HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-10 CC Packet
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING & CLOSED EXECUTIVE
SESSION AGENDA
Wednesday, February 10, 2021
6:30 p.m.
Meeting available via Zoom Videoconferencing
https://zoom.us/j/478824301
Meeting ID: 478 824 301
312-626-6799 (for audio only)
COUNCIL MEETING (6:30 PM)
CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
None
PUBLIC HEARING
None
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 9, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes (pg. )
CONSENT AGENDA
City of Centerville Claims through February 10, 2021 (Check #33526-33555) &
1649E-1652E) (pg. )
Centennial Lake Police Department Claims through January 28, 2021 (Check
#13627-13644), (E2021005-2021006) (pg. )
Centennial Fire District Claims through February 9, 2021 (Check #8995-9006) &
(E2021002) (pg. )
)
)
)
Street and Utility Improvements (pg. )
)
Resolution #21-0XX Accepting a Donation from Matt Montain (pg. )
OLD BUSINESS
Bond Refunding (pg. )
NEW BUSINESS
st
Targeted Picketing Ordinance (1 Reading) (pg. )
Block 7 Recommendations (pg. )
COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
Administrator/Engineer Report (pg. )
Council Reports
Lakso
Anoka County Fire Protection Council
Parks & Recreation
Koski
Fire Steering Committee
Planning & Zoning Commission
King
Economic Development Authority
North Metro Telecommunications Commission
Mosher
Economic Development Authority
Police Governing Board
Love
Police Governing Board
Fire Steering Committee
Other Mayoral Reports
RECESS TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION (Pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 13D.05,
Subdivision 3(b)
I.CALL TO ORDER
1.Roll Call
II.ITEMS OF DISCUSSION
1.Alex Landscaping, LLC
Discussion and examination of legal opinion and strategy regarding Alex Landscaping,
LLC. Absolute confidentiality is required for a full and candid discussion with Legal
Counsel and such discussion could not occur in a public setting without jeopardizing the
III.ADJOURNMENT (from Closed Executive Session & Resume Regular Council Meeting)
XII. ADJOURNMENT (Regular City Council Meeting)
INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL
None
REMINDERS
All Meetings via Zoom Videoconferencing at 6:30 PM unless otherwise noted
dnesday, March 3, 2021 - CANCELLED
Fete des Lacs Committee - Wednesda
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
September 9, 2020
6:30 p.m.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regularly scheduled City
Council Meeting on August 12, 2020 via Zoom Videoconferencing at:
https://zoom.us/j/478824301, Meeting ID: 478 824 301 with audio only available at: 312-626-
6799. The meeting was also live streamed by North Metro TV.
COUNCIL MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor D. Love called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL*
PRESENT: Mayor D. Love
Council Member Russ Koski
Council Member Matt Montain
Council Member Michelle Lakso
Council Member Tom Wilharber
ABSENT: None.
STAFF: City Administrator Mark Statz
City Attorney Kurt Glaser
City Finance Director Bruce DeJong
Public Works Director/Building Official
the noted individuals were visibly and audibly
present on the videoconference call.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor Love provided an opportunity for others to add or delete any items.
Administrator Statz requested that the erroneous work session, Item #IV be stricken from the
Agenda and that New Business, Item #2. City Hall Renovation Office Area COVID-19 be added
to the Agenda.
Motion by Council Member Montain, seconded by Council Member Koksi to Approve the
Agenda as Amended. A roll-call vote was taken. Mayor Love and Council Members Lakso,
Koski, Montain & Wilharber voted in favor. Motion carried.
IV. APPOINTMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
1. None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Draft Well Head Protection Plan, Part 2
Mr. Mark Janovec was introduced by Administrator Statz. Mr. Janovec, Stantec, Senior Scientist
stated that approximately a year ago he presented Part 1 of the Well Head Protection Plan and now
he is presenting Part 2 of that same Plan.
Mr. Janovec reviewed a presentation with Council and stated that it is required by all public water
suppliers in the State of Minnesota who get their water from ground water aquafers or from wells
to submit their Plan to the Department of Health every 10 years. He stated that the idea is to
identify where within the source that you are receiving your water (aquafer) you get your water
from within a 10 year time of travel. He said that way if there is any contamination that would
impact the aquafer the City would know that you are at risk of pumping that into your wells which
in turn goes into your water supply system. He stated that it also assists in identifing the
vulnerability of the aquafer that serves the wells that the city utilizes.
Mr. Janovec reviewed a computer model (Figure #1) of the City of Centerville which identifies
and stated that a good portion of Centerville is
covered by the Well Head Protection Plan but is also includes the cities of Lino and Hugo. He
stated that the entire City is wiHead Protection Plan. He stated
that the entire City is within a We
primary well is Well #2 with Well #1 being an emergency backup. He explained that the red line
from the aquafer in a one year time of travel and
the blue line is water that will be
of travel (this is what needs to be managed). He stated that the black line follows visible
boundaries on the land surface such as roadways or parcel boundaries which is the Drinking Water
Supply Management Area (DWSMA). That is what will be managed with this plan.
He stated that the aquafer is moderately vulnerable which means that there is some geological
protection between the land surface and the aquafer that does pr
source. He also stated that the chemical data from the well shows that there may be some younger
water that is infiltrating down to the aquafer and that because it is not known if the protective layer
is completely encompassing that area, it is what determines the vulnerability. He reported that the
Part 2 planning process identified what are the potential sources within the DWSMA that could
impact the well (private wells and storage tanks in the area). He stated that Stantec has identified
202 wells within the area and 9 storage tank sites. He reported that they also looked at what has
happened in the area in the past which uncovered that there had been 20 spills that were noted by
the PCA and that all were considered closed.
Mr. Janovec stated that there are four (4) main goals of the Well Head Protection Plan: continue
providing high quality water that meets state and federal drinking water standards; practice
prevention strategies (Best Management Practices) for properties containing potential contaminant
sources to avoid adversely impacting the quality; work cooperatively with nearby local units of
government including Anoka County, adjacent communities and state agencies on regional aquifer
protection actions; and build awareness of well head protection goals among and disseminate
Page 2 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
information about well head protection plan implementation to the staff, residents and business
community. Mr. Janovec stated that specific objectives have been developed to meet the goals of
the Plan: make a commitment to manage unused, unsealed wells effectively by making sure they
are sealed properly, as appropriate (grant funding); develop and implement an aquifer management
plan to monitor known sources of contamination and to identify new ones; develop a spill response
plan to address large spills within the DWSMA; educate owners of properties containing potential
contaminant sources (storage tanks, etc.) of the importance of spill prevention and best
management practices; be involved in the development and/or implementation of surface and
groundwater planning activities for Anoka County and adjacent communities to help manage
surface water flow and infiltration issues; review new and redevelopment plans within the
DWMSA for their potential to impact groundwater quality; develop specific guidance for city
departments to use so that staff can make informed day-to-day decisions that may affect the
wellhead protection program; develop public education materials to enlist support of community
in groundwater management goals; collect additional data to better define the age of water in the
on from other local units of government for any changes that may
affect the management of the DWMA; and manage and maintain sanitary sewer and storm water
systems with hell head protection goals in mind.
Mr. Janovec stated that the next part of the process would be to submit this plan to the Minnesota
Department of Health for plan review and approval. He stated that once the plan is approved it is
in place for ten (10) years. He also stated that once the plan is approved, the City is eligible to
obtain implementation grants. He stated that the grants are $10,000 with no matching grants. He
also stated that anything outlined in the plan, the funds can be used for and can work with residents
to seal unused wells or provide education.
Administrator Statz requested that Mr. Janovec to explain the shape of the Well Head Protection
Area and why it is the way it is. Mr. Janovec stated that it is based on ground water travel and
how quickly if flows and the direction it flows.
Council Members were provided an opportunity to ask questions. Council Member Koski asked
what dictates the geography of this well head protection/water source or just where water flows
and how do we know how big it is. Mr. Janovec stat
wells comes from bedrock layers of the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer which supplies most of
the Twin Cities area with water. He stated that if you think of it as many layers of pancakes and
one layer that you are getting your water from, water moves dictated by gravity which moves east
to west. Council Member Koski also stated that he thought that Mr. Janovec stated that there were
20 leaks/spills. Mr. Janovec stated that he was correct and that they were notated by the MPCA.
Council Member Koski asked when the last one occurred. Mr. Janovec stated that it was probably
20-30 years.
Council Member Montain asked whether the City was on the same general path as the neighboring
communities. Mr. Janovec stated that generally, the City is but sealing wells should be a large
priority and working cooperatively with neighboring communities would ensure that the goals are
the same. He stated that he felt the communities would have an interest in unused wells being
sealed in Centerville as it also affects them. He stated that the communities can submit for grants
together gaining $20,000 for sealing wells per year if desired. Council Member Montain stated
that the plan does not require people to seal their well if it is being used correct. Mr. Janovec stated
that the grant funding is for identifying unused wells that are not sealed that should be sealed.
Page 3 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
Administrator Statz stated that through this process numerous wells have been discovered with
some already being sealed and ones that were not on lls, etc. Administrator
Statz requested that the public contact City Hall if they are aware of any existing well that is not
on this map.
Mayor Love asked if there were any overall a maximums for the number/amount of money. Mr.
Janovec stated that through the life-cycle of your plan you could obtain $100,000 ($10,000/year)
but that you just cannot have more than one grant at any given time. He also asked why not draw
from the deeper aquifer to ensure that there is less opportunity for contamination. Mr. Janovec
etty well protected. He stated that the only reason
why it is called moderately vulnerable is because the sampling showed maybe younger water that
could be penetrating down to that layer and that it could be because of some of those old unused
wells is why it is happening. The DNR does have restrictions on deeper aquifers and some can
only be used on an emergency basis only if the shallow aquifers become contaminated. He also
stated that some of the deeper aquifers have issues with iron and manganese. He said that it is
drinkable but not pleasant to drink and may need treatment. Mr. Janovec stated that most
communities are using the same aquifer that Centerville is as the quality is good and tests well.
Motion by Council Member Montain, seconded by Council Member Lakso to Open the
Public Hearing for the Draft Well Head Protection Plan, Part 2 at 6:49 p.m.
Mr. Steve King, 1724 Sorel Street, asked about the Best Management Practices (BMPs) associated
with private wells and what they are remarking other than passing ordinances to get rid of existing
wells. Mr. Janovec stated that the Minnesota Department of Health has a list and some of them
are like not storing contaminates near your well, making sure the well head is properly maintained,
if no longer using well to seal it are just some examples.
Mayor Love stated that the Public Hearing will remain open until the item is discussed again under
New Business, Item #1. Mayor Love thanked all for review and input and stated that this is a very
important topic for our citizens.
VI. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
1. July 22, 2020 City Council Work Session and Regular Meeting Minutes
Mayor Love provided an opportunity for Council to amend the submitted minutes.
Council Member Koski stated that he had forwarded his suggestions to the Clerk prior to the
meeting and they were as follows: Correct the ty
County Fire Protection
Appointment/Presentations. Mayor Love requested that paragraph 5 on page 9 of 14 be researched
as he was unsure whether he or Council Member Koski requested that the Planning and Zoning
Commission complete research and determine the best district for placement of similar businesses
Page 4 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
in Centerville, (Commercial versus Residential) and the minutes reflect the appropriate party.
Administrator Statz stated that staff would review the video and modify the minutes accordingly.
Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member Wilharber to Approve the
July 22, 2020 With the Above Stated Corrections. A roll-call vote was taken. Mayor Love
and Council Members Lakso, Koski, Montain, & Wilharber voted in favor. Motion carried.
VII. CONSENT AGENDA
1. City of Centerville August 27, 2020 through September 9, 2020 Claims
(Check #34190-34231) & (1570E-1575E)
2. Centennial Lake Police Department Claims through September 2, 2020
(Check #13368-13391), (E2020033-2020034) & Payroll Check #13376-13378)
3. Centennial Fire District Claims through September 2, 2020 (Check #8891-
8895) & E2020022-2020024)
4. Escrow Agreement/Right of Entry a
Centerville Road (Connection to City Water)
5. Encroachment Agreement 1707 D
6.
and Utility Improvements
Mayor Love provided an opportunity for Council to add or remove any item(s) to/from the consent
agenda.
Motion by Council Member Lakso, seconded by Council Member Wilharber to Approve
Consent Agenda as Presented. A Roll-call vote was taken. Mayor Love and Council
Members Lakso, Koski, Montain & Wilharber voted in favor. Motion carried.
Mayor Love stated that he desired to make a co
was already considered. He stated that he has not received any direct complaints but was
disappointed in the condition of the downtown project and timeline. He stated that he has shared
his concerns with the Administrator. Mayor Love also stated that he shared that he desired for a
better job in the future with the project and the cleaning of Main Street and Centerville Road.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
1. Preliminary General Fund Budget (Discussion Only)
Administrator Statz stated that Council will be revisiting this item up until its approval but that he
desired to review several areas that have been modified since the last review of Council. He stated
packet and it included a slight increase. He
also stated that the Centennial Fire District has approved their budget with a zero percent increase
and that is reflected. He reported that discussions have been had regarding the Capital Fund
contingency and he desired for Council to be comfortable with that. He stated that there would be
a levy increase of .79% with the changes contained. Mayor Love asked Finance Director DeJong
what the tax change would be to the average homeowner. Finance Director DeJong stated that the
increase would be something less than the .79% as new commercial property values would
Page 5 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
decrease the residential individual property share. He stated that the County generally forwards
information regarding what the tax increase will would be but he believed it would be less than a
¾% increase for residential property. Mayor Love stated that would it be fair that with the
increased tax base, taxes could go do or remain flat. Finance Director DeJong concurred.
Council Member Montain thanked the EDA for their proposed budget. He stated that the labor
agreement could modify the levy. He felt that the Fire District budget was great. Council Member
Wilharber felt that staff did a great job of putting this information together and that items looked
good. Council Member Lakso concurred with Council Member Montain and Wilharber on the
above stated items. She reported that the Centennial Fire District budget was completed with the
intention that the outcome of the study was unknown and that there may be an impact to the budget.
She stated that she would not be proud of the budget and would not expect coming back to request
additional funding. She felt that nothing should be done in the middle of the year and some
individuals on the Fire Steering Committee have stated that will be the case if needed.
Administrator Statz stated that this needs to be discussed and if individuals feel that leaving a
$10,000 contingency would be allowable if desired. He also stated that with a zero percent increase
the department can operate very robustly. He said that he felt changes should not be made mid-
year also. Council Member Koski stated that he asked about planning for a contingency as public
safety is very important and would not want to act on what is recommended without funding. He
stated that he is cautious with revenue especially with COVID. He stated that he desired to discuss
with Finance Director DeJong why taxes appear to still be going up when revenue and new taxing
avenues have become available such as new homes and businesses. He also thanked the EDA for
their budget. Finance Director DeJong stated there is lag time from construction to showing on
taxes for distribution of a levy value. He stated that it is not recognized until January 2 of the
following year and that the tax value goes on one (1) more year following that year (2 year process).
s tax value will show on 2021 but
show in 2022. He stated that this is the same for residential housing units.
Mayor Love asked whether allocation of some CARES funding to EDA would have an impact on
ed leaving the Proposed Preliminary Budget alone
and exclude CARES funding. He stated that the reporting is very evolving and budget as if do not
have it and treat the funding as a bonus. He felt the money that is offset by those funds should be
saved for purchases in the future. He stated that
unforeseen. Mayor Love stated that funding for parking lot lighting has been discussed in depth
and asked whether funding would be coming from the Street Fund and budgeted. Administrator
Statz stated that he desired for that funding to come from the Capital Fund but it is not budgeted
for. He stated that it may mean bumping another item and Council could do that with the
contingency of the $50,000. Administrator Statz stated that the Capital contingency could cease
and there would be a decrease in taxes. He reported that salaries and cost of living adjustments
are also another area that increases largely from year to year. He stated that the funding for the
parking lot lighting could come out of the City Hall Renovation Project which would be spending
cash down low and remove debt and it comes at the cost of being cash poor. He stated that Council
has chosen to be cash poor for a while and get debt off of the books, but also have a
cushion/contingency.
Page 6 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
Mayor Love asked if there would be another Fire Steering meeting prior to the adoption of the
budget. Administrator Statz stated that not before the Preliminary Budget needs adoption but the
Budget yes. Administrator Statz stated that the Fire District budget has been adopted.
Administrator Statz stated that the Preliminary Budget was acceptable for bringing back to Council
for action at the next meeting.
2. CARES Act Funding Plan
a. Funding Allocation Plan Review
Administrator Statz stated that discussions will continue until mid-November on this item. He
stated that the City has received $304,902 in CARES Act Funding to be spent/allocated for
pertinent expenditures that qualify under the Act. He reviewed with the Council modifications to
the previous Allocation Plan by stating that he removed $30,000 for business relief based upon
duplication with Anoka County and it being under subscribed with an excess of funding remaining.
He stated that the EDA is attempting to purchase year-long packages (advertisement, Blue Sign
Program and CenterStage; newspaper ad/social media marketing component) prior to November
Hospital and has a placeholder for Centennial
School District, made a small adjustment to North Metro TV with no other adjustments.
Administrator Statz stated that general expenditures to date are $15,000 and staff projects another
$15,000 by November 15. He also stated that $25,000 for staff time (idle/quarantine time, things
not normally completed but due to COVID/missed tasks) had already been incurred and that Staff
projects another $25,000 by November 15. He stated that base bid for the remodeling of areas of
congregation (front lobby), glass window, drinking fountain roughly $10,000 and proposes what
other cities are doing to better separate staff and offices with walls, doors and improve ventilation
at additional discussions would take place with
the next item on the agenda.
Discussion ensued by Council Members that they felt the City should be cautious with the funding,
that Staff prepared a well thought out plan, a potential for another round of funding but not
counting on, important to think longer term and differently, concern for the School District and
funding being enough, the necessity of tracking with the possibility for expenditures associated
with retro-fitting Council Chambers for in-person meetings.
Mr. Steve King, 1724 Sorel Street, He questioned whether the
City forwards accounting of the $304,902 allocation to someone who determines whether the
expenditures are allowable. Administrator Statz stated that most questions will be addressed under
the next agenda item. He stated that the City must be confident to defend expenditures if audited.
He also stated all professional organizations are looking at this and providing education as to what
is allowable, what is not and we are leaning on larger cities for what they are doing. Administrator
Statz stated that he is very confident that we are following the regulations. He explained that what
was discussed this evening was a plan with funding being spent by November 15, 2020. Mr. King
stated he wants to be reassured that what the City is doing is right. City Administrator Statz stated
that staff is very confident. Mayor Love stated that there are many consultants available for
assistance.
b. Approval of September Submittal
Page 7 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
Administrator Statz stated that he desired to have the information available prior to this meeting
but is was unavailable due to the ever-changing process. He reviewed the forms that Finance
Director DeJong completed with Council.
Council discussed that they were comfortable with funding based on the categories. Council
Member Koski stated that Staff did a very good job on the reporting. Mayor Love stated that if
additional approvals were needed in between sessions of Council meetings the reports could be
placed on the Consent Agenda. He stated that he felt that the forms could be modified through
November 15 and Council would retain ability to retract an item. Finance Director DeJong stated
that some of the election expenditures have not received funding through Anoka County but once
received the forms would be modified accordingly.
Motion by Council Member Montain, seconded by Council Member Koski to Approve the
September COVID-19 September Submittal as Presented. ARoll-call vote was taken.
Mayor Love and Council Members Lakso, Koski, Montain & Wilharber voted in favor.
Motion carried.
IX. NEW BUSINESS
1. Wellhead Protection Plan, Part 2
Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member Montain to Close the
Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. A Roll-call vote was taken. Mayor Love and Council Members
Lakso, Koski, Montain & Wilharber voted in favor. Motion carried.
City Administrator Statz stated that the plan has been submitted to local jurisdictions and MN
Department of Health for their comments.
Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member Lakso to Adopt the
Wellhead Protection Plan, Part 2 as Submitted. A roll-call vote was taken. Mayor Love and
Council Members Koski, Lakso, Montain & Wilharber voted in favor. Motion carried.
2. Awarded Contract to Crawford Merz (Council Chambers, Lobby and
Vestibule)
City Administrator Statz stated that the current contact has been awarded to Crawford Merz at
e base bid would be Council Chambers, the lobby
and the vestibule. He stated that staff looked at several options and one was a $700,000 package
and one was a $300,000 package. He said that the more extensive package that was considered
had a hallway into to the fire hall, shared bathrooms and rearranged offices. He showed the
rearranged offices and stated that it takes out cabinets and places two additional offices on the west
wall, moves the A/V room and allows physical separation of all staff members and works well.
He also stated that staff believes that this modification would be eligible for CARES Act Funding.
He stated that the renovation would be providing a wall and door for staff which would provide
for a safe work environment. He stated that the Receptionist would have a larger area but remain
safe from other staff members. He also stated that he would also like to add an additional door out
Page 8 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
the back allowing Council or Staff an opportunity to get out of the building not via Council
Chambers, and to replace some existing windows with operable windows for ventilation in all
offices. He stated that staff has asked the contractor to provide a bid for the office remodel.
Administrator Statz stated that Crawford Merz felt that the work could be completed by November
15.
Administrator Statz stated there are no additional charges for architectural drawings (design/build
model) it would just be taken to final design, etc. as the design was previously completed. He
stated that it would be relatively easy construction, rearrange of HVAC not being too difficult, 2
x 4 construction, false ceilings, etc. He also stated that the new plan would remove some
idiosyncrasies with the current plan leaving the A/V room in place and then in the future, move it
and the in floor heating as it cannot be installed where there would be a wall. He stated that he felt
that it makes sense to do this with CARES Act funds, a good time to do this and other cities are
completing similar projects with their funds also. He stated if Council desired, staff would have
more details for the next meeting, including a cost estimate. He also stated that this work would
push back the other work in Council Chambers but this should be done to be included in CARES
Act Funding if desired. He stated that there are also implications for Elections as a judge and
voting booths are required from September 18 until the day prior to the General Elections. He
stated that staff does have the ability to work out of Council Chambers during this construction
time and keep the lobby open. He felt that the timing works out well.
Council Member Montain with CARES Act Funding now is a good time but he desired to ensure
that staff is responsive in greeting those that appear in City Hall. City Administrator Statz stated
that staff would make sure our technology is such that a docking station is available for a staff
member to be up front but felt that it would work.
Mayor Love stated that he liked the open area rather than a shared work space. Council Member
Wilharber felt that if the money is appropriately expended it was a good idea. Council Member
Lakso thanked staff for the exit door concept. Lakso stated that she is excited to be open again
and this would start the City back to assisting citizens and funding also. She stated that this is a
contingency and providing Administrator Statz with additional space for meetings was important
and glad that the proposal incorporated that. Council Member Koski asked about visibility
between walls (windows). Administrator Statz stated that traditional walls and doors would be
installed but having windows so that staff could see into the front office is appropriate. He stated
that the City provides services and being in an office does not allow ignorance of citizens entering
City Hall. Council Member Koski stated that he would make offices larger if funding allowed.
Mayor Love stated that as long as the City is using funds as we are allowed and completing items
similar to what others are doing he is comfortable with the funding being utilized in this way. He
did not want to add more than what funding allows however. He also stated that too much could
open for questions and he did not want to do that. City Administrator Statz stated that the intent
is to be reasonable and modest compared to what other communities are completing. Mayor Love
stated that having windows that open for ventilation is a good idea and the rear door may not be
connected with COVID. Administrator Statz concurred.
Council Member Lakso looking at the lobby and upgrade the drinking fountain to a water bottle
and would like to include. Administrator Statz stated that items such as touchless light
switches/doors, UV lighting to kill pathogens, etc. are all a part
Page 9 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
with the same avenues of other communities. Council Member Lakso asked about existing
plumbing.
Mayor Love stated that Staff is attempting to update City Hall and make it better for hosting events
and make it welcoming to citizens and if able to make it a place where people want to visit we are
all the better for it.
X. COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATOR ANNOUNCEMENTS
1.
Administrator Statz stated that he did not have anything to report other than his written report and
that he would be happy to field any questions that Council may have. Mayor Love asked if there
was anything he desired to highlight. Administrator Statz stated that staff will be sending a flyer
out to rental residents/landowners and he desired for the public to be aware to contact 211 if
assistance in needed during COVID. He stated that there are assistance programs out there for just
about everything. He stated that we sent a similar funding notification to business owners as the
County programs have been extended with minor modifications and show an impact as of a result
of COVID, must be located within Anoka County and daycares if home based are allowed but
there are limitations on franchises. He also stated that if more than $10,000 in expenses they are
looking at providing more. Help us spread the word even if you do not have all your
documentation together but hit submit button and they will get it later.
Administrator Statz stated that Old Mill Estates is selling lots and similarly Bayview Villas with
one (1) remaining lot available. He also stated that he has had discussions with a developer
regarding Block 7 and row townhomes. He reported that Clean Up Day is scheduled for October
11 at Laurie LaMotte Park with costs associated with items. He stated that A-1 Excavating is
committed to finishing the project and back in town. He reported that Movie in the Park will take
place on September 19 and the movie is Toy Story 4 at dusk. He desired to thank Misters Brian
Peterson and Tom Lee for their work on Music in the Park and these individuals put together a
great line up and glad that we could offer the program during these difficult times. He also stated
e first person to sign up for Adopt the Garden
Program and email info@centervillemn.com if interested. Council Member Wilharber stated that
th
he believed the Clean Up Day should be October 10 as the 11 was a Sunday. Mayor Love stated
City Attorney Glaser that things are slowly getting back to normal and in two (2) weeks he will be
going to in-person Court and things are slowly coming back.
Council Reports
a. Lakso
i. Council Member Lakso reported
City Administrator Statz stated that
email listing for email updates.
ii. Centennial Fire District Council Member
Lakso reported that discussions took place regarding the new success
Page 10 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
received for part-time applicants which is different than before. She
stated that the Personnel Policy was modified regarding the benefits
structure.
b. Wilharber
i. No report given.
ii. Economic Development Authority
reported that the EDA would be meeting in the coming week.
c. Koski -
i. Council Member Koski stated
that discussions were had regarding the budget and recruitment of Duty
Crew staff. He also stated that he felt that the Co-Chief structure was
working well.
ii. Planning & Zoning Commission
the Commission discussed five (5) variance requests with one being for
front setback along Peltier Lake Drive with a proposed construction of
a new home with it being denied. A storage shed on an existing concrete
slab that was not set back far enough from the side lot line which was
also denied. Council Member Koski stated that the Commission also
discussed a proposal for row-style townhomes on 7064 Centerville
Road. He also stated that the Commission reviewed a concept plan for
a landscaping company on Gateway Circle (two (2) lots but the principal
structure on one lot and outside storage on another which is not allowed.
He reported that discussion took plac
operation and their existing IUP being set to expire at the end of the
year. Discussion took place regarding renewing and conditions. He
stated that getting rid of the dirt pile would make the property more
marketable. He also stated that the Commission would be discussing
some ordinances (grass length, temporary dwellings (RVs), trash and
recycling, and Industrial District and outside storage) with all being
discussed at a later date.
d. Love ittee/Commission members for all of
their dedication and stated that they truly make the community better. He stated
that it was great to see that school business and sport teams are moving forward
and advised the audience to be diligent in washing hands, wearing a mask so
that things can keep moving forward. He reported that Centerville had an
89.6% response to the Census reporting as of last week. He stated that the
reporting is extremely easy due to it being on line. Reminded the audience that
it was beneficially to the County and that State for reporting. Mayor Love
thanked Misters Brian Peterson and Tom Lee for Music in the Park and their
dedication to the community. He also reminded people to become a part of the
Adopt a Park Garden.
Page 11 of 12
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2020
XI.ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Council Member Koski, seconded by Council Member Wilharber to Adjourn the
Regular Meeting of September 9, 2020 at 8:32 p.m.
Mayor Love apologized to Council Member Montain as he forgot to provide him with an
opportunity to report.
Montain the COVID funding allocations for
schools to be equal across the board and not be dependent upon business
population versus residential population.
Council Member Montain had no
report to give.
North Metro Telecommunications Commission Council Member
Montain stated that they had discussed COVID funding, closed
captioning and the FFC ruling and franchise fees being less than
planned on due to subscriber loss with more to come. Payment should
be the same as in the past with the figures that they have been given.
A roll-call vote was taken. Mayor Love and Council Members Lakso, Koski, Montain &
Wilharber voted in favor. Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted by City Clerk, Teresa Bender.
Page 12 of 12
02/05/21 12:49 PM
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Page 1
Check Detail - February 10, 2021
Check
DateCheck #Vender NameCommentsAmount
12/5/2021001649EOPTUM BANK - H.S.A.H.S.A. W/H - PAY PERIOD 3$1,282.31
Check Nbr 001649 OPTUM BANK - H.S.A.$1,282.31
12/5/2021001650EIRS/EFTPSFED W/H - PAY PERIOD 3$2,854.91
12/5/2021001650EIRS/EFTPSFICA/MED W/H - PAY PERIOD 3$4,525.98
Check Nbr 001650 IRS/EFTPS$7,380.89
12/5/2021001651EPERAPERA W/H - PAY PERIOD 3$3,753.01
Check Nbr 001651 PERA$3,753.01
12/5/2021001652EMINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUESTATE W/H - PAY PERIOD 3$936.53
Check Nbr 001652 MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE$936.53
12/10/2021033526 CRAWFORD MERZ, LLCCITY HALL REMODEL PAY REQUEST 5$108,223.05
Check Nbr 033526 CRAWFORD MERZ, LLC$108,223.05
12/10/2021033527 CRAWFORD MERZ, LLCCITY HALL REMODEL PAY REQUEST 4$77,994.00
Check Nbr 033527 CRAWFORD MERZ, LLC$77,994.00
12/10/2021033528 A-1 EXCAVATING INC.2020 DT AREA STREET & UT IMPROVEMENT$7,751.13
Check Nbr 033528 A-1 EXCAVATING INC.$7,751.13
12/10/2021033529 ALLSTREAMPHONE SERV THRU 2-22-21$103.00
Check Nbr 033529 ALLSTREAM$103.00
12/10/2021033530 AMERITASVISION CARE - SERV THRU 2-28-21$6.12
Check Nbr 033530 AMERITAS$6.12
12/10/2021033531 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURYBROADBAND - SERV THRU FEB. 2021$37.50
12/10/2021033531 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURYBROADBAND - SERV THRU FEB. 2021$37.50
12/10/2021033531 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURYBROADBAND - SERV THRU FEB. 2021$37.50
Check Nbr 033531 ANOKA COUNTY TREASURY$112.50
12/10/2021033532 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS INCUB SUPPORT - 2021 & PSN MODULE$495.00
12/10/2021033532 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS INCUB SUPPORT - 2021 & PSN MODULE$495.00
Check Nbr 033532 BANYON DATA SYSTEMS INC$990.00
12/10/2021033533 CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT2021 - FEB POLICE SERVICES$70,832.83
Check Nbr 033533 CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPT$70,832.83
12/10/2021033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCAZOOM MEETINGS$14.99
12/10/2021033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCAFUEL$171.87
12/10/2021033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCAP. PALZER BLDG SEMINAR$200.00
12/10/2021033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCAFUEL$849.61
12/10/2021033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCAOIL & FILTER CHANGE - 2 TRUCKS$169.07
12/10/2021033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCAPOSTAGE - WATER SAMPLES$4.60
12/10/2021033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCAJ. HUISENGA - WASTE WATER TEST$55.00
Check Nbr 033534 CITY OF CENTERVILLE - MASTERCA$1,465.14
12/10/2021033535 CITY OF ROSEVILLEIT SUPPORT SERV. THRU FEBRUARY 2021$592.88
12/10/2021033535 CITY OF ROSEVILLEIT SUPPORT SERV. THRU FEBRUARY 2021$592.89
12/10/2021033535 CITY OF ROSEVILLEIT SUPPORT SERV. THRU FEBRUARY 2021$592.89
12/10/2021033535 CITY OF ROSEVILLEIT SUPPORT SERV. THRU FEBRUARY 2021$592.89
Check Nbr 033535 CITY OF ROSEVILLE$2,371.55
12/10/2021033536 CONNEXUS ENERGYSTREET LIGHTS - 395653-219678 - SERV THRU 1-26-21$53.72
12/10/2021033536 CONNEXUS ENERGYSTREET LIGHTS - 395653-219699 - SERV THRU 1-26-21$65.95
12/10/2021033536 CONNEXUS ENERGY7100-20TH AVE N - TRAFSG - SERV THRU 1-26-21$79.56
12/10/2021033536 CONNEXUS ENERGY6800-20TH - RADIO FOR SCADA - SERV THRU 1-26-21$17.07
12/10/2021033536 CONNEXUS ENERGY6800-20TH - RADIO FOR SCADA - SERV THRU 1-26-21$17.08
12/10/2021033536 CONNEXUS ENERGY7087-20TH AVE - WATER TOWER - SERV THRU 1-26-21$131.21
12/10/2021033536 CONNEXUS ENERGY6800-20TH AVE - LIFT STATION - SERV THRU 1-26-21$77.29
Check Nbr 033536 CONNEXUS ENERGY$441.88
12/10/2021033537 CORE & MAINFIRE HYDRANT$2,677.00
Check Nbr 033537 CORE & MAIN$2,677.00
12/10/2021033538 CRAWFORD MERZ, LLCCITY HALL REMODEL PAY REQUEST 3$63,365.00
02/05/21 12:49 PM
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Page 2
Check Detail - February 10, 2021
Check
DateCheck #Vender NameCommentsAmount
Check Nbr 033538 CRAWFORD MERZ, LLC$63,365.00
12/10/2021033539 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT2021 CHEVY 2500 - PLOW & PARTS$625.00
12/10/2021033539 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENTPARTS FOR PLOW SIDE$31.76
Check Nbr 033539 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIPMENT$656.76
12/10/2021033540 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INCSERVICE THRU 1-31-21$8.77
12/10/2021033540 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INCSERVICE THRU 1-31-21$8.78
Check Nbr 033540 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC$17.55
12/10/2021033541 GOV OFFICEGOV OFFICE 1 YR WEBSITE HOSTING - SERV THRU JAN. 2022$420.00
12/10/2021033541 GOV OFFICEGOV OFFICE 1 YR WEBSITE HOSTING - SERV THRU JAN. 2022$420.00
Check Nbr 033541 GOV OFFICE$840.00
12/10/2021033542 HALLFIELD CONTROLS INC.SCADA SYSTEM - LYNN SAVAGE TIME - SERV THRU JAN. 2021$1,550.00
12/10/2021033542 HALLFIELD CONTROLS INC.SCADA SYSTEM - LYNN SAVAGE TIME - SERV THRU JAN. 2021$1,550.00
Check Nbr 033542 HALLFIELD CONTROLS INC.$3,100.00
12/10/2021033543 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH INCJANUARY WATER TESTING$52.50
Check Nbr 033543 INSTRUMENTAL RESEARCH INC$52.50
12/10/2021033544 INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMGENERATOR "B" INSPECTION$546.84
Check Nbr 033544 INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEM$546.84
12/10/2021033545 LEO A DALYCENTERVILLE CA SERVICES - PROF. THROUGH 1-22-21$1,232.97
Check Nbr 033545 LEO A DALY$1,232.97
12/10/2021033546 MARCO, INC.STANDARD PAYMENT FOR COPIER AT CITY HALL$202.42
Check Nbr 033546 MARCO, INC.$202.42
12/10/2021033547 MET. COUNCIL ENV. SERV. (SDS)WASTEWATER SERVICE THROUGH 2-2021$18,897.22
Check Nbr 033547 MET. COUNCIL ENV. SERV. (SDS)$18,897.22
12/10/2021033548 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROLJ. HUISENGA REFRESHER CLASS SC/SD EXAM$260.00
Check Nbr 033548 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL$260.00
12/10/2021033549 MN DNR WATERSPERMIT #1991-6246 - WATER USE & SUMMER WATER SURCHA$1,057.01
Check Nbr 033549 MN DNR WATERS$1,057.01
12/10/2021033550 PRESS PUBLICATIONSSUMMARY BUDGET STMT$117.76
12/10/2021033550 PRESS PUBLICATIONSORD 111 SECOND SERIES - ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE$81.92
Check Nbr 033550 PRESS PUBLICATIONS$199.68
12/10/2021033551 SAM S CLUBANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES$45.00
Check Nbr 033551 SAM S CLUB$45.00
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INOLD MILL ESTATES - PHASE 1 - SERV THRU 1-1-21$1,276.30
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INBAY VIEW VILLAS - SERV THRU 1-1-21$190.50
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INOLD MILL ESTATES - PHASE 2 - SERV THRU 1-1-21$1,802.60
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INT-MOBILE ANTENNA - SERV THRU 1-1-21$286.50
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES IN2019 D.T. STREET & UT IMPROV - SERV THRU 1-1-21$6,853.45
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES IN2019 D.T. STREET & UT IMPROV - SERV THRU 1-1-21$2,108.75
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES IN2019 D.T. STREET & UT IMPROV - SERV THRU 1-1-21$1,581.56
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INLAMOTTE PARK IRRIGATION EXPANSION - SERV THRU 1-1-21$377.50
12/10/2021033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES IN2020 CITY HALL RENO - SERV THRU 1-1-21$1,002.00
Check Nbr 033552 STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES IN$15,479.16
12/10/2021033553 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTIONANNUAL SPRINKLER INSPECTION OF 1 WET SYSTEM - P.W.$304.00
Check Nbr 033553 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION$304.00
12/10/2021033554 TASCADMINISTRATION FEE- COBRA - SERV THRU 3-31-21$10.00
Check Nbr 033554 TASC$10.00
12/10/2021033555 TRI-STATE BOBCAT, INC.BOBCAT PLOW REPAIRS & PARTS$524.64
Check Nbr 033555 TRI-STATE BOBCAT, INC.$524.64
$393,111.69
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPTCheck Register - POLICEPage: 1
Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2021 - 2/4/2021Feb 04, 2021 11:18AM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
Check NumberCheck Issue DatePayeeAmount
1363202/04/2021ANOKA CO TREASURY OFFICE75.00
1363302/04/2021CITY OF BLAINE157.26
1363402/04/2021DON'S CIRCLE SERVICE1,016.62
1363502/04/2021E C S I, LLC1,111.80
1363602/04/2021EMERGENCY CONTRACTORS815.00
1363702/04/2021EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS,INC175.98
1363802/04/2021FRATTALLONES HARDWARE, INC.18.86
1363902/04/2021GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO.250.00
1364002/04/2021MY HOLDINGS INC336.00
1364102/04/2021O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE, INC13.99
1364202/04/2021QUILL LLC69.99
1364302/04/2021TACTICAL SOLUTIONS322.00
1364402/04/2021VERIZON WIRELESS1,160.63
202100502/04/2021DELTA DENTAL1,205.30
202100602/04/2021U S BANK213.43
Grand Totals: 6,941.86
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CENTENNIAL LAKES POLICE DEPTCheck Register - POLICEPage: 1
Check Issue Dates: 1/22/2021 - 1/28/2021Jan 28, 2021 01:47PM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
Check NumberCheck Issue DatePayeeAmount
1362701/28/2021ASPEN MILLS, INC1,329.90
1362801/28/2021CITY OF CIRCLE PINES1,545.67
1362901/28/2021DON'S CIRCLE SERVICE436.78
1363001/28/2021NAC1,175.00
1363101/28/2021T & B PAINTING LLC2,000.00
Grand Totals: 6,487.35
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICTCheck Register - FIREPage: 1
Check Issue Dates: 1/27/2021 - 2/9/2021Feb 04, 2021 10:57AM
Report Criteria:
Report type: Summary
Check NumberCheck Issue DatePayeeAmount
899502/09/2021ADVANCED POWER SERVICES INC.305.00
899602/09/2021ALL SAFE GLOBAL161.42
899702/09/2021ANOKA COUNTY TREASURY DEPT.112.50
899802/09/2021ASPEN MILLS, INC14.85
899902/09/2021CAPSTONE8,250.90
900002/09/2021CITY OF CIRCLE PINES1,545.67
900102/09/2021CONNEXUS ENERGY610.72
900202/09/2021FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE STORE129.39
900302/09/2021MACQUEEN EMERGENCY1,964.00
900402/09/2021JACOB PFEFFER119.99
900502/09/2021VERIZON WIRELESS70.06
900602/09/2021WEX BANK380.47
202100202/09/2021WEX BANK362.24
Grand Totals: 14,027.21
M = Manual Check, V = Void Check
Page2 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
Payment Summary
No.UpTo DateWorkCertifiedAmount RetainedAmountPaid
Per RequestPer RequestPer Request
12020-05-01192,756.99,637.85192,756.90
22020-06-0491,149.644,557.4886,592.16
32020-06-26121,650.676,082.53115,568.14
42020-07-31447,342.6722,367.13424,975.54
52020-08-2894,839.614,741.9890,097.63
62020-10-02477,966.5723,898.33454,068.24
72020-10-30221,552.0711,077.60210,474.47
82020-11-30115,696.10-61,729.60177,425.70
92021-02-0417,388.980.007,751.13
FundingFundingWork CertifiedLess AmountLess PreviousAmount PaidTotal Amount
Category NameCategoryto DateRetainedPaymentsthis RequestPaid to Date
Number
City Funds1,780,343.2120,633.301,751,958.777,751.131,759,709.90
QuantityAmount
UniContractQuantityAmount
LineDescriptionUnit PriceThisThis
tsQuantityTo DateTo Date
RequestRequest
1MOBILIZATIONLS$99,850.001$0.000.90$89,865.00
2TRAFFIC CONTROL LS$17,000.001$0.000.90$15,300.00
REMOVE WATER
3LF$20.0050$0.0064.00$1,280.00
MAIN
REMOVE GATE
4EA $100.006$0.003.00$300.00
VALVE AND BOX
SALVAGE
5HYDRANT ANDEA $300.001$0.001.00$300.00
GATE VALVE
ADJUST VALVE
6EA $210.004$0.007.00$1,470.00
BOX
7ADJUST HYDRANT EA $1,050.002$0.003.00$3,150.00
CONNECT TO
8EXISTING WATEREA $2,000.007$0.007.00$14,000.00
MAIN
WATER MAIN
9EA $2,100.003$0.001.00$2,100.00
OFFSET
HYDRANT, 6" GATE
10EA $6,100.006$0.007.00$42,700.00
VALVE & BOX
6" PVC WATER
11LF$43.0086$0.00101.00$4,343.00
MAIN
8" PVC WATER
12LF$44.001950$0.002,060.00$90,640.00
MAIN
12" PVC
13LF$53.007003.68$195.04690.68$36,606.04
WATERMAIN
8" GATE VALVE
14EA $2,150.0010$0.0011.00$23,650.00
AND BOX
12" GATE VALVE
15EA $3,600.003$0.002.00$7,200.00
AND BOX
Page3 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
QuantityAmount
ContractQuantityAmount To
Line DescriptionUnits Unit PriceThisThis
QuantityTo DateDate
RequestRequest
16DUCTILE IRON FITTINGSLB$9.001500$0.00 1,462$13,158.00
171" CORPORATION STOPEA$290.0030$0.0030$8,700.00
181" CURB STOP & BOXEA$350.0030$0.0030$10,500.00
1" TYPE "K" COPPER
19LF$47.00800$0.00915$43,005.00
WATER SERVICE
1" WATER SERVICE PIPE,
20LF$47.00300$0.000$0.00
DIRECTIONAL DRILLED
REPAIR SANITARY SEWER
21EA$1,000.00 20$0.003$3,000.00
SERVICE
22INSULATION, 4" THICKSY$50.00150$0.0025.9$1,295.00
IMPROVED PIPE
23LF$5.002700$0.00 1,137$5,687.00
FOUNDATION
CONNECT WATER
24SERVICE TO EXISTINGEA$1,100.00 15$0.0010$11,000.00
PLUMBING INSIDE HOME
1" WATER SERVICE
25DIRECTIONAL DRILLED,LF$47.00800-91.26-$4,289.22 540.56$25,406.32
CURB STOP TO HOME
REMOVE STORM SEWER
26LF$12.002415$0.00 953.1$11,437.20
PIPE
REMOVE CATCH BASIN OR
27EA$400.0015$0.0013$5,200.00
MANHOLE
2812" HDPE STORM SEWERLF$52.0015$0.0012.6$655.20
12" RCP STORM SEWER,
29LF$56.00670$0.00616$34,496.00
CLASS 5
15" RCP STORM SEWER,
30LF$60.00405$0.00432$25,920.00
CLASS 5
18" RCP STORM SEWER,
31LF$64.001010$0.00 1,043$66,752.00
CLASS 5
3212" PVC STORM SEWERLF$63.0050$0.0073.1$4,605.30
3315" PVC STORM SEWERLF$71.0055$0.0042$2,982.00
3427" DIA CATCH BASINEA$2,470.00 1$0.001$2,470.00
352' x 3' CATCH BASINEA$2,400.00 10$0.0011$26,400.00
4' DIA. STORM
36MANHOLE/CATCH BASINEA$3,350.00 20$0.0019$63,650.00
MANHOLE
6' DIA. STORM
37MANHOLE/CATCH BASINEA$6,200.00 1$0.003$18,600.00
MANHOLE
Page4 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
QuantityAmount
ContractQuantityAmount To
Line DescriptionUnits Unit PriceThisThis
QuantityTo DateDate
RequestRequest
7' DIA. STORM
38MANHOLE/CATCH BASINEA$7,300.00 1$0.001$7,300.00
MANHOLE
12" RCP FLARED END
39SECTION, INCL. TRASHEA$1,300.00 1$0.001$1,300.00
GUARD
40CLASS 3 RANDOM RIPRAP CY$160.005$0.0016$2,560.00
CONNECT TO EXISTING
41EA$1,000.00 1$0.001$1,000.00
STORM STRUCTURE
CONNECT TO EXISTING
42EA$800.006$0.008$6,400.00
STORM SEWER PIPE
43TEMPORARY MAILBOXES LS$3,000.00 1$0.001$3,000.00
44INLET PROTECTIONEA$160.0042$0.006$960.00
TEMPORARY ROCK
45CONSTRUCTIONTN$18.00350$0.00 173.52$3,123.36
ENTRANCE
SILT FENCE, TYPE
46LF$2.00500$0.00460$920.00
MACHINE SLICED
47BIOLOGLF$6.00500$0.00840$5,040.00
WATER FOR DUST
48TGAL $25.00100$0.0020$500.00
CONTROL
49REMOVE TREEEA$500.0015$0.0019$9,500.00
50CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS$7,950.00 1$0.001$7,950.00
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL
51LF$60.0020$0.000$0.00
SPLIT RAIL FENCE
SAWING BITUMINOUS
52LF$2.00500$0.00434$868.00
PAVEMENT
REMOVE BITUMINOUS
53SY$2.008600$0.00 8,525.50$17,051.00
PAVEMENT
REMOVE BITUMINOUS
54SY$4.001800$0.00601$2,404.00
TRAIL
REMOVE CONCRETE
55LF$4.00800$0.00549$2,196.00
CURB & GUTTER
REMOVE BITUMINOUS
56SY$4.001000$0.00 850.10$3,400.40
DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
REMOVE CONCRETE
57SY$9.00300$0.00 390.33$3,512.97
DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT
REMOVE CONCRETE
58SF$0.701700$0.00 1,501$1,050.53
SIDEWALK
REMOVE CONCRETE
59SF$3.00230$0.00128$384.00
STEPS
Page5 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
QuantityAmount
ContractQuantityAmount To
Line DescriptionUnits Unit PriceThisThis
QuantityTo DateDate
RequestRequest
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL
60LS$1,800.00 11.94$3,492.002.44$4,392.00
METAL RAILING
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL
61EA$140.00352$280.0022.00$3,080.00
SIGN
SALVAGE AND REINSTALL
62EA$140.0026$0.0026.00$3,640.00
MAILBOX
ADJUST MANHOLE FRAME
63EA$450.0010$0.0012.00$5,400.00
AND RING CASTING
64COMMON EXCAVATION (P) CY$14.0012000$0.00 12,000.00$168,000.00
SUBGRADE EXCAVATION
65CY$14.002500$0.00 2,689.17$37,648.38
(EV)
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC,
66SY$1.5013000$0.00 15,241.00$22,861.50
TYPE V
SELECT GRANULAR
67TN$12.0017000$0.00 10,047.00$120,564.00
BORROW
AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS
68TN$18.007000150.62$2,711.16 6,284.22$113,115.96
5, 100% CRUSHED
TYPE SP 12.5 NON
69WEARING COURSETN$73.501300$0.00 1,244.77$91,490.60
MIXTURE (2,C)
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING
70TN$78.001000$0.000.00$0.00
COURSE MIXTURE (2,C)
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL
71GAL $4.00550$0.00 100.00$400.00
FOR TACK COAT
72BITUMINOUS WEDGELF$5.006100$0.00 6,710.00$33,550.00
SAW AND SEAL
73TRANSVERSE JOINTS INLF$6.002000$0.000.00$0.00
BITUMINOUS WEAR-2021
MILL BITUMINOUS
74LF$4.00500$0.000.00$0.00
CONSTRUCTION JOINT
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING
75COURSE MIXTURE -TN$152.0070$0.00 115.96$17,625.92
DRIVEWAY
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING
76TN$152.0010$0.0015.00$2,280.00
COURSE MIXTURE - TRAIL
4" PERFORATED PVC
77LF$11.00400$0.00 461.00$5,071.00
DRAINTILE
6" PERFORATED PVC
78LF$11.005654$0.00 4,810.00$52,910.00
DRAINTILE
79DRAINTILE CLEANOUTEA$500.0026$0.0023.00$11,500.00
Page6 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
QuantityAmount
ContractQuantityAmount To
Line DescriptionUnits Unit PriceThisThis
QuantityTo DateDate
RequestRequest
CONNECT DRAINTILE TO
80EA$400.006$0.001$400.00
EXISTING STRUCTURE
B618 CONCRETE CURB &
81LF$14.506100$0.00 6,226$90,272.65
GUTTER
4-INCHES THICK
82SF$5.653000$0.00 3,150.0$17,797.33
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
6-INCHES THICK
83CONCRETE PEDESTRIANSF$10.151000$0.00 1,137.5$11,545.63
CURB RAMP
6-INCHES THICK
84SF$6.202000$0.00 3,105.0$19,251.00
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
8-INCHES THICK
85SF$7.351000$0.00 1,115$8,195.25
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
86CONCRETE STEPSSF$31.00230$0.00217$6,727.00
TRUNCATED DOME
87SF$41.00240$0.00240$9,840.00
SURFACE
88SODDING, LAWN TYPESY$8.006000$0.00 2,954$23,635.04
LOAM TOPSOIL BORROW
89CY$6.001000$0.00 251.7$1,509.96
(CV)
SEED WITH EROSION
90SY$5.00200$0.00 1,300$6,500.00
CONTROL BLANKET
4" SOLID WHITE LINE -
91LF$2.00420$0.000$0.00
EPOXY
4" DOUBLE SOLID YELLOW
92LF$3.00300$0.000$0.00
LINE - EPOXY
PAVEMENT MARKING -
93ZEBRA CROSSWALK -SF$6.00400$0.000$0.00
WHITE EPOXY
STREET SWEEPER WITH
94HR$120.00100125$15,000.00135$16,200.00
PICKUP BROOM
Base Bid Totals:$17,388.98$1,703,646.53
Project Category Totals
ProjectCategoryAmount This RequestAmount To Date
193804758PART A-GENERAL0.00105,165.00
193804758PART B-WATER MAIN195.04313,084.04
193804758PART C - WATER SERVICES-4,289.2236,406.32
TO HOMES
193804758PART D-STORM SEWER0.00281,727.70
193804758PART E-STREETS21,483.16967,263.47
Page7 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
QuantityAmount
CC
ContractQuantityAmount
LineDescriptionUnitsUnit
CC
ThisThis
#
QuantityTo DateTo Date
Price
RequestRequest
LS
CO 1 95 MOBILIZATION7,257.001$0.001$7,257.00
3" ROCK FOR
TN
CO 19634.00294.93$0.00295$10,027.62
TEMPORARY ROAD
AGGREGATE BASE FOR
TN
CO 19718.00276.17$0.00276$4,971.06
TEMPORARY ROAD
LF
CO 19812" PVC STORM SEWER63.0022$0.0023$1,449.00
21" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 19976.00159$0.00159$12,084.00
CLASS 3
24" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 110085.0034$0.0034$2,890.00
CLASS 3
27" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 110194.00342$0.00347$32,618.00
CL 3
30" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 1102107.00283$0.00287$30,709.00
CLASS 3
36" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 1103147.0021$0.0021$3,087.00
CLASS 3
5' DIA. STORM SEWER
EA
CO 1104CBMH, INCL. CSTG. AND4,550.003$0.001$4,550.00
ADJUSTMENT RING
6' DIA. STORM
EA
CO 1105MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN6,200.001$0.001$6,200.00
MANHOLE
7' DIA. STORM
EA
CO 1106MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN7,300.001$0.001$7,300.00
MANHOLE
4' DIA. STORM SEWER
EA
CO 11074,100.002$0.003$12,300.00
CBMH WITH 3' SUMP
END SECTION FOR 12"
EA
CO 1108300.001$0.001$300.00
HDPE PIPE
15" PVC STORM SEWER
LF
CO 1109-71.0042$0.0042($2,982.00)
PIPE
12" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 1110-56.0029$0.0029($1,624.00)
CLASS 5
15" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 1111-60.00204$0.00204($12,240.00)
CLASS 5
18" RCP STORM SEWER,
LF
CO 1112-64.00400$0.00400($25,600.00)
CLASS 5
4' DIA. STORM
EA
CO 1113MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN-3,350.004$0.004($13,400.00)
MANHOLE
CONNECT TO EXISTING
EA
CO 1114-800.004.0001$0.004($3,200.00)
STORM SEWER PIPE
$0.00
$76,696.68
Page8 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
Contract Total$1,703,646.53
Contract Change Totals
NumberDescriptionAmount ThisAmount To Date
Request
1This Change Order provides for the following:076,696.68
Part A: Material and labor required to construct a temporary roadway
during the unexpected project shutdown of approximately 8 weeks due to
the COVID-19 virus.
Part B: Additional storm sewer to accommodate future redevelopment and
convey future runoff to the existing trunk line in CSAH 21 (Centerville
Road).
Material On Hand Balance
LineItemDescriptionDateAddedUsedRemaining
109999.996HYDRANT, 6"2020-06-04 4 EA $17,292.124 EA $17,292.120 EA $0.00
GATE VALVE &
BOX
112504.603/026" PVC WATER2020-06-04 79 LF $372.3779 LF $372.370 EA $0.00
006MAIN
122504.603/028" PVC WATER2020-06-04 1,170 LF $9,337.551,170 LF $9,337.550 EA $0.00
008MAIN
132510.006812" PVC WATER2020-06-04 700 LF $11,698.05700 LF $11,698.050 EA $0.00
MAIN
142504.602/008" GATE VALVE2020-06-04 4 EA $5,489.094 EA $5,489.090 EA $0.00
808AND BOX
152510.04255 12" GATE VALVE2020-06-04 3 EA $7,062.223 EA $7,062.220 EA $0.00
AND BOX
162503.608/00DUCTILE IRON2020-06-04 833 LB $7,497.00833 LB $7,497.000 EA $0.00
011FITTINGS
172504.602/001" CORPORATION2020-06-04 23 EA $3,546.2623 EA $3,546.260 EA $0.00
410STOP
189990.47688 1" CURB STOP &2020-06-04 23 EA $4,808.7423 EA $4,808.740 EA $0.00
BOX
192515.00010 1" TYPE "K"2020-06-04 420 LF $1,619.73420 LF $1,619.730 LF $0.00
COPPER WATER
SERVICE
209999.9951 " WATER2020-06-04 300 LF $257.10300 LF $257.100 EA $0.00
SERVICE PIPE,
DIRECTIONAL
DRILLED
219990.55145 REPAIR2020-06-04 20 EA $380.9420 EA $380.940 EA $0.00
SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE
259999.9931" WATER2020-06-04 800 LF $685.60800 LF $685.600 LF $0.00
SERVICE
DIRECTIONAL
DRILLED, CURB
Page9 of9
City of Centerville
Client Project Number:
1880 Main Street
Payment Number: 9
Centerville , MN 55038
282630.003612" HDPE STORM2020-06-04 15 LF $140.9215 LF $140.920 EA $0.00
SEWER
322630.04605 12" PVC STORM2020-06-04 50 LF $835.5850 LF $835.580 EA $0.00
SEWER
339990.15803 15" PVC STORM2020-06-04 55 LF $1,508.3255 LF $1,508.320 LF $0.00
SEWER PIPE
779990.12980 4" PERFORATED2020-06-04 400 LF $539.91400 LF $539.910 EA $0.00
PVC DRAINTILE
789990.54961 6" PERFORATED2020-06-04 5,354 LF $15,444.96 5,354 LF $15,444.96 0 EA $0.00
PVC DRAINTILE
799999.987DRAINTILE2020-06-04 26 EA $2,633.1826 EA $2,633.180 EA $0.00
CLEANOUT
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
Agenda Item # Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
February 10, 2021
EDA
VII.8
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Revolving Loan/Grant Program - Grant Request for 7087 Centerville Road
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
Recently, the City Council adopted a Revolving Loan and Grant Program identical to the one the EDA has been
poised to administer, after the County informed us that the request to use our Housing and Redevelopment
Authority funds must come from the Council. It is staff's intent to have the EDA continue to make
recommendations to the City Council on the award of these grants. Previously, the EDA received, reviewed
and awarded a grant for a colored concrete patio at 7087 Main Street. Staff is asking the City Council to
confirm this recommendation and formally request the funds from the county for this award.
The grant amount is for $5,000. The work is complete and has been found to be acceptable. The owner has
demonstrated the cost of the work, including his contribution of matching funds, as required.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
$5,000 - HRA Funds (administered by Anoka Co.)
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to award a grant to 7087 Centerville Road for the construction of a colored concrete patio in the amount
of $5,000.
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By: ____________________________________
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By: ____________________________________
Vote Record: Aye Nay
_____
_____
Invoice for work; pic of completed work
Other (specify) ____________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_______________________________________________________________
_____ _____Ki
_____ ____________________________________________________________________
Administration Department Use:
Refer to: _________________________________
Consent
Tabled Until: ______________________________
Regular
Other: ___________________________________
Resolution #21-_____
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION TO THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Centerville is generally authorized to accept donations of real and
personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens,
and is specifically authorized to accept gifts.
WHEREAS, the following persons and entities have offered to contribute the cash amounts set
forth below to the city:
Name of Donor Amount
Matt Montain $540.00
WHEREAS, the terms or conditions of the donations, if any, are as follows:
Donation Number Terms or Conditions
001 Cable Fund
WHEREAS, all such donations have been contributed to the city for the benefit of its citizens, as
allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donation offered.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA AS FOLLOWS:
The donation(s) described above are accepted and funds shall be placed in the Cable
Fund, allowed by law.
The City Clerk is hereby directed to issu
receipt of the
th
Passed by City Council of Centerville, Minnesota this 10 day of February, 2021.
____________________________________
Mayor
_____________________________
City Clerk
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
Agenda Item # Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
February 10, 2021
Finance
VIII.1
TITLE OF ISSUE:
2013A Bonds Refunding
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
City staff discussed the sale of refunding bonds to refinance the 2022-2029 maturities of our 2013A Bonds with
George Eilertson of Northland Securities . In accordance with the information distributed at the meeting of
January 13, there are two reasons to undertake such a sale:
1.Interest Savings - the bonds are estimated to save $85,000 through lower interest costs. This is after all
issuance costs have been taken into account.
2.Restructure bond maturities - this will allow for a gradual decrease in debt service payments for each year.
The sale will consist of competitive sealed bids. Northland expects multiple bidders on the issue.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
Interest savings (Estimated at >$100,000) will cover the cost of the bond issuance costs ($15,500).
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution 21-0XX Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of Bonds and setting the
sale date of February 24.
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By: ____________________________________
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By: ____________________________________
X
Vote Record: Aye Nay
_____
_____
Appendix A, Muni Advisor's Agreement
Other (specify) ____________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_______________________________________________________________
_____ _____Ki
_____ ____________________________________________________________________
Administration Department Use:
Refer to: _________________________________
Consent
Tabled Until: ______________________________
Regular
Other: ___________________________________
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Resolution # 21-____
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATED
SALE OF $1,335,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS,
SERIES 2021A
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Centerville, Minnesota, (the
that it is necessary and expedient to issue its $1,335,000 General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds,
2029 maturities of the City
Improvement Bonds, Series 2013A; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained Northland Securities, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minn
its independent municipal advisor and is therefore authorized to sell these obligations by a competitive negotiated
sale in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subdivision 2(9); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Centerville, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Authorization; Findings. The City Council hereby authorizes Northland to solicit bids for the
competitive negotiated sale of the Bonds.
2. Meeting; Bid Opening. This City Council shall meet at the time and place specified in the Notice
of Sale attached hereto as Exhibit A for the purpose of considering sealed bids for, and awarding the sale of, the
Bonds. The Administrator, or designee, shall open bids at the time and place specified in such Notice of Sale.
3. Notice of Sale. The terms and conditions of the Bonds and the negotiation thereof are fully set
Exhibit A and hereby approved and made a part hereof.
4. Official Statement. In connection with said competitive negotiated sale, the Administrator and
other officers or employees of the City are hereby authorized to cooperate with Northland and participate in the
preparation of an official statement for the Bonds, and to execute and deliver it on behalf of the City upon its
completion.
Passed and Adopted by the City of Centerville this 10th day of February, 2021.
________________________________________
Mayor, D. Love
_________________________________
City Clerk, Teresa Bender
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF SALE
*
$1,335,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2021A
CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA
(Book-Entry Only)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that these Bonds will be offered for sale according to the following terms:
TIME AND PLACE:
Wednesday, February 24, 2021, at 10:30 A.M., CT, at th
0, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402. Consideration of
the Proposals for award of the sale will be by the City Council at its meeting at the City Offices beginning
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 6:30 P.M., CT.
SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
Proposals may be:
a) submitted to the office of Northland Securities, Inc.,
b) faxed to Northland Securities, Inc. at 612-851-5918,
c) for proposals submitted prior to the sale, the final price and coupon rates may be submitted to
Northland Securities, Inc. by telephone at 612-851-5900 or 612-851-4921, or
d) submitted electronically.
Notice is hereby given that electronic proposals will be received via PARITY, or its successor, in the
manner described below, until 10:30 A.M., CT, on Wednesday, February 24, 2021. Proposals may be
submitted electronically via PARITY or its successor, pursuant to this Notice until 10:30 A.M., CT, but
no Proposal will be received after the time for receiving Proposals specified above. To the extent any
instructions or directions set forth in PARITY, or its successor, conflict with this Notice, the terms of
this Notice shall control. For further information about PARITY, or its successor, potential bidders may
nd
contact Northland Securities, Inc. or i-Dealat 1359 Broadway, 2 floor, New York, NY 10018,
telephone 212-849-5021.
Neither the City nor Northland Securities, Inc. assumes any liability if there is a malfunction of
PARITYor its successor. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a
contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner in which the
Proposal is submitted.
BOOK-ENTRY SYSTEM
The Bonds will be issued by means of a book-entry system with no physical distribution of bond
certificates made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one bond certificate,
representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the
*
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the principal amount of the Bonds. Any such increase or decrease will be
made in multiples of $5,000 and may be made in any maturity. If any maturity is adjusted, the purchase price will also be
adjusted to maintain the same gross spread.
A-1
CE155-29-699697.v1
name of Cede & Co. as nominee of Depository Tr
will act as securities depository of the Bonds.
Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof
of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of DTC and its participants.
Principal and interest are payable by the City through Northland Trust Services, Inc. Minneapolis,
or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds.
Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of DTC will be the responsibility of DTC;
transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility
of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The successful bidder, as a condition of
delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the bond certificates with DTC. The City will pay
reasonable and customary charges for the services of the Paying Agent/Registrar.
DATE OF ORIGINAL ISSUE OF BONDS
Date of Delivery (Estimated to be March 31, 2021)
AUTHORITY/PURPOSE/SECURITY
The Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475. Proceeds from the issuance of
the Bonds will be used to current refund the 2022 through 2029 maturities
Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 2013A on March 31, 2021 and to pay costs associated with
issuing the Bonds. The Bonds are payable from ad valorem taxes on all taxable property within the City.
The full faith and credit of the City is pledged to their payment and the City has validly obligated itself to
levy ad valorem taxes in the event of any deficiency in the debt service account established for this issue.
INTEREST PAYMENTS
Interest is due semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, commencing February 1, 2022, to
registered owners of the Bonds appearing of record in the Bond Register as of the close of business on the
fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the calendar month preceding such interest payment date.
MATURITIES
Principal is due annually on February 1, inclusive, in each of the years and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
2022 $125,000 2026 $250,000
2023 125,000 2027 225,000
2024 110,000 2028 210,000
2025 105,000 2029 185,000
Proposals for the Bonds may contain a maturity schedule providing for any combination of serial bonds
and term bonds, subject to mandatory redemption, so long as the amount of principal maturing or subject
to mandatory redemption in each year conforms to the maturity schedule set forth above.
INTEREST RATES
All rates must be in integral multiples of 1/20th or 1/8th of 1%. The rate for any maturity may not be
A-2
CE155-29-699697.v1
more than 2.00% less than the rate for any preceding maturity. All Bonds of the same maturity must bear
a single uniform rate from date of issue to maturity.
ESTABLISHMENT OF ISSUE PRICE
The winning bidder shall assist the City in establishing the issue price of the Bonds and shall execute and
similar certificate setting forth the reasonably expected
initial offering price to the public or the sales price or prices of the Bonds, together with the supporting
pricing wires or equivalent communications, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, with
such modifications as may be appropriate or necessary, in the reasonable judgment of the winning bidder,
the City and Bond Counsel. All actions to be taken by the City under this Notice of Sale to establish the
issue price of the Bonds may be taken on behalf of
notice or report to be provided to the City may
The City intends that the provisions of Treasury Regulation Section 1.148-1(f)(3)(i) (defining
price of the Bonds) will apply to the initial sale
(1) the City shall disseminate this Notice of Sale to potential underwriters in a manner that is
reasonably designed to reach potential underwriters;
(2) all bidders shall have an equal opportunity to bid;
(3) the City may receive bids from at least three underwriters of municipal bonds who have
established industry reputations for underwriting new issuances of municipal bonds; and
(4) the City anticipates awarding the sale of the Bonds to the bidder who submits a firm offer to
purchase the Bonds at the highest price (or lowest cost), as set forth in this Notice of Sale.
Any bid submitted pursuant to this Notice of Sale shall be considered a firm offer for the purchase
of the Bonds, as specified in the bid.
In the event that the competitive sale requirements are not satisfied, the City shall promptly so advise the
winning bidder. The City may then determine to treat the initial offering price to the public as of the
award date of the Bonds as the issue price of each maturity by imposing on the winning bidder the Hold-
the-Offering-Price Rule as described in the followi
Bids will not be subject to cancellation in the event that the City determines to apply the Hold-the-
Offering-Price Rule to the Bonds. Bidders should prepare their bids on the assumption that the
Bonds will be subject to the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule in order to establish the issue price of the
Bonds.
By submitting a bid, the winning bidder shall (i) confirm that the underwriters have offered or will offer
the Bonds to the public on or before the date of awar
forth in the bid submitted by the winning bidder and
(ii) agree, on behalf of the underwriters participating in the purchase of the Bonds, that the underwriters
will neither offer nor sell unsold Bonds of any maturity to which the Hold-the-Offering Price Rule shall
apply to any person at a price that is higher than the Initial Offering Price to the public during the period
starting on the award date for the Bonds and ending on the earlier of the following:
th
(1) the close of the fifth (5) business day after the award date; or
(2) the date on which the underwriters have sold at least 10% of a maturity of the Bonds to the public
at a price that is no higher than the Initial Offeri
time only that particular maturity will no longer be subject to the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule.
The City acknowledges that, in making the representations set forth above, the winning bidder will rely
A-3
CE155-29-699697.v1
on (i) the agreement of each underwriter to comply with the requirements for establishing issue price of
the Bonds, including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule,
if applicable to the Bonds, as set forth in an agreement among underwriters and the related pricing wires,
(ii) in the event a selling group has been created in connection with the initial sale of the Bonds to the
public, the agreement of each dealer who is a member of the selling group to comply with the
requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds, including but not limited to, its agreement to
comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, if applicable to the Bonds, as set forth in a selling group
agreement and the related pricing wires, and (iii) in the event that an underwriter or dealer who is a
member of the selling group is a party to a third-party distribution agreement that was employed in
connection with the initial sale of the Bonds to the public, the agreement of each broker-dealer that is a
party to such agreement to comply with the requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds,
including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, if applicable
to the Bonds, as set forth in the third-party distribution agreement and the related pricing wires. The City
further acknowledges that each underwriter shall be solely liable for its failure to comply with its
agreement regarding the requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds, including but not limited
to, its agreement to comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, if applicable to the Bonds, and that no
underwriter shall be liable for the failure of any other underwriter, or of any dealer who is a member of a
selling group, or of any broker-dealer that is a party to a third-party distribution agreement to comply with
its corresponding agreement to comply with the requirements for establishing issue price of the Bonds,
including, but not limited to, its agreement to comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule if applicable
to the Bonds.
By submitting a bid, each bidder confirms that: (i) any agreement among underwriters, any selling group
agreement and each third-party distribution agreement (to which the bidder is a party) relating to the
initial sale of the Bonds to the public, together with the related pricing wires, contains or will contain
language obligating each underwriter, each dealer who is a member of the selling group, and each broker-
dealer that is a party to such third-party distribution agreement, as applicable, (A) to comply with the
Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, if applicable if and for so long as directed by the winning bidder and as set
forth in the related pricing wires, (B) to promptly notify the winning bidder of any sales of Bonds that to
its knowledge, are made to a purchaser who is a related party to an underwriter participating in the initial
sale of the Bonds to the public (each such term being used as defined below), and (C) to acknowledge
that, unless otherwise advised by the underwriter, dealer or broker-dealer, the winning bidder shall
assume that each order submitted by the underwriter, dealer or broker-dealer is a sale to the public, and
(ii) any agreement among underwriters or selling group agreement relating to the initial sale of the Bonds
to the public, together with the related pricing wires, contains or will contain language obligating each
underwriter or dealer that is a party to a third-party distribution agreement to be employed in connection
with the initial sale of the Bonds to the public to require each broker-dealer that is a party to such retail
distribution agreement to comply with the Hold-the-Offering-Price Rule, if applicable, in each case if and
for so long as directed by the winning bidder or the underwriter and as set forth in the related pricing
wires.
Notes: Sales of any Bonds to any person that is a related party to an underwriter participating in the
initial sale of the Bonds to the public (each such term being used as defined below) shall not constitute
sales to the public for purposes of this Notice of Sale. Further, for purposes of this Notice of Sale:
(1) an underwriter or a related party,
(2) uant to a written contract with the City (or
with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of
the Bonds to the public and (B) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or
indirectly with a person described in clause (A) to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to
the public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a third-party distribution
agreement participating in the initial sale of the Bonds to the public).
A-4
CE155-29-699697.v1
(3)
purchaser are subject, directly or indirectly, to (A) more than 50% common ownership of the
voting power or the total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations (including direct
ownership by one corporation or another), (B) more than 50% common ownership of their
capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships (including direct ownership
by one partnership of another), or (C) more than 50% common ownership of the value of the
outstanding stock of the corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the partnership,
as applicable, if one entity is a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including direct
ownership of the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other), and
(4)
ADJUSTMENTS TO PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AFTER PROPOSALS
The City reserves the right to increase or decrease the principal amount of the Bonds. Any such increase
or decrease will be made in multiples of $5,000 and may be made in any maturity. If any maturity is
adjusted, the purchase price will also be adjusted to maintain the same gross spread. Such adjustments
shall be made promptly after the sale and prior to the award of Proposals by the City and shall be at the
sole discretion of the City. The successful bidder may not withdraw or modify its Proposal once
submitted to the City for any reason, including post-sale adjustment. Any adjustment shall be conclusive
and shall be binding upon the successful bidder.
OPTIONAL REDEMPTION
The Bonds will not be subject to optional redemption prior to their stated maturities.
CUSIP NUMBERS
If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but
neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto shall constitute
cause for a failure or refusal by the successful bidder thereof to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds
in accordance with terms of the purchase contract. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment
of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the successful bidder.
DELIVERY
Delivery of the Bonds will be within forty days after award, subject to an approving legal opinion by
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Bond Counsel. The legal opinion will be paid by the City and delivery
will be anywhere in the continental United States without cost to the successful bidder at DTC.
TYPE OF PROPOSAL
Proposals of not less than $1,318,312.50 (98.75%) and accrued interest on the principal sum of
$1,335,000 must be filed with the undersigned prior to the time of sale. Proposals must be unconditional
except as to legality. Proposals for the Bonds should be delivered to Northland Securities, Inc. and
addressed to:
A-5
CE155-29-699697.v1
Mark Statz, City Administrator
Centerville City Hall
1880 Main St.,
Centerville, MN 55038
$26,700 in the form of a federal wire transfer
(payable to the order of the City) is only required from the apparent winning bidder, and must be received
within two hours after the time stated for the receipt of Proposals. The apparent winning bidder will
receive notification of the wire instructions from the Municipal Advisor promptly after the sale. If the
Deposit is not received from the apparent winning bidder in the time allotted, the City may choose to
reject their Proposal and then proceed to offer the Bonds to the next lowest bidder based on the terms of
their original proposal, so long as said bidder wires funds for the Deposit amount within two hours of said
offer.
The City will retain the Deposit of the successful bidder, the amount of which will be deducted at
settlement and no interest will accrue to the successful bidder. In the event the successful bidder fails to
comply with the accepted Proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No Proposal can be
withdrawn after the time set for receiving Proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of
the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been
made.
AWARD
The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost
rate of each Proposal, in accordance with customary
practice, will be controlling. In the event of a tie, the sale of the Bonds will be awarded by lot. The City
will reserve the right to: (i) waive non-substantive informalities of any Proposal or of matters relating to
the receipt of Proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all Proposals without cause, and (iii) reject any
Proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein.
INFORMATION FROM SUCCESSFUL BIDDER
The successful bidder will be required to provide, in a timely manner, certain information relating to the
initial offering price of the Bonds necessary to compute the yield on the Bonds pursuant to the provisions
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a Proposal therefor, the
City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide to the
senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded, the Final Official
Statement in an electronic format as prescribed by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB).
LIMITED CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING
The City will covenant in the resolution awarding the sale of the Bonds and in a Continuing Disclosure
Undertaking to provide, or cause to be provided, annual financial information, including audited financial
statements of the City, and notices of certain material events, as required by SEC Rule 15c2-12.
A-6
CE155-29-699697.v1
BANK QUALIFICATION
The City will designate the Bonds as qualified tax-exempt obligations for purposes of Section 265(b)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the
option of the successful bidder, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such
commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the successful bidder of the Bonds. Any increase in
the costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the
successful bidder, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating
agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the
successful bidder. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after the Bonds have been
awarded to the successful bidder shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the successful bidder
to accept delivery on the Bonds.
The City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals, to waive informalities and to adjourn the sale.
Dated: February 10, 2021 BY ORDER OF THE CENTERVILLE CITY COUNCIL
/s/ Mark Statz
City Administrator
Additional information may be obtained from:
Northland Securities, Inc.
th
150 South 5 Street, Suite 3300
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Telephone No.: 612-851-5900
A-7
CE155-29-699697.v1
EXHIBIT A TO NOTICE OF SALE
The undersigned, for and on behalf of \[NAME OF PURCHASER/REPRESENTATIVE\] (the
nd other underwriters listed below (collectively, the
nd issuance of the General Obligation Improvement
1. Reasonably Expected Initial Offering Price.
(a) As of the Sale Date, the reasonably expected initial offering prices of the Bonds to the
Public by the \[Purchaser\] \[Underwriting Group\] are the prices listed in EXHIBIT A attached hereto (the
Prices are the prices of the Maturities of the Bonds
used by the \[Purchaser\] \[Underwriting Group\] in formulating its bid to purchase the Bonds. Attached
hereto as EXHIBIT B is a true and correct copy of the bid provided by the \[Purchaser\] \[Underwriting
Group\] to purchase the Bonds.
(b) The \[Purchaser\] \[Underwriting Group\] was not given the opportunity to review other bids
prior to submitting its bid.
(c) The bid submitted by the \[Purchaser\] \[Underwriting Group\] constituted a firm offer to
purchase the Bonds.
(d) Capitalized terms that are used herein that are otherwise not defined shall have the
meanings assigned to such terms in Section 5 hereof.
2. Purchase Price. The \[Purchaser\] \[Representative\] acknowledges that it is purchasing the
Bonds for an aggregate purchase price of $_______________ (par amount of Bonds of $1,335,000, plus
original issue premium of $_______, less original is
d interest in the amount of $____________.
3. Receipt of Bonds. The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of $1,335,000 in
original aggregate principal amount of the Bonds from the Issuer, fully executed and authenticated. \[The
\[Purchaser\] \[Representative\] has paid to \[NAME OF INSURER\] the sum of $______________ as a
premium for an insurance policy for the Bonds.\]
4. Representations. The representations set forth in this Certificate of Purchaser (the
thing in this Certificate represents the interpretation
by the \[Purchaser\] \[Representative\] of any laws, including specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. The
undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon by: (i) the Issuer with respect
to certain of the representations set forth in a tax certificate of the Issuer executed on the date hereof with
respect to compliance with the federal income tax rules affecting the Bonds; and (ii) Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross
income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of Information Return for Tax-Exempt
Governmental Obligations, Form 8038-G, and other federal income tax advice that it may give to the
Issuer from time to time relating to the Bonds.
A-A-1
CE155-29-699697.v1
5. Defined Terms.
it and payment terms. Bonds with different
maturity dates, or Bonds with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as
separate Maturities.
ncluding an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association,
company, or corporation) other than an Underwriter or a related party to an Underwriter. The term
s, with respect to a purchaser of the Bonds, if the
Underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly or indirectly, to (i) more than fifty percent (50%)
common ownership of the voting power or the total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations
(including direct ownership by one corporation of another); (ii) more than fifty percent (50%) common
ownership of their capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships (including direct
ownership by one partnership of another); or (iii) more than fifty percent (50%) common ownership of the
value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the
partnership, as applicable, if one entity is a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including
direct ownership of the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other).
sale of a Maturity of the Bonds. The Sale Date of the Bonds is February 24, 2021.
agrees pursuant to a written contract with the
Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of
the Bonds to the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly
with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the
Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in
the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public).
A-A-2
CE155-29-699697.v1
The undersigned, for and on behalf of \[NAME OF PURCHASER/REPRESENTATIVE\] (the
nd other underwriters listed below (collectively, the
nd issuance of the General Obligation Improvement
the original aggregate principal amount of $1,335,000, certifies as follows:
1. Initial Offering Price for the Bonds.
(a) The \[Purchaser\] \[Underwriting Group\] offered each Maturity of the Bonds to the Public
for purchase at the respective initial offering prices listed in EXHIBIT A
valent communication for the Bonds is also attached
hereto in EXHIBIT A. Capitalized terms used herein that are otherwise not defined shall have the
meanings assigned to such terms in Section 5 hereof.
(b) As set forth in the Notice of Sale and the bid award, the \[Purchaser has\] \[members of the
Underwriting Group have\] agreed in writing that, (i) for each Maturity of the Bonds, \[it\] \[they\] would
neither offer nor sell any of the Bonds of such Maturity to any person at a price that is higher than the
Initial Offering Price for such Maturity during the
ement shall contain the agreement of each dealer
who is a member of the selling group, and any retail distribution agreement shall contain the agreement of
each broker-dealer who is a party to the retail distribution agreement, to comply with the Hold-the-
Offering-Price Rule. Pursuant to such agreement, no Underwriter has offered or sold any Maturity of the
Bonds at a price that is higher than the respective Initial Offering Price for that Maturity of the Bonds
during the Holding Period.
2. Purchase Price. The \[Purchaser\] \[Representative\] acknowledges that it is purchasing the
Bonds for an aggregate purchase price of $_______________ (par amount of Bonds of $1,335,000 plus
original issue premium of $_______, less original is
d interest in the amount of $____________.
3. Receipt of Bonds. The undersigned hereby acknowledges receipt of $1,335,000 in
original aggregate principal amount of the Bonds from the Issuer, fully executed and authenticated. \[The
\[Purchaser\] \[Representative\] has paid to \[NAME OF INSURER\] the sum of $______________ as a
premium for an insurance policy for the Bonds.\]
4. Representations. The representations set forth in this Certificate of Purchaser (the
thing in this Certificate represents the interpretation
by the \[Purchaser\] \[Representative\] of any laws, including specifically Sections 103 and 148 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. The
undersigned understands that the foregoing information will be relied upon by: (i) the Issuer with respect
to certain of the representations set forth in a tax certificate of the Issuer executed on the date hereof with
respect to compliance with the federal income tax rules affecting the Bonds; and (ii) Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, in connection with rendering its opinion that the interest on the Bonds is excluded from gross
income for federal income tax purposes, the preparation of Information Return for Tax-Exempt
Governmental Obligations, Form 8038-G, and other federal income tax advice that it may give to the
Issuer from time to time relating to the Bonds.
A-A-3
CE155-29-699697.v1
5. Defined Terms.
th
on the Sale Date and ending on the earlier of (i) the close of the 5 business day after the Sale Date, or (ii)
the date on which the \[Purchaser has\] \[Underwriters have\] sold at least 10% of such Maturity to the
Public at prices that are no higher than the Initial Offering Price for such Maturity.
it and payment terms. Bonds with different
maturity dates, or Bonds with the same maturity date but different stated interest rates, are treated as
separate Maturities.
ncluding an individual, trust, estate, partnership, association,
company, or corporation) other than an Underwriter or a related party to an Underwriter. The term
s, with respect to a purchaser of the Bonds, if the
Underwriter and the purchaser are subject, directly or indirectly, to (i) more than fifty percent (50%)
common ownership of the voting power or the total value of their stock, if both entities are corporations
(including direct ownership by one corporation of another); (ii) more than fifty percent (50%) common
ownership of their capital interests or profits interests, if both entities are partnerships (including direct
ownership by one partnership of another); or (iii) more than fifty percent (50%) common ownership of the
value of the outstanding stock of the corporation or the capital interests or profit interests of the
partnership, as applicable, if one entity is a corporation and the other entity is a partnership (including
direct ownership of the applicable stock or interests by one entity of the other).
there is a binding contract in writing for the
sale of a Maturity of the Bonds. The Sale Date of the Bonds is February 24, 2021.
agrees pursuant to a written contract with the
Issuer (or with the lead underwriter to form an underwriting syndicate) to participate in the initial sale of
the Bonds to the Public, and (ii) any person that agrees pursuant to a written contract directly or indirectly
with a person described in clause (i) of this paragraph to participate in the initial sale of the Bonds to the
Public (including a member of a selling group or a party to a retail distribution agreement participating in
the initial sale of the Bonds to the Public).
A-A-4
CE155-29-699697.v1
MUNICIPAL ADVISORY SERVICE AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA
AND
NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC.
This Agreement made and entered into by and between the City of Centerville, Minnesota (hereinafter
"City") and Northland Securities, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota (hereinafter "NSI").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City desires to have NSI provide it with advice on the structure, terms, timing and
other matters related to the issuance of the General Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series
2021A municipal (financial) advisor, and
WHEREAS, NSI is a registered municipal advisor with both the Securities and Exchange Commission
(registration # 866-00082-00), and
WHEREAS, NSI will act as municipal advisor in accordance with the duties and responsibilities of
Rule G-42 of the MSRB, and
WHEREAS, the MSRB provides a municipal advisory client brochure on its website (www.msrb.org)
that describes the protections that may be provided by the MSRB rules, including professional
competency, fair dealing, duty of loyalty, remedies for disputes and how to file a complaint with an
appropriate regulatory authority, and
WHEREAS, the City and NSI are entering into this Agreement to define the municipal advisory
relationship at the earliest opportunity related to the inception of the municipal advisory relationship
for the Debt, and
WHEREAS, NSI desires to furnish services to the City as hereinafter described,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY NSI
NSI shall provide the City with services necessary to analyze, structure, offer for sale and close the
Debt. The services will be tailored to meet the needs of this engagement and may include:
Planning and Development
1. Assist City officials to define the scope and the objectives for the Debt.
2. Investigate and consider reasonably feasible financing alternatives.
3. Assist the City in understanding the material risks, potential benefits, structure and other
characteristics of the recommended plan for the Debt, including issue structure, estimated debt
service payments, projected revenues, method of issuance, bond rating, sale timing, and call
provisions.
Municipal Advisory Service Agreement
4. Prepare a schedule of events related to the issuance process.
5. Coordinate with bond counsel any actions needed to authorize the issuance of the Debt.
6. Attend meetings of the City Council and other project and bond issue related meetings as needed
and as requested.
Bond Sale
1. Assist the City with the preparation, review and approval of the preliminary official statement
(POS).
2. Assist the City and bond counsel with preparing and publishing the Official Notice of Sale if
required by law.
3. Prepare and submit application for bond rating(s) and assist the City with furnishing the rating
agency(s) with any additional information required to conduct the rating review. Assist the City
with preparing and conducting the rating call or other presentation.
4. Assist the City in receiving the bids, compute the accuracy of the bids received, and recommend
to the City the most favorable bid for award.
5. Coordinate with bond counsel the preparation of required contracts and resolutions.
Post-Sale Support
1. Assist the City with the preparation of final official statement, distribution to the underwriter and
posting on EMMA.
2. Coordinate the bond issue closing, including making all arrangements for bond printing,
registration, and delivery.
3. Furnish to the City a complete transcript of the transaction, if not provided by bond counsel.
There are no specific limitations on the scope of this agreement.
COMPENSATION
For providing these services with respect to the Debt, NSI shall be paid a lump sum of $15,500. The
fee due to NSI shall be payable by the City upon the closing of the Bonds.
NSI agrees to pay the following expenses from its fee:
Out-of-pocket expenses such as travel, long distance phone, and copy costs.
Production and distribution of material to rating agencies and/or bond insurance companies.
Preparation of the bond transcript.
The City agrees to pay for all other expenses related to the processing of the bond issue(s) including,
but not limited to, the following:
Engineering and/or architectural fees.
Publication of legal notices.
Bond counsel and local attorney fees.
Fees for various debt certificates.
The cost of printing Official Statements, if any.
City staff expenses.
Airfare and lodging expenses of one NSI official and City officials when and if traveling for rating
agency presentations.
Rating agency fees, if any.
Bond insurance fees, if any.
Accounting and other related fees.
2
Municipal Advisory Service Agreement
It is expressly understood that there is no obligation on the part of the City under the terms of this
Agreement to issue the Debt. If the Debt is not issued, NSI agrees to pay its own expenses and receive
no fee for any municipal advisory services it has rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
NSI is not aware of any material conflicts of interest that could reasonably be anticipated to impair
NSIthe City in accordance with the standards of conduct
for municipal advisors.
The compensation for services provided in this Agreement is customary in the municipal securities
market, but may pose a conflict of interest. Since the fee is payable at closing and only if the Debt is
issued, NSI may have an incentive to encourage issuance. Compensation linked to the size of the
transaction may provide incentive to increase the amount of the Debt. Compensation considerations
to the City. In executing this Agreement, the City acknowledges and accepts the potential conflicts of
interest posed by the compensation to NSI.
Northland Capital Holdings is the parent company of NSI. Another subsidiary of Northland Capital
Holdings is Northland Trust, Inc. Northland Trust provides paying agent services to issuers of
municipal bonds. The City is solely responsible for the decision on the source of paying agent services.
Any engagement of Northland Trust is outside the scope of this Agreement. No compensation paid to
Northland Trust is shared with NSI.
NSI does not provide executive search, organizational development, compensation systems or other
management consulting services that may directly or indirectly affect City staff that recommend the
engagement of municipal advisor services and may pose a conflict of interest.
LEGAL AND DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
There are no legal or disciplinary events reported by the Securities and Exchange Commission
contained in Form MA or Form MA-I. The City can find information about these forms and accessing
information related to NSI at www.sec.gov/municipal/oms-edgar-links.
SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS
The terms and provisions of this Agreement are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the City and
NSI and their successors or assigns.
3
Finance Plan
City of Centerville, Minnesota
$1,335,000
General Obligation Improvement Refunding
Bonds, Series 2021A
February 4, 2021
150 South 5th Street, Suite 3300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-851-5900 800-851-2920
www.northlandsecurities.com
Member FINRA and SIPC | Registered with SEC and MSRB
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1
Issue Overview .................................................................................................................................... 2
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Authority ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Structure ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Security and Source of Repayment ................................................................................................... 3
Plan Rationale ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Issuing Process .......................................................................................................................................... 3
eliminary Debt Service Comparison ................................................................... 4
........................................................................ 5
............................................................................................ 6
Bank Qualification ............................................................................................................................ 6
Arbitrage Compliance .................................................................................................................... 6
Continuing Disclosure .................................................................................................................... 6
Premiums ............................................................................................................................................. 7
Rating .................................................................................................................................................... 7
.................................................................................................... 8
Attachment 5 - Risk Factors ................................................................................................................ 9
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 2
Executive Summary
The following is a summary of the recommended terms for the issuance of $1,335,000 General
Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series
on the proposed finance plan and issuing process can be found after the Executive Summary, in
Purpose
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to current refund the
outstanding maturities of the Citygation
Improvement Bonds, Series 2013A on March 31, 2021, and to
pay costs associated with the issuance of the Bonds.
Security
The Bonds will be a general obligation of the City. The City will
pledge for payment of the Bonds property tax levies. The
original issue was payable from both special assessments filed
against benefitted properties and property tax levies. The City
has since fully collected the special assessments and, therefore,
no additional assessments are anticipated to be collected to
secure payment of the refunding issue.
Repayment Term
The Bonds will mature annually each February 1 in the years
2022 - 2029. Interest on the Bonds will be payable on February
1, 2022 and semiannually thereafter on each August 1 and
February 1.
Refunding Summary
Estimated Savings: Gross savings $72,282
Net Present Value $75,497
Net PV Percent 5.37%
Other Factors: A change in the debt structure is proposed. Refer
to the Issue Overview for additional information.
Estimated Interest Rate
Average coupon: 0.66%
True interest cost (TIC): 0.92%
Prepayment Option
The Bonds will not be subject to redemption prior to their stated
maturities.
Rating
g
general obligation debt is currently rated "AA" by S&P.
Tax Status
The Bonds will be tax-exempt, bank qualified obligations.
Risk Factors
There are certain risks associated with all debt. Risk factors
related to the Bonds are discussed in Attachment 5.
Type of Bond Sale
Competitive Sale
Proposals Received
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 @ 10:30 A.M.
Council Consideration
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 @ 6:30 P.M.
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 1
Issue Overview
Purpose
Proceeds from the Bonds will be used to current refund the 2022 through 2029 maturities of the
31, 2021 and to pay costs associated with issuing the Bonds. The Refunded Bonds were issued to
finance various street improvements within the City. The Bonds have been sized based on
proceeds required to refund the outstanding maturities of the Refunded Bonds. The table below
contains the sources and uses of funds for the bond issue.
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds$1,335,000.00
Total Sources $1,335,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Deposit to Current Refunding Fund1,290,534.38
Costs of Issuance23,250.00
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.250%)16,687.50
Rounding Amount4,528.12
Total Uses $1,335,000.00
The Refunded Bonds became eligible for prepayment on February 1, 2020. The 2022 through 2029
maturities will be called for prepayment on Ma
portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be wired to Northland Trust Services, Inc., the Paying
Agent on the Refunded Bonds, on March 31, 2021 to prepay the outstanding principal and
accrued interest on the Refunded Bonds.
Based on current market conditions, we have estimated total savings of $72,282 with a present
value of $75,497, for the refunding of the Refunded Bonds. The projected annual savings are
shown in Attachment 1.
Authority
The Bonds will be issued pursuant to the authority of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475.
Structure
The Bonds have been structured to result in certain targeted annual levy amounts as provided by
the City, resulting in savings in the first 4 years of the structure with negative savings in the last
4 years of the Bonds structure, when compared to the Refunded Bonds, and extending the average
maturity of the new issue slightly. Currently, this structure for the Bonds produces an overall
positive savings result to the City.
The proposed structure for the bond issue and preliminary debt service projections are illustrated
in Attachment 2.
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 2
Security and Source of Repayment
The Bonds will be general obligations of the City. The finance plan relies on the following
assumptions for the revenues used to pay debt service, as provided by City staff:
Special Assessments (no longer pledged). The City originally levied special assessments
against benefited properties in the amount of $182,138 for Area A and $120,000 for Area B
to secure the payment of the Refunded Bonds. The assessments were payable over 15 years
and 10 years for Area A and Area B, respectively, with an interest rate of 4.00%, and
structured for level annual payments of principal and interest over their respective terms.
It is our understanding that all of the collections for these assessments have occurred ahead
of schedule and there are no outstanding collections due on these special assessments.
Property Taxes. The revenues needed to pay debt service on the Bonds are expected to
come from property tax levies. The below table shows initial projections of an annual tax
levy varying from year-to-year, which includes the statutory requirement of 105% of debt
service. The levy will be adjusted annually based on any additional monies in the debt
service fund. A tax levy was made in 2020 for repayment of the Refunded Bonds. 2021
collections of that levy will be used to pay the February 1, 2022 debt service payment on
the Bonds. The initial tax levy related to the Bonds will be made in 2021 for taxes payable
in 2022. The below table shows the estimated flow of funds, including the 5% overlevy.
Levy Collection
DateTotal P+I105% LevyNet LevyYearYear
02/01/2022131,599.01138,178.96138,178.9620202021
02/01/2023132,392.50139,012.13139,012.1320212022
02/01/2024116,892.50122,737.13122,737.1320222023
02/01/2025111,397.50116,967.38116,967.3820232024
02/01/2026255,872.50268,666.13268,666.1320242025
02/01/2027229,497.50240,972.38240,972.3820252026
02/01/2028213,147.50223,804.88223,804.8820262027
02/01/2029186,572.50195,901.13195,901.1320272028
Total$1,377,371.51$1,446,240.09$1,446,240.09
Plan Rationale
The Finance Plan recommended in this report is based on a variety of factors and information
provided by the City related to the financed pr
of the City and our experience in working with similar cities and projects. The issuance of General
Obligation Improvement Refunding Bonds provides
objectives and cost-effective financing. The City has successfully issued and managed this type
of debt for previous projects.
Issuing Process
Northland will receive bids to purchase the Bonds on Wednesday, February 24, 2021 at 10:30 AM.
Market conditions and the marketability of the Bonds support issuance through a competitive
sale. This process has been chosen as it is intended to produce the lowest combination of interest
expense and underwriting expense on the date and time set to receive bids. The calendar of events
for the issuing process can be found in Attachment 4.
Municipal Advisor: Northland Securities, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota
Bond Counsel: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Paying Agent: Northland Trust Services, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 3
Debt Service Comparison
DateTotal P+INet New D/SOld Net D/SSavings
02/01/2022131,599.01127,070.89188,206.2661,135.37
02/01/2023132,392.50132,392.50185,106.2652,713.76
02/01/2024116,892.50116,892.50186,812.5069,920.00
02/01/2025111,397.50111,397.50182,812.5071,415.00
02/01/2026255,872.50255,872.50183,812.50(72,060.00)
02/01/2027229,497.50229,497.50184,275.00(45,222.50)
02/01/2028213,147.50213,147.50179,600.00(33,547.50)
02/01/2029186,572.50186,572.50154,500.00(32,072.50)
Total$1,377,371.51$1,372,843.39$1,445,125.02$72,281.63
PV Analysis Summary (Net to Net)
Gross PV Debt Service Savings.....................70,968.65
Net PV Cashflow Savings @ 0.655%(Bond Yield).....70,968.65
Contingency or Rounding Amount....................4,528.12
Net Present Value Benefit $75,496.77
Net PV Benefit / $1,405,968.65 PV Refunded Debt Service5.370%
Net PV Benefit / $1,285,000 Refunded Principal...5.875%
Net PV Benefit / $1,335,000 Refunding Principal..5.655%
Refunding Bond Information
Refunding Dated Date 3/31/2021
Refunding Delivery Date 3/31/2021
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 4
DatePrincipalCouponInterestTotal P+IFiscal Total
03/31/2021-----
02/01/2022125,000.000.400%6,599.01131,599.01131,599.01
08/01/2022--3,696.253,696.25-
02/01/2023125,000.000.400%3,696.25128,696.25132,392.50
08/01/2023--3,446.253,446.25-
02/01/2024110,000.000.450%3,446.25113,446.25116,892.50
08/01/2024--3,198.753,198.75-
02/01/2025105,000.000.500%3,198.75108,198.75111,397.50
08/01/2025--2,936.252,936.25-
02/01/2026250,000.000.550%2,936.25252,936.25255,872.50
08/01/2026--2,248.752,248.75-
02/01/2027225,000.000.600%2,248.75227,248.75229,497.50
08/01/2027--1,573.751,573.75-
02/01/2028210,000.000.750%1,573.75211,573.75213,147.50
08/01/2028--786.25786.25-
02/01/2029185,000.000.850%786.25185,786.25186,572.50
Total$1,335,000.00-$42,371.51$1,377,371.51-
Date And Term Structure
Dated3/31/2021
Delivery Date3/31/2021
First available call date
Call Price-
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars$6,456.21
Average Life4.836 Years
Average Coupon0.6562909%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)0.9147631%
True Interest Cost (TIC)0.9211143%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.2988063%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost (NIC)0.9147631%
Weighted Average Maturity4.836 Years
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes0.6554135%
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 5
Bank Qualification
We understand the City (in combination with any subordinate taxing jurisdictions or debt issued
debt during this calendar year. Therefore, the Bonds will be
obligations pursuant to Federal Tax Law.
Arbitrage Compliance
Refunding Fund. All tax-exempt bond issues are subject to federal rebate requirements which
require all arbitrage earned to be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. A rebate exemption the City
down the entirety of the proceeds for refunding the Refunded Bonds within 6 months of issuance.
Debt Service Fund. The City must maintain a bona fide debt service fund for the Bonds or be
subject to yield restriction in the debt service fund. A bona fide debt service fund involves an
equal matching of revenues to debt service expense with a balance forward permitted equal to
the greater of the investment earnings in the fund during that year or 1/12 of the debt service of
that year.
The City should become familiar with the various Arbitrage Compliance requirements for this
bond issue. The Resolution for the Bonds prepared by Bond Counsel explains the requirements
in greater detail.
Continuing Disclosure
Type: Limited
Dissemination Agent: Northland Securities
The requirements for continuing disclosure are governed by SEC Rule 15c2-12. The primary
requirements of Rule 15c2-12 actually fall on underwriters. The Rule sets forth due diligence
cipal securities. Part of this requirement is
obtaining commitment from the issuer to provide continuing disclosure. The document
describing the continuing disclosure commitmen
Official Statement that will be prepared to offer the Bonds to investors.
The City has less than $10,000,000 of outstanding
disclosure. Historically, limited disclosure only required that certain information be provided
upon request. The 2010 amendments to the Rule added the provision that issuers must annually
provide financial information and operating data which is customarily prepared by the issuer
and is publicly available. Issuer
forth in the Rule, including, but not limited to, bond rating changes, call notices, and the issuance
, or bank placements) must be reported within
ten days of occurrence. Northland currently serves as dissemination agent for the City. We assist
with getting your annual report filed in compliance with limited continuing disclosure
regulations.
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 6
Premiums
In the current market environment, it is likely that bids received from underwriters will include
premiums. A premium bid occurs when the purchaser pays the City an amount in excess of the
par amount of a maturity in exchange for a higher coupon (interest rate). The use of premiums
itions, tax considerations for investors and other
regardless of premium.
A premium bid produces additional funds that can be used in several ways:
The premium means that the City needs less bond proceeds and can reduce the size of the
issue by the amount of the premium.
The premium can be deposited in the Debt Service Fund and used to pay principal and
interest.
Northland will work with City staff prior to the day of sale to determine use of premium (if any).
Rating
will not be requested for the Bonds due to the smaller size of the transaction and desired timing
of the bond sale.
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 7
The following checklist of items denotes each milestone activity as well as the members of the
finance team who will have the responsibility to complete it. Please note this proposed timetable
assumes regularly scheduled City Council meetings.
February 2021March 2021
SunMonTueWedThuFriSatSunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 28 29 30 31
April 2021May 2021
SunMonTueWedThuFriSatSunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1 2 3 1
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
Holiday
Action Required
DateActionResponsibleParty
February 3 Preliminary Official Statement Sent to City for Sign Off Northland
February 4 Finance Plan and Set Sale Resolution Sent to the City Northland, Bond
Counsel
City Council Action
February 17 Awarding Resolution sent to City Northland, Bond
Counsel
City Council Action,
Northland, Bond
Counsel
Bond Proposal Signed and Awarding Resolution
March 31 Closing on the Bonds (Proceeds Wired to Paying Agent Northland, City Staff,
on the Series 2013A Bonds) Bond Counsel
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 8
Attachment 5 - Risk Factors
Property Taxes: Property tax levies shown in this Finance Plan are based on projected debt service
and other revenues. Final levies will be set based on the results of sale. Levies should be reviewed
annually and adjusted as needed. The debt service levy must be included in the preliminary levy
for annual Truth in Taxation hearings. Future Legislative changes in the property tax system,
including the imposition of levy limits and changes in calculation of property values, would affect
plans for payment of debt service. Delinquent payment of property taxes would reduce revenues
available to pay debt service.
General: In addition to the risks described above, there are certain general risks associated with
the issuance of bonds. These risks include, but are not limited to:
Failure to comply with covenants in bond resolution.
Failure to comply with Undertaking for continuing disclosure.
Failure to comply with IRS regulations, including regulations related to use of the proceeds
and arbitrage/rebate. The IRS regulations govern the ability of the City to issue its bonds as
tax-exempt securities and failure to comply with the IRS regulations may lead to loss of tax-
exemption.
Northland Securities, Inc. Page 9
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
Requested Council Meeting Date:
Agenda Item Department:
, 2021
Administration/Legal
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Targeted Picketing Ordinance
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
In the wake of this summer's civil unrest, our neighboring city of Hugo experienced some protests in residential
neighborhoods. After these incidents, they enacted a "Targeted Picketing" ordinance. A copy of that ordinance
is attached. The work session to discuss the merits and risks associated with adopting the
same or similar ordinance.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
N/A
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By: ____________________________________
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By: ____________________________________
X
Vote Record: Aye Nay
_____
_____
Case Law example
Other (specify) ____________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_______________________________________________________________
_____ _____Ki
_____ ____________________________________________________________________
Administration Department Use:
Refer to: _________________________________
Consent
Tabled Until: ______________________________
Regular
Other: ___________________________________
Mark Statz
From:Kurt Glaser <kurtglaser@glaserlaw.net>
Sent:Wednesday, January 20, 2021 10:09 AM
To:Darion Love; Jim Mork; Mark Statz
Subject:Attorney - Client Protected Communication
Attachments:
State v. Castellano 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993).pdf
/ğǒƷźƚƓʹThisemailoriginatedoutsideourorganization;pleaseusecaution.
RE:TargetedResidentialPicketingOrdinance
Gentlemen,
Thanksfortherobustdiscussionyesterday.Ihaveattachedthedecisionfrom{ƷğƷĻǝ͵/ğƭƷĻƌƌğƓƚ wheretheMinnesota
CourtofAppealsaffirmedtheconceptthataCityordinanceagainsttargetedresidentialpicketingcanbeconstitutional.
Thecourt'sdiscussiontakesgreatpainstodefinethelawfulscopeofaresidentialpicketingordinance.IfCenterville
adoptssuchanordinance,thatordinanceshouldbeusedasa'lastresort'becausetheuseofthisordinancemayhave
theappearanceofsuppressinglawfulspeechandtheriskofimproperenforcementcanbecostly.
Ilookforwardtodiscussingthisattheworkshop.
Kurt
_______________________________________________________________________________
KurtB.Glaser
AttorneyAtLaw
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
333WashingtonAvenueNorth
405UnionPlazaBuilding
Minneapolis,Minnesota554011370
6122132425Direct
6123336513Main
1
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
Page 641 Thomas W. Strahan, Minneapolis, for
appellant.
506 N.W.2d 641
STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, Considered and decided by HUSPENI, P.J.,
v.and SCHUMACHER and KLAPHAKE, JJ.
Leo CASTELLANO, Appellant.
OPINION
No. C4-93-356.
Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
HUSPENI, Judge.
Sept. 28, 1993.
Appellant, convicted of violating a township
Page 643
ordinance that prohibits targeted residential
picketing, facially challenges the constitutionality
Syllabus by the Court
of the ordinance on the grounds of overbreadth
1. A municipal targeted residential picketing
and vagueness. We affirm.
ordinance is a constitutionally valid time, place,
FACTS
or manner regulation of expression in a public
forum if the ordinance is content-neutral,
On August 24, 1991, approximately 20 men
narrowly tailored to serve a significant
and women were picketing in the area of 5758
government interest, and leaves open ample
Meadowview Drive in the Town of White Bear.
alternative channels of communication.
Several of the individuals carried graphic signs
depicting aborted fetuses. Thomas Webber,
2. A municipal targeted residential picketing
Executive Director of Planned Parenthood of
ordinance that defines targeted residential
Minnesota, who resides at 5758 Meadowview
picketing as an "activity focused on a single
Drive, called the Ramsey County Sheriff's
residential dwelling without the consent of the
Department to report the noise and disruption
dwelling's occupant" is not unconstitutionally
caused by the protestors.
overbroad under the First Amendment or Frisby
v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101
A sheriff deputy arrived at 5758 Meadowview
L.Ed.2d 420 (1988), when activity is narrowly
Drive and talked to Webber. Webber told the
construed to mean solely "picketing activity."
deputy that appellant Leo Castellano
3. A municipal targeted residential picketing
Page 644
ordinance is not void for vagueness where the
ordinance provides sufficient notice that all
had stood directly in front of his residence for
targeted residential picketing is prohibited
approximately 30 minutes and shouted "Tom
"without the consent of the dwelling's occupant."
Webber in his hour of death" and "Pray for us
The ordinance's consent provision provides a
sinners now and in the hour of Tom Webber's
defense to a municipality's prima facie case that
hour of death" numerous times loudly enough to
focused residential picketing violated the
disrupt Webber and several other neighborhood
ordinance. Under the ordinance, an "occupant" is
residents.
a person with a legal right to control or to possess
the single residential dwelling.
The deputies informed the group that they
would be arrested if they continued to picket in
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Martin
front of Webber's residence on Meadowview
J. Costello, Hughes & Costello, St. Paul, John G.
Drive. The protestors reluctantly dispersed after
Dillon, Minneapolis, for respondent.
the deputy told them he would not debate the
legal issues involved and took photographs of the
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
graphic signs. Appellant, however, refused to N.W.2d 460, 464 (Minn.App.1990). The burden
leave the area and stayed in front of Webber's of proving the need of such a law rests with the
residence. He stated "I am not a part of the government. Id. (citing Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S.
group" and "\[t\]his is a public street." Appellant 414, 426, 108 S.Ct. 1886, 1894, 100 L.Ed.2d 425
then commenced marching in one place as though (1988)).
he was walking but did not physically leave the
I. Overbreadth
street in the area in front of Webber's residence.
Webber signed a certificate of arrest by private
In the area of freedom of expression, it is
citizen, and a deputy took appellant into custody
well-established that an overbroad
for violating the targeted residential picketing
ordinance. See White Bear Township, Minn.,
Page 645
Ordinance No. 63.
regulation may be subject to facial review and
The trial court denied appellant's motion to
invalidation even though the application in a
dismiss and held that the ordinance was
particular case may be constitutionally
constitutional. Based on stipulated facts, the trial
unobjectionable. Forsyth County, Ga. v.
court adjudicated appellant guilty of violating
Nationalist Movement, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct.
Ordinance No. 63 and ordered him to pay a $60
2395, 2400-01, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992).
fine plus a surcharge.
Permitting a facial challenge to allegedly
overbroad legislation is an exception to general
ISSUES
standing principles. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413
U.S. 601, 615, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 2917, 37 L.Ed.2d
1. Is the Town of White Bear, Minn.,
830 (1973). The exception is "based on an
Ordinance No. 63 (1990), prohibiting targeted
appreciation that the very existence of some
residential picketing, facially unconstitutional on
broadly written laws has the potential to chill the
the grounds of overbreadth?
expressive activity of others not before the court."
2. Is the Town of White Bear, Minn., Forsyth County, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2401.
Ordinance No. 63 (1990), prohibiting targeted
In order to invalidate a statute or ordinance
residential picketing, facially unconstitutional
on its face, the overbreadth not only must be real,
under the void for vagueness doctrine?
but "substantial." Board of Airport Comm'rs v.
ANALYSISJews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 574, 107 S.Ct.
2568, 2572, 96 L.Ed.2d 500 (1987). The
At issue in this case is a municipal ordinance
requirement that the overbreadth be substantial
prohibiting focused, or targeted residential
arose from the Court's recognition that striking an
1
picketing. The constitutionality of an ordinance
ordinance on overbreadth grounds imposed
is a question of law. See Hibbing Educ. Ass'n v.
"manifestly, strong medicine." Id. (quoting
Public Employment Relations Bd., 369 N.W.2d
Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 613, 93 S.Ct. at 2916). The
527, 529 (Minn.1985) (construction of a statute is
Court has required that there be a "realistic
clearly a question of law fully reviewable by an
danger that the statute itself will significantly
appellate court); State v. Clarke Plumbing &
compromise recognized First Amendment
Heating, Inc., 238 Minn. 192, 197, 56 N.W.2d 667,
protections of parties not before the Court" to
671 (1952) (whether an ordinance is
facially challenge legislation on overbreadth
constitutionally valid is a question of law).
grounds. Members of City Council of Los Angeles
Although ordinances are ordinarily afforded a
v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 801, 104
presumption of constitutionality, ordinances
S.Ct. 2118, 2126, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984).
restricting First Amendment rights are not so
presumed. Goward v. City of Minneapolis, 456
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
The United States Supreme Court addressed are narrowly tailored to serve a significant
the facial constitutionality of an ordinance government interest, and leave open ample
restricting residential picketing in Frisby v. alternative channels of communication.
Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d
Id.
420 (1988). In Frisby, the Court found
constitutional a Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance
Respondent argues that White Bear
that provided:
Ordinance No. 63 meets all the requirements of
Frisby. Appellant, conversely, would have this
It is unlawful for any person to engage in
court find the White Bear ordinance
picketing before or about the residence or
unconstitutional because it does not, in fact,
dwelling of any individual in the Town of
satisfy the requirements of Frisby. We agree with
Brookfield.
respondent that White Bear Ordinance No. 63 is
Id. at 477, 108 S.Ct. at 2498. The Brookfield facially constitutional under Frisby. However, we
ordinance stated that its purpose was "the believe that Frisby compels us to narrowly
protection and preservation of the home" through construe the White Bear Ordinance in order to
assurance "that members of the community enjoy avoid constitutional overbreadth. We address
in their homes and dwellings a feeling of well-each of the Frisby factors in turn.
being, tranquility, and privacy." Id. According to
Page 646
the Town of Brookfield, prohibiting residential
picketing was necessary because such picketing
A. Content Neutrality
"causes emotional disturbance and distress to the
occupants * * * \[and\] has as its object the
In First Amendment time, place, or manner
harassing of such occupants." Id.
cases, the principal inquiry in determining
whether legislation is content-neutral is "whether
An ordinance restricting targeted residential
the government has adopted a regulation of
picketing "operates at the core of the First
speech because of disagreement with the message
Amendment" because it prohibits picketing on
it conveys." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491
issues of public concern. Id. at 479, 108 S.Ct. at
U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 2754, 105 L.Ed.2d
2499. In Frisby, the Court stated that restrictions
661 (1989). An ordinance restricting expressive
on public issue picketing are typically subject to
activity is content-neutral so long as it is "justified
careful scrutiny because of the importance of
without reference to the content of the regulated
"uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on
speech." Id. (quoting Clark v. Community for
public issues. Id. (quoting New York Times Co. v.
Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 84 S.Ct. 710, 720-21,
S.Ct. 3065, 3069, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984)).
11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964)). The Court specifically
held that picketing on public streets is "the
The Frisby Court accepted the determination
archetype of a traditional public forum" and such
of the lower courts that the Brookfield ordinance
status is not lost because a public street runs
was content-neutral. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 482, 108
through a residential area. Id. 487 U.S. at 480,
S.Ct. at 2501. Appellant argues that Carey v.
108 S.Ct. at 2500. Although in a "quintessential
Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 100 S.Ct. 2286, 65 L.Ed.2d
public forum\[ \], the government may not prohibit
263 (1980) compels a conclusion that the White
all communicative activity," Perry Educ. Ass'n v.
Bear ordinance is not "content-neutral." We
Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45, 103
disagree and find Carey distinguishable. In Carey
S.Ct. 948, 955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983), the
the regulation prohibited residential picketing
government may
except for peaceful picketing of a place of
employment involved in a labor dispute. Id. at
enforce regulations of the time, place, and
457, 100 S.Ct. at 2288. Because the regulation in
manner of expression which are content-neutral,
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
Carey discriminated among speech-related S.Ct. at 2502. The Town of White Bear, in stating
activities in a public forum based upon content, its substantial interest "in the protection of
the Court considered whether the statute was residential privacy * * * and \[in\] protecting the
finely tailored to serve a substantial state interest. well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home
Id. at 462-63, 100 S.Ct. at 2291. The Court which is * * * of the highest order in a free and
determined that exempting labor picketing did civilized society," see Town of White Bear, Minn.,
not advance the state's asserted interest in Ordinance No. 63, § 2, parallels language of the
protecting residential privacy, id. at 465, 100 S.Ct. Court in Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at 2296
at 2293, and struck the regulation as (the "State's interest in protecting the well-being,
unconstitutional.tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of
the highest order in a free and civilized society").
Appellant has presented no evidence that the
Thus, the language of the White Bear Ordinance
Town of White Bear discriminatorily enacted the
meets fully the requirement that a valid
ordinance specifically to suppress expression
government interest be served by the regulation
espousing opposition to abortion. To the contrary,
of expression.
the White Bear ordinance unequivocally prohibits
all targeted residential picketing regardless of the C. Narrow in Scope
content of speech and is, therefore, content
In arguing that Ordinance No. 63
neutral. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S.Ct. at
unconstitutionally sweeps too broadly, appellant
2754.
essentially claims that the ordinance is not
B. Valid Governmental Interestnarrow in scope. He raises two concerns: (1) the
ordinance, in using the word "activity" in
In Ordinance No. 63, the Town of White Bear
describing targeted residential picketing,
specifically states that it has an interest in
protecting residential privacy. A similar Page 647
significant governmental interest was
includes within the sweep of regulation activity
acknowledged in Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, 108
that is clearly protected by the First Amendment;
S.Ct. at 2502. The Court has long recognized that:
and (2) the ordinance, in prohibiting expression
Preserving the sanctity of the home, the one unless the dwelling's "occupant" consents,
retreat to which men and women can repair to extends beyond the protection of the unwilling
escape from the tribulations of their daily listener. We believe each of these challenges must
pursuits, is surely an important value. * * * The fail.
State's interest in protecting the well-being,
"A statute is narrowly tailored if it targets and
tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of
eliminates no more than the exact source of the
the highest order in a free and civilized society.
'evil' it seeks to remedy." Frisby, 487 U.S. at 485,
Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at 2295-96. 108 S.Ct. at 2503 (citing Taxpayers for Vincent,
Because the home is "the last citadel of the tired, 466 U.S. at 808-810, 104 S.Ct. at 2130-32). Even
the weary and the sick," Gregory v. City of a complete ban can be narrowly tailored if each
Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 125, 89 S.Ct. 946, 954, 22 activity within the proscription's scope is an
L.Ed.2d 134 (1969) (Black, J., concurring), and is appropriately targeted evil. Id.
"one retreat to which men and women can repair
Frisby held that the Brookfield ordinance was
to escape from the tribulations of their daily
narrowly tailored despite its complete ban on
pursuits," Carey, 447 U.S. at 471, 100 S.Ct. at
focused residential picketing. The "evil" of
2295, the government may legislate to protect
targeted residential picketing, the presence of an
intrusion into the privacy of the home of
unwelcome visitor at the home, which the
unwilling listeners. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, 108
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
ordinance sought to eliminate was "created by the distribution of materials to neighborhood
medium of expression itself." Id. at 487, 108 S.Ct. residents, or solicitation by mail or in person.
at 2504. Frisby noted that the Brookfield
Appellant also argues that the White Bear
ordinance was narrowly directed at the
ordinance is not tailored narrowly enough to
household, not the public, and thus distinguished
4
protect only unwilling listeners in
cases which had struck down complete bans of
communication such as handbilling, solicitation,
Page 648
and marching, which communications were
directed at broader residential areas.
their homes, and that by extending protection to
"occupants" rather than to "residents" the
The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield
ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad and
ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a
vitiates any possibility of narrow construction. We
message to the general public, but to intrude upon
disagree. We believe the word "occupant," as used
the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially
in the ordinance, has a narrower definition than
offensive way.
5
appellant urges, and makes the White Bear
ordinance no broader than the one held
Id. at 486, 108 S.Ct. at 2503.
constitutional in Frisby.
The White Bear ordinance, like the Brookfield
An "occupant" is a person "having possessory
ordinance in Frisby, is "readily subject to a
rights, who can control what goes on on
narrowing construction that avoids constitutional
premises." Black's Law Dictionary 1078 (6th ed.
difficulties." See id. at 482, 108 S.Ct. at 2501. In
1990). Black's Law Dictionary also defines
construing the Brookfield ordinance, the Court
"occupant" as "\[o\]ne who has actual use,
stated:
possession or control of a thing." Id. Webster's
\[T\]he use of the singular form of the words defines "occupant" as
"residence" and "dwelling" suggests that the
one who takes possession of something that has
ordinance is intended to prohibit only picketing
no other owner and thereby acquires title by
focused on, and taking place in front of, a
occupancy * * * one who takes possession under
particular residence. * * * "Picketing," after all, is
title, lease, or tenancy at will * * * one who
defined as posting at a particular place, a
occupies a particular place or premises \[such as a\]
characterization in line with viewing the
tenant \[or a\] resident.
ordinance as limited to activity focused on a
singular residence.
Webster's Third New International
Dictionary 1560 (1961). Similarly, an "occupant"
Id. (emphasis added) (citing Webster's Third
is
New International Dictionary 1710 (1981) to
define picketing as "posting at a particular
one that occupies a position or place * * * one who
place").
has certain legal rights to or control over the
premises occupied.
Similarly, Ordinance No. 63 was not intended
2
to circumscribe all "activity," but only activity
American Heritage Dictionary of the English
constituting picketing in the focused sense. We
Language 1251 (3d ed. 1992).
interpret the White Bear ordinance in a limited
fashion to proscribe only "picketing activity"
"Resident," on the other hand, means a
focused on or taking place in front of a particular
"dweller, habitant or occupant." Black's Law
3
single residential dwelling. See id. So narrowed,
Dictionary 1309 (6th ed. 1990). Webster's defines
the ordinance would not prohibit constitutional
"resident" as "having an abode for a continued
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
length of time" or "one who resides in a place, one be persuaded to stay away. Such an individual
who dwells in a place for a period of some would be just as much captive as if in the home
duration." Webster's Third New International when the focused picketing commenced. See
Dictionary 1931 (1961). "Resident" is also defined Frisby, 487 U.S. at 488, 108 S.Ct. at 2504.
as "one who resides in a particular place
The targeted picketing ordinance of the Town
permanently or for an extended period."
of White Bear is narrowly tailored to protect
American Heritage Dictionary of the English
unwilling occupants of a single residential
Language 1535 (3d ed. 1992).
dwelling. The ordinance eliminates no more than
In view of the recognized definitions of the exact source of the "evil" it
"resident" and "occupant," we believe that
Page 649
"occupant," as used in the White Bear ordinance,
means an individual with a legal right to possess
seeks to remedy. See id. at 485, 108 S.Ct. at 2503.
or to control the single residential dwelling. A
guest, visitor, or contractor would not come
D. Alternative Means of Expression
within the definition of "occupant" because those
persons would not have some legal right to
The Frisby Court, after narrowly construing
possess or control the residence. Whether the
the Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance "to prohibit
ordinance used "resident" or "occupant," its
only picketing focused on, or taking place in front
protection would extend to those other than a fee
of, a particular residence," id. at 482, 108 S.Ct. at
owner and would cover those who had some legal
2501, had no difficulty in determining that the
right to possess or control the residence.
ordinance left open alternative channels of
communication. The Court held that the
Our interpretation of "occupant" as one who
ordinance did not prohibit general marching
has some legal right to possess or control the
through neighborhoods, walking a route in front
premises answers, we believe, appellant's
of an entire block of houses, or distributing
concerns that the White Bear ordinance is not
literature door-to-door or through the mail. Id. at
narrowly enough drafted to protect only
483, 108 S.Ct. at 2502.
"unwilling" listeners. The words "unless the
occupant consents" inform the potential
We agree with the Town of White Bear that
defendant that one not having the status of an
Ordinance No. 63 permits general dissemination
"occupant," even though that one be a "willing"
of ideas protected by the First Amendment.
listener, has no power to consent.
Because the prohibition is limited to targeted
picketing focused on and taking place in front of a
We also reject appellant's argument that the
single residential dwelling, picketers may enter,
ordinance is overbroad because it would be
alone or in groups, residential White Bear
violated regardless of whether the occupant was
neighborhoods, march the public streets,
home. Whether or not an occupant is home, the
distribute literature, and go door-to-door to
government has an interest in prohibiting
proselytize their views. Sufficient alternative
targeted residential picketing that invades the
channels of communication remain open under
sanctity of the home. To somehow justify the
Ordinance No. 63, as fully as they did under the
intrusion simply because the resident is not home
Brookfield, Wisconsin, ordinance found to be
would be to say that the "evil" of targeted
constitutional in Frisby. See id.
residential picketing only results if someone is
home. Although we recognize that the ordinance
In summary, the Town of White Bear has
is intended to protect residential privacy and
demonstrated the need for Ordinance No. 63. See
recipients unwilling to receive the
Goward, 456 N.W.2d at 464. The ordinance is
communication, an occupant returning home to
content-neutral, narrowly tailored to promote a
find picketers focused on his or her home might
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
significant government interest, and leaves open facie showing of a violation of the ordinance. The
alternative means of communication. See Perry, ordinance, therefore, does not give the
460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. at 955. Neither the government unbridled discretion to arbitrarily or
selection of the word "occupant" nor the concept discriminatorily enforce the ordinance. See id.
of "activity" as narrowly construed here causes Ordinance No. 63 provides fair notice that all
the ordinance to be substantively overbroad targeted residential picketing is prohibited. The
under Broadrick. Under Frisby, White Bear ordinance is not void for vagueness.
Ordinance No. 63 is a facially constitutional
DECISION
governmental regulation of the time, place or
manner of speech.
Town of White Bear, Minn., Ordinance No.
63 is facially constitutional.
II.
Affirmed.
Finally, appellant contends that Town of
White Bear Ordinance No. 63 is void for
---------------
vagueness. We disagree. The void-for-vagueness
doctrine, based upon due process,
1 In 1990, the Town of White Bear enacted an
ordinance regulating targeted residential
requires that a penal statute define the criminal
picketing. The ordinance, in full, provided as
offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary
follows:
people can understand what conduct is prohibited
and in a manner that does not encourage
SECTION 1. DEFINITION. For the purpose of
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
this Ordinance, "targeted residential picketing"
means an activity focused on a single residential
Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103
dwelling without the consent of the dwelling's
S.Ct. 1855, 1858, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). In the
occupant.
First Amendment context, the Court has "taken
special care to insist on fair warning when a
SECTION 2. TARGETED RESIDENTIAL
statute regulates expression." Marks v. United
PICKETING. The Town of White Bear has an
States, 430 U.S. 188, 196, 97 S.Ct. 990, 995, 51
interest in the protection of residential privacy
L.Ed.2d 260 (1977).
within the Town of White Bear and protecting the
well-being, tranquility and privacy of the home
Here, the ordinance prohibits all targeted
which is certainly of the highest order in a free
residential picketing unless the occupant of a
and civilized society. The Town Board of the Town
single residential dwelling has consented.
of White Bear further finds that, without resorting
Although appellant attempts to argue the
to targeted residential picketing, ample
ordinance is vague because a picketer will never
opportunities exist for those otherwise engaged in
know if an occupant will object to the content of
targeted residential picketing to exercise
the message, the language of the ordinance is
constitutionally protected freedom of speech and
clear and unambiguous. Because of the particular
expression.
intrusiveness that results from targeted
residential picketing, such picketing is presumed
SECTION 3. PROHIBITED. No person shall
to be without the consent of the occupant and the
engage in targeted residential picketing within the
ordinance sufficiently gives notice to picketers
Town of White Bear.
that focused picketing on a residence is prohibited
under the law. See Kolender, 461 U.S. at 357, 103
SECTION 4. PENALTY. Every person convicted of
S.Ct. at 1858. Should an occupant consent to the
a violation of any provision of this Ordinance
picketers' presence before his or her residence,
shall be punished as provided in Ordinance No.
the municipality will be unable to make a prima
26.
State v. Castellano, 506 N.W.2d 641 (Minn. App. 1993)
SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY. Should any section, that it drafted Ordinance No. 63 mindful of
subdivision, clause, or other provision of this Justice Stevens' concern.
Ordinance be held to be invalid by any court of
5 Appellant argues that the ordinance's use of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
"occupant" extends its protection to visitors,
affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole, or
guests, or even contractors working in a single
any part thereof, other than the part held to be
residential dwelling and other individuals who
invalid.
have a "substantially lessened privacy interest."
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance
shall take effect and be in force from and after its
passage and publication.
Town of White Bear, Minn., Ordinance No. 63
(1990).
2 "Activity" is defined as a "specified pursuit in
which a person partakes." American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language 18 (3d ed.
1992). In Frisby, after construing the Brookfield
ordinance to limit picketing focused on a
particular residence, the Court noted that its
construction was "in line with viewing the
ordinance as limited to activity focused on a
single residence." Frisby, 487 U.S. at 482, 108
S.Ct. at 2501 (emphasis added).
3 We believe that implicitly the ordinance
requires that the dwelling be used for residential,
not business or other pecuniary, purposes when
the picketing occurs. The ordinance expressly
states that it is intended to protect residential
privacy. In Town of Barrington v. Blake, 568 A.2d
1015 (R.I.1990), the Rhode Island court applied
Frisby and held constitutional a targeted
residential picketing ordinance which prohibited
picketing taking place in front of or adjacent to
property used for residential purposes "except
where such picketing relates to a use or activity
being carried on within such property." Id. 568
A.2d at 1017-18. The court noted that the
exemption narrowed the scope of the Barrington
ordinance beyond Frisby. Id. 568 A.2d at 1021.
4 A dissent in Frisby noted that the plain
language of the Brookfield ordinance applied to
communications "to willing and indifferent
recipients as well as to the unwilling." Frisby, 487
U.S. at 497, 108 S.Ct. at 2509 (Stevens, J.,
dissenting). The Town of White Bear represents
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
REQUEST FOR
COUNCIL ACTION
Agenda Item # Department: Requested Council Meeting Date:
February 10, 2021
Administration/Planning
IX.2
TITLE OF ISSUE:
Block 7 Redevelopment Recommendation
BACKGROUND AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
At a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission, EDA and City Council, on February 2,
2021, the group heard proposals from 2 different developers on the redevelopment of city-owned property
known as "Block 7". After hearing the proposals and debating the merits of each and after affording the public
an opportunity to comment, the P&Z Commission voted, unanimously, to recommend that the City Council
work with Centra Homes to negotiate a redevelopment agreement based on their proposal which included 24
for-sale townhomes. The proposals of both developers are attached for your review. At the direction of the
City Coucnil, staff would draft a purchase agreement and/or a Memorandum of Understanding which would
allow both parties to continue the due diligence necessary to formulate a developer's agreement, preliminary
plat, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development and other documents.
COST AND SOURCE(S) OF FUNDING:
TBD - Based on Proposal
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to direct staff to draft a purchase agreement and Memorandum of Understanding with Centra Homes
based on their proposal for the redevelopment of Block 7.
SUPPORTED DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Motion By: ____________________________________
Resolution Ordinance Contract Minutes Plan Map
Second By: ____________________________________
Vote Record: Aye Nay
_____
_____
Proposals
Other (specify) ____________
_____ _____
_____
_____
_______________________________________________________________
_____ _____Ki
_____ ____________________________________________________________________
Administration Department Use:
Refer to: _________________________________
Consent
Tabled Until: ______________________________
Regular
Other: ___________________________________
January 29, 2021
Planning and Zoning Commission
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Dear Chair and Commissioners:
Since, at least, the late 1990s, the city has been planning for the redevelopment of
Downtown Centerville. Several iterations of
consistently shown the downtown as a high-density and mixed-use district. In 2005, a
committee was formed and a formal downtown redevelopment plan was developed and
adopted by the City Council after an extensive public engagement process and input from
design professionals.
In the years since this plan was created, the city has taken a number of steps to ready the
downtown for redevelopment including the construction of a stormwater reclamation
system, eliminating the need for stormwater ponds in the downtown, streetscaping Main
Street with lights, trees and other decorative elements, acquiring remnant parcels from the
County and purchasing blighted homes on Block 7.
To date, there have not been any redevelopment projects completed in the downtown.
Approximately one year ago, the city was approached by two developers, each looking to
construct a 50+ unit apartment building on the Block 7 site. The c
Council reviewed those proposals and chose to pursue a development agreement with
Trident Development. After several months of negotiation, an impasse was reached as
the City Council elected not accept the devel
Financing (TIF) to help fund the project.
parties looking to develop the property. Each prospective developer has had different
ideas on how best to utilize the site. In an effort to best compare these proposals, staff
sent out a Request for Proposals (RFP) to all those who had recently expressed interest in
the property. Those firms receiving an RFP, included:
High Point Land
MWF Properties
Trident Development
Apollo Development
Centra Homes
Ebert Construction
The city received proposals from Centra Homes and Ebert Construction. Those
proposals are attached to this letter. Representatives from each firm will be on hand at
the Planning and Zoning Commbruary 2, 2021 (6:30 PM),
held via Zoom videoconference. Each respondent will be given an opportunity to present
their development proposal and stand for questions from the commission.
Staff Report
Both proposals appear to meet the zoning code and the overall intent of the Downtown
Master Plan. The Centra Homes proposal offers a larger financial commitment from the
developer, up-front, while the Ebert Construction proposal may offer a larger tax base
and higher density to drive retail interest in the downtown. Each proposal has identified
their ability to meet the obligations associated with the Community Development Block
Grant Funding used by the city to purchase portions of the land. Neither proposal is
seeking Tax Increment Financing.
The Planning and Zoning Commission should discuss the merits of each proposal and
make a recommendation to the City Council as to which developer may represent the best
opportunity for the city to forward its overall goals. The intent is for the City Council to
then choose a developer to engage with in further negotiations on a purchase agreement
Sincerely,
Mark R. Statz, PE
City Administrator/City Engineer
Attachments: RFP
Downtown Master Plan
Proposals
Cc: Centra Homes
Ebert Constrcution
Memorandum
Date: January 7, 2021
To: Prospective Developers
ity Administrator/Engineer
The city of Centerville is seeking proposals for the redevelopment of city-owned property
e proposals from several interested parties,
we are asking for information as detailed below.
Property Information
The city owns the eastern two-thirds of the block, or so, encompassing approximately 1.6
acres. Two existing homes on the west end of the block are not owned by the city and
not part of this proposal request. However, if the developer wished to approach these
homeowners and was able to negotiate a purchase, the city would consider the inclusion
of that property as part of the proposal. The site is served with municipal sewer and
water that run through the middle of the bl
requirements are accommodated at an offsite facility, allowing the entire parcel to be
developed at 85% impervious surface, without on-site treatment. A trunk storm sewer
pipe can be accessed at the southeast corner of the development. The trail running
through the property must be preserved or relocated on the property. It is part of a
regional trail that goes around Centerville Lake. A certificate of survey for the property
is available in pdf and AutoCAD formats. Soil borings and water table measurements are
available upon request.
The property is zoned M-2 (Mixed Use Neighborhood). This zoning district has a
minimum density of 12 units/acre, with a maximum of 30 units/acre. Retail space on the
first floor of a mixed-use building would be allowed, but is not required. The assembled
parcels are to be sold as one and replatted as part of the redevelopment project.
Development Restrictions
The city purchased these parcels, in part, with Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds, with a stated purpose of providing affordable housing. Therefore, the
proposed development will need to include an
mean that between 1 and 3 units need to be rented or sold to people making less than 50%
of the Area-wide Median Income (50% AMI) or less. It is anticipated that this may be
accomplished through covenants recorded against the property. If the proposer wishes to
eliminate this restriction, the CDBG funds would need to be repaid at a cost of $400,000.
Proposal Contents
Proposals should include a concept sketch which depicts the building(s) layout on the
site, parking and other site amenities. It should also include an elevation view of the
building(s) or pictures of buildings with similar architecture. In addition to a concept
sketch, proposals should have a narrative which explains the functionality of the
development, discussing things like target demographics, unit price points, unit sizes,
whether the units are for purchase or rent and how the affordability piece will be
addressed. Additionally, the narrative should discuss how the development meets the
Finally, proposers will need to fill in the attached outline of financial commitment. The
purpose of the financial commitment spreadsheet is to summarize the overall cost
implications to both developer and city. Proposers should fill in only the yellow
highlighted boxes with the percentage of each item they are prepared to make part of
their commitment. The spreadsheet will automatically allocate the remaining costs to the
city.
There is also a spot at the bottom of the spreadsheet to indicate a desire to request Tax
Increment Financing (TIF). It should be noted that the city has recently rejected TIF
proposals for the development of this block.
Proposals will be due on January 26, 2021 at 4:00 PM. They may be emailed to Mark
Statz, City Administrator/Engineer at mstatz@centervillemn.com . Proposals will be
kept confidential until they are made public by the issuance of the Agenda Packet on
Friday January 29, 2021.
Each developer may make a presentation to a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, City Council and Economic Development Commission on February 2, 2021
at 6:30 PM, via Zoom. If the proposing party wishes to utilize PowerPoint or other
presentation materials not included with the proposal submittal, those can be emailed to
Mark (see above) at any time prior to the meeting. Those submissions will be kept
confidential until the time of the meeting.
The city intends to evaluate all proposals and presentations for overall value. This means
be chosen as the winning proposal. The city
reserves the right to reject all proposals, negotiate with any party, or accept further
proposals. Proposals will not be binding, but will formulate the basis for further
negotiation, leading to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), purchase agreement for
her such agreement. If, during those
negotiations, the city feels that the terms laid out in the proposal are not being adhered to,
they may choose to end negotiations and begin with another party.
All questions regarding this RFP should be directed to Mark Statz at 651-775-5126.
Master Plan &
Development Guidelines
for
Downtown Centerville
Prepared for
The Centerville Downtown
Redevelopment Task Force
Prepared By
Damon Farber Associates
Benshoof & Associates
KKE Architects, Inc.
Adopted by City Council January 11, 2006
Revised by City Council - 2020
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Table of Contents
A.
B. Systems Gui
C. .................................................... 19
January 4, 2006 Page 1 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Downtown Redevelopment Task Force Members:
Kevin Amundsen Rick Terway
Bill Bisek Mike Thinesen
Jenny Dosch Tom Wood
Jennifer Klennert
Mayor Mary Capra
Tom Lee
John Meyer, City Financial Dir.
D. Love Mark Dallas Larson, City Administrator
Pangell
Consultant Team:
Damon Farber Associates Benshoof & Associates KKE Architects, Inc.
923 Nicollet Mall, Suite 200 10417 Excelsior Blvd, Suite 2 300 First Avenue N.
Mpls, MN 55402 Hopkins, MN 55343 Mpls, MN 55401
web: www.damonfarber.com web: www.benshoof.com web: www.kke.com
ph: 612.332.7522 ph: 952.238.1667 ph: 612.332.4200
We would like to thank the Downtown Redevelopment Task Force, the many
concerned citizens, business owners, City Staff, County Staff and local
politicians who contributed their time and ideas to the Master Plan. It is the
dedication and hard work of such individuals that make Centerville a thriving
community today and will provide vision for its future.
January 4, 2006 Page 2 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
A. INTRODUCTION
A. I. Intent of the Master Plan &
Development Guidelines
The Downtown Area Master Plan &
Development Guidelines propose
recommendations that will reinforce and
guide public/private investment in a manner
that will strengthen the viability of the area
and recommend Downtown Centerville as a
community destination of the highest quality.
The Master Plan is intended to guide the form
and character of development within
downtown for the next twenty years.
In the summer of 2005, Damon Farber
Traditional Mixed-Use Downtown
Associates was commissioned by the City of
Centerville to lead a community task force to
Mixed-Use neighborhood and downtown
prepare a master plan, a set of design
area.
guidelines and zoning amendments. The
purpose of the Master Plan & Development
A framework of transportation
Guidelines is to establish an appropriate
improvements needed to support the
framework for future redevelopment of
redevelopment of the area and to create
downtown as a vibrant Mixed-Use
appropriate levels of parking as well as
destination, to incorporate:
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access to
the downtown.
A set of design standards to guide the
architectural quality of new development
within the downtown area.
While subject to the following regulations
and guidelines, the plan layout shall be
flexible to respond to physical site
desires and a changing market.
The market analysis performed by the
McCombs Group in the fall of 2005 helped to
Looking South on Centerville Road at Main Street
define the overall quantity of retail,
commercial and residential that could occur
An overall vision for redevelopment
within the next twenty years.
of the area, including the pattern, form and
character of new development and open
The market analysis projects that the City of
space in the interest of creating a cohesive
Centerville will be able to sustain a total of
230,700 square feet of merchandise and
January 4, 2006 Page 3 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
A Master Plan Concept and Development
services including but not limited to
Guidelines would allow for this kind of
restaurants, specialty stores, clothing
creative flexibility. The Guidelines set
retailers, coffee shops,
standards for urban design relationships that
insurance offices, bank, daycare and
ensure the scale and character of
personal services. The Market Analysis also
redevelopment that the community expects,
predicts that the City of Centerville will be
while still allowing the developer to arrive at
well served by the addition of approximately
creative solutions that meet their financial
450 additional higher density residential units.
requirements and the needs of the end users.
The uses and square footages shown on the
Master Plan are based on this analysis with
consideration of the appropriate uses to occur
within the downtown area and transitions into
the surrounding neighborhoods.
The Master plan directs the design of the
street and open space network and
provides flexibility with the individual block
layout and dispersion of housing types to
meet City statutes, regulations and
guidelines within.
A.II Master Plan
Improved Pedestrian Environment
A number of goals emerged during the initial
meetings with downtown land owners, the
The intent of the Downtown Master Plan is
general public, the Downtown Task Force and
to provide a comfortable, safe, Mixed-Use
through the analysis of existing conditions and
community with emphasis on pedestrian
upon review of the Market Analysis conducted
oriented streetscapes, diverse housing
by the McCombs Group.
options, adequate open space and quality
architecture.
The goals were developed with an eye
towards providing the development
More specifically, the Guidelines are
community with a clear and concise
intended to:
understanding of the co
the downtown. The vision includes the desire
Ensure the compatible integration of
to incorporate the History of Centerville into
retail, office and residential uses.
the redevelopment.
Maintain a scale and form of
A system was needed to set standards for the
development that emphasizes sensitivity to
overall project but also to allow enough
the pedestrian environment and existing
flexibility for developers to tailor their
neighborhoods nearby.
individual projects within the downtown area
towards the needs of the end users.
Ensure the compatible integration of a
variety of housing types, including
townhouses, medium density and high
density residential.
January 4, 2006 Page 4 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
appropriate design standards. A range of
housing types will be available in
Minimize the impact of automobiles into
downtown, each meeting high design
the setting through strategies such a shared
standards. Centerville will meet the
challenge of managing growth while
different peak-hour parking demands can
enhancing the historic small town flavor,
share parking facilities.
safety and strong sense of community
Improve access to and from County
State Aid Highways 14 and 21.
- Task Force Vision Statement
History of Centerville
through: an integrated street network,
Centerville has a rich French-Canadian
provision of options for traffic flow, the
history with the first white settlers arriving to
design of streets with adequate width, and
the provision of on-street parking.
coming to the area for the abundant wildlife.
Prior to the white settlers moving into the area
Provide for public open space that uses
the Dakota Indians lived here in the 1600s
storm water treatment ponds as a visual and
and 1700s. At that time, this area was
recreational amenity to the project.
covered with dense woodlands and many
square miles of marshes, lakes, and
Ensure the compatibility of buildings with
waterways. The Dakotas abandoned their
respect to the specific character of their
settlement in the late 1700's, but returned
immediate context within each district.
annually to harvest wild rice.
Encourage active ground floor uses, such
Soon after, families from Canada arrived and
as restaurants, shops and services, to
settled here because it reminded them of
animate the street within the Mixed-Use
their former homeland. Several descendants
Corridors portion of the area.
of these original settlers still live in
Centerville.
Develop a better connection between
downtown and Centerville Lake
The city was officially established on August
11, 1857, when Minnesota was still a territory.
The task force developed a vision statement
At that time Centerville was known as
for the entire project that will guide the
Centerville Township and encompassed the
development of the plan and aid in the
current City of Centerville and the City of Lino
evaluation of development proposals.
Lakes. The downtown area of Centerville was
originally known as the French Section.
German immigrants settled farther to the west
town and will be a safe community where
in what is now part of the City of Lino Lakes.
people know their neighbors. The historic
The pioneers cleared the land for farming and
fabric of the downtown and the
agriculture soon followed. Residents formed
surrounding neighborhood provide a
the Church of St. Genevieve of Paris.
strong sense of place and pride for
The Downtown Redevelopment Task Force
residents. Residents will be able to walk to
wanted to build off of C
downtown through a well-connected trail
an emphasis on our uniqueness of having the
downtown still standing, but all of
will offer a mix of uses, with the small town
character preserved by
January 4, 2006 Page 5 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
A. III Purpose. What are Development
the building have been greatly modified and
Guidelines?
no long meet the criteria for registration as a
The primary purpose of Development
National Historic site. With this knowledge the
Guidelines is to set basic parameters,
Downtown Redevelopment Task Force felt the
describe preferences and design intent.
necessity to build off our heritage in the
These guidelines serve as a framework within
redesign plans for the downtown area.
which creative design can occur.
Development Guidelines are established to
You will see the French-Canadian reflection
ensure that public and private development
in the design plan with great detail given to
projects implement the Goals, Objectives,
iron work and building design reflective of turn
Policies and Character envisioned by the
of the century Canadian architecture.
community. The Guidelines provide a
framework to:
Enhance the quality of the built
environment;
Achieve quality contextual design
Achieve design that implements the vision
of each district in which the property is
located, thereby promoting an identity for the
downtown;
Encourage a diversity of architectural
styles that incorporate historic architectural
Quality Residential Architecture
elements and materials previously used
downtown;
Districts
The project area is broken into two unique
Provide design flexibility instead of
districts that relate directly to each other.
aesthetic control;
The Mixed-Use Corridors and the
Downtown Neighborhood district form the
Create a unique pedestrian-oriented
primary development opportunities within
environment; and;
the area.
Provide investor and property owner
The Mixed-Use Corridors will provide primarily
confidence through design continuity.
retail uses on the first floor with housing or
office uses above. It will become a pedestrian
The Development Guidelines encompass the
friendly town center and community
above goals through standards for new
destination.
construction that regulate site design,
building placement and building design.
The Downtown Neighborhood will provide a
range of medium to high density housing
Lastly, the Guidelines establish standards for
styles and choices for everyone from empty
seven important systems. The Guidelines
nesters to young professionals.
include an explanation of the general and
specific design principles promoted by each
aspect of the guidelines,
January 4, 2006 Page 6 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Transportation Systems Storm Water
as well as a variety of images describing
Systems
appropriate design solutions to implement
Utilities
Mix of Uses
those principles. This approach values
Parking Strategy
creativity and allows for numerous design
solutions for any particular project. The City
The Second document, Standards for Private
Administrator and Planning and Zoning
Development is intended to provide guidance
Commission are responsible for the
to the private developers as they take
administration of the Development Guidelines.
responsibility for individual components within
Projects in the Downtown Area must comply
the Master Plan. It will help assure that the
with the Development Guidelines, as well as
private development that takes place in the
the provisions of the City Code and
compliance will be determined during the site
objectives for the area.
plan review process.
The Standards for Private Development deal
with the two individual districts within the
Master Plan and the individual buildings
within those districts.
Well Detailed Buildings
A. IV Application
The format and content of these guidelines
are specifically tailored for use as a
reference workbook. They are organized into
two separate documents that are intended to
be used by two different audiences, the
Systems Guidelines and the Standards for
Private Development.
The first document, Systems Guidelines
provides design guidance for all elements of
the public infrastructure. It outlines issues and
provides design standards that apply to the
entire Downtown Area. It is intended as an
attachment to the Master Plan Document itself.
The Systems Guidelines describe the seven
distinct items of the overall infrastructure
framework:
Context
Improved Public Infrastructure
Open Space
January 4, 2006 Page 7 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Downtown Centerville Master Plan
January 4, 2006 Page 8 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
standalone district within the City; instead it
B. Systems Guidelines
will be a part of, and connect with, a variety of
local, city-wide and regional systems.
Systems Guidelines describe the elements
Each development project, whether a single
of the public infrastructure. The System
building, one lot, or a series of blocks, must
Guidelines outline issues and provides
provide reasonable links to these systems as
guidance for standards that apply to the entire
a primary design objective.
Downtown Area. It is intended as an
attachment to the Master Plan Document
Guideline Recommendations
itself. The Systems Guidelines will deal with
To ensure that the Downtown Area takes
the seven distinct items of the overall
full advantage of local and regional
infrastructure framework:
systems, development should:
Context
Provide safe, easily recognized
Open Space
connections to city and regional trail
Transportation Systems
systems;
Storm Water Systems
Utilities
Support increased use of transit services
Mix of Uses Parking
by maintenance of existing service to St.
Strategy
Paul and strengthen service to Minneapolis
for residents;
These seven items represent the overall
organizing elements that give shape and
Tie into, and improve, the utility network;
form to the public elements of the Master
Plan. Presumably, they will be adopted by
Integrate with and complement the
the City as part of the Master Plan, will
existing (and future) street framework;
become part of City policy and will be
implemented by the City or with City
Become an integral part of the city and
participation before or concurrently with the
county drainage/storm water management
work of private developers. The Systems
plan;
Guidelines will create the framework within
which the private parcels are allowed to be
Parks and open space will be easily
developed. They will prescribe Development
accessible to all Downtown Area residents,
Standards for all above ground, visible
visitors, people who work here and also for
elements of the public infrastructure
the citizens of Centerville and the
including street and roadway design,
surrounding area.
streetscape and landscape design,
pedestrian spaces, connectivity between
B. II. Open Space
private and public spaces, parking strategies
The overall design framework of the
and policy, etc. Systems Guidelines will
Downtown Area is based on links to LaMotte
prescribe everything in the public realm from
Park, trails, new open space downtown and
curb sections and paving materials to street
regional open space. The City of Centerville
lights, park benches, waste receptacles and
will take the lead role in local parks
tree species.
programming, design review, construction
sequencing, implementation and ultimately
B. I. Context
maintenance and operation of key public
Although unique to Centerville, the
spaces within this framework. The goal is to
Downtown Area is not intended to be a
link existing parks and trails
January 4, 2006 Page 9 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
defined in regional park plans with the trails
occurs on residential streets and a minimum
within the Downtown Area.
Encourage private development (block by
block) to share in the responsibility to
provide inviting, innovative and useable
green space as integral parts of each
development project;
church on the future of their land on
Centerville Lake and insure that public access
to the lake can be accommodated at some
point in the future;
Trails Provide Access to Downtown
Integrate storm water management
Of equal importance is the contribution from
components (meeting water quality and
each block and each development project to
quantity requirements) within both
this open space network, adding a variety of
public/private parks and open space
private, semi-private, and perhaps some
improvements. Together, the system of
additional public space throughout the
public and semi-public green space will
Downtown Area. Private development will
result in a welcoming public realm
share the responsibility to provide inviting,
throughout the revitalized downtown.
innovative and useable green space as
integral parts of individual parcel site design.
Guideline Recommendations
The Centerville Downtown Area will have new
open space that did not previously exist in the
City. Toward that end, Open Space guidelines
encourage the following:
Work with the City to create an integrated,
comprehensive open space system that links
with existing city and regional trails and open
space. Reroute the proposed regional trail
from CSAH 14 to Heritage Street, thus
providing a safer and more appealing
connection around downtown. Regional trail
connection will be maintained along CSAH 14
until parcels to the south are assembled for
Improved Access to Centerville Lake
development and will accommodate the
revised trail alignment shown on the master
B. III. Transportation Systems
plan;
The system of streets and public rights-of-
way are the primary way people will
experience downtown. It is critical that the
January 4, 2006 Page 10 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
and by eliminating mid-block access to
character and arrangement reinforce the
parking areas. Instead, the parking areas
higher standard of development proposed
would gain access from Sorel Street or
and improves the overall legibility of the
Progress Road. This allows for increased on-
system from what exists today. The
street parking and a safer pedestrian
following paragraphs provide the intended
environment. Additional amenities like
decorative street lighting, shade trees,
roadway system from a set of narrow
benches, planters and hanging baskets will
roadways that lack a unique sense of
begin to create a unique sense of place
character to an understandable system of
downtown. With these recommended
roads with high quality pedestrian space
enhancements, CSAH 14 will become a
and an image that reflects the higher
quality first impression to downtown
standard of development desired for
Centerville, will accommodate future traffic
downtown.
needs and become an amenity for business
owners within the downtown area.
County Road 21 Improvements Although
the County has no current plans for CSAH
21 (Centerville Road) aside from
improvements to the block south of CSAH
14) the Development Guidelines recommend
a desired street section for Centerville Road
that improves the pedestrian environment,
introduces on- street parking and continues
the pedestrian amenities recommended for
Existing Conditions on CSAH 14 at County Rd. 21
CSAH 14.
County State Aid Highway 14
The first section on page 13 depicts Anoka
Improvements
One of the primary objectives of the plan is to
21. The section below that illustrates the
improve the overall understandability and
Development Guidelines recommended
perceived quality of the transportation system.
design for CSAH 21. It is important to note
Characteristics and access associated with
that increasing the ROW width on Centerville
County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 14 are
Road will have a significant impact on existing
critical components to achieving this objective.
property owners on the west side of
Anoka County is currently planning on
Centerville Road. The existing parcel sizes
constructing improvements to County Road
have a depth of 150 feet. Reducing this depth
14 in 2007. The road will be widened from a
by 15 feet will make these parcels difficult to
50 foot right-of-way (ROW) to 100 feet. Many
redevelop given parking requirements for
buildings and properties on the north side of
retail and commercial. The Master Plan
CSAH 14 will be taken by the County.
illustrates a shared parking situation with St.
Utility improvements will also be made. This
project can become a catalyst for downtown
parking for the church and businesses along
change.
Centerville Road. It is important that this
arrangement be resolved prior to any
The Development Guidelines recommend
expansion of the Centerville Road ROW.
pedestrian scale improvements by relocating
the proposed trail system on the south side
of CSAH 14 to Heritage Street
January 4, 2006 Page 11 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Anoka County Design for CSAH 14
Recommended Design for CSAH 14
January 4, 2006 Page 12 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Anoka County Design for CSAH 21
Recommended Design for CSAH 21
January 4, 2006 Page 13 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
inside the stores. A positive visual image is
The Local Streets
important to retail success and to attracting
The further development of local
people to live downtown. Coordination with
commercial streets is important to attracting
Anoka County will be required for streetscape
and keeping high quality retailers in the
enhancements.
downtown area. Local streets will be easily
accessible from CSAH 14 and CSAH 21 and
The transportation improvements portrayed
will provide a clear and logical system for
in the Master Plan combine to provide the
shoppers and people living downtown to
Downtown Area with improved way finding,
access local shops. Once on foot, users of
easily accessible development parcels, easily
the area should be able to access the local
understood layout of streets and a system
sidewalks easily from parking areas and
that can be phased in as development
signage should orient them to the mixed use
occurs.
corridors. Too much signage can clutter the
streetscape and actually cause additional
The further development of neighborhood
confusion, while not enough can leave
streets will enhance the character of the
visitors with a sense of frustration. A balance
downtown neighborhood and differentiate
must be achieved.
the residential areas from the commercial
core. The provision of a wider right-of-way
The sidewalk materials, lighting and
allows for on-street parking as well as
landscaping all contribute to providing a high
sidewalks which improve connectivity
quality pedestrian experience. The visual
throughout the downtown.
image of the street influences the perceived
quality of goods and services
Recommended section for Local Commercial and Neighborhood Streets
January 4, 2006 Page 14 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
B. IV. Storm Water Systems
Guideline Recommendations
Integration of the storm water management
The overall drainage system for the area is
system and public open space will provide a
essential to the future performance and
unique amenity for the downtown and the City
function of the downtown and the improved
of Centerville.
water quality of Centerville Lake. The project
will provide a series of regional storm water
Design creativity, use of high quality materials
collection areas on the east and west ends of
and addressing safety concerns are critical
Sorel Street. The ponds will provide a visual
objectives to be addressed. The following
backdrop for new housing opportunities
objectives must also be addressed in the final
downtown. The project will comply with Best
design:
Management Practice (BMP) standards and
alternative storm water treatment applications
Regional storm water ponds.
will be explored to minimize capital costs,
future maintenance and improve water quality.
Provide fountains to improve water
oxygen levels.
Filter storm water prior to entering the
natural system.
Plant pond edges with native plantings to
discourage geese from using sodded
areas.
B. V. Utilities
A solid network of water distribution and
wastewater collection infrastructure is vital to
the health, safety, and welfare of the entire
Downtown Area. While understanding the
location, size and characteristics of individual
utility components is important, development
proposals must also acknowledge
awareness of the entire redevelopment area,
specifically how individual improvements
affect the overall utility system. The
downtown will also be served by a full
complement of utility connections including
cable television, fiber optic, electric, and
telephone.
Guideline Recommendations
Provide wastewater collection
infrastructure;
Ponds can become Visual Amenities
January 4, 2006 Page 15 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Install water distribution system for
potable water consumption and for fire
protection;
All utilities should be buried within City
Right-of-Way and make connections to
location;
All utilities designed according to City
standards.
Although utilities are not typically seen, they
play a vital role by establishing the needed
framework for development to move forward.
Downtown will be Connected
Plans for Utility Improvements
January 4, 2006 Page 16 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
overall needs of the Downtown Area. Parking
B. VI. Mix of Uses
will be provided through a combination of on-
The master plan identifies the desired mix of
street spaces and off- street surface lots to
uses within the downtown area. A horizontal
support the mix of uses at the core. Parking
and vertical mix of uses is desired within the
facilities should contribute to the overall
primary Mixed-Use Corridors. A mix of
character and image of the Downtown Area.
complimentary housing styles and scales
Parking facility edge design should include
should be incorporated into the Downtown
elements, colors and materials that reflect, or
neighborhood districts of the project. New
complement surrounding buildings and
uses should reinforce the public open space
landscape.
and activity at street- level. The mix of uses is
designed to promote daytime activity with
shoppers and workers and activity will
continue in the evening with residents and
visitors enjoying new entertainment
opportunities.
Parking Lots with Landscaped Edges
st
Mixed-Use Project with 1 Floor Retail
Guideline Recommendations
Parking guidelines encourage the following:
Guideline Recommendations
Promote vertical Mixed-Use within the
Locate off-street surface parking lots away
Mixed-Use Core of the project. Provide
from CSAH 14 and CSAH 21, either behind or
flexibility for developers wishing to be
to the side of primary buildings;
creative with potential retail uses in other
areas of the project;
Provide a combination of fencing,
landscaping and landform to screen parking
All uses should reinforce pedestrian
areas from all streets and important views;
activity at the street level.
Create strategies for shared parking
B. VII. Parking Strategy
between adjacent uses, taking advantage of
Balancing the realities of car-related
peak and off-peak cycles, business hours,
necessities (streets, parking and so on) and
nighttime activities, special events and other
the desired character is a significant
needs. This is especially important on the
challenge. The goal is to provide adequate
west side of Centerville Road;
parking, both quantity and location, while
promoting new strategies that support the
January 4, 2006 Page 17 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Work with the City to review existing
standards to provide flexibility including
hours for on-street parking, security and
enforcement practices, permit or metering;
The City should work with existing
businesses and land owners to explore the
possibility of creating a special service
district within downtown to pay for an
enhanced level of maintenance.
B. VIII. Summary
The Systems Guidelines will guide public
investment in the downtown and insure that
as development occurs the appropriate public
improvements are implemented based upon
community input, fiscally responsibility and an
overall vision for downtown.
January 4, 2006 Page 18 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
C. Document Two; Standards
characteristics and qualities of the district in
for Private Developments
non-technical terms.
C. I. Intent of the Standards
The section entitled Site Development
The
Standards describes each district with
are intended to provide guidance to the
language and terms that are normally
selected private developers as they begin to
associated with a zoning ordinance.
design the individual pieces that comprise the
It is the view from 20,000 feet in the air. Site
Downtown Area. The Standards will assure
Development Standards specify the
goals of the Downtown
relationship between buildings, their edges,
Area are met and that the individual pieces
streets and public spaces. The Standards
are well integrated and work together to
imply a strong link between architecture and
create a cohesive downtown within the City of
site, how buildings define, the spaces around
Centerville.
them and the visual and physical connections
between the private and public realm. Like a
These Standards for Private Development will
zoning ordinance, this section will prescribe
deal with the two individual districts within the
allowable uses, density, building bulk, height,
master plan (Mixed-Use Corridor and
Floor Area Ratio and parking requirements. It
Downtown Neighborhood District) and the
will also regulate the relationship of buildings
individual buildings within those districts.
to streets, pedestrian ways and open spaces.
Normally, bulk requirements establish upper
The Standards for Private Development
limits on the intensity of development in any
apply to all future redevelopment and
given district. Since a certain intensity of
remodeling efforts within the M-1 zoned
development will be needed in this area to
area. Therefore, all Standards and
sustain the public expenditure on
Guidelines must be met with future
infrastructure improvements, the requirements
improvements to existing and new
for this plan may also specify lower limits of
structures within Downtown Centerville.
bulk and intensity.
C. I. a. Structure of the Standards Unlike
If Site Development Standards are called the
guidelines for other projects, these
Architectural
standards are prepared in a multi-layered
Guidelines
fashion. They will have three distinct but
overall goals prescribed by the Site
interrelated parts. Ensuing sections of this
Development Standards are established, this
document specify the development
nearer view, the 5 foot perspective is needed
standards of each District individually and in
to ensure that the design, the details, the
greater detail. They are structured to plainly
quality and the craftsmanship of the private
components of the development are
in each of three categories below.
appropriate to and reflective of the overall
public goals of the downtown. From 20,000
District Overview
feet in the air, an $18,000 Chevrolet looks just
Site Development Standards
like a $70,000 Mercedes. But from 5 feet, there
Architectural Guidelines
are distinct differences in quality, detail and
amenities. In any development, the quality of
For each district, a section entitled District
the individual components and the quality of
Overview describes the desired
the details are equally as import as the plan
itself. Just like the car,
January 4, 2006 Page 19 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
C. I. c. District Overview
In addition to the public open space, the
downtown will be made at this five foot
master plan identifies two distinct districts
perspective.
that are available for private development.
Each of these districts will have its own
Architectural Guidelines define the desired
unique character, mix and intensity of use,
quality standards that are expected for all
thus each is defined by a unique guideline.
components within each district. They
The districts are intended to work together
establish the foundation of the architectural
as a part of the whole, to complement one
vision of the downtown. They may vary
another. The districts are:
somewhat from one district to the next but
they will strive to establish the guiding
Mixed-Use Corridors (M-1)
principles for the design of individual
The Mixed-Use Corridors provide the broadest
components of the plan so they will work
variety and highest intensity of development
together as parts of the whole. The
M- the downtown. The Standards will require
Architectural Guidelines will not be
both vertically and horizontally integrated mix
prescriptive. The use of elements and
of uses containing multi-level retail as well as
detailing that reflect French Canadian style
office and residential uses over ground floor
will be suggested, while the layout and
retail uses. Standards will also require public
architectural features will recognize current
open spaces, streets, sidewalks, plazas, etc.
retail and commercial uses.
that encourage and promote pedestrian
activity.
Architectural Guidelines will address
individual aspects of design in hopes of
Downtown Neighborhood (M-2)
establishing standards for quality and good
The Downtown Neighborhood is reserved for
design that can be applied to any style of
low-density and mid-rise housing. The district
design. In no order of importance, the
will allow the integration of service and/or
Architectural Guidelines will deal with such
restaurant related retail space that is
things as: scale and context; proportion and
integrated into the ground floor of residential
massing; articulation; materials and color;
buildings.
craftsmanship/detailing; signage; streetscape
and pedestrian environment; and
A more detailed description of each of the
sustainability.
two districts appears in the following
sections of this guideline.
As the guidelines move from the general to the
specific, the Architectural Guidelines establish
C. II. Standard for Private
separate goals for each district that regulate
Development; Mixed-Use Corridors
some or all of the major building and site
components listed below:
C. II. a. District Overview: Mixed-Use
Corridors
Building Character and Expression
The overarching objective of the Standards
Scale, Proportion & Height
for Private Development for the Mixed-Use
Windows & Doors
Corridors is to create a unique opportunity
Materials,Str
to focus on the creation of a contemporary,
eetscape
innovative, new urban development pattern
that promotes richness and variety in the built
C. I. b. Review and Approvals Process
environment.
See proposed zoning.
January 4, 2006 Page 20 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Therefore, the Mixed-Use Corridors will
provide the broadest variety, highest density
and greatest intensity of development within
the Downtown Area. Both vertical and
horizontal integration of uses will be required
as well as elements promoting pedestrian
circulation within the district.
Major retailers, supporting services, lifestyle
and impulse retailers and their related parking
facilities will be encouraged to locate in multi-
level, Mixed-Use and interconnected
Connections from Parking to Retail
buildings. In addition to this vital mix, the
guidelines for the Mixed-Use Corridors will
Characteristics: Mixed-Use Corridors
describe the qualities and character of a
The ground floor of all buildings will be
limited to retail and restaurant uses only.
Corridors. Compact buildings and high-density
They will be designed with storefronts,
blocks that define this district must include
entrances, windows and related
continuous built edges that relate directly to
streetscapes that encourage the greatest
streets and sidewalks. The Mixed-Use
level of pedestrian circulation and traffic as
Corridors must incorporate innovative parking
is possible.
strategies that support the mix of uses and
that provide convenient access to shopping
Ancillary uses, such as service and
destinations, restaurant and entertainment
delivery spaces will be allowed but
venues. Together these elements will create a
located away from pedestrian oriented
core area that is the c
storefronts.
place to see and to be seen within the
Downtown Area.
High-density housing and office uses on
the upper floors are encouraged. Except
These objectives require that the majority of
for entry lobbies, pure office uses and pure
buildings front on primary streets and
residential uses will be prohibited from the
pedestrian thoroughfares that may be part of
ground floor of buildings in this district;
any redevelopment plan and may connect to
or relate to public open spaces. Parking and
Surface parking is to be confined to
service areas should be located internal to or
shared or municipal parking facilities.
on the sides of buildings, away from view.
Quick-stop parking needs such as dry
Pedestrian access to the retail fronts of
cleaners and coffee shops or parallel
buildings is critically important. Mid-block
parking on public or private streets also
access from parking is highly encouraged.
be encouraged but will be reviewed or
considered on an individual basis.
A mix of uses within individual blocks,
including retail, restaurant and residential, will
Building Placement and Setbacks:
further enhance this model and promote
Mixed-Use Corridors
activity throughout much of the day and
evening hours. Site development guidelines
Buildings should be located at the build-
include the following:
to lines (zero setback), but allow
January 4, 2006 Page 21 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Rendering of Possible Architectural Character at Main Street & Centerville Road
recessed spaces for outdoor dining, other
Parking Strategies: Mixed-Use Corridors
street level activities and variety of
Provide required parking spaces for
pedestrian environment. 80% of building
daily use that satisfy both quantity and
facades should address the build-to lines;
location needs through a mix of on
street and off-street parking solutions
Great emphasis should be given to with a minimum of small surface lots;
building features located at the
intersection of Centerville Road and Encourage shared, district or municipal
Main Street or where other streets parking facilities that minimize total
intersect these two main roads. These parking numbers by taking advantage of
locations will be seen from several around the clock and peak/off-peak hours
directions and terminate views. They of operation for various uses within the
will become future landmarks and way core area;
finding icons as the Downtown Area
develops;
Locate any surface parking lots away
from the major streets, either behind or
Minimize openings between buildings. to the side of primary buildings; surface
Limited driveway access and provisions parking lots along major street frontage
for pedestrian connections through blocks are not allowed in the core area;
are encouraged. Gaps between buildings
to accommodate surface parking lots,
Encourage driveway access to parking
greater building setbacks or other
facilities along major streets or side
purposes are discouraged;
streets in order to maintain a pedestrian
friendly environment within the Mixed-
Encourage recessed entries and Use Corridors.
windows to create street-level interest,
variety and enhance pedestrian scale
along street frontage.
January 4, 2006 Page 22 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Floor Area Ratio:
By individual review, but multi-story buildings
are encouraged throughout the Mixed-Use
Corridors. Free standing, single story
buildings are discouraged.
Minimum Building Height: 32 ft.
Maximum Building Height: Three floors or
45 ft. Subject to individual review.
Off Street Parking- Retail/Office
Parking facilities within the Mixed-Use
Corridors will be subject to individual review.
Parking facilities for the retail and public uses
will be considered to be part of the public
infrastructure and may be co- developed with
facilities will be encouraged.
Off Street Parking - Residential
Parking Strategy Includes On-Street
Private and secure parking for residences
within the Mixed-Use Corridors will be fully
C. II. b. Site Development Standards:
enclosed in private facilities. Guest parking
Mixed-Use Corridors
may be accommodated in public facilities or
on-street. Parking demand will be market
Allowable Land Use
driven and subject to individual review. A
Retail, office and high density residential
minimum of one space per bedroom is
uses are all allowed in the Mixed-Use
anticipated. Private and secure parking for
Corridors. With the exception of office or
residences within the Mixed-Use Corridors
residential lobbies, retail and restaurant
will be fully enclosed in private facilities
uses should comprise the entire ground
where feasible.
floor of all buildings. The minim residential
density will be 12 units per acre, and the
D. II. c. Architectural Guidelines:
maximum density will be 30 units per
Mixed-Use Corridors
acre.
Building Character and Expression:
Minimum Lot Area: NA
Mixed-Use Corridors
Buildings in the Mixed-Use Corridors will play
Minimum Lot Width/Depth: NA
a major role in defining the overall character
of the district. The proposed mix of uses for
Front Build-to Lines; 80% of the lot frontage
this signature destination suggests the
must be built out to the built-to line or lot line.
potential for a variety of building types,
Where buildings front on common areas,
demanding creativity and innovation to
pedestrian ways or other open spaces, 80%
highlight unique architecture, while knitting
building facades must be built to the open
the entire district together as a coherent
space line. Driveways to parking facilities and
whole.
access drives to service areas are excepted.
The build-to line for new development along
Centerville road is o
Overall building design is an important
centerline.
consideration, but emphasis on first floor
façade treatments is essential to encourage
Rear Yard Setback:
street-level activity and enhance the
None. Subject to individual review.
pedestrian experience. Architecture is to be
January 4, 2006 Page 23 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
unarticulated façades;
public areas. Emphasis is to be on
creating highly animated design
solutions along all street frontages
and pedestrian ways.
Architectural guidelines include the
following:
st
Varied façade treatment at 1 Floor
Provide a variety of building types and
Emphasize Pedestrian Level Detail
styles, expressed both in large scale
(overall building) and small scale
Emphasize important intersections by
(design details);
placing distinctive architectural elements
or interesting façades at these prominent
Designs should minimize blank walls
locations;
along the public rights-of-way and
should consider all street frontages,
Provide a variety of front elevations for
including buildings at corners, as
rows of buildings along any given block;
primary elevations;
Scale, Proportion and Height: Mixed-
Emphasize transparency at street level
Use Corridors
Articulate front façades with projections
and recesses;
Encourage variety in building height
along front elevations and allow
Promote interesting, animated
changes in roof treatments.
architectural features without being
thematic or artificial. The use of
decorative wrought iron is encouraged
to evoke historical materials used and
fabricated downtown. Faux decorative
elements are discouraged; Avoid large,
January 4, 2006 Page 24 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Materials: Mixed-Use Corridors
Provide a diverse mix of materials,
applied in a variety of proportions,
Street Presence: Mixed-Use Corridors
exposures and detailing within a block,
Emphasize pedestrian experience with
or along a street;
canopies, decorative light fixtures and
Encourage durable, high quality
material detail. To promote consistency
materials;
in the public realm, the City will be
responsible for designing and building
Vinyl, metal and wood siding is not
streetscaping, with the costs
allowed except as a complimentary
borne by developers and/or abutting
material. Composite siding will be
property owners.
considered on a conditional use basis;
Encourage variety of color, texture and
Encourage the use of mostly brick or
materials to complement other
comparable alternative; minimum
streetscape elements;
requirement of 50% of non-glazed wall
area;
Conceal service entries, loading
facilities and mechanical services from
Metal and wood components are only
view along public streets;
acceptable as a complimentary material;
Create a continuous building edge along
Encourage overhead projections, either
street frontage, visually connecting
as a specific building component or as
adjacent buildings with complementary
permanent/temporary canopies;
façade treatments.
Windows and Doors: Mixed-Use
Corridors
Maximize glass openings for all ground
level, street front fa
retail, restaurant and other commercial
ground level façade, or demonstrate great
design through other means;
Provide real window openings for all street
facing façades above ground level
façade;
Provide recessed entries wherever
possible;
Doors and Windows Enhance the Street
Use clear or lightly tinted glass for all
or highly tinted glazing is not acceptable;
Provide primary access doors facing
public streets;
January 4, 2006 Page 25 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
A Quality Streetscape Enhances Downtown Business
Select materials that relate to the building
use, not artificially contrived or themed;
Include small scale elements, variety of
materials and careful detailing to support
street level activities and enhance the
pedestrian experience.
The use of wrought iron is highly encouraged to
reflect historical elements downtown.
Streetscape: Mixed-Use Corridors
Provide gracious sidewalk width to invite
pedestrian traffic;
Install street trees to frame the street and
provide scale and shade;
Provide street lighting that meets all safety
standards and design criteria, while creating a
unique character for this district;
Explore street light spacing, height and a
variety of fixture type that would support
proposed mix of uses and activities (note,
however, that too much light is as bad as too
little);
Characteristics:
Explore a range of options for streetscape
Downtown
improvements including special pavements,
Neighborhood
interesting concrete tinting or scoring patterns,
All resident parking shall be
additional plantings, ornamental fencing and
enclosed in underground or tuck
other features (note, however, that simpler is
under garages where feasible.
better and too much clutter is a negative).
Guest parking should be on-street or
located in small lots of no more than
20 cars each accessed from side
C. III. Standards for Private Development;
streets only. Parking for retail uses
Downtown Neighborhood
should be in small lots of no more
than 20 cars each, must not front on
D. III. a. Overview: Downtown Neighborhood
CSAH 14 or 21 and should be
accessed from side streets only;
The Downtown Neighborhood will be dominated by
high-density and medium density residential
developments in low-rise buildings of one, two and
three stories.
Buildings fronting on corners may
contain service and restaurant related
retail spaces on the ground floor
corners only. Housing density will range
from 20 to 45 units per acre.
January 4, 2006 Page 26 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
variety in architectural expression within
the district and on its public edges.
Private courtyards within and in
between buildings and opening toward
Parking Strategies:
the lake will be encouraged;
Downtown Neighborhood
All resident parking must be enclosed in
Pedestrian entries and lobbies should
below grade garages or garages that are
orient toward the public street. Access
internal to the sites where feasible.
To resident parking should be from
side streets as far as is possible. No
Parking spaces for ancillary retail should
access will be allowed from CSAH 14
be provided through a combination of on-
or 21;
street and surface lot parking solutions;
Buildings shall be set back no more
Minimize surface parking lots fronting on
than five (5) feet from the right-of-way
primary streets, locate surface parking
or roadway easement. All ground floor
lots away from the major streets, either
units oriented toward the street should
behind or to the side of buildings;
have stoops or porches. Ground floor
stoops at the first floor should have a
No more than 25% of street frontage
consistent setback 5-10 feet.
can be utilized for surface parking lots.
C. III. b. Site Development Standards:
Downtown Neighborhood
Allowable Land Use:
High density residential.
Ancillary, ground floor restaurant or
service related retail.
Maximum Lot Area: N/A
Minimum Lot Area: N/A
Front Build-to Lines:
Primary building facades should be consistent at the
Downtown Neighborhood Housing
built-to line. Build-to line shall be no more than 5 feet
from the right-of-way or roadway easement. Ground floor
stoops or porches may extend to 8 feet from the
Residential courts and private green
sidewalk. Setbacks from the built-to line for courtyards or
space: Downtown Neighborhood
other recesses shall not comprise more than 40% of the
There are many opportunities to
façade. All buildings must be built to the build-to lines at
integrate privately owned and
all street corners.
maintained courtyards and pocket parks
within this district. These small-scale
Side Street Setbacks: NA
Rear Yard Setbacks: NA
space, contribute to storm water
Internal Side Yard Setbacks: 5 feet from an adjoining
management and offer additional
residential property.
amenities to serve residents, building
tenants and adjacent uses. They can
help create great
January 4, 2006 Page 27 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
Downtown;
Minimum Residential Density: 12 units
per acre. 1,250 square feet/dwelling unit.
Avoid large, unarticulated façades;
Maximum Residential Density: 30 units
per acre. 900 square feet/dwelling unit.
Emphasize important intersections by
Maximum Retail Density:
placing distinctive architectural elements
Ground floor retail or restaurant space shall
or interesting façades at these prominent
be limited to 50% of the ground floor, floor
locations;
area and by adequacy of parking only. See
below.
Provide a variety of front elevations for
Building Height:
rows of buildings along any given block.
Building height in the Downtown
Neighborhood District shall be limited to three
Scale, Proportion and Height: Downtown
stories,
Neighborhood
Off Street Parking-Residential: See
Mixed-Use Corridors
Articulate front façades with projections
and recesses.
Private and secure parking for residences
Promote a maximum of two stories in this
within the Downtown Neighborhood will be
district, lower buildings are acceptable;
fully enclosed in private facilities where
continuous height rooflines should not
feasible. Guest parking may be
dominate any street frontage.
accommodated in public facilities or on-
street. Parking demand will be market
Encourage upper level setbacks and
driven and subject to individual review. A
variety of roof edge treatments.
minimum of one space per bedroom is
anticipated.
Street Presence:
Off Street Parking-Retail:
Downtown Neighborhood
Parking numbers, placement and access for
ancillary retail subject to individual review and
Emphasize pedestrian experience with
approval.
architectural features at street level
including stoops, steps porches awnings
C. III. c. Architectural Guidelines:
canopies, decorative light fixtures and
Downtown Neighborhood
material details.
Building Character and Expression:
Downtown Neighborhood
Encourage variety of color, texture and materials to
complement other streetscape elements.
Emphasize transparency of
Conceal service entries, loading facilities and
retail uses at street level to
mechanical services from view along public streets
encourage two way viewing
as much as possible.
and eyes on the street;
Create a continuous building edge for the majority
of street frontage, visually connecting adjacent
Promote interesting,
animated architectural
limited areas where gaps occur, architectural
features without being
treatments, windows and detailing of side façades
should match front façade.
decorative elements are
discouraged. The use of
wrought iron as an accent is
encouraged to recall historic
materials fabricated
January 4, 2006 Page 28 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
are not allowed.
Provide primary access doors facing
public streets.
Consistent Building Setbacks
Materials: Downtown Neighborhood
Provide a diverse mix of materials,
applied in a variety of proportions,
Building Setbacks provide space for
exposures and detailing within a block,
Small Front Yards.
or along a street.
Window and Doors: Downtown
Encourage durable, high quality
Neighborhood
materials - local sources if available.
Maximize glass openings
for all ground level, street
front façades, especially
for retail, restaurant and
other commercial uses.
Provide real window
openings for all street
facing façades.
Provide recessed
entries wherever
possible.
Use clear or lightly tinted
glass for all windows and
highly tinted glazing is
unacceptable; faux windows
January 4, 2006 Page 29 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
special pavements, interesting concrete
Siding is not allowed (vinyl, metal,
tinting or scoring patterns, additional
wood) except as a complimentary use.
plantings, ornamental fencing and other
features (note, however, that simpler is better
Encourage the use of mostly brick or
and too much clutter is a negative). To
comparable alternative; minimum
promote consistency in the public realm, the
requirement of 50% of non-glazed wall
City will be responsible for designing and
area.
building streetscaping, with the costs borne
by developers and/or abutting property
owners.
Metal and wood components are
acceptable as a complimentary use.
C. IV. Review and Approvals Process
Accommodate changes in material as
Development within the Downtown Area will
generally consist of a subdivision and site
walls and avoid terminating in the same
plan. In these cases, the applicant will follow
plane.
the normal subdivision and site plan
requirements of the City subject to the
Encourage overhead projections, either
submittal requirements contained herein. For
as a specific building component or as
subdivisions, expansion or façade
permanent/temporary canopies.
replacement of existing buildings, the review
process will include sketch plan review,
Avoid overly complex or arbitrary use of
preliminary plat, and final plat. Existing
materials.
businesses wishing to perform routine
maintenance such as window or door
Include smaller scale elements, variety
replacement or renovate a minor portion of
of materials and careful detailing to
their structure without adding square footage
support street level activities and
are subject to existing codes and will not be
enhance the pedestrian experience.
required to adhere to the development
guidelines. For site plans, the review process
Streetscape: Downtown Neighborhood
will include a preliminary site plan and final
site plan
Provide gracious sidewalk design to
invite pedestrian traffic.
Install street trees to frame the street
and provide shade.
Provide street lighting that meets all safety
standards and design criteria, while
creating a unique character for this
district.
Explore street light spacing, height and a
variety of fixture type that would support
proposed mix of uses and activities.
Explore a range of options for
streetscape improvements including
January 4, 2006 Page 30 of 30
Downtown Centerville
Master Plan & Development Guidelines
January 4, 2006 Page 31 of 30
SAINT GEN
APARTMENTS
Centerville, MN
Market Rate Apartments
EBERT CONSTRUCTION
23350 County Road 10
Corcoran, MN 55357
Phone 763 498 7844
Email mmccarthy@ebertconst.com
0
1
Project Narrative
Location
The subject property is an undeveloped 1.6-acre parcel of
land located in downtown Centerville. It comprises the
eastern two- The
property was acquired and is owned by the City. It is located
in what is considered the downtown area.
The City of Centerville utilized Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to acquire the
property. A small portion of the property was acquired from
the County highway department over 20 years ago. There is a regional trail that runs through the
property and the development plan aims to preserve or relocate the trail in a creative way to benefit the
community.
Project Overview
rate multifamily rental housing project. The development
project will transform this long vacant lot into a three-story
apartment building with detached parking garages. The
building and the garages will be well designed to fit in with
the surrounding downtown area.
The property is zoned M-2 (Mixed Use Neighborhood) which
would allow a density of 12 units/acre, with a maximum of 30 units/acre. The project proposes 56-units,
seven units more than the allowed 48, and will required to be rezoned to a PUD to achieve that many
units.
The 56-unit building will consist of studio, one-bedroom, one-bedroom plus den, and two-bedroom units.
Three of the two-bedroom units will be dedicated to households at or below 80% of the Area Median
Income (AMI). Those units will likely benefit young families in the community who may not yet be ready
for home ownership.
Target Demographics include young people who are not ready to commit to purchasing or cannot
afford to purchase a home. Additionally, we believe that empty nesters looking to downsize their lives
would be interested renters. Based on the proposed rents of this apartment community, individuals or
households would need to make between $44,000 (for studio units) up to $60,000 (for two bedroom
units) annually to make the unit attainable at 30% of their income. Individuals attracted to the
proposed rents would likely be working class individuals or households in occupations such as
teaching, government services, manufacturing, restaurant/food services and warehousing.
www.ebertconst.com
2
Three units will be restricted to households at or below 80% of AMI, based on the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding utilized by the City to acquire the property. Although three
units will be required to meet that affordability restrictions, all the units would qualify at the proposed
rents because the market rates are below the 80% rents. The projected rents are listed in the table
below.
# of Average Unit Average Unit
Unit Types Units Sq Foot Rents
Studio 8 515 $1105
1 Bedroom 22 730 $1260
1 Bedroom + Den 8 800 $1355
2 Bedroom 18 1000 $1505
*Affordable to those at or below 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI).
The apartment would also offer residents the opportunity to lease an assigned parking stall in the
detached parking garage for approximately $50 as well as additional storage in the building for $30.
The building will be pet friendly and residents will pay approximately $40 per pet.
Project Economics
The proposed project is primarily going to be marketed to those who can afford market rate rents, except
for three units. We had previously considered a project that would incorporate more affordable units but
after discussion with the elected officials of Centerville we opted for a more market rate deal that would
not require Tax Increment Financing (TIF). To be clear, we are not requesting TIF.
To make the proposed rents possible, assistance from the city in the form of a land-write down and the
waiver of City fees are necessary. The development team is requesting the waiver of some fees but
would commit to pay others. The specific waiver is listed below in Table 2 City/Developer Fee
Commitments.
If we are not able to receive that assistance, we would have to raise our rents to rates that we do not
by performing a survey of
competitive properties in Lexington, Lino Lakes, Hugo and Forrest Lake because Centerville lacks new
or relatively new market rate apartment projects. These competitive properties have rents that are
comparable to the rents that are being proposed by this project.
www.ebertconst.com
3
Table 2 - City/Developer Fee Commitment
The following is a development economics table that was created to provide transparency into our
development review process. The left side of the table, which depicts the projects performance without
assistance, shows that our project would not work because our investors require a minimum Return on
Investment (ROI) of approximately 7%. As you can see on the right-hand side of the table, which depicts
assistance in the form of a land write-down and fee waivers, we are close to that investment hurdle at
a 6.93% ROI with assistance. Additionally, to achieve that ROI we would need to apply for a grant or
other sources funding of approximately $350,000 to reduce any further fee waivers. There are many
outside sources of funding (non-City sources) that could be utilized to fill the funding gap that do not put
a burden on the City. These funding sources are pots of money that are collected through general real
estate taxes throughout the county and MSA. If the city is unwilling to take advantage of these funding
source the monies would be spent in other communities.
www.ebertconst.com
4
Table 3 - Development Economics w/ and w/o Assistance
We feel that a land write-down is a reasonable request due to the properties long term undeveloped
status and the new additional tax revenue from this project. With certain City fees waived the project
can incorporate the relocation of utilities, the Sorrel Street improvements, the relocation of the regional
trail and the streetscaping Centerville Road into the budget. The regional trail runs through the property
and the development plan is to relocate the trail in a creative way to benefit the community. We are
requesting a waiver of the park dedication fee as we plan to relocate the regional trail and potentially
dedicate that property to the City. The table below summarizes the cost commitment to infrastructure
that the development team will make.
Table 4 - Infrastructure and Land Commitment
www.ebertconst.com
5
Benefits to the City and Downtown Revitalization
There are significant benefits from selecting a higher density and higher tax value apartment project.
These benefits include the added tax revenue as well as increases in housing choices. The added tax
revenue created by an apartment building would help the downtown revitalization efforts in several
ways. It will improve a blighted vacant lot so that it is producing revenue for the City in the form of
property tax as well as sales tax from new residents.
An apartment building will contribute significantly more tax revenue compared to a single-family home
or townhome development. It is likely that the proposed apartment project would provide approximately
$59,249 annually to the City of Centerville in tax revenue, whereas one single family or townhome unit
would provide around $1,588 annually in property tax revenue. The table below depicts the amount of
potential tax revenue created by the proposed apartment project vs. a townhome or single-family home
development. Additionally, it identifies that it would take approximately 37 single-family homes or
townhomes to generate the same amount of City tax revenue as the proposed market rate apartment
project.
Townhome/Single
Market Rate Apartments
Family Units < $500,000
Estimated Market Value $ 8,950,000.00 $300,000
Property Tax Class Rate 1.25% 1.00%
Net Tax Capacity $ 11,875.00 $ 3,000.00
Centerville Tax Rate 52.960% 52.960%
City Tax $ 59,249.000 $1588.8
Townhome/Single Family Units Needed to Generate as
37
Much Tax Revenue as this Proposed Multifamily Project
Additionally, a higher density apartment project would likely provide more sales tax revenue as the
residents shop at local retail. With the proposed unit mix the project would likely have around 80
residents, give-or-take. This is a significantly greater number of residents than a single family or
townhome development could provide at this site. When considering downtown revitalization efforts,
which hopes to attract a broader assortment of retail, it is critical to understand that greater population
is going to help efforts to attract more and better retail operators.
Goals of the Development Team
If this project were selected for the redevelopment , the development
team would be encouraged to work with the City of Centerville to further its downtown redevelopment
efforts. The Ebert team has deep connections in the retail market and would work to identify
opportunities to bring retailers to the downtown area in future phases. Although we feel this project
should be a stand-alone apartment building, our team sees other redevelopment opportunities in the
surrounding area where we would partner with the City in the future.
www.ebertconst.com
6
Project Design
Proposed Site Plan
www.ebertconst.com
7
Representative Images
Exterior Images
www.ebertconst.com
8
Interior Images
UNITS
AMENITIES
www.ebertconst.com
9
LOBBY
www.ebertconst.com
10
Exhibit A
RFP Financial Commitment Statement
Block 7 RFP 2021
Financial Commitment Statement
Ebert Construction
Project Summary Info
# of Developer Requested City
ItemUnit CostUnitsUnitsTotal Cost% DeveloperCommitment% CityCommitment
.ǒźƌķźƓŭ ğƌǒğƷźƚƓ /ğƌĭǒƌğƷźƚƓʹ
wĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌυЊЍБͲЊЏЌ9ğĭŷЎЏυБͲЋВАͲЊЋБЊЉЉіυБͲЋВАͲЊЋБЉіυЉ͵ЉЉ
wĻƷğźƌυЋЉЉ{CЉυЉЊЉЉіυЉЉіυЉ͵ЉЉ
ƚƷğƌυБͲЋВАͲЊЋБυБͲЋВАͲЊЋБυЉ͵ЉЉ
wĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌ 9ƨǒźǝğƌĻƓĭǤ
ƓźƷƭ Λw9
ΜʹvǒğƓƷźƷǤ
ƓźƷƭ
ƓźƷƭΉw9
w9
wĻƭźķĻƓƷźğƌЎЏ
ƓźƷƭЊЎЏ
wĻƷğźƌ w9
ƭЉ{CЊЉЉЉЉ
ƚƷğƌ w9
ƭЎЏ
wƚǒƓķĻķ w9
ƭЎЏ
Planning and Review Fees
Preliminary Plat$500.00per Site1$500100%$5000%$0
PUD for Conditional Use Permit$500.00per Site1$500100%$5000%$0
Total Planning Fees and Escrows$1,000$1,000$0
Building Permit Fee Calculation:
Residentail$7,361.49EA56$42,3150%$0100%$42,315
Retail$$00%$0100%$0
Plan Review Res. (65% of permit cost)$4,785$56$27,5050%$0100%$27,505
Plan Review Retail (65% of permit cost)$$00%$0100%$0
State Surcharge Res. (0.05% of valuation)$74$56$210%$0100%$21
State Surcharge Retail (0.05% of valuation)$$00%$0100%$0
Total Building Permit & Plan Review Fees$69,840$0$69,840
Utility Fees
SAC (MCES)$2,485REU56$139,160100%$139,1600%$0
SAC (City)$2,300REU56$128,8000%$0100%$128,800
WAC $1,850REU56$103,6000%$0100%$103,600
Lateral Benefit Charge - Sewer$8,100REUN/A$0$0$0
Lateral Benefit Charge - Water$8,000REUN/A$0$0$0
Storm Water Area Charge$0.05739SF69696$4,000100%$4,0000%$0
Total Utility Charges$375,560$143,160$232,400
Park Dedication Fees
Park Dedication Fee $3,000REU56$168,0000%$0100%$168,000
Total Park Dedication Fee$168,000$0$168,000
Misc Fees
3/4"" Meter$450.00meter1$450100%$4500%$0
Erosion Control Site Fee$360.00site1$360100%$3600%$0
Right of Way Permit$0.00site1$0100%$00%$0
Total Misc. Fees$810$810$0
Total City Fees$615,210$144,970$470,240
Other Infrastructure Costs
Land Sale$350,000.00site1$350,0000%$0100%$350,000.00
Utility Relocates$30,000.00site1$30,000100%$30,0000%$0.00
Trail Reroute$15,000.00site1$15,000100%$15,0000%$0.00
Sorel Street Improvements (assesment)$32,079.00site1$32,079100%$32,0790%$0.00
Streetscaping - Centerville Road (expecting)$185,000.00site1$185,000100%$185,0000%$0.00
Total Project Infrastructure Costs$612,079$262,079$350,000.00
Total Project Costs$1,227,289$407,048.85$820,240.47
TIF Requested$0.00
TIF Term Yrs26
TIF Category Affordable Housing
www.ebertconst.com