Dahlgren several years ago, and that there had been many changes in the housing market since that time that would probably necessitate some fine tuning of the plan by the staff and the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Blesener asked what were the implications of the City's not doing anything, in other words, not complying with the fair share housing allocation. Planner Dahlgren explained that when adopted, the Metropolitan Council's "clout" was the A-95 review process, whereby they commented on and essentially allocated all federal funds in the metropolitan area. Because of the fact that Mendota Heights had not adopted an acceptable housing component to its plan, Planner Dahlgren said that we had been very unsuccessful in receiving federal funds for such projects as parks development. Page No. 2029 May 22, 1984 City Administrator Kevin Frazell commented that what Planner Dahlgren was talking about were the tangible specific implications of not complying. On the other hand, he said he thought there were some intangibles, that being a good relationship with the Metropolitan Council. Administrator Frazell pointed out that Mendota Heights is located next to the Metropolitan Airport, is hooked into the metropolitan sewer system, has metropolitan busses going through it every day, and that further, on such specific issues as the siting of the race track, Mendota Heights expects to be able to make its position known to the Metropolitan Council and to have a sensitivity to its concerns. He added that therefore, he thought it was also in the City's interest to maintain a credible and amenable relationship with the metropolitan agencies. Planner Dahlgren indicated that the City of Roseville had adopted witf its comprehensive plan the housing component with the fair share allocations, but essentially nothing had happened, because Roseville, like Mendota Heights, tends to have very expensive land, making it very difficult to develop affordable housing. Planning Commission Chairperson Cameron Kruse said that he was very much in favor of not only adopting an acceptable housing plan, but of also putting those policies into practice. However, he said he was not in favor of waiving density requirements unless it could be insured that it was going to result in some true cost savings fn the buyer, and would not merely put more money in the pockets of the developer. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilman Hartmann moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilwoman Blesener seconded the motion. Ayes: 3 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:18 o'clock P.M. Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator ATTEST: Robert G. Lockwood Mayor Page No. 2030 May 29, 1984 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Special Meeting Held Tuesday, May 29, 1984 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the special joint meeting of the City (` Council and Planning Commission was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M., at City Hall, 750 South Plaza Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120. Mayor Lockwood called the meeting to order at 7:32 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Lockwood, Councilmembers Blesener, Hartmann, Mertensotto and Witt. JOINT DISCUSSION Mayor Lockwood called on Mr. Dick Elasky and Mr. Bob Benke WITH PLANNING to give a presentation of Mn/DOT's status on the upgrading of COMMISSION TH 149. REGARDING TH 149 PLANS AND "DOWN- Mr. Elasky noted that Mn/DOT had applied for Federal Aid to TOWN" MENDOTA Urban Highway funding for the project and would probably know HEIGHTS whether such funding would be received by the fall. Mr. Benke then gave a historical rundown on the TH 149 project. He indicated that back in the mid '50's, it was planned that TH 149 would be a principal arterial for the metropolitan area. However, with the subsequent development of the interstate system, that has changed. TH 149 is now paralleled by I -35E, Robert St., and the Lafayette Freeway, meaning it is no longer intended to serve as a principal arterial, but that it serves primarily local access needs. According to Mr. Benke, when I -35E and I-494 are open, the traffic volumes at the one TH149/TH110 intersection will drop, and will slowly increase back to their existing levels by approx- imately the year 2000, but with an expected decrease in truck traffic. He said that according to the Metropolitan Council's classification scheme, both TH 110 and TH 149 are now considered minor arterials, that is they provide access to the regional transportational system. According to Mn/DOT's criteria, intersections of two minor arterials do not warrant a grade separation. C Mr. Benke then presented several alternatives that had been considered by the Mn/DOT staff for this area. They included a number of "buttonhook" arrangements and folded diamond inter- changes. All of these involved some difficulties with the local terrain, or interference with established businesses. Conseq- uently, Mr. Benke said that they had come to the conclusion that the most logical solution would be to leave the highway on its existing alignment, but expand it to a three or four land roadway, with two through lanes and a left and some right turn lanes. The intersection of TH 110 and TH 149 would remain at grade. With regard to relocation on the easement dedicated by the Friendly Hills Corporation, Mr. Benke said that the state Page No. 2031 May 29,, 1984 environmental laws were rather strict. In essence, they say that where there is a reasonable alternative to rerouting of highway, that alternative must be exercised. Mr. Benke summarized this issue as having several choices: 1. Is a grade separation needed? 2. Can a new alignment be justified? 3. What provisions should be made for future traffic volumes? Mr. Benke said that if the reserve easement is not used, under state law, the Commissioner of Transportation must offer it back to the underlying fee owner. Mn/DOT records revealed that Brian Birch is the underlying owner on the north side of TH 110 and Sheehy near the shopping center area. That section which was dedicated by the Friendly Hills Corporation, located behind the Friendly Hills First Addition, has gone tax delin- quent and the County now holds title. Mr. Benke said that perhaps this would make it easier for the City to acquire the property. Also under the laws, if the underlying fee owner does not buy back the property, the Commissioner can negotiate with another political subdivision for the sale, -and if -that does not work out then offers it on the open market to obtain the best yiel Mr. Benke said that it would be Mn/DOT's recommendation that the preserved easement be offered for sale, and that TH 149 be imp- roved to a three lane road, which would then be adequate to accommodate existing traffic. This configuration would also involve major improvements to the TH 149/TH110 intersection. Mr. Benke said that it would be his further recommendation that that portion of the easement north of TH 110 be reserved for the possible future need for a folded diamond interchange, and that if the Mendakota Country Club goes into a redevelopment project, the southwest corner of the interchange could also be reserved. Mr. Benke said the road configuration Mn/DOT staff envisioned would be a 12 foot driving lane in each direction with 14 foot left turn bays, and a 10 foot shoulder on each side. He also said that if the City and Mn/DOT cannot come up with an agreed upon plan for redevelopment, or if money for redevelop- ment does not become available, Mn/DOT would simply overlay the existing pavement within the next three to four years. He further indicated that they did not envision a folded diamond _ interchange being necessary for at least 15 to 25 years, since the projected traffic after opening of the freeways is 7,000 ADT. Page No. 2032 May 29, 1984 Mr. Benke said that if the FAU funds were not made available for this project, state funding would probably not be available until 1990'or 1991. Mayor Lockwood then called on City Planner Howard Dahlgren to present an update of his development of the downtown Mendota Heights plan. Planner Dahlgren briefly reiterated the problems with the �- commercial development in this area, and said that many of these problems were due to a lack of decision about the future of this area. He indicated that it was hard for a developer to make any decisions or investments, not knowing where roads are going to go and other improvements to be planned. Mr. Dahlgren said that he thought the 66 foot right-of-way on existing TH 149 was very narrow, and that it made absolutely no sense to plan for a future separated grade interchange at TH 149/ 110 when the road can accommodate the level of traffic that would justify such an interchange. He also added that a separated bridge would put the shopping center down in a hole, making it even more inaccessible than it currently is, and would have a drastic negative impact on future development in the area. As an alternative, Mr. Dahlgren suggested that it would be more realistic to plan that the at -grade crossing would exist forever. Because this alternative would leave no safe place for crossing TH 110, Mr. Dahlgren said that another possibility would be to construct a safe crossing at the new easterly alignment as a local road, using local funds, perhaps a tax increment district. Councilman Mertensotto said that projections were unreliable, and new roads, and then they don't s traffic projections were off. he thought a lot of traffic that society built all kinds of .rve the purpose because Planner Dahlgren continued by saying that if the City of Minne- apolis ever carries through with plans for the up -grading of Hiawatha Avenue to expressway level, and the Mendota Interchange project clears out some of the problems at the Mendota Bridge, TH 110 will become the most desireable route from northern Dakota County to downtown Minneapolis, meaning that there would be once again much higher traffic levels. Mr. Dahlgren said that with the plans currently underway by Mendakota Country Club for redevelopment, the 110/149 inter- section could become an area for viable commercial development, and added that he felt the population, both existing and future of Mendota Heights, could certainly support a commercial development in this area. City Administrator Frazell gave a brief description of Mendakota's development proposal, including commercial development of land facing TH 110, with residential development on the Perkegwin property, and dedicated park south of the new fire station. Page No. 2033 May 29, 1984 Planning Commission Chairperson Cameron Kruse indicated that he had a question whether this was necessarily an appropriate place for commercial development. Planner Dahlgren responded that the amount of commercially zoned land in Mendota Heights is extremely thin, and that.he felt the community could support this level of commercial development. Friendly Hills resident, Mr. Gus Hipp, said he questioned if Men. Heights needed a downtown, since the current Mendota Plaza hadn't made it. Councilman Mertensotto responded that perhaps the reason it hadn't made it was because the accessibility to the area was so poor. Mn/DOT representative Mr. Benke indicated that denser commercial development in this area was not built into the traffic projectioll for TH 149, and could change the alternatives for development. Planning Commission -Chairperson Kruse said that he saw the need for a more in-depth and creative traffic study to get a better handle on just what will happen in this area in the future. Planner Dahlgren said that he thought the purpose of tonight's meeting was not to reach any conclusions,,but to come up with some ideas for how to proceed with the development of appropriate plans. City Administrator Frazell indicated that one of his thoughts was that the City should convene a task force, made up of representatives of groups interested in development of this area, to try to see if the different needs could be compatibally accommodated. Friendly Hills resident, Mr. Fred Lambrecht, said that their neighborhood's desire was to preserve the corridor behind their houses in a natural state, and that the neighborhood would be willing to work with other people on other goals, such as the development of a viable downtown.— He went on to say that he seriously questioned whether people who had bought homes in that area knew that highway right-of-way was there. He indicated that the highway department had planned TH 149 as a major artery when that right-of-way was acquired, and that he had been told as early as 1965 that that was not likely to happen, due to the construction of the interstate system. Planning Commission Chairperson Kruse said that he thought there was a need to move forward frIT here and look in the future, and not keep orienting ourselves to the past. Mr. Hipp said that the residents would like to see the corridor easement tied into the Dodge Nature Center. Councilwoman Blesener moved to set up a task force composed of representatives of the following groups: City Council, Planning Commission, Friendly Hills, 2 Mendota Heights citizens at -large from other neighborhoods, Mendota Plaza merchants, Mendakota Country Club. Page No. 2034 May 29, 1984 Councilwoman Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 DISCUSSION OF FIRE City Administrator Frazell informed the Council that he had CHIEF'S RESIGNATION met with Fire Chief LeRoy Noack at 6:30 P.M., that evening, and that Chief Noack had indicated rather emphatically that he did not intend to submit his letter of resignation as promised. The Council had a brief discussion about alternative solutions. Councilwoman Witt moved to direct City Administrator Frazell to send a letter to Chief Noack indicating that if the letter of resignation was not received by the Council meeting of June 5th, with an effective termination date of September 30th, Council would schedule a public hearing for his involuntary dismissal as Fire Chief, to be held on June 19th, 1984. Councilman Hartmann seconded the motion. _r Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RESCHEDULING OF Councilwoman Blesener said that she would prefer not to have FIRST MEETING OF the first meeting in July scheduled on the evening of July 3rd, JULY since this is the night before the holiday. Several Council and staff members indicated that they would not be present that week. There was a concensus that staff should schedule an agenda item for the June 5th meeting, to change the date of the first July meeting from July 3rd to July 10th. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilwoman Blesener moved that the meeting be adjourned. Councilwoman Witt seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:44 o'clock P.M. Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator ATTEST: Robert G. Lockwood Mayor MEMO (Oa - TO: Mayor, City Council and City hdministrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Building Activity Report for May, 1984 CURRENT MONTH 13,298.00 NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED BLDG PERMITS 35 2,126,894.22 11,442.25 SFD 7 903,063.73 6,350.67 APT 0 0 0 CII 1 435,600.00 2,100.45 MISC. 201'.133,752.22 1,670.60 SUB TOTAL28 1,472,415.95 10,121.72 TRD PERMITS Plbg 7 145.00 Wtr 6 30.00 Swr 6 105.00 Atg, AC & Gas Pipe10 735.50 SUB TOTAL 29 1,015.50 LICENSING Contractor's Licenses 25 625.00 TOTAL 82 1,472,415.95 11,762.22 DATE: May 30, 1984 .YEAR TO DATE - 1984 NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED 17 1,881,791.51 13,298.00 2 4,500,000.00 19,166.40 26 1,911,223.00 11,295.54 35 2,126,894.22 11,442.25 80 10,419,908.73 55,202.19 YEAR TO DATE,- 1983 NO. VALUATION FEE COLLECTED 15 1,605,904.76 11,133.40 0 ,_ 0 0 7 4,170.389.08 17,908.04 36 163,182.84 2,408.02 58 5,939,476.68 31,449.46 40 2,418.00 21 31 155.00 11 26 455.00 11 51 4,320.50 21 48 7,348.50 64 5,125.00 1 170 441.00 130.00 267.50 1,465.00 2,303.50 4;250.00 3 101-419,908:73 • 67,675.69 1292 5,939,476.68 38,002.96 NOTE: All fee amounts exclude Sac, Wac and State Surcharge. Amounts shown will reflect only permit, plan check fee and valuation amounts. r CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 8, 1984 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Park and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairperson Stein at 7:30 P.M. Members present were: Stein, Doffing, Knittig, McMonigal, Singer and Williams. Schneeman was absent. Also present were Recreation Director Dewey Selander, Public Works Director Jim Danielson, and area residents Sharon Liska, 2160 Timmy St., David and Kaye Jankowski, 2145 Timmy St., and Anne and Arthur Maple, 2166 Timmy Street. APPROVAL OF The minutes of the April 10, 1984 meeting were approved as MINUTES submitted. VACANT LOT IN Public Works Director Danielson presented two plans for a CURLEY'S trail through the vacant lot at the corner of Timmy ADDITION Street and Cullen. Plan #1 includes a trail running along the NW side of the lot, with shrubbery on one side and cyclone fence on the other side. The remaining part of Lot 10 meets City requirements for a residential lot and would be put up for sale. The profit after improvements would go into the park fund. Plan #2 includes a bike trail curving through the lot with landscaping separating it from 2166 Timmy Street. This plan does not include a residence. The residents attending the meeting were opposed to Plan #1, Mrs. Maple said the lot was not a suitable homesite and worried that the lot would not sell. Mr. Jankowski said he favored Plan #2 because it would be an inviting green space in the neighborhood and a pleasing entrance to Roger's Lake. Stein pointed out that Lot 10 was bought by the City when the neighborhood requested an access to Roger's Lake. It was not open space, or park space, and could never be main- tained as such on the City's park budget. The residents were reminded that the original issue centered on the debris and unwanted traffic. A home and bike trail on Lot 10 would best insure long-range care for the lot. Doffing moved that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt Plan #1, with the proceeds from the sale of the property to be used to cover construction costs and the remainder to go into park and trail construction. Singer seconded the motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 JOINT MEETING Williams commended Stein and the Commission on the excellent meeting held April 10, with the City Council. BIKE TRAIL Public Works Director Danielson presented a proposed improve- ment to the Lexington corridor of the Backbone trail. He showed.that a trail easement along the watermain easement under i -35E south to Mendota Heights Road would solve the easement problem along Lexington. If changed, the trail would proceed along Roger's Lake, across Lot 10 to Timmy Street, to Mary Adele through to Lexington and Marie. Mr. Danielson noted that he will present this plan for approval by the County, as it deviates from the original plan. He will also figure costs on two trail plans to Valley Park from Wentworth. RECREATION Recreation Director Selander passed out job descriptions he DEPARTMENT had prepared for his position and the warming house attend- ants. They will be reviewed at the next meeting. The Commission discussed two items that had been brought before Selander and Stein: 1. Offering T -ball in late afternoons so that two parent working families would find it easier to attend games. 2. Have boys and girls playing together in the first year of T -ball. Knittig moved that beginning next spring, 1 parents be given a choice of times - early afternoon or late aftertnoon-' on the _t-ball.registration, and 2) the youngest age T -ball teams include boys and Doffing seconded the motion. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 PARK CLEANUP Commission members will survey the City parks for mainten- ance needs and report at the next meeting. There will not be an organized park cleanup this spring. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Joseph Stefani owns the land across Marie Avenue from Valley Park, where the beavers had built a dam which flooded the land. As this was not acceptable to Mr. Stefani, the beavers had been removed. The next meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission will be on June 12, at 7:30 p.m. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Marsha Knittig, qorrptnru CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 22, 1984 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Kruse at 7:00 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Kruse, Frank, Burke, Stefani, Ridder, Morson, and Henning. Also present were Planning Consultant Howard Dahlgren and City Administrator Kevin Frazell. APPROVAL OF Minutes of the April 24 meeting had been submitted previously. MINUTES Frank moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Morson seconded the motion. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 CASE 484-04, CUP Chairperson Kruse called the meeting to order for the purpose for PUD, Clapp- of a public hearing on an application by Clapp-Thomssen for Thomssen a conditional use permit for a planned unit development amendment concerning Lot H, Clapp-Thomssen Ivy Hill Townhouses. There was no one present in the audience for the hearing, and Chairperson Kruse advised the Commission that the applicant had requested postponement of the hearing until the June 19th meeting. Frank moved to postpone the public hearing for one month. Stefani seconded the motion. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 VERBAL REVIEW City Administrator Frazell informed the Commission of Council approval of the Anderson and Simmons lot splits, as well as the mining permit for Northland Land Company and the efforts to annex into the City of Mendota Heights that portion of the City of Eagan lying north of I-494. Administrator Frazell also gave the Commission a brief status report on the Callahan creek improvement project. ADJOURN There being no further business to come before the Commission, Frank moved that the meeting be adjourned. Ridder seconded the motion. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 7:12 o'clock P.M. NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 750 South Plaza u c/o City Offices e 0 C —T Mendota Heights,,rive Minnesota 55120 1. 2. NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMISSION FULL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 25, 1984 The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Zemke at 7:39 o'clock P.M. The following Directors were present: Harrison - Sunfish Lake Boelter - Mendota Walker - West St. Paul Weiss - Lilydale Lanegran - South St. Paul Baird - Sunfish Lake Kinney - South St. Paul ABSENT Bruestle - Mendota Tatone - Inver Grove Heights ' Henderson - Inver Grove Heights Carlson - Lilydale Hanson - West St. Paul Witt - Mendota Heights Zemke - Mendota Heights Also present were John Gibbs, legal counsel, Anita Benda Stech technical consultant, Bill Kohutanycz of CTIC, Patrick H. O'Neill, Christine Meuers of O'Neill Burke and O'Neill, Ltd., Kevin Foley, Larry Redmond, Alvin Wright, Lee Bertman, Ann Muller, Alvin Wright, Jerry Richter, and Jim Riegler of Rite Cable Company, Ltd., Robert Sachs, Tom Ryan, Bill Coleman, Barbara Sitkin, Bob Cowart and Rollin H. Crawford of Continental Cablevision. Witt moved, seconded by Baird, to approve the agenda. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 3. Lanegran moved, seconded by Witt to, approve the minutes of the April 4, 1984 meeting as submitted. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 4. Several items of communication to the commission were presented, letters from Continental Cablevision advising that they have moved their Saint Paul office to 128 Metro Square, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul, MN 55101, and the status of St. Paul cable process; advisory opinion on substan-ive changes by Herbst & Thue; MCCB meeting agenda for April 13, 1984, and the minutes of the special board meeting on February 29, 1984 and the regular minutes of the meeting of March 9, 1984; a letter to Michael J. Hoover, Director of Lawyer's Responsibility Board from Herbst & Thue and O'Neill, Burke and O'Neill; letter from Anita Stech regarding franchise selection and the tables that had inadvertently been omitted from earlier discussion; the technical consultant's final report from Anita Benda Stech. i Chairman Zemke stated that he has had conversations with represen- tatives from both cable companies relative to questions that they had about the consultant's final report. Part of that discussion \• asked that they consider sending the questions to the Commission by mid-day April 25 so that the consultant might have the oppor- tunity to see the questions. Responses were received from Conti- nental Cablevision and O'Neill, Burke, and O'Neill on behalf of Rite Cable Company. Both companies understand that having submit- ted these questions today, in writing, does not preclude them from asking these questions or any'other questions at the meeting. Tatone moved, seconded by Henderson, to receive the above communi- cations. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 5. Chairman Zemke stated that the final consultant's report prepared by CTIC was distributed to all Commissioners last week. Anita Stech and Bill Kohutanycz of CTIC are here tonight to present and further explain that report. Unless there are any objections, I recommend that we begin consideration of the report by asking the consultants to make any explanatory remarks which they feel would be helpful. When the consultants have completed their remarks, I will then recognize any Commissioners who wish to ask any questions or make any comments. When all Commissioners have had this opportunity, I will then recognize any cable company representatives or members of the general public who wish to address the consultants or Commission. The Commissioners should feel free to ask the consultant or cable company representatives any questions throughout this process which they feel would-be helpful. Zemke further noted that the consultants have identified and rejected from consideration certain response comments of the ap- plicants. These determinations were made based on the guidelines set forth in the RFP and the March 29, 1984 legal opinion from our attorney. The consultants felt that, if accepted and ultimately made a part of a franchise, these response comments would result in substantive amendments to the applicant's original proposal. The consultant's report serves as a resource and a recommendation. It would be appropriate, after discussion of the report tonight, to consider a motion to either (1) accept, and adopt as findings, the consultant's recommendation of which response comments should be considered in evaluating the proposals or (2) modify the list of response comments which should be considered in the evaluation and request the consultant to amend the evaluation according ly. In the event that either of the two motions suggested is approved tonight, applicants should confine their presentations at the May 2, 1984 public hearing to their original proposals and those response comments which have been accepted for consideration in our evalution. 2 Chairman Zemke then asked if there are any questions or objections to the procedures outlined. Lanegran asked whether the commission should make value judgements on the items listed in the consultant's final report that were considered substantive changes and were rejected by the consul- tant. Henderson stated, if the Commission rejects one of the consul- tant's reports that says this is a substantive change and we say in our opinion it is not a substantive change. The Commission needs the data to determine how our rejection of their judgement affects the ranking with that particular rating. Baird stated that if the Commission rejects the value•judgement of the reports it will still be a substantive change to the -RFP. Lanegran inquired about the timetable to be able to discuss the consultants final report, she expressed the desire that the meet- ing not extend past 11:00 P.M. After some discussion it was the consensus of the Commission to move this item to after the Report of Officers. 6. Treasurer Kinney informed the Commission that the balance in the checking account is $6,907.21. The Commission has received two (2) bills for payment. The first is from the City of Mendota' Heights for secretarial services in the amount of $200.67: The second bill is from the legal consultant, Herbst & Thue, Ltd. in the amount of $2,560.60. ' ' Walker moved, seconded by Witt to pay the bills presented. Vo- ting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Treasurer Kinney also stated that the application fees which were invested in a Certificate of Deposit at 8-1/2%, and because of the commission's financial situation some of that money was deposited into the checking account, that the maturity date'on the remainder ($5,149.95) of that certificate is May 1, 1984. The options are: 1). reinvest at 8-1/2% in a certificate of deposit for 90 days, 2). put the remainder in the checking account. Tatone moved, seconded by Baird, to reinvest the certificate at 8- 1/2% for 90 days. Voting: 12 ayes, 1 nay. Motion carried. 5.(Continued) Chairman Zemke asked Anita Stech and Bill Kohutanycz to proceed in explaining the final report. 3 Stech began her report by introducing Bill Kohutznycz and explain- ing that they noted substantive changes from the guidelines that were provided by legal counsel to the Commission and the,guide- lines of the RFP. There were still some items that were unclear. Each cable company had signed affidavits saying that they intend to meet the requirements and that if they didn't, it is a mistake. Stech then proceeded to discuss each section of the report. Bill Kohutanycz addressed the technical portion of the report by addressing the issue of the head end system by stating that even though Continental Cablevision's is located in St. Paul and Rite's is located in the Northern Dakota County area, it is technically acceptable. Each proposal has its strengths and weaknesses. He also addressed the subject of the separate institutional network in that Rite is taking the approach to get the separate institu- tional network in operation right away, Continental proposes to wait until such time as there is sufficient need for the separate institutional network. There was a significant difference in subscriber network coverage area. Continental proposes to com- plete the coverage areas as required in the RFP according to the definition of ISA. Rite's proposal stated that they would serve every home in Northern Dakota County. However, they did not show sufficient funds in the proposal to accomplish this. They have 'given the consultants additional information but it will take a significant amount of capital to serve every home in northern Dakota County. Though Rite's proposal shows that it will serve C- more people there is not enough supporting data for them to do this. Rites technical staffing was changed but again, the additional capital does not appear sufficent. 'The other areas of difference between the proposals are the inter- connection. Continental's original proposal addressed interconnec- tion. Rite Cable's did not, but their response has.indicated_that -. they will. In regard,to the head end system, Rite had not indi- cated where it would be located but recent response have shown it is narrowed down to two sites. Continental, on the other hand, ,proposes to use the head end system in St. Paul. Stech addressed the Commission in regard to a substantial amend- ment regarding service tiers. Neither company has indicated where the access studio would be located and urged the Commission to get a commitment from the applicant as this is one of -the reasons many cable franchises are delayed in the operation of the system. She also stated that the questions the Commission asks tonight are important to help them make their decision on which of the propo- sals is stronger. Chairman Zemke asked for questions or comments from the Commission. 4 Tatone asked Stech if it is true that neither company met all of the requirements of the RFP. Stech stated that while they did not show the support to meet all the requirements, both companies have submitted affidavits that they intended to meet all the requirements of the RFP and if they did not, it was a mistake. Tatone asked what effect is that affidavit. Gibbs stated that the effect of the affidavit is a statement of their intent to meet requirements, but the real question is the context according to cable franchising process set by the state. Does that affidavit exonerate them from the consequences of any other ills? No, it doesn't. Substantive amendments can not be made after the proposals are received. Therefore that affidavit does not make any changes in the proposal nonsubstantive. Stech stated that there were a lot of materials that did not address the specific questions which were raised in the prelimi- nary report and this information, as it was a substantive change according to the guidelines for substantive changes, was disre- garded. Tatone asked if in the proforma is there a cost in regard to the head end, if so, what's that cost. Kohutanycz responded they have budgeted $705,000 for head end expenses. Tatone asked if the schools in School District 199 will be served. Kohu.tanycz stated that the reason Independent School District 199 and Inver Grove Heights City Hall are mentioned is because,they are located outside of the ISA. It will be passed by the subscri- ber network. The question was raised about ISD 197 Administration moving,to Henery Sibley Senior High School. John Gibbs stated that the cable companies.are aware of this possible move it and will be considered as, part of the proposal. Tatone asked what is the status of the financial statement, is that a requirement, desire or supporting evidence?,. Gibbs responded that it is a requirement of the RFP in that it reaches to every facet'of the report. Zemke then asked for comments and questions from the cable com- panies and public. 5 Bob Sachs informed the Commission that Bob Cowart will respond to the issues in regard to: 1. Control of Programming from our head end in St. Paul as to whether St. Paul will control programs for NDC -4. Bob Cowart stated that Continental is providing a separate system from the one provided for St. Paul. The one programming that he feels the Commission is approaching a.locally controlled program (unique to NDC -4). Continental proposed a design with mass switching system in the St. Paul head end to allow Continental to mix and match local programming. If the channel is not going to be used, they will then put St. Paul programming on the channel. 2. A question as to Continental's compliance of the Institutional Network to be constructed in year five and whether Continental had provided sufficient capacity and made clear that capacity for computer communication and high speed data. Bob Cowart responded to the Institutional Network question that Continental does not know what kind of equipment will be available by year five because of the ever increasing changes that may occur in the techniques of operating cable. Continental has provided a tremendous amount of band width to accommodate whatever Cform of communication is desired or required. Henderson asked if existing interfaces and protocals and inter- mediate amplifiers will be suitable for future techniques. Cowart responded that they are designed to the current exchange mechanisms. We try to find what is the most universal approach. Ifisomething is new tomorrow, we deal with it when it comes. r Tatone was concerned about using the signals from St. Paul and that some point in time St. Paul may want NDC -4 to pay for signals they have been receiving for free. Bob Sachs stated that St. Paul and NDC -4 are completely serparate and that the franchise is owned by Continental Cablevision, Inc. The rate charges in St. Paul would be based on St.Paul proforma, not NDC -4. They are totally separate systems with costs recorded separately. As put forth in the application, the only costs to NDC -4 in respect to the head end is incremental cost or for ser- vice provided here. St. Paul ordinance does not limit the use of what Continental can or can't do with their head system. Hanson questioned why part of the St. Paul package is avail- able to us when we have no use for it, such as Spanish Interna- tional Television and Black Entertainment. Bob Sachs stated that there are not enough programs to fill all channels, so Continental is offering the best programming avail - 6 able. We do market studies, but also part of an advisory board represented by seven cities would be used, but at this time with- out the"programming to fill all channels, there is not that pres- sure on channel capacity. Tatone raised a question on Table 2-1- Appendix A-1. Are those the same offering as St. Paul? Bill Kohutanycz wanted to clear up a point that St. Paul costs for head end is not included in NCD -4 performs. Bob Sachs responded to Tatone's question regarding A-1, all St. Paul access channels are different. Tier 1 and 2 are not identi- cal. Tatone asked about cost in St.Paul of Tier 1 and 2. Sachs responded that Tier 1 is $5.95 per month, Tier 2 is $8.95 per month. Density of homes per mile in St. Paul is 135-140 per mile. NDC -4 is about half that. Rates are not identical and St. Paul would not subsidize NDC -4 or visa - versa. NDC -4 cost is more than St. Paul, but is lower than with stand alone head end. Henderson asked about capital equipment depreciation which is not shown in Continental and asked if there would be a service charge for the use of this equipment. Sachs responded that NDC4 has its own technical status.• Equip'p*nt necessary to support'NDC4 has been added and will be depreciated against NDC4. Equipment already in place will be depreciated :. against St. Paul. Kinney asked Continental to describe the $14,000 of captioning facility listed on page A-42. Coleman indicated that this equipment is in response to require- ments of the RFP_ and will decode information received by the general public. I Stech indicated that the equipment provides the captioning capa- bility so that the captions will be available for the hearing impaired. Sachs stated that while the channels for Institutional Network were not indicated, the network described for year 5 clearly has the bandwidth capacity to provide computer communication as well as video transmission. Sachs addressed the issue of whether or not the companies had met the RFP requiremements and stated that he felt that with a consul- tant's•review of Continental's proposal and response, they would find that the Institutional Network capacity is there, that Conti- nental has shown how they are doing geographic narrowcasting and the public access facility is the other outstanding question. He stated that Continental has described the system, has demonstrated tl the financial 'c'a`pa*bi1:ity to 'build 'the system but may not have been sufficiently clear in their description and questioned that clari- fication of these items would result in material changes to their December 12 proposal since finances are there, and subscriber service and rates -are not affected. He contrasted the noncompli- ance items of the two proposals, indicating that one was a short list while the other is a lengthy list. Kbhutanycz responded that Continental was asked to clear up these points but the response does not tell us what capabilities will be available in the year 5. Chairman Zemke asked if Rite Cable had any questions. t Lee Bertman responded to the Ownership comments of Chapter 3, Revised Financial Proforma. There were errors and they were corrected by the responses. The data about debt financing of $500,000 will be provided and a letter stating that fact will be forthcoming. The borrowing will be done by the limited partners, not the general partners. That $1.75 million financing has been arranged, or the general partners have personnaly guaranteed the $1.75 million out of their own funds. That the personal financial statements show a net worth of more than $1.75 million, plus they provided letters of credit from banks showing that the banks will lend them the money if the need arises. He also stated that according to the response they have provided information showing evidence that the money is there. He also stated that limited partnership financing is sometimes analyzed -by consultants as they would corporations, and therefore is not correct. He requested that the consultant's reports show these facts. Chairman Zemke asked the Commission if there were any questions. Stech stated that the financial consultant will be available for the public hearing and that some of the concerns can be addressed at that time. Tatone had a question for Rite on who is and who isn't an owner for Rite Cable Company. He asked them to give an indication of how.the interests are held in this limited partnership. Is it still Wright and Riegler at 307o, limited partners that comprise 407.? Riegler responded that Mr. Tatone was correct and that one of the limited partners is Mr. Bertman. Lanegran asked about the limited partnership for a contribution of $10.00. A Bertmann stated that it is not really correct, it is a nominal figure. Riegler stated that it is similar to the formation of a corpora- tion. Typically when a corporation is formed its' total stock holdings are $100.00, a nominal amount of money. At some point in time its base of share holders are developed and it expands its capital base. The same can be said for a limited partnership, for the purpose of formation, a nominal figure is established and at some -point in time it expands its capital base, the same as a corporation. Bertman wanted to clear up a statement made earlier by saying that the letters submitted by two banks are not saying they will lend them the money to form a limited partnership. The purpose of the bank letters was solely to demonstrate the financial capacity of Mr. Wright and Mr. Riegler to fullfill their promises. He sug- gested that it is an extremely serious matter for a limited part- nership for the general partners to tell you they will put up 1.75 million dollars of their own money should other money not be forthcoming form a limited partnership. The purpose of the bank letters was solely to demonstrate the financial capacity of Mr. Wright and Mr. Riegler to own up and to fullfill their promises. He suggested to the Commission that it is an extremely serious matter for a limited partnership for the general partners to tell you they will put up 1.75 million dollars of their own money should other money not be forthcoming. Let us not confuse the bank letters which shows their financial capabilities to obtain that money with the transaction which contemplates that the money will be raised from individuals who, for the most part, are al- ready participating with Rite Cable Company. When Rite Cable applied before you they didn't apply as a corporation without , assets. They applied as a limited partnership where the general partners are personally bound to fill the commitment of the com- pany and this is very serious and should be considered as such. Stech stated that this does not change the consultants analysis. We stand by our reasons for not accepting the revised financial data, if the commission feels differently and wishes to accept all or parts of the revised proforma, we will make appropriate changes. Baird asked if the Commission members received the letter Mr. Bertmann is referring to. Chairman Zemke stated that it was delivered this afternoon and will be sent to the Commissioners. Riegler expressed a desire to make his observation by stating that we took the suggestion on penetration rates and did not change the subscriber rates at all. Pat O'Neill felt whether or not the letters were given to the commission members in time for this meeting, these comments or questions raised should be given a hard look. 9 C Stech stated that there was a change in rates such as installation which was $29.95 and changed to $20.00. O'Neill stated that there is non-compliance issues on both appli- cations. He suggested that it is causing franchising process problems and he pointed out in a previous letter that neither company complies with the RFP. Rite took the posture that the Commission wanted each one of the companies to meet the minimum requirements that were set out in the RFP. Rite sought to do that with their response. Rite attempted to answer to the best of their ability in regard to the consultant's questions. Rite replied fully and now have come into conflict with the consultants findings, that there are substantive changes in Rite's applica- tion. Rite corrected all which they felt were all inadvertent errors in their application and indicated to the Commission how this particular cable company meets the minimum requirements of the RFP. With respect to the consultants report statement on Page 45 which states "neither applicant has clearly shown the elements or commitments that support their intentions to meet all RFP requirements," O'Neill suggested that the Commission not rush the judgement; that there be a window period of time after the public hearing to have the companies submit to the consultant and commis- sion provisions that will bring the applications into compliance with the RFP. Gibbs stated that there may be some proposals that may be brought into compliance with the RFP which do not have to be substantively amended. Tatone asked legal counsel if there can be a window period. Gibbs stated a franchise will not be certified and the certifica- tion would not stand by the MCCB if the proposal was substantively amended from the time it was originally submitted up until the time that the board has to make a determination on certification. Weiss asked if the MCCB certifies a company that does not meet the minimum requirements of the RFP. Gibbs stated that he thought they could have because the MCCB is not overly concerned if the minimum requirements are met or not, but it is a factor in their decision. Lanegran asked if a decision is made to award a franchise to one of the applicants, can that applicant be brought into conformance with the requirements of the RFP. Gibbs stated that this is the question that Mr. Tatone raised about the effect of the affidavit. Can it be used to make sure that the company meets the requirement? He stated that right now he doesn't know the answer to that question. Lanegran asked if meeting the requirements has to be addressed before selecting a company or can it wait until after. 10 Gibbs stated that according to a Minneapolis hearing, one of the provisions that came out of that was that item. He also stated that it is difficult to justify the selection of a proposal if it has been substantively amended and couldn't be certified. Weiss asked if the decision has to be made in 14 days and if it goes to court, who will pay the costs. He felt that 14 days to make a decision or ask legal counsel for legal opinions was a little ambitious. Gibbs stated in regard to costs for legal expenses should it go to court, initially the Cities would have to pay but that the even- tual franchisee will pay all those costs. If there was a law suit and no cable franchise was awarded, the Cities would be paying the cost. In regard to the 14 days, this timetable was set up by the Commission. Gibbs stated in regard to the.window period after the public hearing, that the MCCB will not give certification to a substan- tive amendment to the original proposal, and to seta time frame with the goal in mind as to what the cable companies would do is ill advised. He also stated that the Commission can ask the cable companies to respond but with directions that the Commission will not allow substantive changes to the original proposal. After some discussion, Tatone moved, seconded by Lanegran to direct legal counsel to answer Tatone's questions in regard to the effect of the affidavit. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Tatone moved, seconded by Witt, to direct the legal counsel to address Mr. O'Neill's questions as to whether we could allow, legally, a window period which would allow the bidders to submit provisions that would make them comply with the minimum require- ments of the RFP. Voting 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Tatone moved, seconded by Witt, to ask the technical consultant, if she wishes, to respond to the letters and to Mr. Bertmann's comments, and that the financial consultant and consultant re- sponses be available for the May 2, 1984 meeting. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Tatone moved, seconded by Baird, to adjourn. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays-. Motion carried. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:05 P.M. Prepared by: Ken Hanson Diane Ward Commission Secretary Staff Secretary 11 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION c/o City Offices Nel)c 4 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES - MAY 2, 1984 1. The public hearing was called to order by Chairman David Zemke at 7:36 o'clock P.M. The following Directors were present: Harrison - Sunfish Lake Tatone - Inver Grove Heights Boelter - Mendota Henderson - Inver Grove Heights Kinney - South St. Paul Carlson - Lilydale Bruestle - Mendota Hanson - West St. Paul Lanegran - South St. Paul Witt - Mendota Heights Baird - Sunfish Lake Zemke - Mendota Heights ABSENT Weiss - Lilydale Walker - West St. Paul Also present were John Gibbs and Adrian Herbst, legal counsel; Anita Benda Stech, technical consultant; Deborah Love of CTIC & Associates; Rollin H. Crawford, Barbara Sitkin, Robert Sachs, John Rakoske, Bob Cowart, Bill Colemen, Tom Ryan of Continental Cablevision; Patrick O'Neill, Lee Bertman, Christine Meuers, Jim Riegler, Ann Muller, Alvin Wright, Walter Eisner, and Jerry Richter of Rite Cable Company; Father John Pilaczynski of St. Thomas Academy; John Ryan, a West St. Paul resident; Dick Joyce of Dow -Sat; Darrol Bussler of South St. Paul Public Schools; Sally Warring and Jack Loss of Independent School District 197; Wes Lines of Inver Grove Community College; Melanie Soucheray of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis; Sheila Tatone of the Inver Grove Heights City Council; Pat Brenna of McCarthy & Associates; Dick Seppala of Cenex, Inver Grove Heights; John Wadell of the South-West Review; John Gessner of the West Side/West St. Paul Voice; Sean Kelly of the Dispatch. Chairman Zemke stated that Item 4a, Consultant's Financial Report should be added on the agenda with a time limit of 10 minutes. Witt moved, seconded by Lanegran to the approve agenda as amended. Voting: 12 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 2. Chairman Zemke addressed the commission, public and cable companies'by stating that the Northern Dakota County Cable Communications Commission is a joint powers commission created by the seven cities of South St. Paul, West St. Paul, Mendota Heights, Inver Grove Heights, Mendota, Sunfish Lake, and Lilydale. The Commission was given the responsibility to study cable commu- nications, develop a request for proposals, receive applications to provide service.from cable communications companies, select a successful applicant, draft a cable franchise ordinance, and recommend that each City Council represented on the Commission grant a standard franchise ordinance as draf- ted by the Commission. i The Commission began studying cable communications issues in 1981."' To assist it in the cable franchising process, the commission has hired'Anita ( Benda Stech and the Cable Television Information Center, as cable consul- tants, and the Herbst & Thue law,firm as cable communications legal counsel. In 1981 and 1982, the Commission conducted a study to assess the communica- tions needs of the seven member communities and a Needs Assessment Report was prepared. Throughout 1982, policy issues were considered by the Commis- sion. On November 10, 1982, a public hearing -was held for the purpose,of considering policy issues which would be reflected in a request for propo- sals for a cable communications franchise. Policy decisions were made and a request for proposals was drafted and approved by the commission. The request for proposals was first issued on March 16,1983. No cable ` company submitted a proposal in response to that request for proposals. A second request for proposals was issued on September 21, 1983. The two proposals which are now before the commission, one proposal from Rite Cable Company and one proposal from Continental Cablevision, were received --in response to that second request for proposals. The Commission directed its consultants, Anita Benda Stech and the Cable Television Information Center, to review the proposals and prepare the necessary evaluation reports. The Consultants reviewed the proposals and issued a preliminary report on February 24, 1984. The applicants were supplied with a copy of the report and were asked to respond to the informa- tion and questions contained therein. Responses and comments were submitted to the Commission on March 21, 1984, by both applicants. On April 17, 1984, C the Consultants issued a final report containing specific information re- quested by the Commission, including comments on the applicants' responses and additions to the preliminary report. The purpose of this public hearing is to give the cable franchise appli- cants, members of the public, and member city councils, an opportunity to comment on the cable franchise selection process and the applicants' propo- sals. In accordance with MCCB rules, the following items will also be considered at the public hearing: A. The technical ability of each applicant. B. The financial condition of each applicant. C.- The legal qualifications of each applicant. Applicants are requested to confine their comments and answers to their proposal. The Commission will follow the amended agenda. No selection decision will be made at this public hearing. The next sche- duled meeting of the Commission is Wednesday, May 9, 1984, at 7:30 p.m. at the Mendota Heights City Hall. --- He requested that members of the public and the representatives of the cable companies to identify themselves prior to addressing the Commission. 2 3. Chairman Zemke asked Rite Cable to give their presentation to the public and the Commission. Patrick O'Neill, general counsel for Rite Cable Company opened the presenta- tion by stating it is Rite's purpose tonight to address the Commission and the public and to acquaint the citizens of the various cities located in the Northern Dakota County Cable district with Rite Cable Company. Rite will present an audio-visual program. He introduced the general principals of Rite Cable Company which are Mr. Alvin Wright and Mr. James Riegler, the chief executive officer of the company, who has a graduate degree in Mar- keting and Finance. He has also been involved in CATV support services which is a construction and marketing company. He has had extensive ex- perience in national and international marketing natures. O'Neill then introduced Lee Bertman, the president of Bertman Corporation which is a telecommunciations consultant to the cable industry. Bertman has extensive experience in both cable and telecommunications. Ann Muller, Vice President of the Bertman Corporation has a degree in Engineering and has designed many systems for the Bertman Corporation and others in our franchises in the U.S. She is a former employee of CTIC Corporation. Mr. Jerry Richter has exten- sive experience in institutional and educational areas and was one of the pioneers in the two-way teleconference. Bertman narrated the slide presentation which outlined the services which described the various services that Cable has to offer, such as: FM Audio, Local Programming, Emergency Warning System, Movie Channols, Two -Way Commu- nication, Local Access, Civil Defense, Public Safety, Community Services. Jerry Richter addressed the Commission about teleconferences in regard to institutional application. Jim Riegler addressed the Commission in regard to the background of Rite Cable Company. He stated that Rite Cable is a limited partnership formed under the laws of Minnesota. The two general partners are Riegler,and Alvin Wright with 30 percent each ownership and limited partners at.40 percent ownership. Involved in Rite Cable Company is CATV Support Service, which is a cable construction company, he then proceeded to explain how cable is installed and what the head end is. Bertman stated that the source of financing that Rite has chosen is°a limited partnership because it provides a very effective tax vehicle which reduces cost of equity capital. Rite's debt capital is coming from Hundred East Credit Corporation. Rite's method of financing offers effective uses of tax benefits, a lower cost of capital which means lower rates, amplifying available because it is not by corporate resources and each system stands on its own. The system is exclusively for Northern Dakota County. Ann Muller addressed the Commission in reference to the technical aspects. She stated that Rite has gone beyond the requirement of Initial Service Area by proposing to provide service to every citizen in the franchise area. Head end would be located at Grass Junior High School. Highlights of the system are: 440 Megahertz System, Magnavox equipment, designed for no power outage, provide geographic narrow casting, fully addressed conversion system and have made the system capable of regional interconnection. Rite has also ` proposed an institutional network which would be implemented immediately and will consist of 26 downstream and 17 channels upstream which will insure 3 enough bandwidth to support business, communication services to schools, government and other non-profit institutions. CBertman closed the presentation by stating the basic tier of service is $9.00 per month, with an additional tier of satellite services for $4.50 per month, highly processed FM at $2.50 per month, and a selection of 7 movie channels. C 4., Rollin H. Crawford,�local counsel for Continental Cablevision began Con- tinental's presentation by speaking as a citizen of Northern Dakota County on Continental's behalf. Barbara Sitkin, Vice President and General Manager of St. Paul Continental Cablevision operations, addressed the Commission by giving some history of Continental Cablevision. She stated that Continental is the eighth largest cable company out of 700 in the U.S. and serves more than 850,000 subscri- bers in approximately 230 cities: One of the unique things of Continental is that cable television is their only business. She also presented their record of franchise stability and stated that in their 20 year history they have never failed to construct a system awarded to them, never sold a"system they have operated, have never had a license revoked and have always had their franchises renewed. She stated that the reasons for this record are because cable television is their only business, management stability and decentralized management, and Continental hires the very best people at local level and gives them authority to make decisions for the community they serve. Even though decisions effecting Northern Dakota County will be made locally, Continental Cablevision, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts will stand behind the system. She also stated that Continental Cablevision, Inc. will provide financing for the system and that the full resources of the company inclu- ding total assests which exceed 370 million dollars, and annual revenues in excess of 160 million dollars, will insure the system's ability to meet any unforseen difficulties which may arise. Robert Sachs, Vice President of Corporate Development of Continental!Cable- vision, Inc. addressed the Commission in regard to some of the highlights of their proposal such as Continental proposes to invest over 9 million dollars over the next 2 years to construct a 2 -way interactive cable communication system, offer residents up to 60 channels of entertainment and information rprogramming, channel capacity for the special communication needs of the `Northern Dakota County institutions, in addition, a separate dedicated institutional network will be constructed in year five. Sachs stated in combining the signal reception and processing facilities of the Northern Dakota County system and St. Paul system, Continental can build a communications system for Norhtern Dakota County that will have every major feature of a much larger cable system but retain its own separate identity with separate offices, studio facilities and a full-time staff of 35. LA Sachs stated that because of their technical design they are able to offer a variety of 2 -way interactive services to subscribers, provide 2 -way services including burglar, fire alarm, emergency medical alert services as well as opinion polling, data retrieval and home computer communications. Continen- tal also offers subscribers the broadest array of basic cable and pay tele- vision services at the lowest possible rates. In regard to interconnection with metro area cable systems, Sachs stated that the Northern Dakota County system will be interconnected with St. Paul, Burnsville, Eagan, Rosemount;- South Washington County and Hastings systems. Continental has committed half a million dollars initially in local pro- gramming facilities, proposed a full color television production studio, a mobile production van for access on local origination cable casting from anywhere in Northern Dakota County, proposed a local programming budget of $130,000 per year. In reference to making sure that all the commitments are met, the RFP required that annual franchise fees in an amount of 5 percent of gross revenues, in Continental's case, these payments will amount to more to 3 million dollars over the franchise period. `{ John'Rakoske, of Continental Cablevision, addressed the Commission as to the questions they may ask or should ask themselves in order to make their decision on which company should be awarded the franchise. . 4a. Anita Benda Stech, technical consultant, introduced Debra Love, financial analyst of CTIC.. Love responded to comments made by Rite Cable Company with regard to consul- tants final report. Love stated that Rite Cable has submitted to the Com - C_ ' mission tonight concerning their financing plan, which may modify some of the items iniher memo, such as, a letter from Vice President of Hundred East Credit Corporation which indicates that the Hundred East Credit Corporation is willing to extend the amount of funds it initially indicated it was willing to lend to Rite to the amount, which was specified, the revised information provided by Rite of 5.75 million. A letter from Shaprio, Hoff- man, and Abramson, which is the law firm which appears to be organizing the proposed.limited partnership offering that Rite contemplates. 'It indicates that because of the absence of Mr. Shapiro the process of completing all the documentation necessary will require additional time to provide the documen- tation that the consultants alluded to. Love stated that it is not the conclusion of CTIC that Rite can not raise sufficent funding. The concern is that they have not provided sufficient documentation of its ability to raise sufficient capital. She stated what remains now is additional documentation in regard to equity capital in the amount of $1.75 million such as: 1. The names of the individuals constituting the group.,, 2. A relevant limited partnership agreement. 3. The name of the investment house managing the offering and a letter from this firm. 4. The dollar value of the units offered. 5 5. The proposed distribution of profits, losses, and tax benefits. C6. The amount of time required to raise the capital. M In regard to non -equity ownership, CTIC felt that if the limited partners borrowed funds to raise their equity investment and if the funds were guar- anteed by the general partners, the limited partners would have no capital risk. Addressing the issue of initial capitalization, CTIC believes it is -highly optimistic to expect a positve cash flow over the first -three. -years... If all funds were supported, CTIC still believes that $7.5 million in capi- talization will fall short of the systems capital requirements and there is no leeway in Rite's budget. Hanson asked what is Continental's initial capitalization plan. Love stated that Continental's initial capitalization plan is 10 million and capital construction costs are very close to that. Baird asked if there is any evidence what the two general partners in Rite are putting in equity in the partnership. Love stated that according to the information, all but the $1.75 million would be provided by the limited partner. The general partner is the one personally at risk. Limited partners are only at risk for the money they put in the system, but the general partners are at risk for everything they have. 5. Stech acknowledged the receipt of the response from Continental addressing to Mr. Kohutanyzc's request in regard to performance calculations. Conti- nental has satisfactorily addressed the issue of narrow casting, providing evidence of a financing plan to maintain the system. In respect to Rite Cable Company, they have satisfied the question regarding their ability to raise debt capital although additional documentation is still required on limited partnership offering. In regard to revised proforma, it was disre- garded in that CTIC regarded it as a substantive amendment to the original proposal. Stech stated that the presentation given by the applicants shows the differ- ence of the proposals and she also stated they were ranked in the final report. Stech stated that Continental has submitted information regarding location of public access studio. Stech.addressed the issue of substantive changes. She stated if the Commis- sion wishes to discuss what the consultants have marked as a substantive change and feels that some of the items are not substantive changes they will make the alterations and note the implications of the changes. Stech commented on Continental's comment in their presentation in regard to a half million dollars in local programming equipment and $130,000 per year for that support, that Stech's calculations were different. 6. Ten minute recess. R 7. Chairman Zemke asked for Commission members and public questions of the consultant and cable companies. Tatone asked Continental about the technical consultants comment on the $500,000 and $130,000 for local programming. Sachs responded as to the $500,000 on Continental's response to Form K, Page 2A of 6, lists equipment and prices which amounts to $500,000. This equip- ment relates to local programming one way or another. In the proforma's Form 6, Page 9 of 19, in years one and two, expenditures for studio which also total $500,000 that is how we account for capital. In response to operating costs Sach's addressed Form K, which shows in projections and actually is in excess of $130,000. Stech stated that in their analysis they did not include educational/insti- tutional grant of $60,.000 because it would not be used by public users, modulations, lease hold improvements. Hanson asked Continental about a cushion in their budget for cost overruns. Sachs replied that the cushion in their budget is the $800,000 difference bei tween $9.2 million shown in the proforma and the documentation providing 10 million dollars for building. Tatone asked both companies, how important is it to provide the location of the access studio now and if the unavailability of obtaining a site now would delay construction timetable. Sachs stated that the access studio is not essential at this time and Continental has never used the unavailability of an access studio as an excuse for the delay of construction. In Continental's December 12th propo- sal, they noted South St. Paul as the area location of the access studio but that due to the real estate changes it is hard to commit this far in ad- vance. Ann Muller, of Rite Cable responded to Director Tatone's question by stating that they have looked at Grass Junior High for the head end and the access studio. Chairman Zemke questioned Rite if their leasehold improvements were in- cluded in their 8.8 million dollar figure. Ann Muller responded that they have budgeted $106,000 for lease hold im- provements which is listed in the revised proforma, Form G. Stech stated that in the original proposal leasehold improvement was bud- geted at $25,000. Hanson asked Rakoske of Continental if Continental gambled when it first started out. Rakoske stated that it was a gamble because it was a new field, but that today communities do not have to take the gamble because there is a proven situation, where before there wasn't. 7 Henderson asked Continental if St. Paul will expect some consideration for using the head end in St. Paul. Rakoske stated that the first community will receive the tax benefits but that the system is completely separate with a shared head end. The impact on St. Paul is not that great. Sachs stated the financial books for Northern Dakota County will list capi- tal ' items incremental expenditures which are shown in the proforma which is $700,000. The St. Paul books will show $1,500,000 original investment in the head end system. Tatone asked if it is the same limited partners in the Wright/Sherburne County proposal, if so, what effect would the awarding of the franchise in that system have upon the financial drain of the general partners. Bertman responded that general partners are not providing capital, they are going at risk. In regard to the debt capital the money is available and have letters from Hundred East Credit Corporation in both instances. In respect to limited partnership, some will be the same limited partners but most are not. Rite is seeking investors who can effectively utilize the economic benefits that the limited partnership provides. In regard to the guarantees of the general partners, the net worth of the two general part- ners exceeds the equity for both of the applications together. Tatone asked if Rite had any other applications pending in any other munici- pality. Bertman stated that an application is pending in Calver County, Maryland. He stated in that application they did not provide a guarantee on the part of the general partners providing the capital which is unusual in a limited ol partnership. Baird asked the technical consultant to clarify the Institutional Network capacity of Continental's proposal. Stech stated that the consultants have not seen the specific dedication of those channels that were required in the RFP for specific uses, such as high speed data and computer communications. Sachs stated that they have provided funds and equipment for a separate institutional network in year 5. In the proposal, statements have been made regarding in year 1 there are several channels in the subscriber network for institutional purposes and when the -demand warrants, Continental will con- struct in year 5 a high capacity, high performance institutional network designed to accept all present and future communications formats. That refers to video, audio, data to support public and private institutions. Continental has shown that ample bandwith will be available. Hanson asked Continental if there will be a rate increase when the Institu- tional Network is activated. M Sachs stated that if the Institutional Network was activated the costs would be passed on to the subscribers. If there is enough I -Net usage for the system, it would be borne by I -Net users but according to studies of subur- ban users there isn't enough for the system to be self supporting. Henderson asked if the consultants believed that Continental does indeed have the capacity to make that commitment. Stech stated there is no question they they have the capacity.- Bruestle asked both cable companies where will the billings and communica- tions be centered in Northern Dakota County. Sachs stated that Continental will have offices located in West St. Paul or South St. Paul. Billing and customer interface will be handled from those Northern Dakota County offices. Bertman stated that the billing will come from the office located with the head end in Northern Dakota County. Chairman Zemke asked Bertmawof Ritd--C*ble about the personal assets of the general partners being used as guarantees for the Sherburne/Wright County franchise. Bertman replied that the personal assets of Wright and Riegler were also used to guarantee in the Sherburne/Wright systems. Zemke asked what the value was of the Sherburne/Wright guarantee. Bertman replied that the guarantee is $1.3 million. Jack Loss,*Assistant Superintendent of Independent School District No. 197 addressed the Commission by stating that both the cable companies were weak in regard to the institutional needs. He felt the cable commission and the cable companies contact with the school districts has been absent. He recommended, on behalf of the administrators from West St. Paul School District 197 and Inver Grove Heights School District 199, that Rite Cable Company be granted the franchise. The Commission reacted to Loss' comments by stating that the Commission has been and is interested in the concerns of the educational institutions but that the school districts haven't shown much enthusiasm because representatives have not attended the meetings. Dick Seppla of Cenex in Inver Grove Heights addressed the Commission in regard to business communications. He stated that the potential for use by business would occur before year 5 and described how Cenex would consider using the Insitutional Network system. Sachs stated in response to Seppla's comment that the communications would be available in the initial service area through institutional channels on the subscriber network. Bertman stated that Rite's institutional network would be activated immedi- ately and wouldn't lose 5 years in the process. 0 8. Continental's summary consisted of Continental stating that the Institu- tional Network meets;:the requirements and that the institutional network can be activated before year 5, if the need arises, and that the cable system will be completely separate from the St. Paul system. 9. Bertman stated in Rite's summary that Northern Dakota County would have its own system, and the institutional network would be activated immediately. Their proposal gives the commission what they requested plus more. 10. Tatone moved, seconded by Boelter to adjourn the public hearing. Voting: 12 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. I TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:08 P.M. Prepared by: Diane Ward Staff Secretary t 10 NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION c/o City Offices Ne 0 C 4 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, Minnesota 55120 1. 2. 3. NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY CABLE COMMUNICATION COMMISSION FULL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES - MAY 9L 1984 The meeting was called to order by Chairman David Zemke at 7:36 o'clock P.M. The following Directors were present: Harrison - Sunfish Lake Boelter - Mendota Walker - West St. Paul (7:45) Bruestle - Mendota Lanegran - South St. Paul Baird - Sunfish Lake Kinney - South St. Paul M Weiss - Lilydale Tatone - Inver Grove Heights Henderson - Inver Grove Heights Carlson - Lilydale Hanson - West St. Paul Witt - Mendota Heights Zemke - Mendota Heights Also present were John Gibbs, legal counsel; Anita Benda Stech, technical consultant; Rollin H. Crawford, Barbara Sitkin, Robert Sachs, Bill Colemen, Tom Ryan of Continental Cablevision; Patrick O'Neill, Lee Bertman, Christine Meuers, and Walter Eisner of Rite Cable Company; Jack Loss of Independent School District 197; Gayden Carruth of Independent School District 199; Melanie Soucheray of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis; Sean Kelly of the Dispatch; Andy Driscoll of the Highland Villager. . Chairman Zemke stated that the agenda to be amended by adding Item 6a, Legal Counsel's response to affidavit and window question. Kinney moved, seconded by Tatone to the approve agenda as amended. Voting: 12 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Lanegran moved, seconded by Witt to approve the minutes of the April 25, 1984 meeting as follows: 1. Correct the spelling of Bob Cowart wherever referred to in minutes. 2. Correct any reference to performance to proforma in the minutes. 3. Page 4, Paragraph 3, line 6, insert "separate" institutional network. 4. Page 4, Paragraph 4, lines 1 and 3, insert "separate" institutional network. 5. Page 5, Paragraph 6 should read "as it was a substantive change according to the guidelines for substantive changes, was disregarded". 6. Page 5, Paragraph 7 should be "$705,000 for head end expenses". 7. Page 5, Paragraph 9 should be "It will be passed by the subscriber network." 8. Correct spelling of analyzed. C" Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 4. Several items of communications were presented; MCCB meeting agenda for May 11, 1984, and the minutes from the April 13, 1984 meeting; letter from Continental regarding commitment of providing at least one up stream and one downstream channel in regard to the Institutional Network; letter from Lee Bertman, regarding the financial scope of Rite Cable Company franchising efforts; memo from Anita Stech, Bill Kohutanycz and Deborah Love regarding the materials submitted by Continental and Rite in letters dated May 2, 1984, materials from applicant's response comment which were not considered in writing the final report and updated list from final report's Chapter II of RFP required items the applicants did not show support in proposal as of May 2, 1984; letter to Ken Hanson from Continental regarding costs to resi- dential subscribers of constructing a separate institutional network. Kinney moved, seconded by Henderson to receive the above communications. Voting: 13 ayes 0 nays. Motion carried. 5. Treasurer Kinney informed the Commission that the balance in the checking account with the West St. Paul 1984 contribution of 3,800.00 is $13,645.94. The Commission is in receipt of one bill from Herbst and Thue in the amount of 2,116.20. The 1984 contribution status is all cities have contributed except Sunfish Lake. Witt moved, seconded by Harrison to accept treasurer's report and pay the Cbill to Herbst and Thue. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. 6. Tatone opened a discussion in regard to the school districts and the Cable Commission. Tatone suggested that the Commission adopt a resolution estab- lishing a committee of school district personnel, the franchise successful bidder, and the next Commission to address the needs of the school districts and industry. The purpose of this is to open communication between educa- tional institutions and the Commission. Tatone stated he would act. -as liaison until such committee is formed. Chairman Zemke asked the cable companies and the members of the educational institutions present would agree. They responded affirmatively. This is for the purpose to encourage communications between the cable com- panies and Commission and educational institutions for them to understand what is in the proposals and to continue after the franchise is awarded and will not halt the process of awarding the franchise. After considerable discussion Tatone moved seconded by Henderson to appoint Tatone as liaison to a committee to be formed of schools, educational facilities, as well as businesses and the cable companies to discuss the goals and objectives and use of institutional network or the subscriber network set aside for institutional use. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion moved. 6a. John Gibbs addressed the question of the affidavit and the window period Cthat was raised at the April 25 meeting. 4 K Gibbs referenced the memo from Herbst and Thue to the Commission and re- sponded to the issue of the affidavit that the affidavit can not be used to require the applicant to comply. The Commission can not make the cable company provide more than they proposed unless they are willing to do so. In response to the window period question, Gibbs stated that neither the state law or the Commission's RFP prohibit requesting further information clarifications and allowing a time to respond but that you can not allow substantive changes to the original proposal, which is a cable board rule: Gibbs stated they have spoken to Chris Donaldson the executive director of the cable board, and Mike Mills who is the attorney general assigned to MCCB and requested an opinion from them on what constitutes a substantive amend- ment. The Donaldson letter states that a substantive change in a franchise proposal would be one that materially changes the nature or amount of ser- vices offered or the cost to subscribers. The cable board has not formu- lated an interpretive substantive amendment and the courts have not. Tatone stated that he disagreed with legal counsel in regard to the affi- davit quesiton by stating if the RFP states requirement and where the suc- cessful company has not met that requirement, what legal counsel is telling the Commission is that ordinance can not include that. Gibbs responded by stating unless the applicant agrees to that, the Commis- sion can not, based on that language, force them to contractually abide by that. Henderson asked if legally it is true that after a selection is made that the results of the negotiations would determine what is in the final recom- mended ordinance. Gibbs stated it will determine what the final terms would be. The idea is to incorporate the features of the proposal into the preliminary franchise ordiance that was distributed with the RFP. Henderson commented that it seemed that the RFP had very little meaning. Gibbs stated that one meaning of the RFP is that is stated requirements and preferences to be met. It is important in the decision making process. Tatone stated he did not give deference to minimum requirements, he thought minimum requirements were requirements and did not give deference to the company who met the most of them. He expected the companies to meet those minimum requirements. Gibbs stated given the situation before the Commission, there is no princi- pal of contract law that is going to require either applicant to enter into a contract in excess of what they proposed. Baird stated that the Commission has gone through the process to find the applicant who substantially meets the requirements, this is a way of getting negotiations down to -the people the Commission wants to negotiate with. Gibbs stated that substantive changes should be looked at, in the context not in the RFP, but the original proposal received from the applicant and 3 any substantive material submitted to that. There is no rigid automatic enforcibility of the minimum requirements. „ ( Hanson asked what happens if during negotiations there is no agreement, can the Commission go to the applicant who wasn't chosen for the franchise if so, is it legal. Gibbs stated that it has been done and it is perfectly legal and there is no time limits. Zemke asked what if negotiating would result in a substantive amendment. Gibbs stated that the Commission should not negotiate for a substantive amendment. What the Commission should have in that final document are those standards in the RFP, that don't result in a substantive amendment, and the cable company agree with. The dividing line, for substantive change, is not when the Commission selects a applicant to negotiate with, the dividing line is when the MCCB issues a certificate of confirmation. 7. Chairman Zemke addressed the consideration of make up of Continental`pro- posal to which legal counsel has prepared draft resolution for discussion purposes. Gibbs stated for the resolution in regard to Continental's proposal legal counsel took the original proposal submitted December 12, 1983, and all subsequent communications related to the proposal. He stated that the Commission should adopt this resolution identifying what will make up the proposal before proceeding to the selection process. After some discussion Tatone moved, seconded by Lanegran to move the resolu- tion before the Commission amended as follows: 1. Change in Item 1, 2nd line from 3 to "4" bound notebooks. 2. Deleting Item 6. 3. Adding a of item 6, a letter dated May 7, 1984, from Robert Sachs regarding the dedication of channels on the institution network, built in year five for data communication and high speed data. 4. Adding as Item 7, the May 7, 1984, letter to Ken Hanson from Robert Sachs regarding costs to residential subscribers of constructing a separate institutional network in year five. Henderson asked if it is the intent to act on both resolutions at the same time. He stated that the reason he askes is that he is not prepared to act on Rite's resolution tonight. Gibbs stated it is not mandatory to act on both tonight. Voting: 13 ayes 0 nays. Motion carried. 8. In regard to the resolution of the items that constitutes Rite's proposal, Gibbs stated it consists of their original proposal, all subsequent communi- 4 cations related to the proposal, including the "response to consultants report" except the items listed because according to the guidelines was a substantive amendment to the proposal. Gibbs stated that to adopt this resolution as drafted the impact would be to accept the conclusion of the consultants as to what response comments sub- mitted by Rite would result in substantive amendments to the December 12 proposal. Stech stated she would like to comment on the recent submissions by Rite and Continental just as the consultants have done on all previous submittals. Lanegran moved, seconded by Baird to reconsider the vote on the resolution regarding Continental's proposal. Voting: 9 ayes, 4 nays - Bruestle, Henderson, Tatone, Hanson. Motion Carried. Lanegran moved, seconded by Baird that the Commission accept the resolution regarding Continental's proposal including Items 6 and 7, contingent upon the consultants findings that Items 6 and 7 are not substantive amendments. Voting: 12 ayes 1 nay - Tatone. Motion Carried. Stech asked Continental a question regarding their letter of May 7, 1984, first paragraph regarding one upstream and one downstream channel on the separate institutional network for computer communications and high speed data, is that each or total. Sachs stated it is six megaherts upstream and downstream for computer commu- nication and six megaherts for high speed data. Tatone stated that he wanted to -speak against the motion because he felt that the responses between the consultant and applicants have to stop some- time. In regard to resolution of Rite's proposal Lanegran moved, to accept the resolution regarding Rite's proposal include Item 9, letter from Lee Bertman dated May 7th regarding personal financial guarantees of Wright and Riegler. Christine Meuers stated that the letter dated May 2, 1984, from O'Neill, Burke and O'Neill should be added. Gibbs stated that the letter of May 2, 1984, was disregarded intentionally because according to the consultant would have been a substantive amendment to the proposal. Stech stated the response was in regard to Bill Kohutanycz comment that there were still mistakes in the calculation in the response. The consul- tant did not ask them to respond there for the consultant acknowledged the receipt of the technical calculation but to not accept them for purpose of evaluation. Hanson asked in item 3 of resolution what is a substantive change. Stech stated that each of the items listing in item 3 is a substantive change. 5 Gibbs sta.ted.�that through the affidavit both companies intend to address Regional Channel 6 because Regional Channel 6 should be part of their propo- sals because,it is a requirement by state law and should be deleted from the item 3 list.. O'Neill stated that for the record it should show the May 2, 1984, letter on the resolution. Gibbs stated -,that an item 10 should be added to the resolution to read, letter from O'Neill, Burke, and O'Neill dated May 2, with the exception of the enclosur4s attached thereto relating technical performance specifica- tions. -Henderson-6tated- that he isnot ready to -make his decision on all the items listed under- item 3, therefore Henderson moved, seconded by Bruestle to table the resolution pertaining to Rite's proposal to the next meeting. Voting: 4 ayes-Bruestle, Henderson, Tatone, Carlson, 8 nays. Motion failed. Tatone stated he would like to address each item in Item No. 3. Henderson asked the consultant if the commission would decide to accept the revised proforma, would all of the items stay on the exception list, would any of them stand on their own merit. Stech stated that many of them would be still on the list. To accept the proforma does not mean that something else has not been changed or does not mean there was not a substantive change. Tatone asked the consultant if the revised proforma was in response to the Commission question, what would happen if Rite's penetration was not this high, isn't that the understanding of why the revised proforma came to being. Stech stated that was her understanding of Rite"s explanation for submitting a revised proforma. There are many items in the proforma and the question consultants asked related to part of the proforma. The question was, what would happen -if the penetration was at 50% instead of 69%. The response contained almost all new capital, new operating budgets, new staff and the number of households changed. She stated that had nothing to do with the penetration rates. A number of additional items were resubmitted and changed. I Tatone stated that it seemed if Rite changed the penetration rates it is going to change a number of things. He also stated he wanted to know if the Commission asked them to clarify to better understand their proposal in order to make a fair comparison to the other proposal. He agreed to some extent with the consultant but stated more than the penetration rate would change, but stated that it wouldn't increase other than capital but the impact of the 19% difference in penetration would probably require some additional capital outlay, production revenue, but some have to change. He asked the consultant if she is throwing out the whole revised proforma. Gibbs responded to Tatone's comment that the whole revised proforma has M. been disregarded but that the Commission can try to salvage parts of it if it does not constitute a substantive change. Tatone asked Stech if any of the revised proforma can be salvaged in re- sponse to the question the Commission asked of Rite. Stech stated there were to many changes with out support throughout the proposal. The number of tiers changed, number of households to be served changed. Because of so,many changes it would be hard to calculate. If the Commission directs the consultants to go back and find anything salvagable -based on the 697 to 507 penetration it can be done. Lee Bertman of Rite Cable Company, Ltd. stated that if penetration rates changed from 697 to 507 it would change everything. He stated that Rite didn't see this information affecting the original proposal. It was in- tended as a response to a "what if" question. In regard to the extra miles it was changed to correct an inadverant error. Rite perceived it as an accurate representation of the response to the Commission question plus any corrections. The revised proforma is merely information, it is not a change to the original proposal. Gibbs asked Bertman if the Rite proposal at this time is projecting a 697 or 507 penetration. Bertman stated that the original proposal stands as submitted. The revised proforma is not a part of Rite's proposal, it is computational in nature submitted to the Commission for consideration however the Commission wishes to consider it. Gibbs stated that according to Bertman's response the revised proforma should remain on the list under Item No. 3 in the draft resolution. Bertman stated that the revised proforma was the basis of the consultant's final report about the financial adequacy of the plan. Stech stated that is not correct. Robert Sachs of Continental Cablevision addressed the issue of penetration by stating if the penetration rates were reduced from 697 to 507 it would show reduced revenues, reduced operating expenses, reduced capital costs. Staff is not increased when the penetration is reduced from 697 to 507. He also stated that this issue should be clear before the Commission votes. Tatone asked about the subscriber use of head end equipment for data. Stech stated that under the original proposal Rite had no head end equipment for data on the subscriber network. They had equipment for the insti- tutional network and Rite came back stating it would be used for the sub- scriber network as well. Tatone stated that he wanted to review each item listed in Item 3 to deter- mine why the items were deleted. Lanegran stated that the reasons the items were deleted are in the final report. 7 Boelter stated the Commission appointed the legal counsel and technical consultant to advise the Commission, and now the Commission questions the integrity of the consultants. He also stated that the Commission should not prolong what needs to be done. Lanegran moved, seconded by Baird to extend the meeting until 10:30. Vo- ting: 9 ayes, 4 nays - Tatone, Henderson, Bruestle, Hanson. Motion car- ried. Baird moved, seconded by Boelter to call the question. Voting: 7 ayes, 6 nays - Carlson, Walker, Hanson, Henderson, Tatone, Bruestle. Motion Car- ried. Lanegran moved, seconded by Harrison to adopt the resolution in regard to Rite's proposal including the deletion of Regional Channel 6 from Item No. 3; the addition of Item 9, letter dated May 7, 1984, from Lee Bertman regarding personal financial guarantees of Messrs Wright and Riegler; Item 10, letter dated May 2, 1984, from O'Neill, Burke and O'Neill with the exception of the enclosures attached thereto relating to technical perfor- mance specifications, contingent upon the consultants findings that Items 9 and 10 are not substantive amendments. Voting: 7 ayes, 6 nays - Carlson, Walker, Hanson, Henderson, Tatone, Bruestle. Motion carried. Henderson stated that the reason he voted against the motion is because he wishes to evaluate the stongest possible legal proposal and to have time to evaluate the items listed in Item No. 3 in detail. 9. Chairman Zemke addressed the agenda item of Selection process. Gibbs stated that at a minimum, the Commission should consider together the General Goals and Priority Sections of the matrix the consultant provided the commission. After some discussion, Baird moved, seconded by Lanegran to have the next full Commission meeting on May 23, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. to address the Selec- tion Process and Franchisee selection. Voting: 13 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. Boelter moved, seconded by Baird to'adjourn the meeting. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 10:20 P.M. Prepared by: Diane Ward Staff Secretary 0 ___......_._.....�..�............d..__.._ ...���.-......._.....,._..,...._.�ept...1.04Adm� n_.._.,,..�egt..50l.Rd&Sridq��______ 6/5/84 CLAIMS LIST 15-Engr .60-Utilities CHECK REGISTER 20-Police 70-Parks 30-Fire 80-Planning AMOUNT V E N 0 C R ITElwM6�I fON 90 *Tbbb T NO. Ihil 72.00 AMERICAN BUS INS AGY #6EXCESS RE FS 01-4250-X110-10 40.50- AMERICAN BUS INS AGY CR BAL PER STMT 01-4250-110-10 45.00 CONTRACTCRS TAB SVC ONE YR SUBS 05-4402-105-15 30.47FME CORP FILE8534 POSTAGE MCH SPLYS 01-4318-110-10 _._.._.._7 - ...4- 30 *� --- - .__ _.. - ._ --- ---- - ----- -- - -- -- --- - - ... - -- - -- ­ - -----.._-_._..—_..-------- 22.00 MPWA ANNL MTG FLOLMEN 01-4400-050-50 ANNL MTG KNUTH - -- 05-4400=105-15 46.00 *i .00 - - - PARADISE LWANSVC - -- -- RPR SWR HOLE SYLVANC _._._. -..15-4460-477-60 260.00 *� 79.42---..---- - AO CER PL-A TH MI RE MAAE TRNG - d1--'44fli7-020=2a 79.42 +y 6,00 FEDRt3 LUGGAGE HANOLE 01-4330-440-20 10.00-- -- -- TREAS- ST OF MINN _ - ___MN_ POST LIC------ --..___01=4404=020=20- 10.00 #/ 195.00 - SIGN CENTER_ - - - CR WATCH SIGNS 01-44'90-020-20- 1 95.00 +� 39 '?8-- ._.__YONELA ..SPECIALTY CO - INSIGNIAS 01=4330=44a-20- 39.78 #/ ' i0�'12340-- ---WHITE BEAR 000GE CTR-----84- DODGE DI PL --12-4610-000-©0 109123.40 WHITE BEAR DODGE CTR 84 DODGE DIFL 12-4610-000-00 209246.80 ✓ 48.00 CITY W ST PAUL FILL AIR TANKS 01-4305-030-30 32.00 CITY W ST PAUL FILL AIR TANKS 01-4305-030-30 -- --- - P0.00 - - - -- --- -- 1.00 M A C HWY&UTIL EASE 16-4475-670-00 1:00 - - 70.92 PRECISION TUNE TUNE UP 01-4330-440-20 70.9 2/`. _._ ._.... 4.28 v DAKOTA COUNTY CC 4/12 LEG COMM 01-4400-110-10 -.-- __-- - _._..._ ___._..._..___..._____.----.•----__.__....___-- - 101.17 OYTRON CORPDYTRON 01-4305-070-70 87.51 KREMER SPRG&ALIGN LABOR/PARTS 01-4330-490-70 87.51-- 74.67 TWIN CITY AUTO GLASS WINDSHIELD 01-4330-490-50 ' CFECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR 74.67 *� 10000 MAMA C/0 C WILLIAMS 10.00 500-00-- RAINBOW CARPET 50.00 49374.75 SOLIDIFICATION INC 4,374.75 *j 1.01.50 ALDY _GRA_PHIC SPLY 53.4- - - -- pLC'Y GAAPiIC SPLY 54.50 ALCM GRAPHIC SPLY 102.52 *� 3.40 AT $ T Ih FO SYSTEMS 4.58 AT. & T INFO SYSTEMS 4.91 AT & T INFC SYSTEMS 4.58 - -� - -AT & _T_ INFO SYSTEMS 4.50. AT & T INFO SYSTEMS 4.57 AT & T INFO SYSTEMS 26.54 57.66 B&J AUTO SPLY 9.77 89J AUTO SPLY 67.43._... --- - 7.11 ED WATER COMMISSION 7.11 ED_WATTR MOTOR COMMISSION 9.96 BD WATeR COMMISSION 7.10 ED WATER COMMISSION 31.28 +✓ CITY MOTOR SUPPLY 45.07 EROWN PHOTO 45.07 */ 7.41_ CITY MOTCR SUPPLY 13.34 _ CITY MOTOR -SUPPLY 3,84 CITY MOTOR SUPPLY 5 .60 CITY MOTOR SUPPLY 2.70 ' CITY MOTOR SUPPLY 9.00 CITY MOTOR SUPPLY ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO, INV 5/24 ATG - 01-4400-110-10� CPT RPR 303SYLVRO v- ----15=�i�=477=G�0y SEAL SAN SWRINE ' --'��y115-4268-477-60+ DISKETTES 01-4300-110-10 A CP. BALAACE 01-4300-110-10 1 DISKETTES C5 -4300-105-15A MAY SVC MAY SVC NAY SVC MAY SVC MAY SVC MAY SVC -- --- 01-4210-020-20 01-4210-050-50 01-4210-070-70 01-4210-315-3.0 15-4210-060 '� BATTERY 01-4330-440-20 C SHOP SPLY 15-4305-060-60 C APRS CONS 01-4425-310-50 APR CONS 01_-4425-310-70 COMML WTR READINS 15-4305-060-60_ 2 APR CONS 15-4425-310-60 FILM MISC PARTS S BEAM TAPE BULBS/CLAMPS PLUGS SILVER SEAL y - - 01-4305-030-30 2 01-4330-440-20 1 U1=4330-440=' 1 01-4330-460- 1 01-4330-490-:)U 1 01-4330-490=70 1 01-4330-490-70 1 CFECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. IN 3.60 CANIELSON JAMES E CITY MOTOR SUPPLY AC/PLUGS 15-4330-4910-60 16.74 59.62 CITY MOTOR SUPPLY TUFF STUFF 15-4330-490-60 --10.'02 - CCR CORP.. - - - CITY 'OTOR-SUPPLY -W� CARB KIT_- --- 15-4330-490-60 72.25 */ OCR CORP. JUNE RENT 29932.50 10.65 COAST TO COAST NAILS/?AINT 01-4305-050-50 _ - -3.51 - COAST TO COAST CASTERS 01-4305-070-70 5.49 COAST TO COAST HANDLES 01-4305-070-70 10.29 COAST DO COAST MISC SPLYS 01-4305-070-70 ----30-02 - CCAST _TC 13.52 COAST TO CCAST MISC SPLYS 15-4305-060-60 46.48 215.68 CORCORAN HOWEBIMPL---. 215.68 */ 11.90 COPY EQUIP CORE BUS TOUR MAPS 01-4490-110-10 -- -56.16 - - COPY^E n UIP 'CO-_- - - 05-430fl=105- 5 23.33 COPY EQUIP CO SURVEY SPLYS 05-4305-105-15 91 .39 *-' 160.00 CAFLGREA NCWARC ASS -O-__ 160.00 +✓ 52.36 CANIELSON JAPES E MI APR/NAY 1.98 CANIELSON JAMES E _ - lHI APR/MAY - 5.28 DANIELSON JAMES E MI APR/MAY 59.62 ✓ 17125.00 - CCR CORP.. - - - - - -- JUNE RENT ------- 637.50 OCR CORP. JUNE RENT 19170.00 OCR CORP. JUNE RENT 29932.50 90.00 CENNIS DELMONT JUNE MI 90 .00 */ --- C1�4-22U�'125=80 05-4415-105-15 � -15-44'15=4'77=60 87-4415-81 2-00 - --01=400=600=10 01-4200- 600-20 05-4200-600-15 01-4415-021-20 -so-1100 FISCHERS GAS 66 -- SVC CALL 2287 _ T l)-43317-4611-30 50.00 +t/ CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INf 175.00 FRAZE'LL KEVIN JUNE MI 12.03 FRAZELL KEVIN REIMS EXP BUS TOUR 187.,03 *'' 25*00 FPE CORPMAILEA MAY 25.t7C - FME CORP MAIL EO MAY - 50.00 423.13 GOPHER ATHLETIC REC SPLY . 4231'3 +✓ _.._.__._.__ - _. _ ... 01-4415-110-10 01-4490-1'10-10 01-42_0_0-61_0-10 _. 01-4200-610-20 - 01-4 4 35- 200- 70 242.75 I C M A ANNUAL DUES 01-4404-110-10 242.75 127.69 ICDA RG W/H5/11 PR 01-2072-000-00 79.33 10A RG 5/11 CONTR 01-4406-110-10 207.02 79.42 KAR PRODUCTS INC.MISC SPLYS 01-4305-02C 79,42-. KAR PR-ODUCTS INC. MISC SPLYS 01-4305-03G J 79.42 PAP PRODUCTS IRC. MISC SFLYS 01-4305-050-50 79.42 KAP PRODUCTS INC.MISC SPLYS 111-4305-070-70 -- 79.41 - -KAR PR{iDtiCTS INC: __ - MZSC SPL1�S- _ _ _ 397.09 ✓ 42.46 F WH TON. MI THRU 5/29 15-4415-477-60 6.16 KNUTH' TOM MI T HRU 5/29 674415=94l' 60 7.26 KNUTH T=OM MI THRU5/29 74-4415-813-00 .88 N KTH TOMPI THRU 5/29 86-4415-811-00 18.04 KNUTH TOM MI THRU 5f24 - - -8?=44iS-812-ad 7 4 . g 0 *"' 3.87 LAKELAND FORD PAR72287 60,06--A IAKEl.ANO FORD _ Y PART.2287. 14.00 LAKELAND FORD BOLTS 304/305 77.90 144.00 LELS - - - -JUN- DUES 144.10 • 01-4330-46fl-30 + - ..... _------ Oi-443.3.0-460-30 01-4330-490-50 a -- - --- 01-2075-000= ,% 14.08 LMC.IT HP PLAN JUN W/H 01-2074-000-00 rd -...�..�.............�._..�.>a.._.._,..._..r.e.....�..,..-,,._..,..�.,...�.,._,..__.,._....._._.._..a._a__._.....�.__..,�......_ 1_111.._.._ �..r..._.__--_ I AMOUNT VENDOR CHECK REGISTER 290.00 LMCIT HP PLAN 56.69 ---------- 01-4335-310-50 HP !ALAN 1?S.OD _LMCIT LMCIT HP PLAN 56.69 LMCIT HP PLAN 552.46 *� 15-4335-310-60 25.50 ITEM DESCRIPTION JUN PREM JUN _PREM JUN PREM JUNPREM ACCOUNT NO. INV C1-4245-020-20 01-4245-021-20 0i=4245-040-40 01-4245-050-50 8,50 --- �LEEF BROS INC -� -- - -- MAY SVC- ---------- 01-4335-310-50 8.50 LEEF BROS INC MAY SVC 01-4335-310-70 8.50 LEEF BROS INC MAY SVC 15-4335-310-60 25.50 .. 22.05 .._ BEAEFIT 600,85 PEOCENT'.ERS HP JUN W/H 01-2074-000-00 817.05 MEOCENTERS HP JUN PREM 01-4245-020-20 391 0-1 5..-.. - _..MEOCENTERS HP -JUN PREM 01-4245-070-70 459110 PEDCENTERS HP JUN PREM 01-4245-050-50 252.930 }EDCENTERS HP JUN PREM 01-4245-070-70 ` 628.20----MEDCENTERS 400-00 -- HP J L N PREM - - -- - - 01-4245-110-10" 405.00 MEDCENTERS HP JUN PREM 05-4245-105-15 145.00 FEDCENTERS HP JUN PREP 15-4245-060-6C LIFE JUN_ _.._ . . _ MINN 15.00 PEND HGTS RUBBISH MAY SVC 15.00 *� 01-4280-315-30 397F6.75 -_ METRO BASTE CONTROL — _MAY SAC CHGS--__�-- 15-4448-060-60- 219742.44 METRO WASTE CONTROL JUN INSTALL 15-4449-060-60 259529.19 +✓ 22.05 MINN BEAEFIT ASSN -- - -JUN--W/H - - -"" --01-2074-000-00 5.90 MINN BENEFIT ASSN JUN PREM 01-4245-021-20 5100 MINN BENEFIT ASSN JUN PREM 01-4245-070-70 32.95 - - - - -- 40*00 MN DEPT PUBLICSAFETY CONNECT CHG 01-4200-610-20 1 400-00 -- 3.90 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUN WIH 01-2071-000-00 1 11,70 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUN_ W/H01-2074_-_000-00 3.90 MINN MUTUAL LIFE- -- - JUN PREM - 01-4245-020-20 l 1995 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUN PREM 01-4245-021-20 ( 1.95 FINN MUTUAL LIFE JUN PREM 01-4245-050-50 ( 3.90 MINN --MUTLAL LIFE JUN -PREP - --- - -01 42 5=070=70 1 5.85 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUN PREM 01-4245-110-10 ( CHECK REGISTER APau rI VENCCR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. IN1 1995 MINN MUTUAL LIFE JUN PREM 05-4245-10 5 43.18 - (MOTOROLA INC 43.1 8 *i p4.34 NORTHERN ST POWER CO 4:25 - NORTHERN ST- POWER CO 138.77 NCRTHERN ST POWER CO 466.55NORTHERN NORTHWESTERN ST POWER CO 14,00:_._.___ _NORTHERN ST POWER CO 210.78 NORTHERN ST POWER CO 918.69 SVC 01-4210-315-3C MAY SVC 222.04 ­ KCRTHWESTERA BEIL 67.64 NOPTHkESTERN BELL 101.98 NORTHWESTERN BELL 30b.17-- -NORTHWEST.RN 8ELL 73.39 �CRTHkESTE'RA BELL 80001 NORTHWESTERN BELL 272,23.. NORTHWESTERN BELL 1 9124.20 y SVC 01-4210-05C-50 250.00 OAK CREST KENNELS _ 30Cf00 - If4V CREST KENNELS 550.00 -- 01=4 10� CHECK REGISTER AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NC* I9.1 5.20 S&T OFFICE PROD 24,70 - S&T OFFICE PROD 8.23 S&T OFFICE PROC 38.13 -?5.00 SELANDER DUAhE C 35.00 +� 29580.00 SHAUGHNESSY L E JR 21580.60 NOTEBOOK 01-4268-650-10 DRAFTING TAPE - C1 -4300 -040 -40 - DRAFTING TAPE 05-4300-105-15 JUN PI 01-4415-200- 70 MAYY SVC 01-4220-132-10 51903 SCLTHVIEW CFEVROLET WHL WGHTS C1-4330-490-50 51,03 */ - '-- 01-2071000-00 36.11 UNITED CENT TRUSTEE - 115.99 - ST PAUL '8001(9 STAT - ------TANG SPLYS - - -: - - _ - --C'l-4403=036=3G- 16*60 ST PAUL BOOK&STAT TRNG SPLYS 01-4403r03C-3C 35.88 ST PAUL BOOK&STAT TRNG SPLYS 01-4403-030-30, 7500 9.18 SUN NEWSPAPERS PUBNOT CL PROP 01-4240-020-20' 7„82 SUN NEUSPAPERS HRG NOTEAS£ YAC 01-4240-110-10 ._._ 4.45 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED NAME BAR 01-4410-020-20 4*45 */ 57.74 UNITED- CENT TRUSTEE JUN W/H _ - '-- 01-2071000-00 36.11 UNITED CENT TRUSTEE JUN PREM 01-4246-020-20 18.76 CENT TRUSTEE JUNPREM 01-4246-050-50 ' 18.76 _UNIT_ED UNITED CANT TRUSTEE JUN PREM 01-4246-070-70 ` 131.37 �►/ 7500 UNITED WAY -ST PAUL JUN W/H C1-2070-000-00 70.00 UNIV OF MINN K FRAZELL 5/21 01-4400-110-10 AMOUNT 70.(70 *i CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT N0. INQ 127.10 WESTERN LIFE INS CO JUN PREM 01-4246-030-30" -----•- •-- --- ._ ...---- - - - -- ---- -- - - ..-.------- _ _ _- _ --_- - 127.10 - - 16 9780.94 - ----FUND 82.00 01 TOTAL 39220.54 FUND 05 TOTAL 180.00 FUND 10 TOTAL 20;246 80'--- FUND 11 TOTAL- 32,049.58 FUND 15 TOTAL 71.00 FUND 16 TOTAL -60-116.__ -.....___... -LUNO 67 ---TOTAL 10521 7.26 FUND 74 TOTAL .88 FUND 86 TOTAL 23.32 -- - FUND 87 TOTAL 729586.48 TOTAL 10526_ .4,638.68 MANUAL CHECKS 10527 2,500.47 St. Treas SS 10512 82.00 Ramsey County Sheriff 10513 2,787.73 St Treas SS 10514 4,920.20 Dir Internal Revenue_ 10515 41993.38 SIT W/H 4/27&5/11 10516 9,409.78 St. Treas PER? 10517 300.00 DCB 10518 965.15 SCCU 10519 VOID ' _ 10520 __23,365.17 Net payroll 5/11 10521 91.00 Cecils Deli 10522 388.25 LMC 10523 184.94 City M.H. P. C. Acct 10524 125.00 ICMA 10525 66.00 Servomation 10526_ .4,638.68 Dir Internal_ Revenue 10527 2,500.47 St. Treas SS 10528 300.00 DCB 10529 965.15 SCC_U 10530 22,3.84 63 _ City M.H. PR Acct. 78,446.74 GT $ 151,033.22 GENERAL FUND _ _.___._._. _ .-_._-_-•.-------.___....._ ENGR ENTERPRISE SPECIAL FARK FUND EQUIPMENT CERTIFICATES SEWER UTILITY TID I79-7/81-4/82-2/82-6 I80-3 TH13 REALIGNII�ATER CONS PROD FUND I83-3LEX AV TFRC SIC 183=4/83-48 GRYC/DAK CYY - ---- --- Warrant612421 5/11 FICA FIT 0/H 5/11 Commissioner of REvenue 4/27&5/11 PERA Payroll deductions 5/11 , City. M.H._ Payroll account....-,,.. Bx lunches bus tour ' Annual Conf regr. Replenish petty_cash Regr. K. Frazell FEMA*wkshop meals FIT. W/H -5/2_5 5/25 FICA Payroll deductions 5/25 Net payroll 5/25 LIST OF 1984 CONTRACTORS TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 5, 1984 Daytons Bluff Sheet Metal, Inc. Gopher State Fence Company Duane Herman Houle Construction Merle's Construction Company Quality Pools Ripco Construction Roof -Tech Schulties Plumbing, Inc. Streeter Construction Varco Contracting Jim Wermerskirchen Heating and Air Conditioning License Fence Erecting License Excavating License General Contractor's License General Contractor's License General Contractor's License General Contractor's License Roofing License Excavating License General Contractor's License General Contractor's License Masonry License CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator June 1, 1984 SUBJECT: Request for Ordinance Restricting Hours of Construction INTRODUCTION Mr. Bernard P. Friel, 750 Mohican Lane, has contacted Mayor Lockwood with a request that the City adopt an ordinance limiting the hours of highway con- struction in the community. A copy of Mr. Friel's letter is attached for your review. I have also duplicated those portions of the Minneapolis ordinance dealing with restrictions on hours of construction. RAr..Vr,P0TTNT) Subsequent to the Mayor's refering the request to me, I discussed it with Kermit McRae, District 9 Engineer. He has indicated that many cities do place restrictions on hours of construction activity, and that the Mn/DOT bidding documents require contractors to comply with local ordinances. However, Mr. McRae said it also is usual practice for cities to grant variances from ordinance restrict- ions in order to complete highway construction in an expeditious manner. According to Mr. McRae, an overly restrictive ordinance without reasonable variances could result in a considerable delay in completion of the Interstate projects. T)TQCTTQQMM Mr. Friel will be present Tuesday evening to discuss his concerns and the need for such an ordinance. The Mn/DOT project engineer and a representative of Johnson Brothers Construction will also be present to discuss the implications of passage of such an ordinance. It would seem to me that in considering the merits of this request, Council would ask, at least, the following questions: 1. Would restrictions ( at various levels) result in significant delay in completion of the Interstate highways? 2. If yes, how does that concern balance against the desire for community "peace and quiet"? 3. What are the practical, philosophical, and perhaps legal, impli- cations of passing such an ordinance after the contract has already been let? ACTION REQUIRED Council should consider the need for, implications, and practicalities of adopting such an ordinance. If Council determines the need for an ordinance, one - 2 - could be prepared for consideration at the June 19th meeting. If Council wishes to pursue an ordinance, some general direction to the staff in terms of the types of restrictions you would like would be helpful. Respectfully submitted, Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator KDF:madlr attachments 2200 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SAINT PAUL,MINNESOTA 55101 May 15, 1984 Mr. Robert G. Lockwood Mayor of Mendota Heights 2 Hingham Circle Mendota Heights, MN 55118 Dear Mayor Lockwood: I am enclosing herewith the copy of the City of Minneapolis ordinance relating to noise. In particular your attention is directed to those provisions on restricting construction equipment operations on weekdays, weekends and holidays. In view of the pending construction on both I-494 and 35E, I urge the Council to impose some limits on the times of day when construction operation may be carried on. I understand that the present program for con- struction on 35E and I-494 will take place during the normal workday in what is referred to as a "single shift" operation. However, I am also told that it would not be unusual for the contractors to go into a double shift operation. I am also told by the Highway Department that they do not permit double shift operations if local ordinance prohibits it. Last summer there were significant amounts of noise when the contractors were operating on double shift in the construction of 35E and I-494 intersection. It was particularly disturbing on weekends, late at night on week days and in the morning on weekdays. I urge the Council to adopt an ordinance which will limit such operations so that we will not have a repeat of last summer. Should you be inclined to the view that your present nuisance ordinances are adequate, I wish to assure you that enforcement problems with your existing 0 Mr. Robert G. Lockwood May 15, 1984 Page Two ordinances make dealing with the problem nearly impossible. Furthermore, I understand that the City does not own noise monitoring equipment and that, of course, makes enforcement of nuisances particularly difficult. I hope you will adopt an ordinance promptly so that we do not have to attempt to deal with the problem after the fact. Thank you for taking the time to consider this request. Very truly yours, Bernard P'. Friel BPF:jat Enclosure f,— § 389.70 OFFENSES—MISCELLANEOUS (3) Outdoor implements, such as power lawn mowers, snowblowers, power hedge clippers and power saws; (4) Pile drivers, jackhammers and other construction equipment; and (5) Lawful and proper activities on school grounds, playgrounds, parks or places wherein athletic contests take place are exempt from the provisions of this section. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 948.030; Ord. of 9-27-74, § 1; 79 -Or -036, § 1, 2-23-79; 82 -Or -163, §§ 2, 3, 8-13-82) 389.70. Construction equipment. (a) Except as here- inafter provided, no pile driver, jackhammer or other construction equipment shall be operated within the city between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays or during any hours on Saturdays, Sundays and state and federal holidays, except under specific permit from the director of inspections as provided below and no such equipment shall be operated at any time if the sound level from such operation exceeds ninety (90) decibels; provided further, however, that such equipment, the operation of which conforms to the maximum allowable sound levels as prescribed in section 389.60 may be operated during the above -prohibited hours and days. When any of the above-named equipment is used for any purpose other than construction, the ambient noise levels of section 389.60 shall apply. (b) No internal-combustion engine or any other power unit when operated in connection with construction or demolition equipment shall be operated at any time other than at the times as set forth in this section and any sound I i Supp. No. 7,12-82 2878.1 § 389.70 OFFENSES—MISCELLANEOUS emitted from any such engine or power unit shall not exceed eighty-six (86) decibels measured along any property line. (c) No exhaust system of such an internal-combustion engine shall be altered, modified or repaired in such a way that the noise emitted by the engine is increased above that emitted by said engine as originally equipped from the manufacturer. (d) If an emergency situation exists or if the director of inspections determines that loss or inconvenience would result to any party in interest unless allowed additional hours of equipment operation, he may grant permission for extended hours of operation of such construction equipment and internal-combustion engine or power unit as follows: (1) In the event of an emergency situation a permit may be granted for such operation during any hour of any day for a period not to exceed three (3) days or less while the emergency continues and which permit may be renewed for periods of three (3) days or less while the emergency continues. (2) In the event of a determination- of loss or inconven- ience to a part, a permit may be granted for such operation throughout the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and throughout the hours of 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and state and federal holidays upon the condition that while any construction equipment, internal-combustion engine or power unit is in operation, its location shall be not less than six hundred (600) feet in any direction from any dwelling, except that if while any such construc- tion equipment or internal-combustion engine or power unit is in operation, its location shall be not less than twelve hundred (1,200) feet in any direction from any dwelling, a permit may be granted for operation during any hour of any day. (e) In the excavation and construction of Interstate Highway I-94 from state trunk Highway #12 to the northern Supp. No. 3, 12-79 2879 § 389.70 MINNEAPOLIS CODE city limits construction equipment may, subject to the other provisions of this section, be operated as follows: `•; ; (1) Construction equipment, including intern al -combus- tion engines or other power units, but excluding pile drivers and jackhammers, may be operated from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to -- 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and state and federal holidays. (2) Pile drivers and jackhammers may be operated from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, Saturdays and state and federal holidays. (f) In the reconstruction of the Third Avenue Bridge over the Mississippi River, construction equipment may, subject to the other provisions of this section, be operated as follows: (1) Construction equipment, including internal-combus- tion engines or other power units, may be operated from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and state and federal holidays. (2) Jackhammers may be operated on the northerly one-half of the bridge from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and state and federal holidays. (3) Jackhammers may be operated on the southerly one-half of the bridge only as prescribed in subdivi- sion (a) of this section. (4) Pile drivers, if used, may be operated only as prescribed in subdivision (a) of this section. (g) In the reconstruction of the Hennepin Avenue Bridge over the Milwaukee Road railroad tracks near West ! Twenty-ninth Street, construction equipment, including internal-combustion engines, other power units, jackham- mers and pile drivers, may, subject to the other provisions Supp. No. 3, 12-79 2880 I - � § OFFENSES—MISCELLANEOUS 389.90 of this section, be operated from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and state and federal holidays. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 948.040; 79 -Or -036, § 2, 2-23-79; 79 -Or -112, § 1, 5-25-79; 79 -Or -210, § 1, 10-26-79) 7 389.80. Outdoor implements. Except as hereinafter provided, any power lawn mower, snow blower, power hedge clipper, power saw or such other implement, designed primarily for outdoor use, shall be operated within the city _ only between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on Saturdays, Sundays and state and federal holidays; provided, however, that such equipment, the operation of which conforms to the maximum allowable sound levels as prescribed in section 389.60 may be operated during the above -prohibited hours. (Code 1960, As Amend., § 948.050) 389.90. Radios, tape players, etc., in vehicles. (a) No person, -while in a vehicle which is parked or on a bidycle or tri -wheeler, shall play, use or operate any radio receiving set, tape player, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device from which sound may emanate in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of another person. (b) It shall be unlawful for the owner of any private vehicle, or if the owner is not then present, the person in charge of the vehicle, to permit the playing, using or operating of any radio receiving set, tape player, musical instrument, phonograph or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound, or from which sound may emanate, in such a manner as to disturb the peace, _quiet and comfort of another person. (c) The operation of any set, player, instrument, phono- graph, machine or device, as provided in subsections (a) and (b), between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a di -stance of fifty (50) Supp. No. 3, 12-79 2881 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 23, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City �YistfiraVtor FROM: Edward F. Kishel City Engineer SUBJECT: Watermain Extensions Wagon Wheel Trail at I -35E Job No. 8109 Improvement No. 81, Project No. 2 INTRODUCTION: Staff is periodically being contacted by a property owner on Wagon Wheel Trail with regard to the height of an installed hydrant adjacent to his drive- way. HISTORY: During the construction of a bridge over FAI-35E at Wagon Wheel Trail by Mn/DOT in 1982 and 1983, Mendota Heights established a.water project on Wagon Wheel Trail to cross Highway 35E and to -complete a loop connection that was started several years ago. DISCUSSION: As part of the bridge project, Mn/DOT reconstructed the bridge approach and tapered the 4 inch thick bituminous mat from a nominal 40 foot width at the bHdge to an existing 24 foot width on Wagon Wheel Trail at the approach touchdown point. The watermain installation included the placement of a hydrant west of the driveway leading to the residence of Mr. Richard W. Bebel, 1011 Wagon Wheel Trail. Wagon Wheel Trail is a designated State Aid Street and will, some day, be constructed to State Aid standards with concrete curb and gutter and a 40 or 44 foot driving surface. With that knowledge, staff located the hydrants and established pipe and hydrant elevations to meet the anticipated future curb and boulevard elevations. Because the existing roadway and shoulder are lower than they will be in the future, the hydrant in question stands about 10 inches higher than its ultimate height. The Water Department is not completely satisfied with the installation because they are concerned that the "break -off" joint will stick up too high should it be run into. Mr. Bebel is not satisfied with the height because of aesthetics. The Water Department will allow the in- stallation to remain as -is, but the City must assume responsibility for maintenance. An attached drawing shows the hydrant installation now and as it will be in the future. ALTERNATIVES: The hydrant can be excavated and lowered about 12 inches to suit Mr. Bebel or it can be left as -is until future upgrading is completed. To lower the hydrant, or to relocate it, will cost an estimated $800 to $1000. When Wagon Wheel Trail is upgraded, the hydrant will then have to be raised about one foot at another cost of $200 to"$250. �RECOMMENDATLON: Although Staff continues to recommend leaving the hydrant as it exists, the matter has been brought before you because of Mr. Bebel's very strong feelings on the matter. ACTION REQUIRED: Council to direct Staff as to action to be taken based on the available alternatives. cc: Mr. Richard W. Bebel 'T rL jot>- $1 o9. ftf-rL a> f 4w RA D I i� CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council /� FROM: Kevin D. FrazeC, ✓ / City Administrator May 29, 1984 SUBJECT: Recommendation on Acquisition of Second IBM Personal Computer Since I will not be in attendance at the meeting of June 5th, I am sending this memo to indicate to the Council my strong concurrence with Kathy's recommendation that we acquire a second IBM Personal Computer. Having the staff become "computer literate" is one of my highest manage- ment priorities, since I think this is the one best hope of dramatically increasing office productivity. Equipping our offices with expanded computer capability will forestall the day when we have to add office staff, which in the long run is a much more expensive proposition. As indicated in Kathy's memo, we will be taking a good look at additional computer applications as we prepare the 1985 budget. KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 24, 1984 TO: Mayor, Council Members, City Administrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: Computer Acquisition/Needs Projection Introduction The IBM Personal Computer acquired in June, 1983, is experiencing such intense use that staff members are in almost constant contest over scheduling of its time. Productivity has increased significantly as the result of computer availability, however, the lack of available computer time limits a very significant potential for greater productivity. At a recent meeting, staff members and department heads were invited to suggest potential computer applications and future computer needs. This memo will include a recommendation for immediate acquisition of a second personal computer, will suggest potential applications, and will set forth a brief analysis of anticipated future computer needs. History and Background On April 5, 1983, the Council authorized acquisition of an IBM Personal Computer from Computerland via the Hennepin County and University of Minnesota purchase contracts. The system ordered consisted of the PC unit with 128K of •internal memory, two double-density disk drives, an IBM monochrome monitor, a Brother HR -1 letter quality printer, operating system and the necessary cables and adapters. The total system cost $4,430. Word processing, data base management and spreadsheet software was purchased at a total cost of $1,130. In the time intervening between the ordering and installation of the system (June, 1983), all of the City's clerical staff members attended an introductory computing course at Dakota County Vo -Tech to become familiar with personal computing operations and reduce any fears they might have over operating a computer. When it arrived, the computer was greeted with varying levels of joy or apprehension by staff, so there was little need to formally schedule computer time by department or by staff members. By December, the system was being used, by engineering in particular, and by the Administration staff to varying degrees, to the extent that it became desirable to upgrade both the internal memory and operating system. The system memory was upgraded to 256K and DOS 2.0, an advanced operating system designed to increase speed and computing capability was acquired. Our original recommendation to acquire"a personal computer was based on a relatively modest list of potential applications: word processing, budgeting and fixed assets inventorying. The clerical employees, particularly the Engineering Secretary, and a number of the management employees, have become proficient in computing. Productivity has increased Computer Acquisition Page 2 significantly since the computer was installed. It is being used heavily for word processing applications, was invaluable for budget preparation, and has been used for asset inventory purposes to a limited degree. Some examples of the current applications are: Word Processing Reports and memoranda, engineering specifications, Council minutes and agendas, Cable Commission minutes, Park Commission minutes, ordinances and resolutions, etc. When the word processing program is used for reports and memos a considerable time savings is realized since there is no need to first type the document in rough draft format and then re -type a final, corrected draft. Once an engineering specification data base is built and stored on disk it can be quickly retrieved and adjusted for a current project, eliminating the need to prepare an individual master document (20 to 100 pages of text) annually or to retype -anew sections (15 to 20 pages in length) for each project. Standard resolutions and developers agreements have been prepared and stored on disk for retrieval and modification for future use. Spreadsheet The spreadsheet software, Supercalc 2, was extensively used in preparing the 1984 budget document. Even though we were novices in computing a year ago, countless hours were saved in budget preparation because it was no longer necessary to prepare original forms for departmental use, re -type them after adjustment by the departments and again after administrator and Council changes. The data base was compiled, adjusted numerous times and stored on disk to provide a data base for the'1985 budget. Engineering project time distributions and billings are maintained and prepared entirely by computer. Distribution, of semi-annual special assessment payments received from the County is completed with the spreadsheet program. We have recently designed a monthly building activity report in Supercalc and plan to maintain and update both monthly and annual activity on disk. Data Base Management The fixed assets inventory prepared in response to our Auditor's recommendation, has been entered into the computer, sorted and stored on disk using the Infostar program. We have also recently developed a report form for contractors' license information and plan to develop a data base which will provide easily accessible lists of contractors and information specific to each of the licenses, such as type of license, dates of expiration of bonds and insurance and contact names and phone numbers. Each of the types of information can be sorted in whatever sort order :we establish. The data base we plan to develop, along with the computerized sorting and reporting of that data base, will save much time which is currently spent on similar manual sorting, reporting and updating of such information. Computer Acquisition Page 3 The foregoing list of current applications is by no means all-inclusive. We have been extremely pleased with the computer and both the word processing and spreadsheet software. We must admit to a certain amount of disappointment in the Infostar program. The computer is so constantly in use that little time has been available to work with Infostar and we hope that when more computer time is available, our disappointment with the program will be reduced. Discussion Earlier in this memo I alluded to a recent staff meeting. The purpose of the meeting was three -fold: to discuss current departmental needs for computer time; to suggest potential applications; and, to develop a long- range plan for the maximum use and adaptability of our existing equipment and any future system expansion. When the original recommendation for computer acquisition was made we believed IBM to be the best choice of several personal computers available. This original belief has been greatly fortified over the past year. Numerous software packages have been developed for use on the PC, which seems to have become the "industry standard" as we had anticipated. IBM recently announced that it will soon develop and market its own ' software packages at prices much lower than those we experienced in our original purchases. IBM will also soon market networking packages which will allow IBM PCs to communicate with each other and share common data bases. Demands on computer time are so intense now that we have had to develop a schedule for its use. The schedule allows time for each operater to use the computer in time blocks on a regular basis. The time allocated for each op&rator only provides the ability to perform operations currently being performed and does not allow for expanded applications or proficiency in- creases by all but a few staff members in all of the three pieces of City - owned software. The staff meeting discussion generated a very extensive list of potential applications. For your information, we have attached that list of highly desirable applications which cannot be accomplished without system expansion. At the time we originally received Council authorization to acquire the IBM PC, we acknowledged that at some future date we would probably recommend additional computer acquisitions. The time for that recommendation has come much. more quickly than we had anticipated. . Tele -Terminals has been awarded the State contract for computers for 1984 and 1985. We have contacted Bruce Zimmerman of Tele -Terminals and have received a quotation for a system similar to, but more powerful than, the existing system. The proposed configuration has been designed based on needs determined by staff and with considerable input from our Auditor. The attached proposal represents a quotation for an IBM PC with two double density disk drives, 512K of internal memory, a monochrome display and adapter which provide limited graphics capability and a 160 character per second dot matrix printer. We have recently adjusted the word processing software to provide a 16K print buffer, therefore the $155.00 cost for a Computer Acquisition Page 4 quad fazer print buffer has been eliminated, reducing the total system price to $4016.60. We do not plan on acquiring any additional software at this time. Any future software purchases will be made through the general fund operating budgets. Financing Alternatives Several financing alternatives are available. 1. We anticipate that 1984 General Fund revenues will exceed expendi- tures in an amount similar to 1983. The acquisition could there- fore be authorized and acknowledged as an unfunded expenditure chargeable to Administration capital outlay in the 1984 operating budget. 2. The 1984 Federal Revenue Sharing entitlements will fully fund the Public Works Garage Fund deficit, leaving a 1984 Revenue Sharing balance of $1,800 and $30,700 in 1985 entitlements unencumbered. The $1,800 in excess 1984 Revenue Sharing entitlements could be allocated to pay a portion of the computer acquisition costs. 3. The 1984 Administration Department budget included $10,460 in contingency. The acquisition cost could be charged against the contingency, leaving a balance of $6,000+. 4. The entire system cost could be charged to the Unappropriated Fund Account. Information The potentials presented by computer system expansion are enormously exciting. We have always been as "up front" with the Council as possible in our reports and recommendations, and will have no hidden agendas in this report. This report will therefore encompass what we project as future computer needs. We are very firm in our recommendation to immediately acquire a second computer for general operations. We do not expect any Council action on projected needs, nor will we feel that any discussion on the projections on Tuesday evening will commit the Council to authorization for future acquisitions. We will address future computer acquisitions during the 1985 budget process. During that process, Council will most probably be presented with a recommendation to acquire a computer system and ENFORS system software for the Police Department. There is a very real need for computerization of public safety records. Documentation of those needs and information on the ENFORS software will be presented as part of the acquisition recommendation. What we forsee as longer range future needs are as follow: portable computers for public works and the fire department, a computer and monitor which can both be linked to the LOGIS system (replacing the existing leased hard -copy terminal) and can act as a stand -along computer, a 20 megabyte Computer Acquisition Page S hard disk drive to be connected to one of the PC's to provide mass storage for large data -bases such as the property identification file and to hold common information which can be shared via networking by all departments. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council authorize immediate acquisition of the computer system described in -the attached Tele -Terminals system proposal. Action Required If Council concurs in the staff recommendation, it should adopt a motion to authorize an expenditure of $4,016.60 for the acquisition of an IBM Personal Computer system from Tele -Terminals, system configuration to be in accordance with the system proposal dated May 11, 1984, exclusive of the Quad Fazer 16 16K Print Buffer, the expenditure to be charged to whichever funding source Council deems most appropriate. Attachment 1: Computer Acquisition Memo May 24, 1984 POTENTIAL, APPLICATIONS Administration Expanded word processing, investment tracking and reports, bond schedules, open purchase order files, citizen/Council complaints and requests file, land use inventory, assessment deferral re- cords, planning history, indexing of official records (minutes, resolutions and ordinances), City land -assets inventory, records retention schedule, election judge training histories, election training manuals, voter registration information, hazardous chemi- cals files and training records (Employee Right to Know Act), bond prospectus file, Tax Increment District project projections, annual utility billing rate calculations. Engineering Expanded word processing, easement records, project cost histories, bid price analyses for future project estimates, assessment roll calculations. Public Works Fleet maintenance and management, mechanic time cost accounting, SSES information, utility system maintenance and cost monitoring, inventory control, seal coat and street maintenance schedules and cost histories. Police Monthly reports, annual report data base, Operation I.D. and Crime Watch information, ENFORS record keeping system, officer training records, general word processing. Fire Department Monthly reports, annual report data base, run records, officer training and drill records, false alarm records, property characteristic records (in trucks), monthly jobs assignments, cost calculations for outside fire contracts. Miscellaneous Contractor and dog license information, liquor licensing information, utility system customer lists, utility billings (future), newsletter typesetting. ITEM # DESCRIPTION CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS System Proposal May 11, 1984 QTY. STATE CONTRACT EXTENDED PRICE PRICE MCM-PC-SU104 IBM System Unit 64K, KB 1 $948.50 $ 948.50 IBM-PC-32OKBD 320K Floppy Drives 2 370.30 740.60 MCM-PC-DADAP Disk Drive Adapter 1 154.00 154.00 TEC-MEMCHIPS Memory Expansion 64K Sets 3 85.00 255.00 HERC-DADAP Display Adapter 1 425.00 425.00 MCM-PC-MONO IBM Monochrome Display 1 241.50 241.50 OKI-MICRO93 160 CPS Printer 1 725.00 725.00 C-137 Printer Cable - PC to Micro 1 30.00 30.00 C-130 Cable - Microfazer to -Printer 1 30.00 30.00 MIC-256KMEM 256K Memory Board 1 310.00 310.00 A -INSTALL Install, Set Up, 1 130.00 130.00 90 Day Warranty A -SHIPPING Standard IBM Shipping Charge 1 27.00 27.00 SYSTEM TOTAL 44,17 yo/G.•4o 010804 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO May 31, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City A nistrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Spring Clean -UP nT C OTIC C TnM . It is spring time again in Mendota Heights and, as in all spring times since I've been here, Mendota Heights has published its threatening notice in newspapers putting residents on notice that they better "clean-up their property or else". And, as in prior years, this notice has prompted several reports to city staff of presumed violations. Because the existing Ordinance is vague and antiquated, staff then has to explain to the complainant that the existing City Ordinance does not cover or address the situation reported. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that the existing City "Clean -Up" Ordinance is antiquated and unenforcahai e. (City Ordinance 1003 is attached) Staff recommends Council repeal the existing ordinance, and in the future direct staff to send "friendly" letters to owners of property that appear to need attention requesting them to clean them up. Any serious offenders would be prosecuted under the existing nuisance ordinance. ACTION REQUIRED• If Council wishes to implement Staff recommendation they should adopt the attached repealing ordinance. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1.003 The City Council of the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, ordains as follows: SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 1003 entitled "An Ordiance Requiring The Cleaning Of Premises, Providing For A Sanitary Inspection, And Establishing A Penalty For Violation Thereof" is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from afnd after its publication according to law. Enacted by the City Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of June, 1984. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Robert G. Lockwood Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1003 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE CLEANING OF PREMISES, PROVIDING FOR A SANITARY INSPECTION, AND ESTABLISHING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATION THEREOF. SECTION 1. ORDER TO CLEAN UP PREMISES Prior to May 10 in every year, the health officer shall cause a notice to be inserted in the official village paper at the expense of the municipality ordering persons to clean thoroughly all yards, vaults, cesspools, sheds and barns, and to cause all tin cans, trash and manure to be removed therefrom on or before May 10. SECTION 2. SANITARY INSPECTION Thereafter and in the month of May of each year the health officer shall make a tho- rough sanitary inspection of all public and private property in the municipality. He shall transmit the report, together with his recommendations, to the Village Council on or before the first day of June. A copy of the health officer's report shall also be sent, on or before July 1, to the State Board of Health. SECTION 3. INDIVIDUAL ORDERS; REINSPECTION If, upon -inspection, the above order has not been complied with as to any lot or parcel of ground, individual orders served in person or by mail requiring owners, occupants or agents of such premises to clean up the same within ten days shall be issued by, the health officer, and a reinspection made of such premises on or before May 20. Said order shall provide that, unless the condition is abated within ten days, the health officer will abate or remove, or cause to be abated or removed, at the expense of the owner, such condition, complained of and found to exist. SECTION 4. - REMOVAL; ASSESSMENT OF COST Upon failure of any owner, occupant or agent to comply with the above order, the health officer shall direct the constable to clean up the property as described and ordered. The health officer shall report the cost of such work to the Village Clerk, in an amount not to exceed $100.00; and such cost if not paid promptly shall be certified to the auditor of the county and by that officer extended upon the tax rolls and collected as taxes, and when so collected shall be paid over to the Village Treasurer. (1003) 1 SECTION 5. CONDITIONS PROHIBITED It shall be unlawful for the owner or occupant of any property to yecmiL or cause to accumulate upon such property any nuisance affecting health, source of filttb or cause of sickness and fail to remove the same after the notices provided above. SECTION 6' PERIODIC INSPECTIONS Subsequent to and independent of the annual inspection and clean-up, the health officer shall make periodic inspections of properties within the municipality and shall proceed as provided in Sections 4 and 5 to remove or abate any condltion prohibited herein. - SDCTIOm 7' PENALTY Any person, firm or corporation failing or refusing to comply with any lawful order to clean up any property an herein provided or causing or permitting ' accumulation of any nuisance affecting health, aoozoe of filth, or cause of sickness upon any property in any year after it has been cleaned up under the provisions hereof shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and nIm` conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($SOO'DO) and costs, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety (90) days, or by both, plus the coat of prosecution. / SECTION B. PROVISIONS SEPARABLE Every section, provision or part of this ordinance is declared separable from every other section, provision or part/ and if any section, provision or part hereof shall be declared invalid, it shall not affect any other aeotioo,� pro- vision or part' <l003> 2 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO �pY May 24, 1984 TO: Mayor, Cit Council and City Adm istrator FROM: Paul R. Berg Code Enforcement Officer SUBJECT: Guard House at Target Warehouse, 2360 Pilot Knob Road INTRODUCTION: Target has submitted for approval a building permit application and drawing to re—side the aluminum guard house located at 2360 Pilot Knob Road. The building shell will be furred out, insulated between furring strips, covered with exterior grade plywood and 1"x8"x16" long pieces of redwood will be installed over the plywood. Around the top of the building a 1"x12" redwood facia will be installed with 1"x2" vertical redwood strips attached to the facia. Finally, the redwood surface will be painted to match the principal structure. As can be seen on the drawing submitted, it appears that once this is accomplished, the guard house will have the same exterior physical characteristics as the warehouse. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND: Council may recall on October 18, 1983, approval was granted to place a metal guard shack at Target's warehouse. This approval was granted for a 9 month period, which would end on or about July 18, 1984. It was also noted in a letter to Mr. James Hanson, of Target, that it would be necessary for Council to review and approve the method of making the guard house compatible with the principal structure on the property. Staff has received a letter, drawing and permit application from Mr. Hanson (see attached). RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend approval of the proposed change to the guard house subject to Council review with one exception. The drawing says that only the front (west) and both sides (north and south) will be faced. Staff recommends that all four sides of the building be faced, rather than three sides. ACTION REQUIRED: If the City Council concurs with staff and approves of staff's recommendation, they should direct staff to issue the appropriate building permit. PRB:madlr APPLICATION ' FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DIRECTIONS: _... _._. PERMIT NUMBER SPACES NUMBERED I THRU 13 MUST BE FIlIED IN BEFORE PERMIT IS ISSUED (Please Pr;nt or Type) 1. SITE ADDRESS 5' 2. GATE 23 6 0 AlZe r i<,Nos 12dqD 3. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Obtainable from Assessor's Office) PLAT NUMSW' ` " t t' + PARCEL NUMBER 4. OWNER J'y (Namej (Tel. No.) �- Tl. L . `lof,/.vSo�J /� v�s�—. � • ���.�Ec,arurL. Avg n>o. Goc�E�,Y�•cc� S. ARCHITECT (Name) (Address) (Tel. No.) BUILDER (Name) r 7. TYPE OF WORK NEW CONSTRUCTION O ALTERATIONS ADDITION O FINISH BASEMENT ❑ PORCH ❑ GARAGE O REROOF O RESIDE ❑ 8. SIZE Or STRUCTURE (Height) (Width) 11. COMPLETION DATE 14. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION 9 NO. OF STORIES 12. PROPERTY DIMENSIONS WIDTH DEPTH 15. PROPERTY AREA SQ. FT. (Tel, No.) C FINISH ATTIC ❑ MIK. 10. ESTIMATED C9,ST 1 _ .411000 ,9:5,a'rE2t10le. MO.D. 13. NO. OF FAMILIES (If Applicable) 16. VALUATION 17. FRONT YARD 18. REAR YARD 19. SIDE YARDS FT. FT. (1) FT (2) FT. ET. 0 x 2) FT. 1. All Contractors $_.Sub{ontraCtA.rs shall be_ -3—This permit is void if. no work has been licensed in accordance with City re4i ir'ertien`f�:{"d15ne above the foundation for a period of 60 days from date of issuance. Construction 2. This permit may be revoked at any time must comply to the zoning ordinance. upon violation of any of the provisions of 4. This permit doesn't authorize construction the City building codes. of sewage disposal systems or electrical work. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT �W . SIG�4AMRE: , The undersigned hereby 'represents upon all of the penalties of laui, for the purpose of inducing the City of Mendota Heigba to" rak�::the° action herein.( requested, that •all'. stalemrin fs-herern are true find, that all work herein mentioned will, be done in accordance with lhi'ordlnanci.i•o f 1he`bty o f Mikdofd Keighlr, the State o f Mitinesota,' and •rulings' • " of the Building Department. APPUCANT SIGNATURE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVAL Se6wlo l- Piu»Ec r CA/6. T,4rL6 Er ST,012 33 So. Za to -57-. #"P S. -^l AJ rsS/410 PERMIT FEE PLAN CHECK FEE _ ,PENALTY FEE STATE SURCHARGE - TOTAL FEE ZONING DIStRICT FIRE ZONE LIST SUB -CONTRACTORS L lA1Doul5T Co.. -sr. OFF•STREET PARKING •tr:':t: SPACES ON PLAN LOADING 8ERTHS It 0C. NUMBER PROVIDED SIZE OF EACH NUTA6ER OF'&CUPANTS OR SEATS OCCUPANTS SEATS MATERIAL FILED WITH APPLICATION SOIL TESTS O PILING LOGS ❑ DRAINAGE PLAN ❑ PLANS b SPECS. )I SETS SURVEY O ' COPIES �o PROPOSED GRADE FOUNDATION IN RELATION TO CURL OR CROWN OF STREET: CERTIFICATE `CIF OCCUA)• 6 ISSUED DATE BY Target Stores P.O. Box 1392 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440-1392 Telex No. 431-0113 9 Y Tqn3-1�_� May 17, 1984 City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Attention City Council Dear Members: SUBJECT: GUARD HOUSE AT TARGET WAREHOUSE, 2360 PILOT KNOB ROAD Target applied for a temporary use permit on October 10, 1983. We had to house our guards before winter. You gave us nine months to submit a plan so we can receive a non -temporary conditional use permit. We are asking you to review our proposal for re -siding the aluminum structure that we are presently using. The issue seems to be that we are required to comply with Mendota Heights Zoning Ordinance Num- ber 401, Section 4.17 (G) which refers to the appearance of subse- quent structures after the erection of the original building. We are sure that the re -siding of the guard house, per our proposal, will comply with the zoning ordinance. We are asking you to approve the enclosed permit application. Sincerely, ' '�24,,,, James R. Hanson Senior Project Engineer emh enclosure cc Bill Andrews, Loss Prevention Manager Paul Berg, ----Code Enforcement Officer, City of Mendota Heights Don Heide, Directbr,-LDistribution Planning & Engineering Roger Peterson, Distribution Center General Manager A Division of the Dayton Hudson Corporation t- 1 — T//E FRONT ( WE -S T) AND BOT// 510FS C NOR rN ANO 50r//) W/LL BE FACED 7D SIMULATE Ti/ -r APPEARAv--E OF TIIE /NA/M B U/L D IIY6 . -T//F— 77/ RE F_ WALLS WILL BE FlIR RE D SO AS 70 BE EVEN W/7N TI/E EXiSTINEr BASE. INSPLAT/ON W/LL BE PLACED BETWEEN T/fE FIIRR/N6 STRIP,$'. APPLIED 7-0 r/// -S 'W141- BE SM.CCrt OP EXTERIOR GRRDE PLY wr000. APPLIED TO 7-/tE Aj,woo D WILL, BE A &'X /6� lOAr4. PIECES% OF REOW4000. PltcEX OF RED WOOD FOR yw--, AREAS S!/AROUND/NG' 7WE WVNOOWS WILL I/AVE EO AE Cur ro FI7. _ -AROUND THE TOP OP 711E 8I1M0/IV6-, 477ACHED To TWE FACE OF •rNE ROOF IS A /2" 14/6I/ PAGIA MAGE OF A /"X /Z** R£O wono BOARO , W/rN I"x 2" RFDWOOD STRIPS RUNN/N& YERTiGALLY ALL 771E WAY AROUND THE FACIA. THEN ALL WOOD 3ORFACES WILL BE PAIWrE0 TD MAM-N Tlfc M.4/A-" BdILDAIV& MAY 2 3 1984 NO DArE &cvl/ C/ON Dw/V b y KLw181tA J.V0AR DA rt J -Io -8Y SGAC E NoivE GUAkD HOUSE MFN,00T14 HE/GNT� I MN TSSI -D I (D TARGET TSS-/- D - 200 6 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS WM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator SUBJECT: "Downtown" Taskforce INTRODUCTION May 31, 1984 At the Council/Planning Commission workshop of May 29, Council voted to establish a taskforce to study the issues surrounding the upgrading of T.H. 149, and commercial development in the 110/149 area. That motion directed that the taskforce be composed of representatives of the following groups: City Council Residents from other areas of the City -2 Planning Commisrsion Mendota Plaza Merchants Friendly Hills Neighborhood Mendakota Country Club Xr_tA� nTqr.1Tq1.RT0N Lou Brenner, chairman of Mendakota's long-range planning committee, has indicated that he will be their representative. Friendly Hills and the Mendota Plaza merchants should have their nominees in prior to the Council meeting of June 19. 1 have sent letters to their Presidents making that request. The Planning Commission can be asked to select its representative at their June 26th meeting. I would suggest that the two flat -large" residents be nominated and selected by the Council. These appointments, as with all except the Planning Commission, could be made by Council at the June 19th meeting. Council should also be prepared to select one of its own members that evening. ACTION REQUIRED No action is currently required. The purpose of this memo is to outline a process and timeline for achieving the appointments. Council should, however, be working on coming up with names for the two at -large citizen representatives. Respectfully submitted, e ;�2 Kevin D. Frazell City Administrator KDF:madlr CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS 0 MEMO May 23, 1984 TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adwfnistrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Visitation Drive DISCUSSION: I was recently contacted by Sister Mary Denise of the Visitation Convent. They are in the process of making up new stationary and would like to have their new address put on it. They are going to have a new address after this summer because the latest Mn/DOT construction will be closing their existing driveways onto Trunk Highway 149.and providing them with access on a new City street to Mendota Heights Road. (Council promised to accept that street last fall - see reverse for picture story) Visitation would like to 'name that new street "Visitation Drive" and staff has no objection'but would like Council concurrence. RECOMMENDATION: The new city street being constructed by Mn/DOT to serve the Visitation Convent and one other resident be named Visitation Drive at the time it is accepted from Mn/DOT. ACTION REQUIRED:. Consensus of Council that the future street name will be made Visitation Drive after acquisition from Mn/DOT. 44 i � a •,M+ti �;if J n � t 1 � ���•` as�1 � ~ \ i � N • 000, 61 x 1N3w v30 ' t 1 ,S131v1S NN3•II8OH -',Ct • � 69 06 Z .+� 1 1r \ _toy `"" �� •V6$X,r t 1 c07 - t'C07 �f• � till . � ! �' l ! ` 1 � so x i �—'z s•6c �� z�aeH 006oax + }� t'977; �•+'\1`_ ''� x0)9. .--- 101 x 1 x 7j 1 ++fr 6 b f106 xr /� 1 , '• �t 1 •� 1�� F104 •x 71or x x t• s I 1 ' C•L69x S' 0x % A �I �169 I•S67xN, tox J' 1006 ` b'C06 / CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO June 1, 1984 -' o TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adm' istrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 61825 Job No. 8317A & 8317B Improvement No. 83-7A & 83-7B DISCUSSION: When the City Council approved Copperative Construction Agreement No. 61825 providing for the State to install some City trunk watermain and M.S.S. construc- tion on Mendota Heights Road in conjunction with their I-494 work, they did so with the understanding that Mn/DOT would later modify the agreement to allow for a schedule of payments in lieu of the standard up front lump sum payment. Mn/DOT has now prepared that supplement and it attached herewith. RECOMMENDATION: The supplement as submitted by Mn/DOT is as requested by the City therefore Staff recommends approval. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation it should pass a motion adopting Resolution No. 84- , Approving Supplement No. 1 to Agreement No. 61825 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation and Authorizing Execution by the Mayor and Clerk. City of Mendota Heights Da­Vbta County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 84 - RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT NO. 61825 WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION BY THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK WHEREAS, the City requested that the State supplement Agreement No. 61825 dated April 5, 1984 altering the payment procedure provided under said agreement to allow for deferred payments by the City to the State. BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mendota Heights enter into Supplement No. 1 to Agreement No. 61825 with the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation for the following purposes, to -wit: to amend and modify Article III, Section A. of Agreement No. 61825 dated April 5, 1984 altering the payment procedure provided under said agreement to allow for deferred payments by the City to the State in accordance with a "City Cost Share Advancement Schedule," which advancement schedule conforms to the City's request for deferred payments. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proper City Officers are hereby authorized and directed to execute such agreement. Adopted by the Ci.ty(,Council of the City of Mendota Heights this 5th day of June, 1984. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS Robert G. Lockwood Mayor ATTEST: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk DESIGN STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION COOPERATIVE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 Supplement No. 1 to Agreement No. 61825 between The State of Minnesota Department of Transportation, and The City of Mendota Heights Re: City cost water main and frontage road construction by the State in the N.E. quadrant of T.H. 494- T.H. 149 intersection in Mendota Heights AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT NO. 61825 S.P. 1985-76 (T.H. 494=393) Fed. Proj. 1 494-4(170) AMOUNT ENCUMBERED (None) ESTIMATED AMOUNT RECEIVABLE (None) THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, acting by and through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the 11city'.. WITNESSETH: i WHEREAS the State and the City did enter into an agreement dated April 5, 1984 and designated as Agreement No. 61825 providing for KcC.Db• 61825-1 payment by the City to the State of the City's costs of water main and frontage road construction upon, along and adjacent to Trunk Highway No. 494 between the junction of Trunk Highway No. 149 and 0.5 of a mile east under a contract awarded by the State and designated by the State as State Project No. 1985-76 (T.H. 494=393); and WHEREAS Agreement No. 61825 dated April 5, 1984 provides for advance- ment by the City to the State of the total City's share of said construction costs based on contract unit prices upon the execution of said agreement and upon request from the State for said advance- ment of funds; and WHEREAS the State would normally request said advancement prior to the beginning of said state contract construction; -and WHEREAS the City requested that the State supplement Agreement No. 61825 dated April 5, 1984 altering the payment procedure provided under said agreement to allow for deferred payments by the City to the State; and WHEREAS the State is willing to supplement Agreement No. 61825 dated April 5, 1984 altering the payment procedure provided under said agreement to allow for deferred payments by the City to the State -2- 61825-1 in accordance with a "City Cost Share Advancement Schedule" as hereinafter set forth, which advancement schedule conformes to the City's request for deferred payments. IT IS, THEREFORE, MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I - AMENDMENT OF ARTICLE III, SECTION A. OF AGREEMENT NO. 61 825 ARTICLE III, Section A. of Agreement No. 61825 dated April 5, 1984 is hereby amended and modified to read as follows: Section A. Estimate and Advancement of the City's Cost Share It is estimated, for accounting purposes, that the payment by the City of its share of the costs of construction work to be performed by the.State hereunder which includes the City's share of the pro- rated items "Mobilization", "Field Office", "Field Laboratory", "Maintenance and Restoration of Haul Roads" and "Traffic Control" plus the 8 percent construction engineering costs share (used for estimating purposes only) is the sum of $271,228.52 as shown in the attached SCHEDULE "I". The State shall, when a construction contract is awarded which includes the city cost participation construction work to be performed hereunder, prepare a revised SCHEDULE "I" based on the construction contract unit prices and submit a copy of said revised SCHEDULE "I" to the City. The City -3- 61825-1 agrees to advance to the Commissioner of Transportation an amount equal to the City's total cost share as set forth in said revised SCHEDULE "I" be it more or less than said sum of $271,228.52. Said advancement by the City shall be contingent upon the full and complete execution of this agreement and the awarding of a construction contract which includes State Project No. 1985-76 (T.H. 494=393) and shall be made in accordance with the following advancement schedule upon receipt of appropriate requests from the State for the scheduled advancement of funds. CITY COST SHARE ADVANCEMENT SCHEDULE After the award of said state contract, the City agrees to pay to the Commissioner of Transportation the amounts scheduled as follows: May 1984 - $40,000.00 August 1984 $46,000.00 November 1984 - $46,000.00 February 1985 - $46,000.00 May 1985 - $46,000.00 August 1985 - the balance owed the State by the City, as set forth in said revised SCHEDULE "I" or the most current SCHEDULE "I" revision which includes significant additions to the City's total cost share, less the total of all funds previously ad- vanced by the City in accordance with this schedule. With this -4- V(.C.J:) - 61825-1 advancement schedule, it is anticipated that the City will have paid its share of the construction costs in full prior to the work being completed by the contractor. ARTICLE II - AGREEMENT NO. 61825 Except as amended and modified herein, all of the terms and condi- tions set forth in Agreement No. 61825 dated April 5, 1984 shall remain in full force and effect. ` ARTICLE III - APPROVAL Before this supplemental agreement shall become binding and effec- tive, it shall be approved by resolution of the City Council of the City and shall also receive the approval of such State officers as the law may provide in addition to the Commissioner of Transportation or his duly authorized representative. -5- 61825-1 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF the parties have duly executed this agreement by their duly authorized officers and caused their respective seals to be hereunto affixed. (City Seal) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Recommended for approval: By ex Director - Office of Design Services B '� District Engineer By Assistant Division Director Technical Services Division Approved as to form and execution: By Special Assistant Attorney General 2C CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS By Mayor Date B City Administrator Date STATE OF MINNESOTA By Deputy Commissioner of Transportation Date ---(=Date of Agreement) Approved: Department of Administration By (Authorized Signature) Date CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO /n May 31 , 1984 �L Y TO: Mayor, City Council and City Adfninistrator FROM: James E. Danielson Public Works Director SUBJECT: Joe Tutor - MEED Employee BACKGROUND: Last year -Council agreed to participate in the Minnesota Emergency Em- ployment Development (MEED) program. This is a program administered through the County and funded by the State. nTSrIISSTnN- After Council approval, several city departments indicated to the County that they would utilize a MEED employee and gave them prospective job descrip- tions. Kathy and Dennis have had a secretary through the program and were very satisfied with her. In Apri,l a draftsman was offered to Engineering (Joe Tutor). We interviewed Joe and liked him, so he began work on April 30, 1984. The MEED program pays Joe a salary of $4.00 per hour. He has been a very reliable, hard- working employee and a willing worker in all tasks given him. He is also a family man struggling to pay rent etc. and has asked if the City would supplement is MEED salary by paying him an additional $2.00 per hour above the MEED salary. I contacted the County and they said the procedure was not uncommon and was acceptable with them. The MEED program is limited to 6 months in duration and with Joe's previous month's work,'he only has about 20 weeks remaining. 20 weeks X 40 hours per week X $2.00 per hour = $1,600.- The Engineering budget did include $10,000 for seasonal employees that would cover this amount. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that Joe can be gainfully utilized for the remaining 5 months of his time here at the City and also feels that his performance here has been worth the $2.00 per hour extra he is requesting. Staff recommends Council approve the expenditure. ACTION REQUIRED: If Council wishes to implement the staff recommendation it should pass a motion authorizing the expenditure. CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS MEMO lk T0: Mayor, City Council, City Adrhinistrator FROM: Kathleen M. Swanson City Clerk SUBJECT: July 3rd Council Meeting Introduction May 31, 1984 We have been notified by members of the City Council that due to holiday plans they will be unable to attend the July 3rd Council meeting. It appears as though unless members are required to cancel personal plans a quorum will not be present. We have researched the Council conduct and procedures rules and will recommend herein that a portion of the rules be exercised so that the meeting may be scheduled for a different date. Information Ordinance No. 102, which establishes rules governing conduct and procedure of the City Council, stipulates that regular meetings will be conducted on the first and third Tuesdays unless such regular meeting falls on a holiday. The language of the Ordinance does not provide any other framework for postponing or cancelling a meeting. Section 14 of the Ordinance does however provide that the Council may suspend temporarily any of its rules by majority vote of the Council and upon notice given at some preceding meeting. As of this writing, there are no hearings scheduled for July 3rd, therefore a change in meeting date should present no particular problems. Two public hearings by the Planning Commission are scheduled for June 26th. If the Council acts on Tuesday night to change the date for its July 3rd meeting, the Planning Commission can notify the applicants that the Council will conduct hearings (if so recommended by the Commission) on the rescheduled meeting date, and public notices can then be prepared and mailed. Recommendation Staff recommends that Council exercise its power*to suspend the provisions of Section 1 of Ordinance No. 102 temporarily and reschedule the*July 3rd meeting to July 10. Action Required Council motion to invoke the provisions of Section 14 of Ordinance No. 102, temporarily suspending the provisions of Section 1 of said Ordinance to provide .for postponement of the regularly scheduled July 3rd meeting to 7:30 P.M. on July 10th.