Loading...
2000-02-15 City Council minutesPage No. 1 February 15, 2000 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held Tuesday, February 15, 2000 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the City Council, City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota was held at 7:30 o'clock P.M. at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve, Mendota Heights, Minnesota. Mayor Mertensotto called the meeting to order at 7:30 o'clock P.M. The following members were present: Mayor Mertensotto, Councilmembers Dwyer, Huber, Krebsbach and Schneeman. AGENDA ADOPTION Councilmember Huber moved adoption of the revised agenda for the meeting. Councilmember Dwyer seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Councilmember Scl-meeman moved approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held on February 15, 2000 as amended. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Dwyer moved approval of the consent calendar for the meeting, along with authorization for execution of any necessary documents contained therein. a. Acknowledgment of the Treasurer's monthly report for January. b. Acknowledgment of a memo regarding MAMA-LMC labor relations services for 2000 and direction for staff to notify MAMA-LMC that the city does not desire to subscribe to the service. c. Approval for Sergeant Donn Anderson to attend the Lifesavers 2000 Conference in Atlanta Georgia from March 12-14, 2000, through funding provided by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. d. Adoption of Resolution No. 00-09, "A RESOLUTION DENYING A SUBDIVISION AT 642 MAPLE PARK DRIVE." Page No. 2 February 15, 2000 e. Approval to reschedule the March 7 regular meeting to Monday, March 6, and to rescind action taken on January 18 that rescheduled the meeting to March 8. f, Approval of the list of contractor licenses dated February 15, 2000. g. Approval of the List. of Claims dated February 15, 2000 and totaling $150,609.94. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. John Campbell, 2348 Apache Court, was present to object to the stop sign that was recently installed on Decorah Avenue at Ocala. Mr. Campbell contended that the stop sign is not needed and does not meet state warrants. He asked that Council direct the immediate removal of the sign and schedule a hearing to revisit the issue. He stated that at least a thousand people pass through the intersection on a regular basis and that residents outside of the Decorah/Ocala area should be given an opportunity to speak on the issue. He felt that installation of the stop sign was a violation of state statul.es. Mayor Mertensotto stated that because stop signs can be subjective, the petition for the stop sign was referred to the Police Chief and Public works Director, who also involved the County Engineer. He pointed out that while there are certain warrants, a number of people do not need to be killed at an intersection in order for Council to authorize stop signs. He informed Mr. Campbell that there was nothing illegal about installing the stop sign. He pointed out that children on the north side of Decorah have to cross at this location to get to the park. and there is a sight obstruction at the intersection. A pedestrian crossing has been marked, and a street light will be installed at the intersection in the spring. He stated that the safety of children was the primary factor in the decision to install the sign. Responding to a comment from Mr. Campbell, Councilmember Huber stated that the installation or removal of stop signs is not determined by who can get the most names on a petition. Council relies on the Police Chief and Public Works Director to make recommendations on stop signs. Page No. 3 February 15, 2000 Councilmember Dwyer stated that he lives in Copperfield and spoke to Mr. Campbell on two occasions over the weekend. Council spent a lot of time at meetings on this issue, and Mr. Campbell should have been present if he had an objection. He informed Mr. Campbell that this is a democracy and individuals have an obligation to keep their eyes and ears open. It is not up to the city to notify residents on every issue that is to come before Council. He informed Mr. Campbell that he had concerns about the stop sign when it was discussed by Council. He stated that this a provisional stop sign, and that Council stated that they would review it in a year's time. He recommended that, instead of waiting a year, it be reviewed in the summer, when the park is busy, to see if the sign is more of a hindrance to traffic than it is a benefit. Councilmember Dwyer moved to schedule reconsideration of the stop sign for the August I City Council meeting. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes, 5 Nays: 0 CABLE FRANCHISE/JOINT Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Batchelder POWERS AGREEMENT along with copies of NDC4's proposed Amended joint and Cooperative Agreement and Cable Television Franchise Ordinance. Ms: Jodie Miller, Executive Director of NDC4, Mr. Brian Grogan, NDC4 legal counsel, and Mike Sokol, Mendota Heights citizen representative to NDC4 were present for the discussion. Ms. Miller stated that she has spoken with Mayor Mertensotto and is aware of his concerns. She informed the audience that the joint powers agreement is the document that governs how the seven cities operate and control the cable commission. The existing agreement has no expiration date, and there is no urgency that it be amended. West St. Paul and Inver Grove Heights approved both the agreement and the ordinance last evening, and the South St. Paul Council discussed the agreements in workshop last evening and will take action at their next regular meeting. There were concerns expressed about the 15 year length of the Joint Powers Agreement, but there is no urgency in adopting it, so discussion can continue. She stated that in response to her conversation with Mayor Mertensotto about the term of the franchise, she called other communities and all of the metropolitan cable commissions have renewed or are renewing their franchises for 15 year terms. Mr. Grogan reviewed the joint powers agreement and stated that all seven cities must adopt the same agreement. If one city makes an Page No. 4 February 15, 2000 amendment, all of the cities must approve the amended agreement. He informed Council that the fifteen year length of the agreement was discussed by the cable commission more than any issue other than the return of 25% of the franchise fees (rather than 15% under the existing agreement). He reviewed the significant changes that have been made to the existing agreement. Mr. Grogan then reviewed the weighted vote provisions. The weighted voting procedure is now based on subscriber count rather than population. Councilmember Huber stated that Inver Grove Heights is by far the biggest potential for population and anticipates that Inver Grove Heights may ultimately have 40% of the subscribers. Inver Grove Heights has agreed to cap its number of votes at its present subscriber count. Mayor Mertensotto stated that there is no provision in the agreement that caps Inver Grove Heights' vote. He informed Council that he mailed a five page memorandum to Ms. Miller in June to express his concerns and questions. Mr. Grogan stated that he will scour the document and make sure it conforms to the agreement that Inver Grove Heights will cap at the present subscriber count. He will also clarify that the weighted votes are set at Exhibit A, which is what the entire cable commission agreed to. Responding to a question from Councilmember Dwyer, Mr. Grogan stated that the original joint powers agreement was to end in 1993 after a six year term and was extended to March, 2000. Recent experience has raised concern among some members that if cities pull out it prevents the commission from trying to make appropriate long term plans. He stated that there is certainly a way to draft a city to drop out, but the real concern is providing for the distribution of assets. If Council wishes, they can direct him to draft a withdrawal clause. Councilmember Huber stated that the joint powers agreement was extended to coincide with the term of the franchise. The original agreement goes on until the cities agree to dissolve it. If nothing is done to the agreement cities can withdraw. Page No. 5 February 15, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto stated that if the franchise is approved by the cities, there is no requirement to Day a city anything -upon withdrawal under the existing joint powers agreement. With respect to a fifteen year term, Mayor Mertensotto stated that technology is changing so fast that five years is perhaps to long. He stated that he could see a ten year term for the agreements, but there will be different people and different personalities on the city councils and cable commission over the next fifteen years. The agreement is a wholesale transfer of authority that the cities are giving the commission. Why would the cities want to bind themselves to fifteen years unless there is a very good reason to do so, and he has not heard a. good reason. Mr. Grogan responded that the only reason the cable commission exists is because the seven cities decided it should be created. If the policy direction from the cities is that they want a different duration, they must give him direction. He informed Council that South St. Paul raised concerns similar to those raised by Mayor Mertensotto, and he will revise the joint powers agreement however the cities direct. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the joint powers agreement and the franchise agreement work in harmony. If the joint powers agreement is not changed, what will happen to the franchise agreement. The city would live with the agreement and all of its terms. Mr. Grogan stated that the commission has been working on the franchise agreement for some time and hired consultants to assist in such items as drafting SEC provisions, institutional network, subscriber satisfaction survey, etc. The Commission presented a draft franchise ordinance. Decisions were made by the commission based on input from the seven city councils. It was not intentional to put the cities in a bind, but the franchise expires in late March. If the cities suggest that this franchise is not appropriate and needs to be changed, procedurally under federal law, the process moves into a formal process, which is rigid. Each of the cities must go through the process and must make a decision up or down on the initial proposal that was made by the company last fall. He felt that it is in the best interest to consider the document and get it approved before it expires. If the deadline is not met, there is the potential that the cities will lose much that was gained in the negotiations with MediaOne. The franchise is not based on what was done in 1985. Federal law has changed three times since then. Model documents from commissions around the metro area that have been through the Page No. 6 February 15, 2000 process with MediaOne, and the best portions were put into the proposed ordinance. The goals were to maximize long term authority for the cities, create the flexibility needed to enforce the law long term and create a non-exclusive franchise. The big issue is the fifteen year term. One argument the commission members made was that there is proposed legislation that would take away the commission's authority. Another bill would grandfather in existing franchises. All of the other commissions that are served by MediaOne have recently granted fifteen year franchises to their cable operators. The length of the franchise was the only bargaining chip he had in dealing with MediaOne. Only two cities since 1986 have successfully denied franchise renewal. The goal in negotiating was to get the best deal for the cities. It is anticipated that the competitive market -place will drive MediaOne to keep state of the art systems in place. Responding to a question from Councilmember Kxebsbach about the non-exclusive franchise, Mr. Grogan stated that next year or any year, any other company could come in and gain a second competitive franchise. The terms of the MediaOne franchise would apply to any competitors. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he is not complaining about the ordinance, as it makes sense to follow the form of other cities' franchises, but under the joint powers agreement there is a carte blanche transfer of all of the cities' rights to the commission. Mr. Grogan responded that rights are reserved to each city. No one can amend the franchise without the authority of the city. The franchise is between Mendota Heights and MediaOne, and no one other than Mendota Heights can amend it. Mayor Mertensotto asked who other than the cable commission acts for the city with respect to the franchise. Mr. Grogan responded that under the joint powers agreement, Council has delegated the administration of the franchise to the commission. If the joint powers agreement goes beyond what the City Council is comfortable with, he would like Council to let him know what needs to be changed so that Council is comfortable with the delegation of authority. Mayor Mertensotto responded that there has to be a way of termination because that is the way to assure performance. The joint powers agreement gives the commission carte blanche authority for Page No. 7 February 15, 2000 fifteen years if the city and the grantee agree that changes need to be made, all the commission would have to do is make a ruling that a change in the franchise agreement is in the best interest of the subscribers and amend it. Mr. Grogan stated that the City of Mendota Heights and the grantee (MediaOne) can mutually agree to amend, not the cable commission. He stated that if he went to broad in the joint powers agreement, Council should direct him to remove certain provisions. The joint powers agreement was based on the language in the original agreement, but Council can suggest changes on how much or little authority it wants to delegate to the commission. He stated that Mayor Mertensotto has raised many good issues relating to the length of the agreement, opt out and delegation of authority, but the franchise is a separate issue and council must determine whether the franchise agreement is acceptable. Mayor Mertensotto stated that the ability for a city to opt out at any time creates an incentive for the commission to perform. Otherwise the cities could be disregarded for fifteen years. Councilmember Krebsbach asked whether the fifteen years is a key provision and whether it was intended that all cities be in the agreement together for fifteen years. Councilmember Huber stated that the current joint powers agreement allows opting out from year to year but the proposed agreement does not allow opting out. Councilmember Schneeman stated that things are changing so fast that fifteen years is not even a meaningful number Ms. Miller stated that if the cities are not comfortable with the fifteen year term or not having withdrawal provisions, there is language in the agreement for amending the agreement and for dissolving the commission. It would take a majority vote at a regular commission meeting to readdress the agreement The seven cities can amend the agreement by unanimous vote of the seven cities. During the process of drafting the agreement, the commission discussed withdrawal after six month notice, but the commission did not hear any of the concerns that have been raised this evening. Councilmember Huber stated that it is a matter of finding a balance between no option and allowing a city to leave any time it wants. If a city wants out and cannot get even one city to agree with its Page No. 8 February 15, 2000 concerns, there is a feeling that one city could simply be trying to impose its will on everyone else. It is difficult to craft an agreement that gives each of the cities some power but not too much power. Councilmember Dwyer asked what provisions exist in the franchise agreement as to how it can be amended to get the cities out of what in three years could be a horrible deal but in which the cities would be locked for an additional 12 years. Mr. Grogan stated that the contract has period review session, but that only allows the parties to sit down and talk. The commitment is for fifteen years with the provisions in the franchise as it is before the Council this evening. Councilmember Dwyer stated this is a very volatile, quickly expanding and revolutionary technology and the idea of locking into a fifteen year franchise is not appealing. Fifteen years is a very long time for a concept that was new just a short number of years ago and has undergone dramatic change in the past few years. This document is drafted to reflect existing law and the laws will be changed in the future. He stated that the more MediaOne wants a fifteen year deal, the more he wants to back away from it. Mr. Grogan responded that a short term franchise, five years for example, clearly requires revisiting the amount of capital the company will commit for programming. Much of the existing equipment is antiquated and needs to be replaced. If the term is reduced to one third of what was negotiated, the PEG access support requirement will change. In any negotiation, there is a give and take, and the standard in neighboring communities in this region and around the country is fifteen years and MediaOne would ask why it should do something different here. Fifteen years is the maximum allowed under state law. A short term negotiated settlement would result in reduced benefits to the cities. He reviewed the four bases on which a franchise renewal can be denied. Mayor Mertensotto pointed out that there is no PEG access money for equipment replacement after ten years. Councilmember Huber responded that the commission wanted the money on the front end because the dollars have more value. It was a conscious decision to get the money as quickly as possible. Ms. Miller stated that the first franchise term was fifteen years and while the law continued to take authority away from cities, including Page No. 9 February 15, 2000 rate deregulation and the ability of the cities to dictate the type of technology to use, the NDC4 system has seen improvements, including 750 mHz because consumers have demanded them. A franchising authority has a place but cannot tell the provider what programming to put on their channels and what kind of wire to put underground, etc. The commission did try to require that MediaOne have a state of the art system. They must meet technical standards and performance provisions. Councilmember Huber stated that the demographics here are very good for MediaOne to sell the best products available because there are people in the viewing area who can afford those products. This is a target market. Also, since the early discussions, there are two bills before the legislature to take away all of the powers of the cities. There is a very high concern that down the road, if the city is in a franchise renewal situation it would not be getting the money in the agreement and the commission is very concerned about that. Mr. Grogan stated that the question is what value is placed on the PEG dollars and the INET and system improvements. If a high value is placed on that, there must be some consideration given to the provider in order for it to spend so much money. The commission started negotiating with a ten year term with a certain level of PEG access support and an institutional network. With the fifteen year term, there was a considerably higher level of PEG access dollars and the institutional network was expanded in scope considerably. This is perhaps the most favorable agreement in the metro area. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council does not know what the difference is — how much more has been gained by going to fifteen years versus a shorter term. Mr. Grogan stated that elected officials from each of the major cities sat in the room during negotiations so that there would be a clear vision from representatives of the cities what the key points were. He stated that he does not have the numbers (for PEG, etc.) at five or ten years. He stated that he did not ask MediaOne for those numbers, but can do that. He was concerned about how quickly that information can get to Council, and to the extent that the term is unacceptable, how he can make the amendments and get them back to the other cities. Page No. 10 February 15, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto responded that it did not come out in the agreement was that there is an additional $.83 per month added on, and the commission knew they had that as a back up With respect to the 25% franchise fee return to the cities, Councilmember Huber stated that when the issue of West St. Paul pulling out came Lip, the Commission knowingly kept telling them to hold off. There was no way to craft an agreement with the 25% without knowing what revenues would be coming in. Until the negotiating team knew what the commission would get from the cable provider, there was no way to discuss what could go back to the cities. The commission have been negotiating an agreement for eighteen months. Mayor Mertensotto asked when the 25% was first brought into the negotiations and when the commission said it wanted 83 cents additional over and above the franchise fees. He did not think it is in the cities' best interest to enter into a fifteen year franchise agreement or a fifteen year joint powers agreement without any ability to get out. He stated that he would not support another Joint Powers Agreement without stating up front who can resign and under what conditions. Councilmember Huber stated that if Council wants a provision to opt out he does not object, but needs to know what conditions would be — feedback on how long you must be in before opting out. Opt out after five years, etc. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that she thinks five years is a good opt out term. She further stated that if Council is uncomfortable with a fifteen year term for the franchise agreement, it should give Mr. Grogan a different term so that he can find out what the end result would be. Councilmember Huber stated that the cities were fortunate at the time of negotiation, because there were two big things going for the commission. MediaOne needed the commission to approve the transfer to AT&T and they were also in violation of the franchise agreement as it stood. The violation (MediaOne was not answering its phones in St. Paul, in violation of franchise requirements and FCC rules) has been cleared and the commission no longer has that leverage. It would be fine for Council to say no to the joint powers agreement - the seven cities would get together to see what they can agree to. What council really needs to decide is what to do about franchise renewal. Page No. 11 February 15, 2000 Responding to a question from Councilmember Krebsbach, Ms. Miller stated that any firm that wants to provide cable must have an agreement with the city. The agreement must be the same as the franchise agreement with MediaOne. If they are not a franchised type of service, those who provide other services do not have to be franchised. Mr. Grogan stated that the only obligation the city would continue to have to MediaOne is to make its streets available for wires and fiber optics. Regarding length of the agreement, Ms. Miller stated that the commission did a needs assessment last summer which stated the requirements for a franchisee. Those were the high end requirements, including PEG money, INET, etc. MediaOne made a formal proposal that was greatly below that level and asked for fifteen years. Then the commission had the opportunity to negotiate informally for a number of months before entering the formal process. Because of the timing (the transfer to AT&T and the violation), the commission was able to get virtually everything in its needs assessment. There is a deadline by which the cities must deny MediaOne's formal proposal and then must decide if the denial can be defended in court. Mr. Grogan stated that there are only two ways cities can renew a franchise under federal law, informally — where both parties agree, and formally — in which the cities must create a needs assessment and the provider must respond with a proposal. Cities have four criteria on which to base a denial. Federal law has taken away all of the cities' leverage. Since 1970, fifteen years has been an industry standard for the length of cable franchises. Mr. Mike Sokol stated that whereas this Council has many issues to consider on a regular basis, the commission only has one issue to deal with. If Council wishes him to say that both the joint powers agreement and the franchise ordinance are the absolute best they could ever be without exception, he could not do that. The truth is that it is a compromise. He agreed with Mayor Mertensotto that what is clearly missing is that the right kind of withdrawal language. That does not change whether or not the franchise is good. Whether the joint powers agreement amendment is approved tonight or at some future time, the existing agreement continues until it is amended. Page No. 12 February 15, 2000 Councilmember Krebsbach stated that it seems that there are benefits in the short term to approving the fifteen year franchise agreement. There are factors that could make it null and void through future legislation. If Council does not agree and wants a ten year agreement, the whole process starts again. Ms. Miller responded that it goes to the point where the company has submitted a proposal and the commission has a thirty day window of time to either approve or deny it. Ass-Liming denial and MediaOne does not voluntarily agree to an extension, the commission would have to go through the process of defending its position. Mr. Grogan stated that an administrative hearing would occur seven separate times before seven city councils. Councilmember Krebsbach asked if there is documentation that MediaOne denied a ten year renewal. Ms. Miller responded that the formal proposal by MediaOne was made in August. The commission tried to informally negotiate the franchise renewal and entered into an agreement to set aside the federal timelines by accomplishing its goals through the informal process. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the initial needs assessment was based on ten years and MediaOne countered with fifteen years and that is where it stands. The issue is the highest quality service for the city. He asked whether it is possible to deny this and ask for a ten year contract, and still meet the required timeline. Mr. Grogan responded that the commission has held action on the formal proposal until the exact date of the end of the franchise, which is March 28, 2000. If Mendota Heights asks for a ten year contract, he would have to go to each of the seven cities to ask for an extension of the franchise beyond its termination date so that he has time to facilitate completion of the formal process. Councilmember Krebsbach asked why the cities were not given more time. Mr. Grogan responded that the initial needs assessment was created in spring and was given to MediaOne in the summer. They were given six to seven months to review them. In the meantime the commission had to deal with three transfers over six months. Page No. 13 February 15, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto stated that Council was told in December that there was no real urgency in reviewing the franchise agreement because there was a sale pending. Councilmember Huber stated that the negotiating committee was the executive committee of the cable commission. Eight to nine of the fourteen commission representatives sat at the table during negotiations. All of the cable commissioners were told when the negotiating committee meetings would be held so that they could attend if they desired. Ms. Miller stated that she submitted the agreement draft in December except for the INET section that was not yet completed. The final draft was sent to the cities on January 21 Councilmember Krebsbach asked who was monitoring the time, since March 28 is the "drop dead" date and there is no room after that date. Ms. Miller responded that in each step of the process there was a 30 or 60 day window for the parties to respond. A year and half ago the commission set deadlines for each stage of the process. Along the way, the transfers of ownership came up and there was no sense in starting renewal proceedings with someone that was going to transfer. The Commission ended up giving MediaOne the needs assessment on August 20. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he submitted his concerns in June, 1999 in a five page memorandum and never got a response. Mr. Grogan responded that he recalls the memorandum, and all of those issues were discussed at the commission meeting at which the commission dealt with the withdrawal of West St. Paul. He stated that what he is presenting tonight was voted upon by the fourteen members of the commission. He will report back to them what he has heard tonight and what he heard at South St. Paul last night. Mayor Mertensotto stated that he cannot support adopting a franchise ordinance or committing to adopt one without knowing where the joint powers agreement is going. There has to be provision for termination in that agreement or there is no accountability from the commission to the cities. Page No. 14 February 15, 2000 Mr. Grogan stated that the commission can address the opt out and anything else council wishes. If there are some powers Council prefers not to give to the commission, that can also be addressed. Coiuncilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Ordinance No. 337, "AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A FRANCHISE TO MEDIAONE OF ST. PAUL, INC., ( "GRANTEE ") TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MINNESOTA SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE GRANT OF THE FRANCHISE; PROVIDING FOR REGULATION AND USE OF THE SYSTEM AND THE PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY; AND PRESCRIBING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS HEREIN," along with authorization for summary publication. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Councilmember Krebsbach stated that Council will need to determine what would be the appropriate opt out period but, since the existing joint powers agreement will remain in effect until amended, that can be discussed at another time. Councilmember Huber stated that other issues will need to be part of - that discussion, including what will be done with the assets of the commission if opting out is allowed. Mr. Grogan stated that the withdrawal language in Mayor Mertensotto's memorandum captured the essence of what Council is looking for and he would tailor that language to meet the needs of all of the seven cities. Co- uncilmember Huber pointed out that the joint powers agreement can still be reviewed, but whatever Mendota Heights suggests must be agreed to by all of the cities. Reworking the agreement will likely not occur before March 28, and Council has the opportunity to discuss it over the coming months. Mr. Grogan stated that his goal will be to get the comments on the joint powers agreement back to the commission on March 1 and get a revised agreement back to Council before the end of March. The only concern he has heard from the city councils is the right of withdrawal and distribution of assets upon withdrawal. Councilmember Dwyer stated that the motion on the table is to renew the franchise ordinance. He stated that he feels that Council's Page No. 15 February 15, 2000 role in the process is to draw upon their own innate intelligence and to rely upon the people Council has designated to advise them. Councilmember Huber, Mr. Sokol, Mr. Grogan and Ms. Miller have demonstrated that they have thought long and hard about the issues. While he still had reservations, he was satisfied that this has been a very thoughtful process by everyone involved. VOTE ON MOTION: Ayes: 4 Nays: I Mertensotto RECESS Mayor Mertensotto called a recess at 10:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. HEARING: BROWN INSTITUTE Mayor Mertensotto opened the meeting for the purpose of a public WINE LICENSE hearing on an application from Brown Institute, Ltd, for all on-sale wine license to allow the serving of wine at its Minnesota Room as part of the Le Cordon Bleu Culinary Arts program. Council acknowledged a memo from the City Clerk regarding the application. Mr. John Sopsic was present on behalf of Brown Institute. Mr. Sopsic gave a brief sketch of what Brown Institute is doing. Two years ago Brown entered into a contract with Le Cordon Bleu, which is the oldest culinary school in the world. The Mendota Heights facility is the flagship Le Cordon Bleu in America. He informed Council that food is prepared and served by the students and they learn to manage a restaurant under the direction of master chefs. Wine recognition is taught as part of the Le Cordon Bleu program, along with the knowledge of wine and how it is served and presented. Brown Institute does not have an interest in serving other liquor, but wine is a part of the French tradition and the ability to properly present and serve wine is important for the students. The Institute has no interest in setting Lip a bar. The Minnesota Room has a 50 person seating capacity, and there are generally 35 to 40 people served a three or five course lunch between 11:30 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. or a seven course dinner that starts at 5:30 p.m. The price for dinner is $11.95. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Sopsic stated that the dinner price will never be more than $15.00. People would choose to purchase a glass of wine or a bottle of wine if they wish. Any increase in the meal price will not be because of wine but because of the cost of the ingredients used to prepare the meals. Page No. 16 February 15, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto asked for questions and comments from the audience. There being no questions or comments, Councilmember Schneeman moved that the hearing be continued to March 6. Councilmember Huber seconded the meeting. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 CASE NO. 00-08, Council acknowledged an application from the Catholic Cemeteries RESURRECTION CEMETERY for a conditional use permit to allow construction of a mausoleum at Resurrection Cemetery. Council also acknowledged related staff reports. Mr. Al Stabido was present on behalf of Catholic Cemeteries. Mr. Stabido informed Council that only one half of the mausoleum plan will be constructed now and that when complete, the project will include a chapel and it will be heated and air conditioned. Mr. Stabido then responded to Council questions. Councilmember Schneeman moved adoption of Resolution No. 00- 10, "A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING RESURRECTION CEMETERY TO CONSTRUCT A MAUSOLEUM AT 2 101 SOUTH LEXINGTON AVENUE," according to plans on file with the city, and to authorize issuance of a building permit. Councilmember Krebsbach seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 AIR TOUCH AGREEMENT Council acknowledged a memo from Public Works Director Danielson regarding a request from Air Touch Cellular to replace eight of its existing antennas that are located on the city's water tower with new, more modem antennas. Mr. Jim Asp was present on behalf of Air Touch. Mayor Mertensotto stated that Air Touch should provide a bond for removal of the antennas in the event of abandonment. Mr. Asp responded that there are currently twelve antennas on the tower and Air touch plans to replace four of them with a new type of antenna. Air Touch will remove the other four and replace them, only at a different location on the tower. The antennas will be about the same distance out, but will be flatter than the existing style. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 17 February 15, 2000 Mayor Mertensotto informed Mr. Asp that about 5% of the cost of repainting the water tower was due to the antennas that had been installed on it. He stated that in the event of abandonment of the use of the antennas, Air Touch should submit a bond to provide that Air Touch will be bound to remove them or the city can invoke the bond and remove them. City Attorney Hart suggested making the bond requirement part of the action this evening. He informed Council that he will submit an opinion on administrative burden at the next Council meeting and that he will also review bonding requirements. Mayor Mertensotto moved to authorize Air Touch Cellular to replace eight of its twelve antennas an the city's water tower conditioned upon the applicant submitting to the city a bond, the amount to be negotiated by city engineering, to cover the cost of removal. Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. City Attorney Hart was directed to prepare draft language to amend cellular agreements with respect to abandonment bonds. LEGISLATIVE ISSUES Council acknowledged a memo from Administrator Batchelder regarding the Dakota Council Managers/Administrators recommended legislative issues policies and position statement. Council discussed the legislative position paper. Councilmember Huber objected to the light rail, stating that massive public works projects should not be built until they are needed. Administrator Batchelder responded that the manager/administrator group is not proposing light rail, but rather commuter rails using existing train tracks. Councilmember Krebsbach moved adoption of Resolution No. 00- 11, "A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE DAKOTA COUNTY CITY AND COUNTY MANAGERS RECOMMENDED LEGISLATIVE ISSUES FOR THE 2000 SESSION," amended to delete the transportation policy statements (items I through 4). Councilmember Schneeman seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Page No. 18 February 15, 2000 ADJOURN There being no further business to come before Council, Councilmember Dwyer moved that the meeting be adjourned to closed session for discussion of labor contract negotiations. Councilmember Huber seconded the motion. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT: 11:21 p.m. Kadleen M. Swanson City Clerk ATTEST: Charles E. Mertensotto Mayor