HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-11 CC
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11,2001
6:30 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
~ Roll Call
~ SET AGENDA
~ ~C HEARING(S)
. ~ Anoka County Board of Review
/ Ms. Roberta Wirth Letter
~. . APPEARANCES/AWARDS
~ CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
~ March 28, 2001 Meeting Minutes
~ PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS
~ Mr. Terry Sweeney (Questions - Mayor Swedberg's Goals)
~./ Mr. Wayne LeBlanc, (Lighting - Hunters Crossing) .f ..<c- /0 f.yz;...
. ~~ Mr. Bert Casper (Additional Lighting in Eagle Pass) -f'
/Vf': hi,..., ~~~Ik'
\.XII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
~. NE~SINESS
~~ /" l! Dlraft Goals/Trailways Discussion -- ~ J,\a..
~ Ordinance #39 (Signage) 0(...-- ~
Monument Si~n Design (Shea's Proposal) fi, 0 ~ ioV'.-J~
I!'./ Cable Franchise Update'" ___tlo",," ....v · ~ e,
l&" /County Bank (Request) - -e;",,,,
~ Community Gardens (Goetz Landscaping and Irrigation)
7. Resolution #01-008 (Abatement Parkview Assessment)
8. Resolution #01-009 (Abatement Hunters Crossing and Re-allocation
Assessment)
/' Parks and Recreations Recommendations to Conncil and Comments
~ CONSENT AGENDA
~ The City of Centerville March 29, through April 11, 2001 Expenditures
- ~ Centennial Fire District Expenditures
d' /' Pay Estimate #4 (Northdale Construction-Bunter's Crossing)
~ Water Testing MCES Lift Station #4 (Stork Twin City Testing Corp.)
if COMMITTEE REPORTS
, ~INISTRATOR'S REPpid'
/ 1OfM.e/o '5,~s JI.) "1'-cof'Ja.
l)'n. DJOURNMENT ,
. )
~~; , "'., -L
C~~~'
"
/
MEMO
DATE: April 6, 2001
TO
: Honorable Mayor and Council
"
FROM: Jim March
RE : Board of Review
......................-.....................................................
Representatives from the County Assessor's office will be present to conduct the board of
review. The board of review is designed to allow citizens in the community to question
the taxable valuations of their property. The County Assessor will meet with the citizens
interested in having their individual valuations reviewed. At a future meeting, the
Assessor will bring back the results ofhis evaluations for Council review.
This meeting is not related to our budget or our budget process. The meeting is strictly
for taxable market value examinations. One letter has been received at City Hall in
regards to the board of review.
~
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 28, 2001
6:30 p.m.
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the City of Centerville held their regula ly sc eduled
meeting on March 28,2001, at City Hall, 1880 Main Street.
PRESENT: Mayor Tim Swedberg
Council Member Dick .Travis
Council Member Mary Capra
Council Member Mari Nelson
Council Member Linda Broussard Vic
STAFF:
ABSENT: None.
I.
8,2 0 , City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
II.
b Council Member Broussard
All in favor. Motion carried
P ARANCES/A WARDS
Mr. Carl Buechler, 1286 Mound Trail, addressed Council requesting an overweight
permit allowing a crane to be brought in to assist in building his home. Mr. Buechler
stated he felt he deserved the permit due to construction delay. A recent complaint
regarding the placement of the home had been submitted to Council. Mr. Buechler stated
that the road in front of the home would be repaired subsequent to the completion of his
house.
Mr. March explained that the road in front of Mr. Buechler's home is not a road, rather a
sub-base for the road that Mr. Buechler intends on completing upon the placement of the
last home in the development. Mr. March stated that the previous Council had instructed
Staff not to issue overweight permits once road restrictions are effective in the spring.
March 28, 2001
Council Meeting Minutes
Mr. March stated that the road from Mound Trail to Main Street up to the first lot is in
good condition and is not being replaced.
Council Member Capra questioned whether Council could consider Mr. Buechler's
request or if it needed to wait; noting that Council had decided to address received
complaints at a subsequent meeting, allowing ample time to research same. Mr. Hoeft
explained that due to the short time frame involved, Mr. Buechler desired to have a truck
come in Friday of this week or Monday of next week, and it would be appropriate for
Council to consider this issue this evening.
Council Member Travis stated he did not feel it was a problem to issue the overweight
permit for a one (1) trip, empty truck. Council Member Travis requested that Staff
ensure that Mr. Buechler's letter of credit be in place for repairing the remaining portion
of the road prior to granting the permit. Mr. Peterson stated that the tonnage of the truck
that Mr. Buechler is requesting should not cause damage to the road. Mr. Palzer
concurred. Mr. Buechler stated that he located the smallest crane feasible to do the work
that is needed.
Council Member Nelson stated she felt there would always be an exception to the rule;
however, Council needed to stand firm on policy decisions made in the past. Council
Member Nelson stated that if the entire road needed to be replaced, she would consider
granting Mr. Buechler the overweight permit; however, a portion of the road is in good
condition and she opposes granting the permit.
Mr. Buechler stated that the crown of the road has good elevation and explained that a
garbage truck is heavier than the truck he is requesting. He then stated the road currently
is posted slightly higher than the weight of a pick up truck.
Mayor Swedberg stated he felt the City Administrator and the City Engineer should
determine whether or not to issue the overweight permit. Mr. March stated he has been
adhering to procedure directed by the previous Council regarding spring road restrictions.
Council Member Nelson stated she felt if Mr. Buechler was granted an overweight
permit, exceptions would need to be made for everyone.
Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that due to annual, seasonal differences,
addressing overweight permits on an individual basis was appropriate action. Mr. Palzer
stated that in his opinion, it would be acceptable to grant the overweight permit
requested.
Council Member Broussard Vickers stated she would not have a problem telling the next
person they could not have a permit if the conditions involved did not warrant same.
Council Member Broussard Vickers also stated that Mr. March should continue with the
procedures directed by Council. Mr. Hoeft stated that handling overweight permits on a
case-by-case basis was an appropriate procedure.
Motion by Council Member Travis. seconded by Council Member Broussard
Vickers to direct Staff to issue an overweight vehicle permit to Mr. Buechler. Ayes
Page 2 of 10
March 28,2001
Council Meeting Minutes
- 4 (Mayor Swedberg. Council Members Broussard Vickers. Capra and Travis)
Nays -1 (Nelson). Motion carried.
Council Member Capra commented that consistency was important and questioned how
many days Mr. Buechler needed the permit. Mr. Buechler stated he would have the truck
come early in the morning and leave right away.
V. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Council Member Nelson requested the following changes: On Page 4, second paragraph,
last sentence change "would" to "may". On Page 5, first paragraph, first sentence change
"borne" to "bore". On Page 12, second paragraph after Council Member Capra asks if
the money could come out of the sewer and water funds add that Mr. March stated that it
could.
Motion by Council Member Capra. seconded by Council Member Nelson to
approve the March 14. 2001 Council Minutes as amended. All in favor. Motion
carried unanimously. '-81/ ()..b ~~~ r
VI. PETITIONS AND COMPLAINTS
None.
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Communications Ad Hoc Committee
Ms. Theresa Brenner, Chairperson, requested that Ms. Andrea Witzel be added to the list
of residents that desired to be appointed to the Committee.
Council Member Capra expressed concern with appointing Ms. Patricia Scott to the
Committee as she is a subcontractor for the City and has a financial interest in the
outcome of the Committee.
Ms. Brenner stated she felt the Committee needed Ms. Scott's input due to her knowledge
and expertise. Council Member Capra stated she thought it would be fine to interview
Ms. Scott but did not feel Ms. Scott should be appointed to the Committee, as it is a
conflict of interest.
Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that Ms. Scott would be one (1) of six (6)
individuals serving on the Committee and there are many individuals who do business in
the City who are on Committees. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated she felt that
volunteers are bound by their integrity not to be involved in a decision they would benefit
financially from. Council Member Broussard Vickers stated that the Committee is an
Page 3 of 10
March 28, 200 I
Council Meeting Minutes
advisory Committee that makes recommendations to Council, with Council making
decisions.
Council Member Travis stated he had no problem appointing Ms. Scott to the Committee.
Council Member Capra stated she felt strongly that Ms. Scott should not be on the
Committee. Mayor Swedberg concurred that Ms. Scott had a large amount of knowledge
the City could benefit from; however, she also had financial and contractual interest.
Mayor Swedberg also concurred with Council Member Capra regarding conflict of
interest.
Motion by Council Member Nelson. seconded by Council Member Capra to appoint
Ms. Theresa Brenner. Mr. Tom Fairbrother. Mr. Loren Abrahamson. Mr. Craig
Bode. and Ms. Andrea Witzel to the Communications Ad Hoc Committee.
Nds.~
Council Member Travis questioned how Council Member ~ could move to keep
someone off the Committee after making a statement that she did not really know any of
the people recommended.
Council Member Broussard Vickers stated the Committee Chair had requested approval
of the individuals on the list, noting that there are others who may also have a financial
interest Council Member Broussard Vickers felt that Council should support the
recommendation of Ms. Brenner and stated that she finds it incredible that Council
Members have chosen to pick Ms. Scott as the one (1) to tighten up the rules on.
Mayor Swedberg stated that the League of Minnesota Cities states that a person cannot
make decisions if they have a contractual interest.
Mr. Hoeft stated that the Committee is an advisory board and members of same are
required to disclose any financial interest they may have, even though it technically is not
a conflict of interest.
Mayor Swedberg stated he believed Council, commission/committees are bound by the
same rules. Mr. Hoeft explained that commission/committee volunteers are bound to
disclosure financial interests and should abstain from discussion or voting on an item if
they feel it is appropriate; however, they are not required to do so. Mr. Hoeft stated that
if Council acted on an item forwarded from a commission/committee where an individual
had not disclosed a financial interest and did not abstain from the voting process, that
individual would be held responsible for their action.
Council Member Nelson stated that after hearing the advice of Mr. Hoeft she perceives
Ms. Scott to have a conflict of interest.
+
All in favor . Ayes - ~ (Mayor Swedberg. Council Members Capra. Nelson and
Vickers) Nays -1 (Council Member Travis). Motion carried.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Travis to appoint Ms. Scott to the Communications Ad Hoc Committee. Ayes - 2
Page 4 of 10
March 28, 2001
Council Meeting Minutes
(Council Members Broussard Vickers and Travis) Navs - 3 (Mayor Swedberg.
Council Members Nelson and Capra). Motion failed.
Ms. Brenner requested that Council permit tape recording of the Committee's meetings to
allow for transcription at a later date. Mr. March concurred.
Ms. Brenner stated that an item of discussion for the Committee's first meeting was a
survey and questioned whether the Council had plans for same.
Council Member Capra stated the Economic Development Committee had discussed
doing a survey with local businesses.
Mayor Swedberg stated that if Council adopted the National League of Cities Index, there
are survey methods that could be used utilized.
Council Member Broussard Vickers stated it would be fine for the Committee to put
together the majority of the survey with input from commission/committees if desired.
2. Authorization to Advertise for Full-Time Receptionist
Mr. March requested that this item be tabled allowing additional time to ascertain the
appropriate level of Staffing needed. Mr. March stated that he is researching the
availability of interns for the summer months for code enforcement and other issues that
may affect Staffing needs.
Motion by Council Member Nelson. seconded by Council Member Capra to remove
this item from the agenda. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Nelson questioned the speed of the LaserFiche software when Mr.
March was reviewing same. Mr. March stated that he had arranged for a LaserFische
representative to review the City's computers and files on April 5, 2001. It was
anticipated that this information would provide enough resources to allow a proposal to
be submitted by Crabtree Companies, Inc. Mr. March stated that the system appeared to
be fast.
3. Fete des Lacs 2001 Budget
Mr. Ray DeVine, Chairperson, appeared before Council to ascertain whether Council had
any questions on the budget information submitted in the packet.
Mayor Swedberg stated that the Fete des Lacs - City Celebration was important to the
City as it shows City pride and features the best of what Centerville has to offer. Mayor
Swedberg also stated that contained in his goals presented to Council, a revolving fund or
special fund containing $35,000 for expenditures associated with the Celebration. Mayor
Swedberg stated that monies would be replenished from revenue earned from the
Celebration. Mayor Swedberg requested that Mr. March assist in financial accountability
for the committee.
Page 5 of 10
r
wO..r--
~Vftr-'
March 28,2001
Council Meeting Minutes
Mr. DeVine stated that information provided form the 2001 Celebration would assist
those who plan for the 2002 Celebration.
Mr. March stated that the Funds that the Mayor had referred to would be an account
accessible by Staff to advance funds, up to $35,000, as needed. Funds would not be
dedicated to a Celebration account.
Mr. March announced that a carnival had been retained for the Fete des Lacs - City
Celebration.
Mr. De Vine thanked Mr. March for his efforts in arranging a carnival and stated that the
addition would make a large contribution to the Celebration.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Travis to establish a City Celebration fund. to be named by the City Administrator.
which authorizes Staff to advance up to $35.000 for the Fete des Lacs City
Celebration. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. DeVine explained he had received an invitation to attend a meeting for cities/events
that are hosting a regional or state softball tournament.
Council Member Nelson questioned whether the Fete des Lacs Committee was subject to
the open meeting laws. Mr. Hoeft stated that the formal meeting is open to the public and
suggested that there not be a quorum of members present for subcommittee meetings.
Mr. De Vine indicated that the Committee has limited the subcommittees to two (2)
formal members of the larger Committee and is using outside residents to make up the
rest of the subcommittee.
4. Anoka County Agreement for Residential Recycling Program
Motion by Council Member Nelson. seconded by Council Member Broussard
Vickers to authorize the acce{Jtance of the Anoka County A2reement for Residential
Recyclin2 Program. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Spring Lake Park Lion's Charitable Gambling Premise Permit Renewal
Mr. March stated that the Spring Lake Park Lion's have requested renewal of their
gambling premise permit to operate at Kelly's Komer. Mr. March explained the City of
Centerville receives part of the proceeds and those proceeds are being placed into a fund
to be used for either an entrance monument sign or possibly a park shelter building.
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Nelson to approve the renewal of the charitable gamblin2 permit for the Spring
Lake Park Lion's at Kellv's Korner. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 6 of 10
March 28, 2001
Council Meeting Minutes
6. Laurie LaMotte Memorial Park Grant
Mr. March stated that Staff would be assembling the final grant application package the
following day for submission.
Council recessed at 7:40 p.m.
Council reconvened at 7:45 p.m.
7. Turcotte Purchase Agreement
Mr. Hoeft stated that the only modifications contained in the draft Purchase Agreement
was not limit the purchase agreement to a specific time frame as had been done
previously. The price remains at $139,000.
Council Member Capra questioned whether Mrs. Turcotte desired to live there until she
found another place to live. Mr. March stated Mrs. Turcotte had indicated she would be
accepted into the facility she desires to enter at any time. Mr. March stated that he had
mentioned to her, that at some point in time, the City would want a specific date when
she would be moving out and she seemed to understand.
Mayor Swedberg requested that Mr. March give some background on the Turcotte
property. Mr. March explained that the Turcotte property is located at 7073 Centerville
Road and is a duplex that has had numerous structural additions. Mr. March stated that
the property abuts the old Public Works site and acquiring same would be an asset for
downtown revitalization of the entire block.
Mr. Hoeft requested that Council direct Staff to enter into negotIatIOns with Mrs.
Turcotte. Mr. Hoeft stated that subsequent to an agreed upon sale price, Staff would
forward the agreement to Council for approval.
Council Member Nelson requested that a typographical error in the purchase agreement
be corrected. Council Member Nelson questioned the use of the $139,000 purchase price
when the home and property were appraised at $138,000. Mr. March stated that Mrs.
Turcotte expressed desire to sell the property for $139,000.
Mr. DeVine questioned whether a public hearing was required to purchase the property.
Mr. Hoeft stated that Council would not; however the Economic Development Authority
(EDA) would need to.
Consensus was to direct Staff to enter into negotiations to purchase the Turcotte property.
8. Council Communication
Council Member Capra stated that she discovered thb \ letter from Mr. March to Mr.
Buechler had indicated it was copied to Council but that she had not received it. Council
Page 7 of 10
March 28, 2001
Council Meeting Minutes
Member Capra requested that Council receive copies when referenced accordingly in
Correspondence. Council Member Capra requested that this practice be ensured in the
future. Mr. March apologized for the oversight.
9. Committee Stipends
Council Member Capra stated that she felt the stipend dollar amount for
commission/committee members needed to be increased to cover babysitter fees if
needed.
Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned the amount of commission/committee
members serving. Council Member Nelson stated that curre~o/ the City is paying, / ....YI
$3,360 per year for Committee Member stipends. (,fJ1A,. :JJ1-V; Jt.tOlI"K- ok 1i~t~Lv"
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Nelson to increase Committee Member Stipends to $20 per month. All in favor.
Motion carried unanimously.
1 O. Draft Goal Directives Proposal
Mayor Swedberg stated that Council had been going through a process of setting goals
for a two-year period. Mayor Swedberg requested that Council adopt the Civic Index
from the National Civic League as a tool to guide civic infrastructure.
Motion by Mayor Swedberg. seconded by Council Member Nelson to adopt the
Civil Index from the National Civic League.
Council Member Broussard Vickers questioned why Mayor Swedberg felt the City
needed to adopt the Civic Index formally. Mayor Swedberg stated he wanted to be
formal, as he feels the index contains ideas that are important for the City to follow.
Council Member Nelson stated she would like to see a poster with the ten items listed.
All in favor: Ayes - 4 (Mayor Swedber~. Council Members Capra. Nelson and
Travis) Navs -1 (Broussard Vickers). Motion carried.
Mayor Swedberg noted he had scheduled an open house at City Hall on April 7, 2001 at
7:00 p.m. and April 10, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. to discuss the goals of the City.
Council Member Capra requested that Mr. March have the goals placed on the website.
Mr. March requested that the Mayor share his expectations of the open house with
Council. Mayor Swedberg stated he would be present and invited any other members of
Council to be present as well.
Council Member Capra stated it may be easier for residents to attend a Saturday morning
meeting.
Page 8 of 10
March 28, 2001
Council Meeting Minutes
Consensus was to modify the meeting of April 7, 2001 to 10:00 a.m. and to modify the
meeting of April 10, 2001 to 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Swedberg reviewed the submitted draft goals and requested input from Council.
Council Member Broussard Vickers stated she would be more comfortable if dollar
amounts were removed from the document before the document was made available to
the public.
Mayor Swedberg indicated the document would be edited as requested and presented to
the public at the open houses.
Council Member Nelson thanked Mayor Swedberg for his efforts to draft the document.
IX. CONSENT AGENDA
1. The City ofCenterville March 15, through March 28, 2001 Expenditures
2. Centennial Fire District Expenditures
3. Planning and Zoning Commission's Recommendation to Appoint Linda
Broussard Vickers as Council Liaison
4. LeJournal (Proof)
Motion by Council Member Broussard Vickers. seconded by Council Member
Nelson to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
X. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Mayor Swedberg noted he had read through the minutes from the Planning and Zoning
Commission's discussion concerning mini-storage facilities. He noted the Planning and
Zoning Commission had held a thorough discussion and thanked them for their
consistency in following Ordinance #4.
XI. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
Mr. March requested that Council set a work session date to interview design firms.
Consensus was to schedule a work session for April 17, 2001.
Mayor Swedberg requested Council schedule a work session to discuss budgets and
economics for Tuesday April 24, 2001. Mayor Swedberg requested that Mr. March
attend same.
Mr. March reported he had spoken to Mr. Bisek, Kelly's Komer, who indicated the water
is not pooling in his parking lot as it has in the past. Mr. March then recommended
Council consider the drainage issue as part of the downtown redevelopment project.
Page 9 of 10
March 28,2001
Council Meeting Minutes
e
Mr. March presented a letter from Mr. Wi1harber regarding outstanding customer service
that he had received from Waste Management. Mayor Swedberg asked Mr. March to
forward the letter to Waste Management.
Mr. March presented modifications for the Comprehensive Plan and requested that
Council review same and provide comments.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Broussard Vickers, seconded by Council Member Nelson to adjourn the
March 28, 2001 City Council Meeting at 9:00 p.m. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
Transcribed by:
loan Lenzmeier, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Proofed by:
Teresa Bender, Clerk/Treasurer
Page 10 of 10
.r-
I
Jim March
)m:
~ent:
To:
LeBlanc, Wayne J [Wayne.LeBlanc@UNISYS.com]
Thursday, April 05,200110:21 AM
'Tim and Beth Swedberg'; 'MARl NELSON'; , Linda Broussard-Vickers'; , Dick Travis';
'Mary Capra'; 'Tim Rehbine'; Tom Wilharber; , Michelle Moser'; , Betsy Scheller'; ,
Aimee Fairbrother'; , Jim March'; , Doug Porter';' Karla DeVine'; , Brian
Walter'; , Brian Hanson'; , Ray DeVine'; 'David Kilian'; , John McLean'; , BARRY
BRAINARD';' Rob Sheppard'; , THERESA BRENNER'; 'tpplus5@aol.com';
'jlien@centerville.com'
LeBlanc, Wayne J
Friendly Petition and Complaint (Lights)
Cc:
Subject:
Please add this to the April 11 Council meeting agenda under Petitions and
Complaints.
Normally, I would route this kind of information to Planning & Zoning and
work the issue as time permits. However, this suggestion was submitted over
a year ago and no action was taken. I'm not blaming anyone, all I'd like now
is a little up front consideration and possible action on the issue as it
has become time critical.
I am concerned that more development will go in without consideration for
light pollution in our city. Centerville currently has quite clear
astronomically friendly night skies, but that is becoming blotted out with
white haze. Significantly after the first suggestion was made, the Hunter's
Crossing development has gone in with globe lights that contribute to light
-ollution.
~ suggest the Council approve the concept and send an action to Planning and
Zoning to examine the below in detail to add to the ordinance IMMEDIATELY
(unless some big issue arises of course). Please also negotiate with
existing or pending developments to institute the guidelines listed below. I
see no reason why developers should not comply.
The following is taken word for word from "Title 18 Bozeman Municipal Code,
City of Bozeman, Zoning Ordinance" effective date June 1 (1514) and June 15
(1516), 2000. A copy of this entire document was donated to the city March
28, 2001. It is an existing document and the wording works for Bozeman,
Montana, and should work here as well. Cut and paste, approve, and it's
done.
*********************
A. Glare and Lighting
1. Deflection. Any lighting, including that for security purposes, used to
illuminate an off-street parking area, sign or other structure, shall be
arranged so as to deflect light down and/or away from any adjoining
properties and shall not detract from driver visibility on adjacent streets.
Luminaries and lenses shall not protrude below the edge of the fixture.
2. In addition, all lighting (except for security purposes) shall be turned
off between eleven p.m. and six a.m. Exceptions will be granted to those
businesses which are operating during these hours.
3. Light Standards. Lighting standards used to illuminate off-street parking
areas shall not exceed twenty feet or the height of the tallest building on
the lot, whichever is lower. Light standards and fixtures shall be
compatible with the site design and architecture.
. The installation or erection of any lighting which may be confused with
arning signals, emergency signals, or traffic signals shall not be
permitted.
5. All new and replacement lighting fixtures, including those installed in
conjunction with existing development, shall comply with the requirements of
1
,
this section.
*********************
TE: I would go even one step farther and specify a particular lighting
Level (the engineer could do this). The Amoco gas station just east of town
on Main St is way too bright (in addition to having lenses below the
fixtures). I live about 2 miles from that station (the other side of
Centerville) and the light pollution in the sky in that direction is clearly
visible. I intend to write Lino Lakes to further address the matter.
In addition, I suggest the entire Bozeman code be reviewed and appropriate
parts adopted for Centerville for this development season. Restrictions that
are a little too tight initially are better than minimal restrictions as you
can't undo associated problems.
Thank you.
Wayne LeBlanc
2
Jim March
bject:
Bert Casper
RE: Street Lighting in Eagle Pass
Thank you for the e-mail. I will place this item on the next City Council agenda for
Council direction. I will let you know the results or you are welcome to attend the
meeting. The meeting will be held next week Wednesday at 6:30pm. The City does not have
a regulated standard for determining adequate street lighting on curving roads. I believe
the engineer has a standard for placing lights on linear streets. The street lighting was
paid for by the developer (Gor-em) not Swift Construction. The street lights would have
been placed by the Public Works Director (Paul Palzer) and an ex-consulting City Engineer
HR Green (Dave Nyberg). The possibility exists to install additional street lights.
Whether or not the City Council is willing to pay for the lights or the lights being
assessed to property owners is the unknown question. Additional lights could be installed
by Gor-em in the areas adjacent to the outlots that they would like to plat in the near
future. I hope I have answered your initial questions. I will talk to you next week with
additional information. JM
-----Original Message-----
From: Bert Casper [mailto:bertcasper@qwest.net]
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2001 9:32 AM
To: jmarch@goldengate.net
Subject: Street Lighting in Eagle Pass
Mr. March, I am a new member of the Eagle Pass Cottages Homeowners
Association Board of Directors. I have been asked to check with the City of
Centerville about the inadequate street lighting that was provided in our
eighborhood by swift Construction, to see what we might do to secure better
'ghting on these curvy roads.
LS there a city code that specifies the level of lighting required in an
area like this?
Does the city require placement of street lights at certain intervals, or
require that there be street lights visible from various locations on a
street?
I understand that there is, for some cities, a requirement to meet IES
Standards for street lighting. Does ours meet that standard?
Was a city engineer, or consultant, involved is deciding where the current
street lighting was placed? Who was that?
We members of this association pay significant city taxes and school
district taxes, but require little in the way of services, and send almost
no students to the schools. The street lighting issue is something that is
very troublesome to many of our members who are elderly and whose vision is
not as good as some younger residents. This is especially true when driving
at night because headlights do not follow the path ahead due to the curves
in the streets.
We do need to have this issue addressed, and the intentions of the city
clarified.
Thank you for your attention to this situation.
Bert Casper bertcasper@qwest.net
651-429-7662
6979 Eagle Trail Centerville, MN 55038
1
MEMO
DATE: April6, 2001
TO : Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Jim March
RE : Draft Goals/Trailways Discussion
**********************************************************************
This item is on the agenda in case Council wants to take any formal action in regards to
adopting the draft goals document. Also noted in the draft goals for the April 11 th
meeting was a discussion on trailways.
I believe Wayne LeBlanc told me that Mayor Swedberg has some items to mention in
regards to trailways. I have asked the Park and Recreation Committee to review the park
related sections in the comprehensive plan and to provide feedback in regards to areas
that they would like to have amended. The future trailways and trailway corridors are
one area that I believe the committee would like to see addressed in the comprehensive
plan revision. I will be working with Wayne LeBlanc on this item beginning the third
week in April. I am expecting a public hearing on the entire proposed comprehensive
plan amendments at the first meeting in May. The hearing would be held at the Planning
and Zoning Committee and then come back before Council.
MEMO
DATE: April 6, 2001
TO : Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Jim March
RE : Ordinance #39
............................-................................................
Included in your packet is a final version of Ordinance #39. A public hearing was held at
the Planning and Zoning Committee on April 3, 2001. No one was in attendance to
comment on the Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously
to recommend approval to Council. The sections related to signage in Ordinance #4 will
be repealed if this Ordinance is approved.
Effective --01
City of Centervil1e Ordinance #39
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
ORDINANCE # 39
An ordinance regulating signs in the City of Centerville,
Minnesota and providing for the administration and enforcement
of such regulations.
The City Council of the City of Centerville ordains as follows:
DIVISION 10: General Provisions
Section 010-010: Title. This ordinance shall be known as Ordinance #39, City
of Centerville Signage Ordinance except as herein referred to as "this
Ordinance" .
Section 010-020: Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to:
· Establish a set of standards for the fabrication, erection, use and
maintenance for signs, symbols, markings, advertising devices or
other items that serve as visual communication media.
· Allow creativity in sign design while at the same time ensuring that
the public is not endangered, annoyed, distracted or displeased by
unsafe, disorderly, indiscriminate and unnecessary use of visual
communication media.
· Administration and procedures for requiring permits, payments of
fees and providing for penalties for non-compliance.
Section 010-030: Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances. Those parts of
Ordinance #4 (Zoning Ordinance) or any parts of other Ordinances inconsistent
herewith are hereby repealed. In all other respects said Ordinance #4 (Zoning
Ordinance) and other Ordinances shall remain in full force and effect.
Section 010-040: Definitions.
Advertising Sign - An "Advertising Sign" is a sign, which directs attention to a
business commodity, service or entertainment not exclusively, related to the
premises where such a sign is located or to which it is affixed.
Area Identification Sign - A freestanding sign that identifies the name of a
residential subdivision, commercial or industrial development.
Page 1 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
Billboard - A sign erected for the purpose of advertising a product, event, person
or subject not entirely related to the premises on which the sign is located.
Business Frontage - The linear frontage of that portion of a building facing the
right-of-way and occupied by one separate business.
Business Sign - A "Business Sign" is any sign which identifies a business or
group of businesses, either retail or wholesale, or any sign which identifies a
profession or is used in the identification or promotion of any principal commodity
or service, including entertainment, offered or sold upon the premises where
such sign is located.
Canopy - A permanent roof structure attached to and supported by the building.
Changeable Copy Sign - Any sign that is characterized by changeable copy,
letters or symbols, regardless of method of attachment.
Directional Sign - An on-premises sign designed to guide or direct pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
Flags - Devices generally made of flexible materials, such as cloth, paper of
plastic, and displayed on poles, strings or wires, but excluding the flag of any
country or state.
Flashing Sign - An illuminated sign on which such illumination is not kept
constant in intensity or color at all times, when such sign is in use.
Freestanding Sign - Any sign supported by structures or supports that are
permanently anchored in the ground and that are independent from any building
or structure.
Historical Identification Symbols - Those symbols which have historically been
identified with the service the establishment provides, are common to similar
enterprises in all other localities and are not a particular trademark or business
identification.
Illuminated Sign - A sign that has an artificial light source directed upon it or
which has an interior light source.
Major Anchor - A single tenant in a shopping center that is at least 20% of the
total square footage and in excess of 50,000 square feet.
Motion Sign - A sign that revolves, rotates or moves.
Political Sign - Any sign which states the name or picture of an individual
seeking election or appointment to a public office, or pertaining to a forthcoming
public election or referendum, or pertaining to or advocating political views or
policies erected on private property, which is erected by a bona fide candidate for
political office or by a person or group supporting such a candidate and which
Page 2 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
contains the name of the person or group supporting such a candidate and which
contains the name of the person or group chairman responsible for the erection
and removal of the sign.
Portable Sign - Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or other
permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported, including, but not
limited to, signs designed to be transported by means of wheels, signs converted
to A- or T-frames; menu and sandwich board signs; umbrellas used for
advertising; and signs attached to or painted on vehicles parked and visible from
the public right of way, unless said vehicle is used in the normal day-to-day
operations of the business.
Setback - The minimum horizontal distance between a lot line and a building line
or use.
Sign - The term "Sign" shall mean a name, identification, description, display,
illustration structure or device which is affixed to, or painted on, or represented
directly or indirectly upon a building or other outdoor surface or piece of land, and
which directs attention to an object, product, place, activity, person, institution,
organization or business.
Sign Area - The entire area within a continuous perimeter enclosing a sign,
exclusive of sign embellishments, which may extend beyond said perimeter as
regulated herein; such perimeter shall not include any structural elements lying
outside of said sign and is not an integral part of the display. Double-faced signs
are permitted with the maximum square footage allowed on each face as that
allowed for a single face sign; multi-faced sign areas may not exceed the area
permitted for a single faced sign.
Sign Height - Height shall be measured from grade to the uppermost points or
level of sign surface.
Temporary Sign - A sign that is not permanently affixed. All devices such as
banners, pennants, flags (not intended to include flags of any nations)
searchlights, twirling or sandwich type signs, sidewalk or curb signs and balloons
or other air or gas filled figures.
Wall Advertising Sign - An advertising sign attached to or erected against the
wall of a building or structure with the exposed face to the sign in a plane
approximately parallel to the face of said wall and extending not more than fifteen
(15) inches from the building wall face.
Window Sign - A sign affixed to or inside a window in view of the general public,
but excluding merchandise on display.
DIVISION 15: General Regulations
A. Signs are prohibited within the public right-of-way or
easements except that the City Council may grant a Special
Page 3 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
Use Permit to locate signs and decorations on or within the
right-of-way for a specified period of time.
B. Flashing signs, motion signs or similar devices shall be
prohibited in all districts except commercial district signs that
meet the criteria detailed in the commercial district
standards. Approved traffic signs are exempt from this
provision.
C. Unless specifically allowed in this Ordinance, interior
illuminated signs are permitted in all districts except
Residential. All illuminated signs shall have a shielded light
source.
D. Business signs shall not be painted, attached, or in any
manner affixed to trees, rocks or similar natural surfaces.
No signs of any type shall be painted directly on to the roof
or the sides of a building.
E. Signs that interfere with the ability of vehicle operators or
pedestrians to see traffic signals, or which impede the vision
of traffic by vehicle operators or pedestrians are prohibited.
F. Signs shall not project above the roofline of any structure
without the issuance of a Special Use Permit.
G. No sign shall physically obstruct any window, fire escape or
opening intended to provide entry or exit to any structure or
building or public way.
H. All signs and sign structures shall be properly maintained in
a safe, orderly condition at all times, including the
replacement of defective parts, cleaning and other items
required for the maintenance of the sign. Vegetation within
ten feet in any direction of the base of ground signs shall be
neatly trimmed and free of weeds, and no rubbish or debris
that would constitute a fire or health hazard shall be
permitted under or near the sign.
I. No signs may be placed on utility poles in the community.
J. There may be no more than one identical sign per lot in a
residentially zoned area.
K. The changing of the advertising message of a painted or
printed sign, or changeable copy sign, and the painting,
repainting and cleaning. of signs will not require a sign
permit, but will otherwise be done in compliance with this
Ordinance and any other applicable laws.
Page 4 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
L. No sign may by reason of its location, color or intensity,
create a hazard to the safe and efficient movement of
vehicles or pedestrian traffic. No private sign may contain
words that might be construed as traffic controls, such as
"Stop", "Caution", "Warning", or otherwise resemble any
official marker erected by a governmental body or agency,
unless such sign is a directional sign.
DIVISION 20: Permitted signs with no permit required
Section 020-010: Political Signs. Political signs posted by bona fide
candidates for political office or by a person or group promoting a political issue
for a candidate may be placed in any district subject to the requirements of the
district. Campaign signs may be posted for a period not to exceed sixty (60)
days and shall be removed within seven (7) days following the date of the
election. Only one sign (1) per candidate will be allowed per lot.
Section 020-020: Temporary Signs.
A. Temporary banners and pennants shall be displayed for no
more than fourteen (14) days. A maximum of six (6)
occurrences per year are allowed. Banners or pennants
determined to be an integral part of the design or
architecture of a building are permitted.
B. One temporary identification sign, setting forth the name of
the project, architect, engineers, contractors, planners and
financing agencies, may be installed at a construction site in
any district for the period of construction. The sign area of a
temporary identification sign shall not exceed thirty-five (35)
square feet.
C. In any district, one (1) temporary real estate sign may be
erected for the purpose of advertising the lease or sale of
property upon which it is placed. Only one (1) such sign
shall be permitted per street frontage. Such sign(s) shall be
removed within seven (7) days following the lease or sale of
the property. The maximum size of such signs for each
district is as follows:
Residential Districts - Ten (10) square feet
Commercial Districts - Thirty-two (32) square feet
Industrial Districts - Thirty-two (32) square feet
Mixed-Use Districts - Sixteen (16) square feet
Agricultural/Rural Residential - Thirty-two (32) square
feet
Page 5 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
In any district, one (1) temporary "help wanted" or
"now hiring" sign may be erected for the purpose of
advertising employment positions. Only one (1) such
sign shall be permitted per street frontage. Such sign
shall be removed upon filling the employment
position. The maximum size of such signs for each
districts are as follows:
D. Commercial District - Thirty-two (32) square feet
Industrial District - Thirty-two (32) square feet
Mixed-Use District - Sixteen (16) square feet
Agricultural/Rural Residential - Thirty-two (32) square feet
E. Signs pertaining to drives or events of civic, philanthropic,
educational or religious organizations, provided permission of the
Council must be obtained to erect such signs upon or over public
property and provided further that such signs shall not be erected
or posted for a period of more than fourteen (14) days prior to the
date of the event and must be removed within three (3) days after
the event.
Section 020-030: Directional Signs. Directional signs having a surface area
not greater than five (5) square feet.
Section 020-040: Memorial Signs. Memorial signs or tablets, or names of
buildings and date of erection when cut into a masonry surface of constructed of
metal, wood or stone and attached to the building not exceeding a sign surface
area of four (4) square feet.
Section 020-050: Freestanding Signs. Freestanding signs for garage sales or
similar events occurring within the corporate limits of the City, not exceeding four
(4) square feet in sign surface area, erected on private property with permission
of the landowner, and displayed for not more than three (3) consecutive days.
Section 020-060: Window Signs. Temporary or permanent window signs duly
authorized by zoning and other laws of this City, provided that all such signs on a
frontage shall not have a total sign surface area greater than 50% of the glass
area, excluding doors, on such frontage and provided that a minimum of one-half
of the open window space must be below a horizontal line which is five (5) feet
above the interior floor of the commercial establishment. Merchandise displays
in windows shall not be considered a part of the sign area if such display is not to
be continued for a period of more than eight (8) weeks.
DIVISION 25: Portable Signs
Portable signs are prohibited in residential districts. Portable signs in all other
districts are allowed with permit as specifically authorized below. Portable signs
used for the purpose of directing the public will be permitted subject to the
following conditions:
Page 6 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
A. Said sign is coincidental to or used In conjunction with a
public function; and
B. Said sign is used for a special business promotion or event;
and
C. The period of use for such a sign shall not exceed fourteen
(14) consecutive days; and
D. No business may have more than six (6) special promotions
or events per year; and
E. Portable signs may not exceed eighty (80) square feet.
DIVISION 30: District Regulations
Section 030 - 010: Residential/Public Districts (R1,R2, R2A, R4, R5, P1)
Permitted Signs
A. Residential Identifications - Not more than two (2) square
feet per nameplate or six (6) square feet in area for each
multiple-family building.
B. Institutional Identifications - Churches, schools, parks etc.
allowed up to thirty-two (32) square feet; not taller than eight
(8) feet.
C. Business Signs - Home-based businesses may have a sign
that is no larger than four (4) square feet. The sign may not
be an interior-illuminated sign.
Section 030 - 020: Commercial District (B1)
Permitted Signs
A. Wall Signs - Wall signs are permitted on each public street
exposure or public parking exposure provided said signage
does not exceed ten percent (10%) of said wall area.
B. Free Standing Signs - One (1) free standing sign per
business or business complex provided, however, said sign
does not exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area and
thirty-five (35) feet in height.
C. Area Identification Signs - One (1) area identification sign
is permitted per street frontage, however said sign does not
exceed sixty four (64) square feet in area and twenty (20)
feet in height, and is not placed within ten (10) feet of any
street right-of-way.
Page 7 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
Section 030-030: Industrial District (11)
Permitted Signs
A. Wall Signs - Wall signs are permitted on each public street
exposure or public parking exposure provided said signage
does not exceed ten percent (10%) of said wall area.
B. Free Standing Signs - One (1) free standing sign per street
frontage provided, however, said sign does not exceed two
hundred (200) square feet in area and thirty-five (35) feet in
height.
C. Area Identification Signs - One (1) area identification sign
is permitted per street frontage, however said sign does not
exceed sixty four (64) square feet in area and twenty (20)
feet in height, and is not placed within ten (10) feet of any
street right-of-way.
Section 030-040: Mixed-Use District (M1)
Permitted Signs
A. Wall Signs - Wall signs are permitted on each public street
exposure or public parking exposure provided said signage
does not exceed ten percent (10%) of said wall area.
B. Canopy Signs - Signs on these structures are allowed as
long as the sign area does not exceed ten percent (10%) of
said wall area.
C. Ground Signs - One (1) ground sign is permitted per street
frontage; however, said sign does not exceed eight (8) feet
in height and thirty-two (32) feet in area.
DIVISION 35: Comprehensive Sign Plan Required
A comprehensive sign plan is required at the time of Planning and Zoning
Commission review of any proposed new commercial or industrial development.
Said plan shall indicate the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of
all proposed signs and shall be submitted for approval pursuant to the
regulations of the City of Centerville.
Building permits and inspections are necessary as required by building and
electrical code. Fees for required permits or hearings shall be set by approved
annual resolution of the City Council.
Section 035-010: Application for Permit. Every application for a sign permit
must be accompanied by a plan drawn to scale and including the following:
Page 8 of 11
Effecti ve - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #3 9
A. The dimensions of the sign and where applicable the
dimensions of the wall surface of the building to which it is to
be attached.
8. The maximum and minimum height of the sign.
C. The proposed location of the sign in relation to the
boundaries of the lot upon which it is to be situated.
D. The proposed location of the sign in relation to the
boundaries of the lot upon which it is to be situated.
E. If the sign is to be illuminated, the technical means by which
this is to be accomplished and the hours of illumination.
F. Where the sign is to be attached to any existing building, a
diagram or photograph of the face of the building to which
the sign is to be attached.
G. The name and address of the owner of the sign and the
address of the property where the sign is located.
H. Where a ground level sign is proposed with berming, a
diagram showing grade level and dimensions of the berm.
I. When a multi-tenant comprehensive sign plan is submitted,
the plan must include the location, size, height, color lighting
and orientation of all signs.
J. Where a ground sign plan is submitted, the plan must
include the location of the sign in relation to the lot lines and
the building height, including any difference from the
established grade, size, color, lighting and hours of
illumination.
DIVISION 40: Adiustments and Appeals
The commission of adjustments and appeals will be comprised by all members of
the Planning and Zoning Committee. The Planning and Zoning Committee will
hear and make recommendations to the City Council regarding:
A. Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any
order, requirement, decision or determination made by an
administrative officer in the City in the enforcement of this
Ordinance.
8. Petitions for variances from the literal prOVIsIons of this
Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause hardship because of circumstances unique to the
Page 9 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
individual property under consideration. Criteria for granting
a variance will be the same as the criteria for granting a
variance in the City's zoning ordinance.
DIVISION 45: Non-Conforming Signs
Section 045-010: Legal, Conforming. All signs existing as of the adoption date
of this ordinance conforming to the requirements of this ordinance and not
requiring a permit under the provisions of this ordinance, may be maintained so
long as the sign continues to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, as it
may from time to time be amended.
Section 045-020: Legal, Non-Conforming, Signs. All signs existing as of the
adoption date of this ordinance which would be prohibited by ordinance or which
would require a permit under this ordinance but have not received a permit, will .
be deemed to be legal non-conforming signs. Legal non-conforming signs may
continue to exist without a permit and without constituting a violation of this
ordinance until one or more of the following occurs:
A. The sign is structurally altered (except for normal
maintenance) in a way that makes the sign less in
compliance with this ordinance than it was before the
alteration.
B. The sign is relocated to a position making it less in
compliance with this ordinance than it was before the
relocation.
C. The sign is replaced.
D. Any new primary sign is erected or placed in connection with
the enterprise using the legal non-conforming sign.
DIVISION 50: Enforcement
If a sign is in violation of this ordinance, or is in danger of falling, or is otherwise a
menace to the safety of persons or property, the Building Official may give to the
owner of the property on which the sign is located, written notice specifying the
violation, ordering the cessation of the violation and requiring either the removal
of the sign or remedial work in the time and manner specified in the notice. In
the event of failure to comply with the notice within thirty (30) days, the Building
Official may remove the sign or cause such remedial work to be done. The cost
of the work performed by the City, must be paid to the City by the owner of the
property on which the sign is located. If payment is not made within thirty (30)
days after a statement of costs is sent to the owner, the costs may be assessed
against the property by certifying the costs to the County. If a sign that has been
removed is not reclaimed and costs paid within thirty (30) days after its removal,
the sign may be sold or otherwise disposed of by the City. If a sign is found to be
an immediate danger to the public because of its unsafe condition, it may be
Page 10 of 11
Effective - -01
City of Centerville Ordinance #39
removed without notice, and written notice of removal and reasons for the
removal will be given to the owner of the property on which the sign is located as
soon as possible.
DIVISION 55: EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect the day
following the second publication in the city's official newspaper.
Mayor Tim Swedberg
Attest:
City Administrator
Page 11 of 11
~
MEMO
DATE: April
TO
Honorable
and Ctmncil
FROt\'1: March
REi\1onument Sign Design
l............................................~..............'................
packet is a quote
C~ntervme monument entrance
:scope services and the
rdated to
Shea l\rchitects
with their proposal
Also.
packet is a
lDc, 1 would like Council to
.tI
28. 2001
Mr Jim rllYarch
City of CentervlHe
1880 rlllain Street
MN 55038~9794
Subject or Centerville
Oe::;]9n or New
Our #600.00
Dear Jim
scope of
to a for
details our
rees and terms.
of
Tfl1S mcludes
Centerville. The
on the design
on fVlajn Street ill
at the location oescrlbed
DESCRIPTION
SCOPE Of SERVICES
Meet once with of Center-Jlne to diSCUSS and conceptual
review of other
2. Oeli'elop and up to three (or colors and
methods for
3. Develop to include doeurnent for to
man uractu rer( 5 ).
4. ReView shop from selected and revJew construction of
Sign fabrication and at of instaltation
PROfESSIONAL FEES/Em. LING TERMS
\life will be
ror OiJr sep/ices
on an
basis.
Based on our current of the
be approximately $1 olus reimbursabbe
notify you if we antiCipate a
we
the fee for our services wH!
Wewil!
of
HI these
Reimbursable expenses wii1 be bllled in addition to theree for our
not limited to plotting,
distance Gans.>
photographs, ete
but
color printing,
are ,,1 vOiced for the
from inv()1ce date Amount
at the rate.
month's work invoices are 3D
after the invoice date shaH bear mterest
/
2
of CentervH!e
New Pylon Sign
Our Proposal #SaGO 00
February 28, 2001
Fees are set based upon our current
letter. Additionalwofk requested
reimbursable expenses"
of the scope as outlined in this
the current scope will be on an
LlM!TA TION OF LIABILITY
To the maximum extent the Chent agrees to limit Sheas and its
consultants' aggregate fOf the Chent's to the total fees for services
rendered on thus project This limitation shalt of the cause of action or
legal theory' pled or asserted
or require any to this
to work With you and your staff
give IJS a
If find these terms
If you have any
call, We appreciate this
Shea
Michael F Kraft
Vice President
Enclosure
APPROVED BY
CilentName.
Title.
Date
..
,
..,
~.
....w._.,,,....~..,,.
1#
..
Ill'
~
%
.
.;0
ii.
iI!f'
r
!ill
m
..,.
~
%
"'!.
;
.".
...
il
~
r
I
1"-
3t:t
...is
~.~.
~-~-
I;;
I:
'e
il..
..
-4
I
<II
i
te
'iii
yffl
te
-I
"'!
m
i
!!:. ..,..
tel
''II
1""
14. -I..
~-I
;;
f'I. "
J>f'I
<II "
m
...
m
-~-
...
I'll
~
""
a.
oft
"$
MEMO
DATE: April6, 2001
TO : Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Jim March
RE : Cable Franchise
**********************************************************************
Included in your packet is a copy of some material that was received at the Joint Cable
Commission/Operations Committee meeting that was held on April 4, 2001.
Councilmember Capra and I attended this meeting.
The negotiations for franchise renewal with AT + T Broadband have not been going well
through the "informal" negotiation process. The Cable Commission is recommending
that the seven member Cities consider authorizing the "formal" negotiation process. 1bis
can be very expensive. If the process was to go all the way to completion it could cost in
the neighborhood of $390,000.
There are presently no other companies to deal with other than AT + T. AT + T has refused
to negotiate items and wants to stick to a memorandum of understanding that was written
by legal counsel in January, 1996.
There are a number of items that the CoIIllIlission feels need to be addressed with a
franchise renewal. These types of items include PEG fees, the I-net and needed media
center equipment. A resolution is supposed to be coming from Commission legal counsel
in regards to this matter. If the resolution is received next week, I will bring the
document to the meeting. Councilmember Capra and I will be able to answer questions
at the meeting. Please read the background material thoroughly in this section and bring
your questions for discussion.
A' .'i"""~,
J'.,j" ..
,. i j~t
Jl 'JI"(",I'
,C ~~jU,
JOINT OPERATIONS COMMITI!,=E/CABLE COMMISSION MEETING
APRiL 40 2001
5:J(j-iM}(} P. M:
Maje~;tic Oaks
Cedar Ibom, South
701 Bunk",;c ,Lake Boulevard
Ham Lake, Minnesota
AGENDA
vr
/
CALL TO ORDER/ROLL GALL
AT&T FRANCHISE RENEWAL ~JT,A.JE
. AT&T Res onse to fj
2.2. MOU pp. 5-14
2.3. Definitive Agreement pp. 15-17
2.4. Summary of formal Cable FranchL,e renewal process pp.18-22
I
COMPETITNE FRANCHISING UF IJXl"E
3 .1. Letter from Everest p.23
3.2. Letter from WOW p.24
~LECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLf....-rON UPDATE
4.1. MACTA summary email pp. 25.26
~ MEDIA CENTE~ F ~CILITY USAG~ GU~ELINES
5.1. Suggested gUIdelIne changes 'iJfJ, .:7-3:'l
~ OLD PRODUCTION TRUCK
7. ADJOURN
Telephone:
Facsimile:
--
.~ AT&T
-
--
David G. Seykora
Vice President - Law & Public Policy
651-493-5280
651-493-5288
10 River Park Plaza
St. Paul, MN 55107-1219
March 19, 2001
VIA FACSMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Thomas D. Creighton
Creighton, Bradley, & Guzzetta, LLC
5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Re: Informal Renewal Negotiations - North Metro Telecommunications
Commission
Dear Mr. Creighton:
Thank you for your letter dated March 8, 2001 regarding the informal
renewal proposal presented by the North Metro Telecommunications
Commission ("Commission"). We submit this letter in response to the
Commission's proposal in the informal renewal process. We appreciate the time
and effort put into both the negotiations over the past months and the most
recent proposal, and we hope that further negotiations can lead to a mutually
satisfactory resolution.
At the outset, I must express that we are uncertain as to the Commission's
intentions with respect to the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). Your
letter characterizes the MOU as "outdated". In some areas (such as the
Universal PEG Tier), the Commission seems to rely on the continued vitality of
the MOU. In others (such as the request for additional capital support
payments), the Commission appears to repudiate extremely important provisions
of the MOU. As we expressed at the most recent negotiation meeting, this
approach is fundamentally inconsistent with the terms of the MOU.
The history of the MOU demonstrates that it constitutes a comprehensive
resolution of PEG and related matters for purposes of the renewal. During the
early 1990's, the Commission and the Company had a number of discussions
and disagreements regarding PEG matters. In 1995, the parties commenced the
franchise renewal process. Shortly thereafter (November 15, 1995) the parties
signed a Standstill Agreement to Pursue Informal Renewal Procedures.
w
~ e Recycled Paper
P.I
Subsequently, in early 1996, the parties entered into the MOU whereby, unlike
various memoranda of understanding entered into by the Company with certain
other local franchising authorities, the Company and the North Metro
Commission and Member Cities specifically agreed to operating and capital
- ----Bxpenditu res JorJ?EG-programmingsupportJnJuILsatisfaction ofHEG.and any______
related programming obligations upon renewal.
The MOU memorialized the Company's commitment to provide PEG
programming funding. It also provided the structure and process whereby the
Company would transfer all PEG programming equipment and assets, as well as
responsibility for PEG programming, to the Commission or its designee. As you
know, this transfer of responsibility was completed in 1997. Section 1 of the
MOU begins by defining the term of the agreement. It states:
Meredith shall remain, for the remainder of the current Franchise and any
subsequent renewed franchise period [the sum total of which shall not to
exceed fifteen (15) years without mutual agreement of both parties]
responsible and obligated for the provision and funding of PEG access
programming which Meredith is providing at the effective date of this
Memorandum, except as set for the in Section 2 below, and further subject
to the following terms and conditions:
In this provision, the parties specifically agreed to terms that would be part of the
renewal. The MOU specifically includes an expiration date of this agreement of
January 26,2011, unless the parties mutually agree to a different date.
The terms and conditions of the Company's PEG funding obligations are
set forth in Paragraphs A through 0 of Section 1 of the MOU. They include the
following:
· The Company was to collect $1.50 per month, per subscriber for the
recovery of expenses in providing PEG programming ("PEG Fee"). At
such time as the Commission was transferred the responsibility for PEG
programming, the PEG Fee was to be collected and passed on to the
Commission.
· The PEG Fee could be increased annually by an amount no greater than
$.25. The document establishes a cap of $2.25 in 1998, with'increases
limited to CPI thereafter.
· Meredith agreed to provide PEG funding of a total of $300,000 in two
installments of $150,000 each in January of 1996 and January of 1997.
The MOU states that this funding is "for and in lieu of all PEG
Programming capital, replacement, and other equipment obligations
during the current Franchise, and for any subsequent renewal. . . .n
P.2
· The MOU further states in Section 1 (0) that the Member Cities and
Commission agree that the PEG Fee, the $300,000 capital funding and
the transfer of PEG programming operations "are made for, and in full
satisfaction of PEG and any related programming obligations upon
m_~__~__renewal . .-._." ....n_n_~_~__. ...~__m__~~ n_~~___mm_~__~_~ _ __n___.____~_
The text of the MOU, and the fact that it occurred while the parties were
negotiating the renewal of the franchise, make very plain the fact that the parties
have already reached closure on the PEG and any related programming
obligations for purposes of the renewal.
The clause in the MOU which states that the Company's commitments to
collect the PEG Fee, to make the capital grants in 1996 and 1997, and to transfer
PEG programming facilities to the Commission constitute the entire PEG support
for the renewal is a fundamental component of the agreement. If the
Commission believes that this provision is no longer valid, then it is repudiating
the entire agreement. This would be particularly troubling in light of the
substantial expenditures under the MOU that have been incurred by the
Company to date. The Company cannot accept a unilateral change to a
fundamental component of the MOU. If the Commission wishes to discuss an
amendment of the MOU, then all aspects of the MOU must be included, including
deletion of the requirement for Universal service and a reduction of the PEG Fee
to eliminate operational support, which, but for the MOU agreement, must be
paid out of franchise fees in a renewed franchise.
It is the Company's position that the PEG support provisions of the
renewal have already been resolved by the MOU. The Company has honored
and will continue to stand by the terms of that agreement. Your letter states that
the Commission's offer would be considered withdrawn if not accepted by 4:00
p.m. on March 19, 2001. We think that such an ultimatum is regrettable, but
since the Commission seeks an increase to the PEG Fee and nearly $350,000 in
PEG grants in addition to the PEG provisions of the MOU, we cannot agree to
the Commission's proposal.
As the Commission has withdrawn its offers effective 4:00 p.m. today, the
Company must also withdraw all offers beyond the terms of the MOU which we
have previously made toward negotiating a franchise renewal. As we see the
current situation, we still have the MOU, which resolves a large portion of the
renewal. We are ready to sit down with the Commission again to take a fresh
effort to negotiate the terms of a franchise renewal. However, by this response
we are not waiving any rights under applicable law, we continue to reserve all
rights under the Standstill Agreement to Pursue Informal Renewal Procedures
dated November 15, 1995, and we expressly reserve all other rights with respect
to renewal under applicable law.
P.3
We look forward to hearing from you about how the Commission would
like to proceed.
cc: Leidi Arnson
NMTC Commissioners
Kathi Donnelly-Cohen
Sincerely,
--Cj\ --. ()/ <;::~.~
~L:>. ,~
David G. Seykora
P.4
~ .:
MEIHORAl'\;l)lJiYI OF T.0lDERSTAl'fDlNG
This Memorandum of UndersTanding is entered into thisolq day of~~ , 199f by
and between the North Central Suburban Cable Communications Commission (hereinafter
"Commission"), a joint powers commission COnsiSTing of the cities of Blaine, Centerville. Circk
Pines, Lexington, Lino Lakes, Ham Lake, Spring Lake Park and Coon Rapids (hereiilafter
"iyfember Cities"), and Meredith/New Heritage Strategic Partners, L.P.; Nonh Central Cabie
Communications Company; and Group W of the North Central Suburbs, Inc., d/b/a MerediTh
Cable (hereinafler "Meredith"), as to cenain rate rewlarorv and other issues within the authority
~ - .
cf the Commission, and by and between the Member Cities and Meredith as to issues solely
within the authority of the Member Cities.
Meredith is the operator of cable communications systems operating pursuant to franchises
granted by the Member Cities ("Cable System"). The franchises granted by those cities to
Meredith shall be hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Franchise". The Franc:1i:,e is
adminiSTered and enforced pursuant to a Joint and Cooperative Agreement (hereinafter
"Agreement") creating Commission.
The purpose of this Memorandum of Undersl.1nding (hereinafter "Memorandum") is to set
forth c~rrain understandings, STipulations and agreemems between the Member Cities and
:vferedith 'Nith regard to lhe respor>..sibility for and funding ,)f public, educational, govci1lffiemaL
religious, alld iibrary progranm1ing ("PEG Programming"); and between Meredith aUG
Commission with regard to Meredidl' s basic service rates and related equipment charges;
provision by MereditJl of "Universal PEG Service", certain Grants to be paid by Meredi!:h [G
Cammis.:iion; and treatment of "ProfiTs" upon the sale or transfer of ownership of any p,Jr[ of
Ivleredith'~ cable system sufrlcient to require Member Cities' approval pursuant to r..'1e Franchi~e.
Commission is authorized by the Agreement and applicable state and federal laws and
regulations to negotiate and ma..1ce such contracts or agreements and take such other action as it
deems necessary and appropriate to accomplish its purposes in administering and enforcing the
Franchise. Anv Franchise Ordinance amendments remain the exclusive authority of each Member
(.
~lty.
The understandings, stipulations and agreements between the Member Cities and lv[eredith
herein are in addition to and external to the Franchise and are as follows:
1. PEG FUNDING AND RELATED OBLIGATIONS.
Meredith shall remain, for the remainder of the current Franchise and any subsequent
renewed franchise period [The sum total of which shall not to exceed fiftetn (15) years 'tv i~hout
mutual agreement of both parties], responsible and obligated for the provision and funding of PEG
1
P.S
access programming which i\Jeredith is providing at the effective date of this Memorandum,
except as set forth in Section 2 below, and further subject to the following terms and conditions:
A. Meredith has collected from April 1, 1995, and shall continue to collect through
December 31, 1995, a fee of One Dollar and Fifty Cents ($1.50) ("PEG Fee") for
the purpose of recovering its expenses in providing PEG Programming. not
including any expenses for the provision of local origination programming, from
April 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995. If Meredith collects more than its
expenses for 1995, it may offset its undercharges provided forin previous FCC
rate decisions and the Universal Service start-up costs as detennined in Exhibit C.
If an overage still exists, Meredith will not keep the overage, nor will any overage
be given to the Commission; in the alternative, both parries will develop a mutually
acceptable procedure to expend the monies for community programming.
B. Meredith shall continue to collect the PEG Fee from all subscribers receiving Basic
Service for which a fee is paid ("Subscribers ") after Dece:nber 31, 1995 for the
purpose of funding PEG Programming. beginning on the effective date of this
Agreement and comi;luing for 2.ny subsequent renewed fral1chise period [the sum
total of which shall nm to exceed tifteen (15) years withom mutual agreement of
both parties]. Upon yearly approval of the Member Cities, via the Commission,
the PEG Fee shall yearly esca late in an amount not to exceed tho::: amounts as ser
fonh in Exhibit A attached hereto (bur in no event greater than [wenry-five cents
(25<;:) in any twelve (12) month period). To the extent collection of such yearly
PEG Fee results in Meredith's receipt of fees in excess of the amount currently
expem1ed by Meredith for these purposes, Meredirh shall develop a plan [(I expend
such additional receipts for the purpose of funding community programming wirh
the advice and consent of the Commission.
C. Meredith shall expend a total ofThiee Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000;00)
as directed by Commission as to time and manner for and in lieu of an PEG
Programming capital, replacement, and other equipment obligations during the
current Franchise, and for any subsequent renewal as set forth below, with One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) being obligatedonOI"abour
January 1, 1996, and One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) being
obligated on or about January!, 1997.
D. Meredith, the Member Cities. and the Commission agree that the operating and
capiral expenditures and/or payments provided in paragraphs A, B, and C above,
and any future transfer of PEG Programming as may be made pursuant to Section
2 below, are made for, and in fuil satisfacrion of PEG and any relaIed
programming obligations upon renewal, and subject to any subsequent rene\vals of
the Franchise (the sum total of which shall not exceed fifteen (15) years).
2
P.6
E. Meredith is relieved, now and in the future, of any franchise obligation to provide
local origination programming in the North Central Suburban franchise Jrea.
F. Meredith is relieved of its Franchise obligation to provide FM broadcast service.
2. CONDITIONAL PEG TRANSFER.
In the event the Commission, or any Member City or consortium thereof, determines to
assume the obligations and responsibilities for PEG Programming, and pursuant to such definitive
agreement ("Definitive Agreement") as may be completed and executed by all parties and the
adoption of all necessary Franchise Ordinance amendmems by the necessary Member Cities,
Meredith shall transfer all obligations, responsibilities and funding for PEG Programming to the
Commission, or its designee, or any Member City or consortium thereof, ("Transfer"), subject
to the following terms and conditions:
A.
In the event the full Commission determines, pursuant to such Definitive
Agreement as may be executed, to assume the obligations and responsibilities for
PEG Programming, upon completion of the Transfer, Meredith shall pay the full
amount of the PEG Fee coUected to the Commission, or its designee. In the event
any Member Ciry or consortium thereof, determines, pursuant to such Definitive
Agreement as may be executed, to assume the obligations and responsibilities for
PEG Programming, Meredith shall pay to such Member City or consortium
thereof, its pro r:lta share of the PEG Fee collected. Upon transfer, Meredith shall
prepay quarterly, an estimated quarterly PEG Fee, which shall be annually
reconciled to reflect actual PEG Fee receipts by Meredith subject to more frequ~nt
reconciliation by muUlal agreement of the parries.
(9 fe~
1 ~ ~}!
\,l.C'
~e[P
B. Upon the effective date of Transfer, the Franchise obligations relating [0 PEG
Programming shall be superseded and become the responsibility of the
Commission, or such Member Ciry or consortium thereof. to the extent the
Commission, or a Member Clry or consortium thereof has determined to assume
the obligations and responsibilities of Meredith, all as shall be set-fonh in a
Definitive Agreement. Subject to final negotiated terms of any Definitive
Agreement, it is assumed that upon Transfer, Meredirh will be relieved of all pre..
existing franchise PEG obligations.
C. Meredith shall assign and the Commission, or its designee, or any Member City
or cons0l1ium thereof, ~hall assume all real estate and equipment leases and
contracts relating to PEG Programming in accordance with a Definitive:
Agreement.
D. Meredith shall transfer all PEG Programming equipment to the Commission, or its
designee, or any Member City or consortium thereof, in accordance with the
,.,
.J
P.?
DefInitive Agreement upon the effective date of Transfer, and shall maintain such
equipment until such time of Transfer. Meredith shall consult with the
Commission staff concerning replacement of such equipment pending such
Transfer, and all costs for replacement equipment shall be credited against the
payment set forth in Section l(C) above.
E. Upon transfer, Commission, or any Member City or consortium thereof, pursuant
to a DefInitive Agreement, shall have the right to use six video channels [cUlTently
public, government, religious, and educational (3)] for PEG Programming and
shall be responsible for any and all I-Net or other switching related to PEG
Programming or non-profIt use of the I-Net capacity, which shall Occur only as
provid~;~ in the Franchise and consistent with applicable laws.
F. The Commission, or any Member City or consol1ium thereof, which determines
to assume the obligations and responsibilitie~ for PEG access programming, shall
advise ~'feredith in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the Effective Dfite of
Transfer of its intention to make offers of employment to Meredith persormel
relating to PEG Programming.
G. In the event Transfer takes place, Commis:5ion agrees to allow Meredith rokeep
its local customer ser/ice office in the space it now occupies provided that
ivferedith assumes the capital costs necessary to segregate the offict' frum the
remainder of Corm:rJssion space, and furr.f}er provided th2t Meredith shall pay One
Hundred ($100.00) per month rem to Commission commencing the effective date
of any Transfe:-.
3. UNIVERSAL PEG SERVICE.
Meredith agrees to make available on or before January 1, 1996, to all subscribers and
non-subscribers whose dwelling unit is passed by cable plant, Universal PEG Services, with free
insta!1ation of one Standard Drop and one outlet and free montWy service to all non-subscribers
and with free monthly service and the assessment of a downgrade fee (charged in compliapce with
federal rate regulatory laws and rules) to an existing subscribers. Universal PEG Service shall
be offered for the duration of the Franchise and all renewals thereof (the sum total of which not
to exceed fifteen (15) years), unless modified by mutual agreement of the panies hereto, or their
successors. Meredith agrees to provide at no cost to subscribers an A/B switch and necessary
associated cable-related equipment (meant to exclude antennas, antennae wires, etc.) to allow
reception of broadcast stations on the subscriber's television, provided said television is c.apable
of receiving broadcast signals.
The panies agree that the,"rates chargedtb subscribers will not increase as a result of
implern~ntation of Universal PEG Service, exceptthat Meredith may recoup the expense of such
serviteas provided below as an inclusion in the PEG Fee.
4
P.8
The parties agree that realignment will be accomplished as set forth in Exhib it B.
Meredith shall assume the expense of notifying subscribers of the changed alignment of rhe PEG
channels, and any Meredith expense in changing literature, signs, vans, or other indicia of the
current channel location and the changed channel location of the PEG channels.
For purposes of this Memorandum, the following definitions apply:
"Universal PEG Service" shall be defined as the provision to a recipient, free of allY
charges, monthly or otherwise, of all of the following public, educational and governmemal access
channels (hereinafter "PEG access channels") designed in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
"Outler" shall be defmed as the cable and associated connectors which rum from me poim
of connection to the subscriber dweUing unit to the subscriber receiver.
"Standard Drop" shall be defined as the cable, not to exceed 250 fee~, which stall rUll
from the nearest connection point on the feeder cable of the Meredith system to the point of
connection to the subscriber dwelling unit. Standard Drop includes both aerial and underground
drops.
Should the subscriber require or request a converter, or other equipment not essential to
the reception of Uillversal PEG Service, or should the subscriber require additional Outlets or
Drops which are other Ll-Jan sta..T1dard, the subscriber will be responsible for the regulaled charges
for such services or equipment. Additional charges for drops which are other thaIl st2ndard shall
credit Lf}c expense of the first 250 feet of the drop.
Meredith shall. pass through in the PEG Fee portion of subscribers '. bills the cosrs.ofdesign
and tecimicaL recon.f1gurationof the Universal PEG Service in the additional amount 0 ffiv~( 5)
cents'permonth beginning January 1, 1996, See ExhibitC. Upon Meredith's activation and
provision of Universal Service and each year thereafter, Meredith shall provide the Commission
with a reconciliation of amcunts collected and expended related to this cost recovery and agree
r.,) an adjustment to the PEG Fee for any overpayment or underpayment.
Meredim shall provide an initial written notice to non-subscribers announcing the
availability of the Universal PEG Service. Meredith shall also mention the availability of the
Universal PEG Service periodically in other marketing, promotional, or infonTI:1tion materials to
non-subscribers and shall mention the Universal PEG Service in these materials at least quarterly.
Universal PEG Service will be included in any literature which lists all services generally
available from Meredith. Existing subscribers shall receive notice of the a.vailability of the
Universal PEG Service as a part of Meredich's notice concerning the channel line-up changes and
thereafter, at least annually. The Cornmission may promote the availability of Universal PEG
Service, and Meredith shall make available to the Commission during the first sixty (60) days of
5
P.9
the availability of the Universal PEG Service at least four ad avails per week to be chosen at the
sole discretion of Meredith.
The Commission acknowledges that it has received from its legal counsel an opinion that
Universal PEG Service is permitted under applicable federal and state law, and that Meredith need
not change other services or rates to bring them into compliance with federal or state law.
4. PROFITS ON SALE.
Meredith agrees that, should it sell or transfer any interest in the Cable System (suffic ient
to require l\.'1ember Cities I approval pursuant to the Franchise) for i.l Profit (as defined below) prior
to expiration of the current Franchise on September 8, 1998, it shall pass the full amount of any
said Profit on to subscribers, up to, and not exceeding the total dollar amount of Relief granted
by this Memorandum (as defined below). For any sale or transfer of a partial interest in the Cable
System, Profit shall be calculated on a pro rata basis as set ferth below. Nothing in this section
shall constitute an admission or precedent for fllillre rate regulation or transfer or sales of [he
Cable System which may occur beyond the initial term of the Franchise.
"Profit "shall mean the total Sale Price (including the value of any and all non-mone~ary
benefits or incentives) received for the Cable System by Meredith, less the Acquisition Cost, less
an annual rate of return of 9 % on the Acquisition Cost (subject to verification that 9 % was the
1verage of Meredith's aema! cast of money since September 1, 1992 acquisition date), as agreed
upon by the parties, less the verifiable capita! expenditures made siece the acquisition date, less
the reasonable costs of sale (attorney's fees, broker's fees, etc.). The parties expressly agree that
no allow:mee or oL.lJer reductions or consideration<s in profit calculations shall be made for :.1Oy past
or current accumulated operating deficits.
"Relief" shall mean the total of that additional amount per month per subscriber, from
April 1, 1995, to December 31, 1995, which Meredith may collect and/or retain under this
Memorandum, which was previously termed "PEG Costs" or ., Othet Franchise Fees" by
Meredith, and for which the Commissil)n has previously disputed pass-through or external
treatment.
:5. SERVICE RATES.
Meredith is allowed to charge a basic service rate in the amount being lawfully charged
as of the effective date of this Agreement and any subsequent increases lawfully pur in place by
Meredit.h, plus all amounts identified herein in Exhibit A as costs which are to be given external
treatment, costs which may be passed through, or costs to be borne by the subscribers, except as
provided for below, and which shall be identified on the subscriber bill and itemized 8.5 a "PEG
fee". Nothing in this Agreement shall limit other external increases not expressly addressed in
the Memorandum and other rate adjustment consistent with federal law and regulations.
6
P.lO
The parties agree that Meredith will not include in the PEG fee, now or in the furure, any
expenses or costs associated with ~he provision of local o.rigination programming.
6. SUCCESSORS BOUND.
Any parent, general partner, subsidiary, successor-in-interest, transferee, or assign sha.ll
be expressly bound by this Memorandum. Meredith agrees to disclose the terms of this
Memorandum with any potential purchasers of the Cable System or to any other individual
involved in any other contemplated ownership transfer of the Cable System. Failure of al1Y such
potential successor-in-interest to Meredith to agree to all terms and conditions of this
Memorandum shall be grounds for Meredith not to agree to the sale, and shall be reasonable and
acceptable grounds for the Commission and its Member Cities not to approve any such transfer
of ownership or other transfer of interest.
7. COMPETITION.
Should effective competition develop within the Commission's cable service territory in
the provision of video or cable services, as agreed by both parries to this Agreement, at any lime
in the future, Meredith and the Commission agree to commence discussions regarding issues
which give said competition an unfair advantage over Meredith. Should any other Multi-channel
V ideo Programming Distributor ("MVPD ") over which the COIT'.u'11ission or the Member Cities
have regulatory jurisdiction provide service ITl lhe current cable service area, the Commission anJ
Its i\llember Cities agree not to gram more favorable terms to such MVPD than are granted to
Meredith.
8. SEVERABILITY.
Should any term of this Memorandum be determined to be unenforceable by the FCC or
any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the Memorandum shall be treated as severed
and shall remain in full force and effect. In the event mat any conn, the FCC, or any other body
with jurisdiction over either party revises or voids any parr of rhis ~'remorandum, the panies
rnurually agree to make any amendments to this Memorandum or orner applicable agreerIlem or
ordinances necessary to effectuate the intention of this Memorandum. In the event that such
amendments or charges are barred by any legal requirements governing either party, [he parries
shall use their best efforts to avoid prejudice to the respective parries' interests, and to implement
cllanges to effectuate the intent in entering into this Memorandum. If eiLl1er party finds
unacceptable the remainder of this Memorandum as severed by operation of this section, and
either party cannot agree with proposals by the other to amend this Memorandum to further the
original intent of said party in nonagreement, then the parties agree to submit the remaining issues
to binding arbitration.
7
P.ll
9. FRANCHISE COMPLIANCE.
At the time of execution of this Memorandum, the Commission acknowledges that
Meredith has not been notified of any existing franchise violations and that no enforcement actions
at law are currently underway.
10. WAIVER OF CLAIMS.
Neither Commission nor Meredith waive any rights to negotiate other items during the
franchise renewal process. The Commission and Meredith each acknowledge and agree that this
Memorandum was fully negotiated and entered into by them in good faith. Commission and
Meredith agree not to assert, and specifically waive any and all right either may have to assert,
that any provision, term or condition of this Memorandum is unenforceable under federal, stale
or local law. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall require either the Commission
or Meredith to act in contravention of an applicable judicial ruling or an applicable: ruling of the
Federal Communications Commi.ssion. Except as to those rightS expressly waived in this
subsection, Commission and Meredith expressly reserve all of their other rights under federal,
state and local law .
11. COUNTERPARTS.
Th.is Agreement may be signed in l:ounterpan: by each i','!ernber City and shall be binding
upon that city when it and :Meredith affix their authorized signature hereto
1"1
.1":'.
EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Memorandum is effective as to the signators hereon after approval and execution by
any two (2) of the parties, provided one (1) of the signatures is Meredith.
Executed this ;Z! day of a.u.Jl , 199:(
AGREED AS TO PAR.'\GRAPHS 1,2.3,4,3,6,7.8.9, 10, 11 p.ND 12.
CITY r)F CIRCLE PINES
Manaqer
By
Its
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
CITY OF LEXINGTON
By
Its
By
Its
8
P.12
CITY OF LINO LAKES
CITY OF SPRING LAKE PARK
By
Its
By
Its
CITY OF HAM LAKE
CITY OF COON RAPIDS
By
Its
By
Its
AGREED AS TO PARAGRAPHS 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II AND 12.
- //
. /Jel.)"1L./tYuC-U ""
AGREED AS TO ALL PARAGRAPHS 1 THROOGH 12, INCLUSIVE.
NORTH CENTR\L CABLE
COMMUi'llCA TIONS CORPORATION
MEREDITH/NEvV HERITAGE
STRATEGIC PARTNERS, L.P.
BY~ /~jli-_
It _ ~~Q
GROUP W CABLE OF NORTH
CENTRAL SlTBlJRBS, I1'rC.
8V~
'Its . . . ,./J/9ft _
C:\TDC\NCSCCC\FINAL.DOCIMOUIRS ll! \6/95 9/55AM
9
P.l3
PEG Fee
AI1/95
$1.50
Exhibir A
111/96
$1. 75
111/97
$2.00
1/1/98
$2.25
*Each year thereafter increased pursuant [Q an annual inflation increase (CPI).
P.14
1/1/*
CITY OF BLAINE
RESOLUTION NO. 97-51
TRANSFERRING COMMUNITY
TELEVISION PROGRAMMING RESPONSIBILITIES
FROM GROUP W OF THE NORTH CENTRAL SUBURBS
d/b/a MEREDITH CABLE TO THE NORTH CENTRAL SUBURBAN
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Cable Communications Franchise between Group W of the North
Central Suburbs d/b/a Meredith Cable (hereinafter "Company") and the City of Blaine
(hereinafter "City") requires the Company to provide and maintain certain cable television
program facilities and equipment, provide certain community access channels and provide
certain cable programming staff as delineated in the Franchise and Offering as defined in the
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, The City of Blaine is a member of a consortium of cities, known as the
North Central Suburban Cable Communications Commission (hereinafter "Commission"), for
the purpose of oversight and regulation of the cable franchise and related services; and
WHEREAS, the Company and Commission have agreed to the divesting of the
Company of all responsibility for providing the above mentioned support for community
television programming; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has investigated the possibility and ramifications of
assuming the responsibility for community television programming within the North Central
Suburban area; and
WHEREAS, the Commission and the Company have negotiated mutually acceptable
terms to effect the transfer of the community television function from the Company to the
Commission as delineated below; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined such transfer to be in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City agrees with Meredith Cable to
the following terms and conditions effective March 1, 1997:
1. The Commission will assume all responsibility for community cable television
programming delineated in the Franchise(s) and Offering for the seven (7) Member Cities of the
North Central Suburban Cable Communications Commission geographic territories after
providing Meredith with at least thirty (30) day notice of it' s intent to do so.
2. The Company is relieved of all responsibility for providing community cable
television programming delineated in the Franchise and Offering of the City, except for those
responsibilities delineated by this Agreement, and further, except for its customary
responsibilities of delivery of signal and maintenance of the cable system to accomplish such
delivery.
P.lS
Resolution No. 97-51
Page 2
3. The Company shall transfer to the Commission title to and ownership of all equipment
listed in Exhibit A, which is on file with the Commission.
4. The Company shall make available for the term of the Franchise and any renewals
thereof for use by the Commission and City those six channels currently on the North Central
Suburban cable system and currently known as the Public Access Channel 15, the Government
Access Channel 16, and the Educational Access Channels 58, 60, and 61, and the Religious
Access Channel 57. The Company shall separate cablecasting on these channels, if not already
accomplished, so that these channels may be discretely programmed and cablecast to Coon
Rapids and the remaining seven (7) Member Cities of the Commission. The expense for system
conversion to allow for such discrete cablecasting shall come from any excess public,
educational, government (PEG) fees collected by the Company in 1995 and 1996, and the first
two (2) months of 1997 pursuant to that certain Memorandum ofDnderstanding (MOD) by and
between City and Company. In addition, the Commission and City shall have complete and
unrestricted access to the above mentioned channels, however, the Company will have full
responsibility for the term of the Franchise for the maintenance, repair, and technical
performance of said channels.
5. Commencing January 1, 1997, the PEG Fee established pursuant to the Memorandum
of Understanding shall be $1.75 per month per subscriber.
6. The Company shall pay the full amount of the PEG Fee collected from the subscribers
of City to the Commission, or its designee. The Company shall prepay quarterly, an estimated
quarterly PEG Fee, which shall be annually reconciled to reflect actual PEG Fee receipts by
Meredith subject to more frequent reconciliation by mutual agreement of the parties. The first
prepayment shall be on or before March 1, 1997 for March, April, May and June of 1997.
7. The Company shall assign and the Commission, or its designee, shall assume all real
estate and equipment leases and contracts relating to PEG Programming.
8. The Commission shall be responsible for any and all I-Net or other switching related
to PEG Programming or non-profit use of the I-Net capacity for its seven (7) Member Cities,
which shall occur only as provided in the Franchise and consistent with applicable laws.
9. The Commission shall advise Meredith in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to the
Effective Date of Transfer of its intention to make offers of employment to Meredith personnel
relating to PEG Programming. The Commission intends to employ all five (5) current
employees of Meredith and North Central Community programming operations.
10. City agrees to allow Meredith to keep its local customer service office in the space it
occupies as of December 31, 1996, provided that Meredith assumes the capital costs necessary to
segregate the office from the remainder of Commission space, and further provided that Meredith
shall pay one-hundred dollars ($100.00) per month rent to Commission commencing the
effective date of any Transfer.
11. Effective December 31, 1996, Company may close the Coon Rapids community
programming studio and transfer all equipment to the Blaine facility.
P.16
Resolution No. 97-51
Page 3
12. Expenses for 1995 and 1996 universal installations shall be reimbursed to the
Company from overages of the PEG Fee collected in 1995,1996, and the first two (2) months of
1997 from all subscribers located in the original eight (8) members of the Commission.
13. All excess PEG Fees collected from the subscribers located in the seven (7) current
members of the Commission in the first two (2) months of 1997 shall be paid to Commission.
14. For expenses for 1997 and beyond, universal installations shall be reimbursed to the
Company from upward adjustments to future PEG Fees, which shall not reduce the $1.75 or
further increases allowed by the MOD.
15. The terms and conditions oftrus resolution shall not be changed without the mutual
written consent of the Company and the City.
The Company and the City hereby reserve all rights and duties afforded pursuant to the
Franchise(s), and applicable local, state and federa1law.
PASSED by the City Council oflhe City OfBlain7 day of February, 1997
..~
ATTEST:
Joyce T 1 to , CMC, City Clerk
\..
We have reviewed the terms and conditions of this resolution and by our signatures below
agree to all said terms and conditions, except that it is understood that the effect of all
March! 1; 1997 timeframes and calculations based thereon shall be effective upon the
actual date of assumption of PEG access responsibility by the Commission (which is
projected to be April 1, 1997).
MEREDITH CABLE BY NORTH CENTRAL
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
BY
BY
DATED: 3/)-177
P.17
OUTLINE OF THE CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
The member cities' cable franchise renewal is subject to the renewal provisions of the federal Cable
Act, 47 U.S.c. g 546, which sets out two ways of aniving at a renewal decision: the formal and the
informal processes.
· A city and a cable operator may agree on a renewal franchise through informal negotiations,
pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ~ 546(h).
· If a city and the cable operator are unable to agree on renewal terms through negotiation,
and the operator has properly invoked the formal renewal process under 47 U.S.c. ~ 546(a),
the only way that the city may deny renewal is to take the following steps:
~ The North Metro Telecommunications Commission (the "Commission"), on behalf
of the member cities, conducts an "ascertainment" process to develop facts about
AT&T Broadband's past performance and the Commission's and member cities'
future cable-related needs and interests.
~ Once the Commission completes the ascertainment process, it issues a request for
renewal proposal to AT&T Broadband.
~ AT&T Broadband submits a proposal for renewal (either on its own initiative or at
the request of the Commission).
~ The Commission must provide public notice of AT&T Broadband's renewal
proposal.
~ The Commission, on behalf ofthe member cities, has four months from submission
of AT&T Broadband's proposal in which to renew the franchise or issue a
preliminary denial of renewal.
~ If the Commission issues a preliminary denial, it begins a formal administrative
proceeding to consider whether the franchise should be renewed, basing its decision
on the four factors listed on page 2 below.
~ At the end of the administrative proceeding, the Commission, on behalf of the
member cities, issues a written decision granting or denying the renewal proposal,
based on the record and stating its reasons.
P.18
2
>- The cable operator may appeal the Commission's decision in state or federal court.
· The only four criteria upon which a denial of renewal may be based are whether:
>- AT &T Broadband has substantially complied with the material terms ofthe exishng
franchises and with applicable law;
>- the quality of AT&T Broadband's service, including signal quality, response to
consumer complaints, and billing practices (but without regard to the mix or quality
of cable services or other services provided over the system) has been reasonable in
light of community needs;
>- AT&T Broadband has the financial, legal, and technical ability to provide the
services, facilities, and equipment as set forth in its proposal; and
>- AT&T Broadband's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related
community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs
and interests.
· Normally, the formal ascertainment process goes on simultaneously with the informal process.
If an informal agreement is reached, however, there is no need to complete the formal process.
Reactivating the formal renewal process would not prevent the Commission from continuing to
negotiate with AT&T Broadband informally.
A more detailed description of the formal renewal process follows.
G:\North Meh-o\RenewaJ\Outline of Franchise Renewal.DOC
P.19
SUMMARY OF THE CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
The renewal provisions in section 626 of the federal Cable Act (47 u.s.c. 9546) govern cable
franchise renewal. The Cable Act establishes two ways of arriving at a renewal decision: the
formal and the informal processes.
Most renewal franchises are negotiated through the informal process described in 9 626(h) of the
Cable Act. If, however, negotiations break down and a community seeks to deny renewal, it may be
necessary to follow the procedures of the formal process specified in 9S 626(a)-(g) ofthe Cable Act,
as briefly outlined below.
Informal Process
While the Cable Act does not require specific procedures for informal negotiations, the public must
have notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposed renewal.
Formal Process
If AT&T Broadband has timely requested that the North Metro Telecommunications Commission
or the member cities begin formal renewal proceedings, renewal cannot be denied without recourse
to the formal process.
A. Ascertainment Process.
1. First stage in the formal renewal process. The Cable Act allows the
Commission and/or the member cities six months from the date of
submission of the renewal notice to begin the ascertainment process. The
process is intended to give the public and the Commission, on behalf of the
member cities, an opportunity to identifY fhture cable-related community
needs and interests and to review the past performance of AT&T Broadband.
Ascertainment can be accomplished through a variety of tools, including
public hearings, surveys, focus groups, interviews, and repOlis and audits of
AT&T Broadband's past performance.
P.20
2
B. Renewal Proposal.
1. Second stage of the renewal process. A proposal may be submitted upon
request of the Commission (on behalf of the member cities) or on AT&T
Broadband's initiative.
2. A proposal initiated by the Commission may establish requirements for
facilities and equipment that are related to the operation of the cable system,
including proposals for an upgrade, PEG equipment or an institutional
network, but not for video programming or other information services.
3. The Commission can establish deadlines for submission of a formal
proposal. Such deadlines must conform to state and local law and must be
communicated to the cable operator in writing.
4. The Commission cannot require submission of a formal proposal prior to the
completion of ascertainment hearings and, upon the submission of a formal
proposal, must provide prompt notice ofthe proposal.
5. After receipt of a formal proposal, the Commission, on behalf ofthe member
cities, must decide to renew or preliminarily deny within four months of
receipt of the proposal.
C. Administrative Proceeding for Denial.
1. If the renewal proposal is denied, AT &T Broadband can request
administrative proceedings, or such proceedings may begin upon the
Commission's own initiative. In such an administrative proceeding, AT&T
Broadband must be given adequate notice and fair opporttmity for fhll
participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to require the
production of evidence and to question witnesses. A transcript of the
proceedings must be made.
2. If AT&T Broadband believes the Commission (or another hearing examiner)
to be unfairly biased, it must raise its objections during the administrative
proceeding or waive them.
3. The Commission or the member cities must issue a written decision stating
the reasons for denial.
4. The member cities' decision to grant renewal upon terms unacceptable to
AT&T Broadband maybe treated as a denial.
P.21
3
5. Any final decision not to renew must be based on an adverse finding with
respect to at least one offour factors:
a. Whether AT&T Broadband has not substantially complied with the
material terms of its franchises and applicable law.
b. Whether the quality of the AT&T Broadband's service, including
signal quality, response to consumer complaints, and billing
practices, but without regard to the mix or quality of cable services or
other services provided over the system has been reasonable in light
of community needs.
c. Whether AT&T Broadband has the financial, legal and technical
ability to provide services, facilities and equipment as set forth in its
proposal. Past performance is relevant and may be considered in
reaching a decision on AT&T Broadband's technical ability.
d. Whether AT&T Broadband's proposal is reasonable to meet the
future cable-related needs and interests ofthe community, taking into
account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.
6. Quality problems and franchise violations occurring after 12/29/84 (effective
date of the Cable Act) cannot be held against the cable operator unless it has
been given notice and opportunity to cure.
D. Judicial Review.
1. Final stage of formal proceedings if the member cities deny renewal. AT&T
Broadband may seek judicial relief prior to a final denial if it believes the
actions of the Commission or the member cities at any stage of the renewal
process are not in compliance with the Cable Act.
2. Following a final denial, AT&T Broadband must file its appeal in federal or
state court within 120 days of receipt of the notice of the decision. If any
action of the Commission or the member cities is not in compliance with the
Cable Act or AT&T Broadband demonstrates that any adverse finding with
respect to each of the four criteria was not supported by a preponderance of
the evidence based on the record introduced at the formal administrative
proceeding, the court may grant the operator appropriate relief No relief
will be granted, however, for "harmless error."
3. If court finds that AT&T Broadband has met the four criteria, it can order the
member cities to grant renewal.
G:\NOIth Metro\Renewal\Outline of Franchise Renewa\.DOC
P.22
03/21/2001
1111 Main Slreel, Suite 200
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
816-701-2616
Fax: 816-701-2816
E-mail: mdeggend@utilicorp.com
Ms. Heidi Arneson, Executive Director
North Metro Telecommunications Commission
1630 101st Avenue NE
Blaine, MN 55449
UTlUCORP
COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
-
-.--..
Michael l. Deggendorl
Vice Presidenl
Markel Development
Re: Everest Connections Corporation
Dear Ms. Heidi Arneson:
On behalf of Utili Corp Communications Services, Inc., the majority investor in Everest Connections
Corporation, we would like to extend our sincere appreciation for the opportunity to meet with you to
review our current situation.
As we discussed, the unexpected tightening in capital markets for both debt and equity has forced us
to move forward at a more measured pace. This pace allows us to meet the financial market's new
requirement that we prove the viability of our business model in the marketplace rather than merely
on paper. The test for our business model is taking place in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
where we have made significant progress in the construction of the system and have begun activating
customers. Our initial numbers reflect positive results and we fully believe that we will exceed the
projections of our business plan.
While we regret the delay in the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area, we believe that this is a
prudent and conservative decision, which will ultimately benefit your communities and our
customers. Once we are ready to move forward in this market, the Cities and Commissions will have
concrete evidence that our business model is viable and that we are able to fulfill our contractual
obligations.
We want to stress that we view the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area as an extremely
attractive market and that we have every intention of providing a state-of-the-art service offering that
will bring your citizens choice for their current cable, telephone and high speed internet offerings.
Again, we believe that Cities and Commissions have been both thorough and fair during the
franchising process, demonstrating the ability to conduct this process with due diligence while
maintaining the expediency necessary in a competitive market.
Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Michael 1. Deggendorf
Vice President
Market Development
~
P.23
,. I~I
L-( IIL.J-L ~"""'.'-'''''''r'
l"W.... .......C......r-C11&,..C..=>>......
IIL.J.........., ~...... I
r'. ,
WideOpenWest
D. Craig Martin
E-Mail: cmiIliin(@.wideopenwest.com
Direct Dial: 616-567-4200
March 23, 2001
Thomas D. Creighton, Esq.
Creighton, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
5402 Parkdale Drive
Suite 102
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Via Facsimile and Re[tll/ar Mail
Re: North Metro Communications Commission; WideOpellWest
Minnesota, LLCj Withdrawal of Franchise Application
Dear Mr. Creighton:
As you will recall, we notitled you by way of letter dated October 25, 2000, that our
franchise application as filed with the NOlth Metro Communications Commission on May 31,
2000, was to be placed on hold. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that WideOpenWest
Minnesota, LLC, is formally withdrawing its franchise application.
Accompanying the initial application was our check in the amount of $50,000. In
response to our "hold" letter, the Commission indicated that of this amount, $44,196.07 remains.
Accordingly, please refund this amount to: WideOpenWest Networks, Attn: Jeff Decker, 1040
Stony Hill Road, Suite 325, Yardley, PA 19067.
We will continue to stay in touch with you and if the marketplace and regulatory
environment changes sufficiently, we will reapply. We wish you the best.
Very truly yours,
WIDE9~WE~Jl
{!/ 'I/~
D. Crai~till
General Counsel
Iminnesora\creighton withdrawalltr 3-22-0 I
cc: Eric Brown
George Duffy
259 Michigan Avenue
SuitE! 20b
Kalamazoo. Ml 49007
I hH~.567.42UO
f 616.0;67.4l93
www.wideDpem.\'est.;:om
P.24
M.
:' -:;, ' ,,\~.:,>~'-""
," ';h . <(-",-\:::- ',-i!~,i;-:;.;:~:'~~,:
*ALSOADMITTED IN WISCOI\JSIN,',;,/
HADMITTED IN MASsACH'USmS-X-r
AND THE DISTRICr,?F COLU.t.1B,I~
I.; ::;:: }:,,{:~.,-,:<
March 29,2001
Mr. David G. Seykora
Vice President
AT&T Broadband
10 River Park Plaza
St. Paul, Minnesota 55107-1219
Re: lVlarch 19,2001 Letter Re North Metro Informal Renewal Negotiations
Dear Mr. Seykora:
I reference your letter dated March 19, 2001. Please be advised that the Commission
does not repudia!e the Memorandum of Understanding. We do, however, disagree with
your interpretation of that document, especially when read in context with the Definitive
Agreement, the Franchise and underlying law.
However, that is not the purpose of this letter. In your letter of March 19, you state that:
"As the Commission has withdrawn its offers effective 4:00 p.m. today, the Company
must also withdraw all offers beyond the terms of the MOU which we have previously
made toward negotiating a franchise renewal."
This position is confusing since there were at least two other major issues on the table,
other than PEG issues, and numerous minor issues, not to mention a franchise document,
the terms of which were nearly in agreement. Is the Commission to understand that the
Company has also withdrawn all progress and agreements made thus far on the
Institutional Network and the Service Area discussions, both of which have been
allocated significant time and effort on the part of both the company and Commission? If
so, have you no renewal offer on the table, Sh011 of the status quo and the MOD?
Please clarify this matter, and with specificity delineate what is and is not on the table in
your informal proposal by 4:00 p.m. Tuesday, April 3, 2000. This date is selected, not to
be difficult, but because the annual joint meeting of the North Metro Commission and the
North Metro Operating Committee (City Managers and Administrators) is being held
Wednesday, April 4, 2000, and your response will be very important to the discussions at
that meeting.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
TDClrs
cc: 1I1s. Heidi Arnson
Telephone:
Facsimile:
-----
-
~ --= AT~~
-- iBr ~.QlI
-
--
David G. Seykora
Vice President - Law & Public Policy
651-493-5280
651-493-5288
10 River Park Plaza
St. Paul, MN 55107-1219
April 3,2001
VIA FACSMILE AND U.S. MAIL
Mr. Thomas D. Creighton
Creighton, Bradley, & Guzzetta, LLC
5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 102
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Re: Informal Renewal Negotiations - North Metro Telecommunications
Commission
Dear Mr. Creighton:
We submit this letter in response to your letter dated March 29, 2001
regarding the informal renewal negotiations between AT&T Broadband and the
North Metro Telecommunications Commission ("Commission"). I will attempt to
clarify where we believe the negotiations stand at this point.
Your letter notes that the Company has withdrawn its prior offers beyond
the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). We took this action in
direct response to the action of the Commission with respect to its informal
renewal offer. Your letter of March 8, 2001 states that the Company must accept
all of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Commission's informal
renewal proposal without change. Your letter goes on to say that the
Commission's offer would be withdrawn at 4:00 p.m. on March 19 if not accepted
by the Company by that time. The Commission's informal renewal proposal
contained demands involving unilateral changes to the MOU that the Company
could. not accept...I n-the-ci rcumstance-wl-leretl-le-Commiss iOrl-l-las-r:lot-left-an ____.._
offer on the table, the Company is likewise not prepared to leave an offer on the
table.
My letter of March 19 specifically points out that a large piece of the
renewal negotiations is already completed. The MOU resolves all matters
regarding funding for PEG and any related programming obligations. We also
recognize that the parties have had extensive discussions regarding other
matters related to the renewal, and we have had productive meetings regarding
such matters. However, in this negotiation, as in other franchise renewal
(}0
\6& Recycled Paper
negotiations, we have been operating on the fundamental premise that none of
the interim resolutions regarding these other subsidiary issues are final until the
franchise agreement is signed.
The Commission's intention with respect to the MOU is a fundamental
issue in the negotiations, and the Company would like to have a clear
understanding of the Commission's intention. Your letter says that the
Commission does not believe it is repudiating the MOU. At the same time,
however, the Commission is demanding substantial additional PEG funding as a
condition of reaching agreement on a renewal, and these demands are directly
contrary to the express terms of the MOU. The Commission's two positions are
inconsistent with each other and simply cannot coexist. Either both parties must
commit to stand by our obligations in the MOU, or we agree to terminate the
MOU and start over. Please understand that if the Commission insists on
additional PEG funding beyond that specified in the MOU, we consider that to be
a repudiation of the agreement and a choice to pursue the latter option.
We request that the Commission clarify its intention with respect to
honoring the terms of the MOU as written. After you have provided this guidance
to us, we will be ready to sit down with the Commission again to make a fresh
effort to negotiate the terms of a franchise renewal.
We look forward to hearing from you about how the Commission would
like to proceed.
Sincerely,
cc: Jeidi Arnson
Kathi Donnelly-Cohen
j)~b ~
David G. seYk1
2
"
FRANCHISE RENEWAL OPTIONS
FOR
NORTH METRO COMMISSION
II..
Thomas D. Creighton
Creighton Bradley & Guzzetta
April 4, 2001
.
GENERAL OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO COMMISSION
. Accept final offer of company
. Fold on Memorandum of Understanding ..
(master control equipment) and ..
negotiate Inet and Service Area
. Negotiate equipment, Inet and Service
area
. Formal process
.
Accept Final Offer of Company
. Not clear what that is
. last offer interpreted MOU as providing no ..
master control equipment on renewal ..
. did not mention Inet
. did not mention service area
. Cities settle for no master control
equipment, service area remains same,
Inet "as is" but fiber trunk
1
.
Fold on MOU and negotiate
Inet and Service Area
. Most likely where Company plans to get by its
final offer
. Will prolong process __
. Company is showing no cooperation or II"
movement in any other franchise territories
. Result: Cities pay for master control equipment,
a couple new Inet locations and only get
expanded service area if company planned to
expand anyway
.
Negotiate equipment, Inet and
Service Area
. Right back where we started
. No real hope of movement by AT&T
. AT&T has moved backwardon
negotiations points
. No estimate as to how long negotiations
would last
~
.
. Prepare initial formal renewal documents
. Update needs assesment
. Prepare model franchise and Request for
. Renewal Proposal
. Issue Request for Renewal Proposal __
. Receive and review AT&T formal renewal II"
proposal
. If accept proposal, develop franchise
. If not accept proposal. . .
2
.
. Formal Process if n accept
AT&T renewal proposal
. Can deny AT&T proposal if determination
is made that proposal does not meet the
identified community needs and interests
considering the costs of meeting those ...
needs Ii"
. If deny :
. AT&T may invoke its right to an
administrative hearing
.
. Discovery phase
. Prehearing evidentiary motions
. Hearing preparation
. Draft briefs and finding of fact and ..
conclusions of law which must be ..
adopted by the Commission if deny
. Conduct Hearing-Easily 10--8 hour days
. Possible appeals to state or federal court
.
Worst Case Cost of Formal
Process
. A whopping $391,000 through federal appeals
court (only a few in the nation have ever gotten
this far) ,
. Many points at which Commission can stop
. Informal negotiations usually keep going and
settlement is reached
. Often need to start formal process to convince
company that the Commission and Cities are
serious
3
MEMO
DATE: April 6, 2001
TO : Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Jim March
RE : County Bank Request
............................................................................
Included in your packet is a letter received from County Bank Branch Manager Craig
Bode. I will be sharing this letter with Paul Palzer and Milo Bennett prior to the meeting
to gather input. I will ask Mr. Peterson to be prepared to make a presentation on this
issue. Typically, the City has paid for oversizing in water main construction. Even
though a fire hydrant may benefit other properties, historically if a hydrant was required
for a specific project than that project bore the cost of the hydrant. A recent example is
the fire hydrant near the west property boundary of Apple Tree Square. We can discuss
this issue in more detail at the meeting.
;~
THE COUNTY BANK
~.. Growing the future
March 23,2001
To: The City ofCenterville
From: The County Bank
Re: Sewer and Water for Hydrant
To whom it may concern:
We are writing the city of Centerville to advise them of a bill we want to submit for payment,
which was incurred when we were told we needed a fire hydrant closer to our new facility at 7]] 1
2] st Avenue North in Centerville.
The hydrant was not only present when the land was purchased, but there was no water main to
service the hydrant. We would expect the city to pay for the water main and then assess the
current and future property owners according to either square footage of the building unites), or
assess according to land mass. My understanding is that this is what has been done historically
when a commercial entity is told they need a hydrant, that is, when the main is completed, they
then pay for the cost of stubbing out and connecting to a new hydrant before occupancy.
Terry Peterson from Rehbein Excavating was the project manager on the job. He claims that the
Pipe is sufficient for future expansion and that is why the breakout ofthe bill (see attached).
As Branch Manager, I am enclosing a copy of the bill from Rehbein Excavating which we have
been billed for which breaks down the costs associated with this project.
Please call me at your convenience so we can discuss this issue. My number is 65] -762-9440.
Sincerely,
~ -'
" ----~
Craig J.'B~
Vice President/Branch Manager
FOREST LAKE
1650 South Lake St. . P.O. Box 638
Forest Lake, MN 55025
Ph: 651.464.2880 Fax: 651.464.2955
CENTER CITY
300 Andrews Ave. . P.O. Box 247
Center City, MN 55012
Ph: 651.257.1096 Fax: 651.257.2965
CENTERVILLE
7111 21st Ave. North
Centerville, MN 55038
Ph: 651.762.9440 Fax: 651.762.9441
GREYSTONE
/----~
! ! ~~' /':']
/ .'------ /,', \,
'-........... ,/ __ -I) ',\.--;..
/' 'r'<~<l'( i'-
J ~::~
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET
COMPANY/LOCATION: The County Bank
FAX NUMBER: 651-762-9441
A TTENTION: Craig Bode
FROM: Steve Chuba
DATE: March 8, 2001
TOTAL PAGES TRANSMITTED: 4
(includes cover sheet)
MESSAGE AND/OR SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Please see the attached change order no. 2 summary as requested. Richard
called me with one other small soffit item I had to add to item no. 7. The
split on the additional hydrant and watermain work as required per the fire
marshal is $2000.00 for the hydrant and $10,477.00 for the watermain.
Also please see the attached quotes on earthwork, site utilities and curb and
gutter for discussion. Thank you.
TRANSMITTED FROM: 952-445-4191
TRANSMITTED BY: Steve Chuba
1221 East Fourth Avenue. Suite 110
Shakopee, Minnesota 55379
Equal Opportunity
Em pI oyer/Contractor
Telephone: 952-496-2227
Fax: 952-445-4191
2000 EDITION
. fn~,~,7,!~ O?~~~~id')
AlA DOCUMENT
PROJECT:
(Name and address)
,.J~:COlJ~ty BanK::.
:711J..?1stAve..North
CentetViII~,: MN. {;5403.
I
G701-2000
CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: 3 OWNER ~
DATE: 3/15/01 ARCHITECT ~
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NUMBER: CONTRACTOR b
10/18/00 0
CONTRACT DA TE: FIELD
CONTRACT FOR: General Construction OTHER 0
. TO CONTRACTOR:
CHaine 'and;addrm)':
-'..."~~., ",,~,~,..,~". . ',..".~,~',>-,
..;,~ ,<,',-.: ~- '.~.
<,,'. Gre~oneCon~titiction CO;
:.'122tE.-4thAve, 'Suite110
...0~.~.:S6'~kO~, .M~ .5~~i9;~;;>.
~~::~~{THE:cb~N T RA.CTI S CHX~ G E ri';:~FOLl OW5:. .;.::
-. ~-".::JIl1du'!e/w~ere applicable, any wl~isputed mnou.nt attributable ~_o previollsly exectited C0t15lructio!'l Chat!ge Directives.)
'~~',-,-~- _ c
;'~ ''\' r -, '- -,._ .,,:;
\.-' .":'0..:","";",<,_
Additionalwatermainand hydrant work as required
~r th~Jire m~al oJ.th-~City of~~te~ifl~~~'; ..:
Add:
12,477.00
Add:
1,248.00
Theoriginal(Contract Sum~~e) was$:539,OOO.00
Thenet cha~~e by previouslyauthorized Change Orders $ : 64,752:00
. -
The (Contract Sum) ~~ prior to this Change Order was $ 603,752.00
The (Contract Sum) (~will be (in~{~ased) (~)
~) by this Change Order in the amount of $ .13,725.00
The new CC~ntract Sum) (~~~?i&) including thi~ Change Order will be $
The Contr'lct Time will be (~~) (unchanged) by (
4/16/01
617,477.00
o
) days,
The date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
NOTE: This Ch~nge Order d;es not include changes in the Contract Sum, Contr3ct Time or Guaranteed Maximum Price which
have been authorized by Construction Change.Directive for. which the cost or lime are in dispule as described in Suhparagr3ph
1.3.8 of AlA D?Cument MOL .
Not valid until signed by the Architect, Contractor and Owner.
Shea Architects, Inc,
Greystone Construction Co'.
The County Bank
ARC H I TECT (Typed ""me)
OWN E R (fyped 'I<I/IIe)
(SignClture)
CyiCv0 'f<'
BY
BY
3.. "Lg . 0 ~
DATE
') -, 1.- ~ '" V' L
DATE
DATE
, -----1
<<J2000 The American Institute of Architects, Reproduction of the material herein or substantial quotation of its
provisions without written permission of the AlA violates the copyright laws of the United States and will subject
the violator to legal prosecution.
WARNING: Unlicensed photocopying violates U.S. copyright laws and will subject the violator to legal prosecution.
~t'
.'. ~,. ....
"."
--
@2000 AIA@
AlA DOCUMENT G701-2000
CHANGE ORDER
The American Institute
of Architects
1735 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C 20006.5292
MEMO
DATE: April 6, 2001
TO : Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM: Jim March
RE : Community Gardens
............................................................................
Included in your packet is a proposal received from Goetz Landscaping in regards to
creating community garden plots behind the current City Hall. There would be some
ways to reduce costs based on the proposal submitted. We could reduce the number of
plots the first year and/or we could have the residents spread their own black dirt and just
have the seventeen (17) truckloads of dirt dumped in a pile. This would save a lot of
labor cost.
In future years, based on the number of plots and anticipated rental charges the fees
generated from usage should more than cover the cost of annual tilling. It will take a
significant effort to remove the sod and till the land the first year to make the plots
suitable for gardens.
,.
Goetz Landscape & Irrigation, Inc.
Goetz Garden Center
2030 Main Street
Centerville; Minnesota 55038
Voice: 651/426-2136
Fax: 651/ 426-2451
Minnesota Nursery & Landscape
Association .Member
DATE: April 6, 2001
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
1880 MAIN STREET
CENTERVILLE, MN 55038
INFORMATION: Estimate on proposed landscape installation.
DETAILS OF WORK AREAS:
AREA ONE: CENTERVlllE COMMUNITY GARDENS
FINDINGS:
Area proposed for the garden space is approximately 105 X 145 feet. The site
has adequate slope for drainage and sufficient light exposure required to grow
healthy fruit and vegetables as well as beautiful vibrant flowers.
SITE COMPOSITION:
Currently grass covers the entire site. Upon probing the soil in several
locations black dirt makes up the next four to five inches (A Horizon). Beneath
this layer lays brown clay (B Horizon).
RECOMMENDATIONS AND COSTS TO CONSTRUCT THE COMMUNITY GARDENS:
.:. Perform a soil test and send to the University of Minnesota analysis
findings. Develop amendment plan.
$75.00
.:. Upon approved layout, measure and plot out garden areas.
$880.00
.:. Remove sod in designated areas and dispose of debris.
$3,230.00
.
.:. Existing soil will be tilled before amending.
$1,640.00
Professional Installation . Outstanding Service
1
.:. Amend soil and raise garden bed above ground, four to six inches.
/7 -'VfA.J:. Joctis
$5,443.00
.:. Mark/designate garden plots for Centerville residence.
$330.00
GARDEN CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE THREE TO FOUR DAYS, WEATHER
PERMITTING. TOTAL PROJECT COST ($163.00/plot). $11.598.00
Suggestion is that construction be completed by May 1st, 2001 to take
advantage of complete growing season.
Goetz Landscape and Garden Center will provide a free community garden
seminar following site construction to include the following:
GARDENING PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES:
.:. Garden spacing and layout
.:. Crop selection
.:. Planting, maintenance and harvesting
PRICE OF WORK: INCLUDES LABOR, MATERIALS & SALES TAX:
GUARANTEES:
All work is guaranteed against defects in materials and workmanship for one
year from the date of installation. All woody plant material is guaranteed for
100% of the replacement cost for one year, provided that the "Care For"
information given is followed as instructed. Perennials are guaranteed for the
growing season.
SCHEDULE:
Upon acceptance of the proposal, we can begin the project as soon as possible
(weather permitting). Please mail your down payment today for the earliest
scheduling opportunity.
PAYMENT SCHEDULE:
50% deposit will be needed upon acceptance of the proposal. The remainder of
the BALANCE IS DUE UPON COMPLETION of the work. Visa/MasterCard
accepted, Discover card preferred.
Professional Installation + Outstanding Service
s
SPECIAL ORDER ITEMS:
A 50% non-refundable down payment required, on all special order items.
PRE LIEN NOTICE:
As requested, we will provide lien waivers for our services and others that have
supplied materials and/or labor for improvements to your property. Also note
that upon completion, we may file a lien against your property if we are not
paid as specified.
REFERENCES:
References are available upon request.
CO NT ACT:
For more information please contact Joe Goetz, at (651) 426-2136.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this proposal. Please call me
if you have any questions. I am looking forward to working with you!
Respectfully submitted,
Goetz Landscape & Irrigation, lnc.
\~ ~:d3 ...
~gner/~ant
Professional Installation + Outstanding Service
.'
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
1880 MAIN STREET
CENTERVILLE, MN 55038
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL:
The above prices, specifications and conditions are agreed upon and are hereby
accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payments will be
made as outlined above.
Date
Signature
Date
Signature
CIRCLE ONE:
VISA
MASTERCARD
DISCOVER
CARD N U M BER________________________________________EX P DATE: _____________
This proposal may be withdrawn if not accepted within three days.
J.G.
Professional Installation ' Outstanding Service
-c~L~~~&.\liH~--~--QQ\A~\lNlT~-CkAWEN--PL~-fi-~. lel:' , ,C
\~-;--f i I_~-;-~---l~-LJ-!-_~----~-~--;---L-:--'----r-i-~J~-;--n_~~-~
: ,. i
-~-------~-I----- i ---,,--
i i i , i i , I
: , I ---1_ , . ;
.-.-..--.---:-:..--- ~- !-- , -j l--~- 1----,-
L- i , ! i
. -.- ---1----- ".- --+------~ - "".---..- 1----- ---.- -. -- -. -"-- ~-,_._- -~~-_.
i i I I I :
-- '0 -...--, --
, I I I . i , i I
I , i ! i
, I : I , ,
-----;-- --, --._,---- ! -:- ., -.
! I l i !
. , !
-r---- --- -~ I----i--- '--.... ---t---.--
I I i i :
----'-r-o--- --t--_ -- ---,-----, -_.-<-- --~_. 1---'--- -- --l----
I
, ,
n_I_____~.._____~_ : j---- .-
, i , , i , , I
: ' - I L.
--[f[-~-~~...::~. ....m[J_~.-. n,' .... IT'.-.,.:, --.0- .-............. ,.'-,. - -,++-
-----!""-- ---"-t'--r-- -_.
-: i i ; : : -- I j,' - i'" i - : : I .,.-----_..
-:m'JTIn-[J~B oB-
tl3 [JID-ot]m
\: ' I i'l ! I I
. '. , [JIIIITLill [1
: I 'I;: i i i I I': I
-rnmEJJBIIT III .
EEl i · '1Emffiillnl
1 Iii j i I ! i
--I--..!.j I I -:
( i: ; ;
Gi-!" -: · plL"--" S 'E.
,.~... ! t:\.(tQE.I\J; . '~J ...' ... _ \ 7.1. u'
i__~~_~ Ell jJtQ i
!_S~ 10 Fr ~i
Jc.i'i- IC_FT 7
; \ \:)!"'- l~ FT 0 4l-
~
J
~j
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Member
FROM: Teresa Bender
SUBJECT: Parkview Special Assessment Abatement
DATE: April 6, 2001
Attached, please find documentation that will allow Anoka County to correct Special
Assessments placed on the property located at 6967 Meadow Circle. Same was paid on
July 9, 1999. The City's records are incorrect and need to be corrected.
Recommendation: Approve Resolution #01-008 abating the 1999 2nd half and 2000
through 2008 special assessmentsP
on PIN #R23-31-22-31-0062.
tervi[[e
Tstab{ishecf 1857
1880 Main Street _ Centervi[[e, M'1{ 55038
(651) 429-3232 . Yale (651) 429-8629
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
RESOLUTION 01 - 008
RESOLUTION FOR ABATEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (PARKVIEW
ADDITION)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Centerville authorized the Parkview
Addition Improvements; and
WHEREAS, property/development petitioned for the stated improvement be financed in
accordance with Minnesota Statue 429; and
WHEREAS, the City of Centerville gave proper notification of such; and
WHEREAS, $615,000 was assessed to benefited properties based upon square foot; and
WHEREAS, Burnett Title paid to the City $11,534.72 on July 9, 1999; and
WHEREAS, Anoka County Property Tax Division has acknowledged and certified
$1,012.85 for the 2nd half 1999 tax year and $1,846.47 for the 2000 tax year; and
WHEREAS, the Council has directed the Clerk/Treasurer to make a request of Anoka
County to abate Parkview Addition assessment improvements from the property legally
known as R23-31-22-31-0062 for the 2nd half 1999 and 2000 through 2008; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on Aprilll, 2001 the Centerville City
Council authorized Anoka County to abate Parkview Addition Assessment Improvements
from property legally known as R23-31-22-31-0062.
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 11 th day of April,
2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Jim March, City Administrator
M..aS-OJ ONSpm From-PROP REC & TAX
7633Z35421
T-447 POZ/03 F-SS3
Anok~ CauMy DMslotl Of Pl'ClpertV R.,,;crd5 & 1axalhm Al:latlWionl Farm 7 (F11l\1 2195)
APPLICATION FOR ABATEMENT.. SPECIA!... ASSESSMENTS
{M.S. 375.192)
~ I
County Auditor's Number For Taxes Assessed in 19..9..lL-.
and Payable in 19~
Countv of Anoka Please print or type.
Appllcllllll'~ Nem& City of Gent~rvi]l~ Appllciill1':S Malling Acidres$
Applicant's Sclelal Sec;urity Number City of Centerville
Appllcant'lI Telephone Numbllll ( 65]. 429 3232 1880 Main Street
- Centerville~ MN 55038
0.11& ot Application
4/6/01
DESCRIPTION OF PflOPEMTV I Prcperw 1.0. of ~arcitl Numb.r R?i-':n -??-':n .nnc''J
Slre'llt Addres:s (if dIfferent than aboli'\l!) City ar Tcwr'lrSl'lip Scl'lool Dl:sltlt:t frlumber
6967 Meadow Circle City of Centerivlle 12
,LeaAl. DESCRiPtiON OF PROPERTY
Lot 14, Block 2 (Parkview)
APPUCANTS S1ATEMENT 01' FACT3
Burnett Title paid the assessment in full $11,534.72 Ck #91836 on July 9,
1999. The City did not record same.
APPLICANTS Rl!QUEST
Include fund number eo amQunt due lor pa~...ble:a:c yeaf being abated, nQllolaJ ptinolp~ amount.
82840
1999
2000
$1,012.R5
$1,846.47
C=_:,~~,,6~~
Applicant" SiQrJfill.ll"e
4(6/01
O...te
NOTE: Minfll;~ota Slall.lte~ 1988, S$djon SCS,41, "WhceliM, in maKing arlY ~lalement, Qral or 'Nrinen, which l~ raquirrad er author1z!ild by law te be mad,
a:; a blll$i3 o!,mpQliiini!, redu.:iliQ 01 abating any tax or as~e:;'$menl, intenlion~ily {\'1a~es ,~ny $tatllmsnt a!o te any malerial rnatler which the mllke
of'lh.. slatlWm$l1tlmQ~'~$ is falss my be lienhl!tiCed, Ui'l11Wl5 otherwise provi~d by iaw. to impn$Cntr'lfml for nol mCri1l man one y"a( or 10 paymiinl C
So tina (11 nOl more then $3,000, or bolh..
I
04-06-01 02:08pm Frcm-PROP REC & TAX
763m54,.,
T-447 P.03/03 F-SSS
The follcwing aecurately reflects both existing and proposed amount$.
lax Specl",1 Waste Penalty Inter=t Co~t~ TOlal
AS$flS$ment~ Foe
Original
Proposed ,
ReductIon
o
o
Tax is Paid Date:
,19_
D Equal Annual
a Declining 8alance
o Flat Tax
o Abatement
o Increase
Tax is NOT Paid
REPORT Of INVESTIGATION
Aiter examining the applIcant's claim's, I rlave carefully investigated this app\icai\on and find tne fa.cts to be as follows:
CITY/TOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTiON NUMBER:
RESOLUTION DATE:
Date
SignaMe of investigator
CERtiFICAtiONS OF APPROVAL
Note: For thie: ~~lItem6f\' \0 tis apprQved, the CQur.ty AUditor and tile County Beard Qf CommlG&ionlfl'~ mu$1 t:lvorably re<:ommlllld lUI
adopdon.
COUNTY AUDITOR'S RECOMMENDATION
o
Approved
o
Denied
Al.loitor's $ignat-Jre
COUN'TY SOARD OF COMMISSIONER'S ACTION {To be completed by County Auditor)
o
Approved
o
Denied
I certify that at a meeting held . j 19~ the County Board took the above official
action on tttis a.batement This action was duly adopted and eiltered upon the minutes of its proceedinQs as a pUbliC
record, showing the n~me5 of taxpa.yers, other concerneO persons and the amounts involved.
CERTIFICATION OF FINAL APPROVAL (Completed only for approveo abatements)
I further certifY that tns approval of this abatement haS reiulted in the followinQ changes:
Rec\.lction Of SpeCial As~essments $
Reduction Of Penalties On Special A$smts $
Reduction Of Interest On Special Assmrs $
Reduction Of Costs On Special ,A.ssmts $
Total Amount Of Reduction $
Total Amount Payable $
Signature of County Auditor
Date
I
~
Cif';} of Cenfel'vi/!e
/~'< CITY HALL
CENTERVILLE, MINNESOTA 55038
RECEIVED OF
$ //<.-=rJ 'l'z ~' '
t2~ 4'Y/?3cJ,
~,-)
,-j'/ /// ---?~j/
lj''-''tl ,-I J ,_ -n- /.T)'-:/.,;'
y~'
I:;
FOR/, -
\,0'-1 (,..-1-1- ,_1 / ,~
"/
)//V/-z/=;
r:~' 9./; r.?
'-71/'/ / /7, /'
./ ~.,' // ('j .,:JI A.i.....J") I ,1.-'1 (I j.<"
,
;1\ .
.", . ,
j~./ jf /./;" ." ,,'")
FUND
CODE
AMOUNT
".~.---",,_~J;I ,""') '/~Y?" j
'---_By '/./,,<-_L.VJ ,~i }~"'~~
//""}
(</ _I:~t'_-td/ ~?
19";1'7
1', / /1' '
:f t/
No. 4446
I
11/20100 .O~ 12:08 FAZ 8128448240
BIJRNE1' TITLE ACcOt'NTBfG -;.~~ SH~ ,_
Ial 001
.-....-...-
1 'U20120Qtl , ll:C AM
':~;:;~~~=91: 11
~ ~~ i
IWi SlIfJ2/g" .. i
I~~~::. . --.
I. I ~iIIIII ~:
!
I !'lI'
~
(1.EVEN 1l1UIJiAN\I H,VE KIJNl)IlG.l) ltlJRt'f FQUR ODLl..AAS IIHll SlWfO'l'
'nolO eel'!""
.
......U.Il34.'2
TO
, ;lEIl
, '01'
e1t7 ~, ~~~~yi~..
~~~r"'l\:=
~ &'~o:r..~~
'IO"~OS;18I= ~~~O~O'O . ..~~~
'". . -..... .
~-,..-.~
I
.....
-. _.. ,- -- -' ,_. _ -.1
--"'--'.--.....-.
--,
. I'
..I I~ "
L~""'!21
".t~lrl}l... A\~
- _~lt
, ~I ~ ~ om .I. "\ 1"1 to
-,
...._.~,,-
JY 11
111II
......
!i :!I.
,'I!II:
IJlfli
J! II
" --,
-
",
'I!t.,.,.....""y~
!:'t .. ~ ' f '.-:'>.
. .;
, .
.. '.)
l.w" . ";
ow , 'lG
t:::' :.~
.t,-.";'a
""
....
...
....
F'J:l1.l 111:'1 ~~.t).~~iiZ&~
r.I:"("i::I:';'t'~:'G
~~~~2 O?~ia-w~
~I
,:j
-
.)
...:
~'.:
. ,
.. \;l ", t. lJ. IJ 4! ;" ...
--
"-,-
'-'-,-.
CCVoIlC
1 S8!10731;1i1 20()1
lalli' ,
COOS290527
A".' $erialNUfI'I
~1oe02" Q000591~1S
AlI'IOum
$11,6$4.72
P.ldPatl:l
07/1S11GQI,l
SeqlAlllct
05oa2!l23
~OOItJOn
CD
-. "- .- ._, - - ._. -,
,_. .-- - -
10
~ ~fIWtWJ
fI1CPUf r,
heelolt
lrinlad '.~lInI~""
(;00 1lI
WI,L IJ. .Lgij~ng
:!:!~H:tlRfoH:1) YV,.r ~!o: ~T 1J00i n())n:!)TT
.
[ tfft"
Date: I \- do-DO
To: ~Y\.~~~~
RE: d' - 3) - d-"d-31 - D6~ d--
Fax: C;'SI - 4~ . gC;;JCf
Company: (~t.j C)~ UA-k t lJ ~ d L
From:
Mary Kay Dick
Post Closing Coordinator
Phone # 651-486..5604
Fax # 661490..0793
E..Mall Address mdick@cbburnet.com
This transmission consists of d- pages, including this cover sheet. If there
are any pages missing or other problems with this transmission, please contact
me as soon as possible.
p liC\. ~ "L (~I , v"""L ~ ~ Y D f/o.. r\ r'tJ.. o.ll~+-1r1 ,"^ j
~v--r- l-\t\<...r ~ t"Of'\. M.'f.. _ 'if. '- ^ K.5 ~r
'\lO\.Af lA~^+-";--oll ('(\ 4.~~'"':> ~*['.
I.
EXCELLENCE IN TITLE SERVICES
!OO[l)
:'l'UU .tgl>.i.1Ul9'
~:QgA~~TgQ y~~ rt:gT ~ow OO/O~/TT
,
"
t./
l.i.,. ..'.....'...'..
1., '~i
.... iJ'i.'
<)~
~j
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Member
FROM: Teresa Bender
SUBJECT: Hunters Crossing Special Assessment Abatement
DATE: April 6, 2001
Attached, please find documentation that will allow Anoka County to correct Special
Assessments in the amount of$16,155.37 that were placed on PIN #'s R23-31-22-33-
0002 & R23-31-22-34-0002. The City's records indicate a typographical error occurred.
Recommendation: Approve Resolution #01-009 abating 2000 through 2010 Special
Assessments from R23-31-22-33-0002 and placing them on PIN #R23-31-22-34-0002.
tervi{{e
Tstaflishecf 1857
1880 ':Alain Street . Centervi{{e/:M'lIL 55038
(651) 429-3232 . 'fa/( (651) 429-8629
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
RESOLUTION 01 - 009
RESOLUTION FOR ABATEMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (HUNTERS
CROSSING ADDITION)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Centerville authorized the Hunters Crossing Addition
Improvements; and
WHEREAS, property/development petitioned for the stated improvement be financed in accordance
with Minnesota Statue 429; and
WHEREA-S, the City of Centerville gave proper notification of such; and
WHEREAS, $653,613.42 was assessed to benefited properties based upon square foot; and
WHEREAS, Anoka County Property Tax Division has acknowledged special assessments in the
amount of$16,155.37 with $3,199.43 certified for the 2001 tax year; and
WHEREAS, the Council has directed the Clerk/Treasurer to make a request of Anoka County to abate
Hunters Crossing Addition assessment improvements from the property legally known as R23-3l-22-
33-0002 for the 2000 through 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Council has directed the Clerk/Treasurer to make a request of Anoka County to
acknowledge special assessments in the amount of $16,155.37 with $3,199.43 being certified for the
2001 tax year on the property legally known as R23-31-22-34-0002 for the 2000 tax year through
2010; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on April 11, 2001 the Centerville City Council
authorized Anoka County to acknowledge the Hunters Crossing Addition Assessment Improvements
from property legally known as R23-31-22-34-0002.
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 11th day of April, 2001.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Jim March, City Administrator
04'-06-01 OZ:i)SP,'ll From-PROP REC & TAX
7'633Z36421
T-44i paz/os F-683
AI1(;)k~ CalJilty Ol'dsion of j)m{,!<ilnv R""ord:! & Tj)(adon Aba101ilf'11An! Farm 7 (F1w 2/95)
APPLICATiON FOR ABATEMENT.. SPECIAL.. ASSESSMENTS
(M.S. 375.'92)
L .4 I
county Audllel" $ Number For Taxes A.ssessed in 19_
and Payable in 19_
County of Anoka Please print or type.
..
APpllcll!lI':! N~m& City of Centf>rvillp AppllQilnf$ Mailing AQdre$$
Applicant's ScCIBI 5el:;urily Number City of Centerivlle
Applicant's Telophol'le Number ()51 L.4?Q 3232 1880 Main Street
Centerville MN 55038
. ,
Oala ot Appllc;.ulon
4/6/01
DESCRIPTION ~ F'ROPERTV
F'ropor\y I,D. or Parcltl Nurnbor
R23-31-2 -
31 ~2 31, 0002
Schocl Dlsttlet r<lumber
Street Addr!l:5:'l (it different than abov91
City of St. Paul
6892 Centerville aoa~
i L.5GAI. OESCRIPTION OF P"FlOPERTV
W 24.75 FT or N1/2 or SW1/4
of SW1/4: Subj to ease of
rec.
City or TQwn$hip
City of Centerville
12
The S 264.32 FT of the N314.32 FT of
the W445 FT of the SEl/4 of the SW1/4
of sec 23-31-22 Anoka Cnty, MN said dist
APPLlCANTS 5TATEMENT 0,.. I"ACTS
The original PIN # was transposed
R23-31-22-34-0002
R21-31-22-33-0002 and should have been
APPUCANTS REQUEST
Include tund number & amQunt due IQT pay;abl.a l~ year being aba1ed. {lc;iIIOlal plincipel amount.
~~i33~ : 2001 $3,199.43 - Abatement for R23-31-22-33-0002
T~tal Assessment $16,166.37 for 2000- 2010
wlth $3,199.43 for 2001
c-__~~) 6,-d~ /
Appiicaflt'~ SiQnature
tflo I
ate
NOTE: Minnesota. Slalute~ 1988, S~tion 1309.41, "Whq..IiM, in maKing a'1Y Slalemenl. oral or writ-en, which I~ ~~quir$d or authoriz~d !:Iy 1000w to be mad,
ii!.:l a ba~i~ 01 impQ/iiinQ, reducing QI abating any UIX or M~I;!SiSment, intenlioneily make;> .sny ~tatern~nl as 11) any maH!:riat matler wnich the mllke
of "tho slat..msllllmQw$ is lalse my be ~enl",nced, unltllsQlherwise prQvi~d by law, 10 lmpritcnmemlo( net m,"f~ mall one YO\laf or to payment (
a Una (lj nOI more th~Hi $3,000, Of beth,.
04-06-01 02:0Spm Frcm-PROP REC & TAX
7633235421
T-447 P.03/03 F-6S3
The follcwing accurately reflect:! both existing and proposed amounts.
Tax Special Waste Pltllalty Intereti\ Costs TClal
Aesassment", Foe
Original
Prol'osecl I
Reduction
o
o
Tax is Paid Date:
, 19_
o Equal Annual
a Declining 8alance
o Flat Tax
CJ Abatement
o Increase
Ta.x is NOT Paid
. REPORT Of INVESTIGATION
After examining the 3tlp\\cant's claims, I have carefully investigated this application and find tne fa.ct~ to be as follows:
CITYlTOWN COUNCIL RESOLUTION NUMBER:
RESOL.UTION DATE:
Date
Signature of investigator
CERTIFICATIONS OF APPROVAL
NOI&: For thil> abaten'!61'11 to DS apprQved, me CQunty Audllor snd me County Soald gf CommlS&iol1li1f$ mU$'llaVQlablv rQ(:omm"nd It Ii
adoptlon.
COUNTY AUDITOR'S RECOMMENDAT10N
o
Approved
LJ
Denied
Auditor's SlgnatJre
COUN'TY BOARD OF COMMiSSIONER'S ACTION (To be completed by County Auditor)
Cl
Approved
o
Denied
1 certify that at a meeting held _ _ I 19_ the County Board took the above official
a.ction on this abatement. This action was duly adopted and ent~ed upon the minutes of its proceedirigs as a public
record, showing the names of taxpayers. other concerneCl persons and the amounts Involved.
CERTIFICATION OF FiNAL APPROVAL (Completed only for approveo abatements)
I further certify that tne approval 01 this abatement has resu~ted in the followinl';) changes:
ReC\,lction Of SpeCial Assessments $.
Reductlon Of Penalties On Spaciat A$smts $
Reduction Of Interest On Special Assmts $
Reduction Of Costs On Specjal.~6smts $
Total Amount Of Reduction $
Total Amount Paya.ble $
Signature of County Auditor
Date
"
MEMO
Date:
April 6, 2001
To:
Honorable Mayor and Council
From:
Jill Lien
Re:
Motions I Recommendations from Parks and Recreation
Committee
Attached, please find the following motions / recommendations made to City Council by
the Parks and Recreation Committee at their reqularly scheduled meeting on April 4,
2001.
Thank you!
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bud~et Figures IRe-assessment
The Committee discussed the corrected figures provided, and came to the following
conclusion for the Parks and Recreation budget.
Carry Over from 1999 Park Dedication Funds
Hunter's Crossing Park Dedication Funds
2001 Budget - Capital Outlay
Total Revenue
$31,675.00
$74,000.00
$50,000.00
$155,675.00
2000 Park Expenditures exceeding budget
2001 Expenditures tbru February
Total Expenditures to date
$ 7,101.95
$0.00
$ 7,101.95
Revenue less Expenditures
$148,573.05
Pheasant Marsh Park Dedication Funds $138,600.00 *
* Possible phasing of park fees associated with construction
The Committee requested financial statements on a monthly basis.
The Parks and Recreation Committee would like the City Council to recognize these
figures provided through the recent audit as current Park Funds.
Motion by Mr. Porter, seconded by Mr. LeBlanc to recommend to City Council to
accept Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for laying concrete in the ice rink at Laurie
LaMotte Park, per the engineers specifications. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously .
The Committee opted to refer to the "Skate Park" in the future as a "Wheels Park".
Motion by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. DeVine to accept Requests for Proposals
(RFP's) for equipment/ramps for a future Wheels Park at Laurie LaMotte Park.
All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. DeVine to recommend to City Council
approval of the expenditures for scheduled programs offered through the Wargo
Nature Center in an a.mount not to exceed $800.00. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Walter to recommend to City Council
approval of expenditures for promotion and advertisement of the Wargo Nature
Center activities in an amount not to exceed $500.00. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
~
Motion by Mr. LeBlanc, seconded by Mr. Walter to request that City Council
appoint a Council Liaison who is interested in attending the Parks and Recreation
meetings for the purpose of communications between the Parks and Recreation
Committee and City Council. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
To: Mayor and City Council ofCenterville
From: Centerville Park and Recreation Committee
Date: AprilS, 2001
Re: Draft Goal Directives Proposal
The Centerville Park and Recreation Committee would like to thank Mayor Swedberg for
taking the initiative to put a draft of goals together. The members of the Park and
Recreation Committee feel goal planning is an essential part oflong-term success of
Centerville parks and recreation programs.
The Park and Recreation Committee wanted to address a couple of issues with this
method of communication. First, the committee feels we should have had an opportunity
to give feedback to the Goal Directive Proposal before it was sent out to the public. The
Committee is always open to suggestions; however, the Goal Directive Proposal seemed
to take it one step further by laying out very specific objectives and notifying the public
of those objectives before Park and Recreation had an opportunity to provide feedback.
Second, the Park and Recreation Committee has spent many hours coordinating and
discussing the trails plans within the City of Centerville now we understand there is going
to be a public hearing/op~n house at the Council Meeting regarding trail plans. If a public
hearing/open house is warranted and the issue deals specifically with a park and
recreation issue, the public hearing should be put on by the Park and Recreation
Committee. The information from the public hearing would then be communicated to
City Council. The Committee's understanding 'of its responsibilities is to research and
recommend ideas to Council relating to improving Centerville's parks and recreation
programs to help reduce the amount of time Council needs to spend researching and
discussing specific issues or ideas.
It is the general consensus of the Park and Recreation Committee that the goals of
providing activities for a variety of age groups within Centerville is beneficial to the
community. In addition for summer of2001, Park and Recreation is planning programs
with the YMCA and Wargo Nature Center. The committee will continue to make
suggestions to City Council on other ideas or programs as they are discussed in our
meetings. We look forward to refining the goals and working whatever issues lay ahead.
Goals Feedback
Subject: Goals Feedback
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 01: 13:39 -0500
From: "LeBlanc, Wayne J" <Wayne.LeBlanc@UNISYS.com>
To: '''doug_ W ~orter@deluxe.com'" <doug_ W '-porter@deluxe.com>,
'"Karla@raydevine.com''' <Karla@raydevine.com>,
"'tpplus5@AOL.com'" <tpplus5@AOL.com>,
"LeBlanc, Wayne J" <Wayne.LeBlanc@UNISYS.com>,
"jlien@centervillemn.com'" <jlien@centervillemn.com>,
"'Brian Walter'" <brian_walter@cnt.com>, Terry Sweeney <terry.sweeney@isd.net>
Perhaps I am at a disadvantage.
1 have been to all the goal setting workshops and watched many of the
Council meetings on TV, and, for whatever reason, I feel the goals document
looks like a reasonable place to start. 1 saw it develop and am mostly
comfortable with it.
Please consider these observations. (I'm sorry they are so long, but I
wasn't sure how else to address the concerns.)
1 decided to call Mayor Swedberg to get some clarifications. He said his
purpose in January, February, and March was to gather input from staff and
the committees. He held workshops and attended committee meetings to gather
input. He assembled everything he heard and tried to put it in one document.
Now he wants feedback from everyone on this document including the public.
(1 think it would be less efficient if every committee tried to sponsor a
public hearing on topics in their separate domain as suggested in Brian's
letter. 1 think it is better to have all the goals of the city in one place
for public comment.) None of it is set in concrete. He said he is still in
information gathering mode. If you look at the April 3 Quad, page 9, the
last sentence, he said, "I realize what finally comes out could be
completely different." He also told me that his job is to find the money, it
the Park and Rec's job to decide what to do and how to do it.
1 hope Park and Rec is open to suggestions and I think that is all he is
saying right now - his goals are open for comment.
Let's look at the goals individually and compare them with our current
wishes.
We want money for a skate park and electricity. In the first paragraph of
goal 2, he says it's a done deal - money is there already. His document is
really trying to look beyond that.
Next, in item 1, he is offering new money for Recreation Programs. We have
been exceedingly lucky to get the YMCA and Wargo to sponsor programs at our
parks this year. Most communities would have to develop this from scratch
and Tim's rough figure of $75,000 might not be out of line. 1 have never
seen this kind of support from anyone on any previous council for Park and
Rec activities. Wouldn't you consider it lucky that the Mayor is willing to
offer such support? We only learned yesterday of the possible Wargo programs
in Centerville. How could Tim know all these details? He said he's not
interested in working out the details, that's what he wants Park and Rec to
do.
Next he mentions swimming. I personally think this is a great idea. I don't
know if we can pull it off this year or ever, but, it strikes me ironic that
Centerville, the city of lakes, has no access to any of the lakes. When 1
grew up in Little Falls, MN, kids in the city had free bus transportation to
the "city" swimming beach which was actually a bit outside of town. The city
of Little Falls felt it was important that children learned how to swim. One
loB
4/6/01 10:22 AM
Goals Feedback
example of something we might do is see if we could work a deal with Anoka
county so that people from Centerville could drive to the beach without
being charged. I agree with this general goal but I'm not sure what it
really means right now.
Next he talks about the trail plan. He thinks he may have found some money
for that. He says specifically: Plan to be implemented as development occurs
and per recommendations of Park and Rec and possible street scaping plans.
Here's a suggestion to think about: if we have the skate park in, could we
possibly put in a class V trail on the easement east of Centerville Road
between Medow Lane and Hunter's Crossing? It would be a safer way for kids
to get from Center street, for example, and from Medow Lane and beyond to
Lamotte Park.
I asked him about item 3 Long term Recreation Plan. Here, he'd just like
some idea of the various methods we suggest to pull off the Rec Programs. I
believe will need some city staff to help with registrations, collecting
money, etc. Jill has expressed an interest but seems to have other
assignments. These things need to be worked and I'd like to see that as an
agenda item for the next meeting in May so we can begin to look at
possibilities. In any case, this is a year of prototyping to measure
interest and consider the various options he mentions.
I also think the Community Gardens idea is a great idea. I had a note to ask
Park and Rec if they thought this was a Park and Rec thing or an EDC thing.
It could be done by either or both.
The city of Centerville has a $1.6 million budget. Jim March said the recent
census said that 34% of Centerville is 18 or younger. My conclusion is that
Centerville should be spending a good part of its budget on Park and Rec and
I believe that is what Tim is trying to do (note that $50,000 is only 3% of
a $1.6 million budget). I am concerned that Park and Rec has had to get a
lot of it's money from park dedication fees. Centerville should be setting
aside park land, not financing everything on dedication fees. Open space is
very important if we want a nice community. The goals document attempts to
get money from the general fund for Park Programs etc is a wonderful shift
in a new financing direction in my opinion. What could be better? Park
dedication fees are going to dry up. Park and Rec will need money from the
general fund. Council controls the funds. That is a fact of the city.
This is the first Council where I have seen a Park and Rec budget that is
understandable. This is the first time where the entire council came to a
Park and Rec meeting and listened and offered opinions so that everyone
could move in the same direction. This is the first time I have seen
proposals from someone on the Council that actually suggests INCREASES in
funding for Park and Rec. Again, I ask, what could be better?
Before Terry showed up, I didn't hear any concerns about the goals. I am not
aware of anyone providing feedback or expressing a concern on the goals. I
guess I am still unclear of what the specific objections are? (I heard Terry
express one concern that he thought there was a duplication of programs. I
don't see a duplication anywhere and if one did surface somewhere, I am
confident that someone would point it out pronto.) I can understand that the
public feedback cycle seems too short and I have expressed that to Tim, but
everythi;A:g is published and the Quad write up isn't bad. I think it is worth
seeing what happens. I was hoping to drop in on Saturday maybe. That may be
the best way to express any concerns you have. If it is felt that public
feedback is inadequate, then I presume something might be done about that.
If you feel you still need to send Brian's letter, that's up to you. If you
do send it, you can send it "as is" if you want, but I would prefer you
remove the sentence with my name in it. I would also prefer you send this
email wi~hittoallowmyviewsasfurtherinput.IfI.mmistaken on any of
these points, no problem, I'll stand corrected. My real recommendation is
2of3
4/6/01 10:22 AM
Goals Feedback
.
that you not send the letter. Think about what it will really accomplish.
What is it that you really want to happen as a result of your letter? Does
your letter say that clearly?
Thanks for listening - reading - whatever...
I'm sorry, but I am very encouraged by the goals document. I see mostly good
stuff and very little bad.
CHEERS! ! ! ! !
Wayne
(PS Doug, I thought you had a different email address? And Brian, hope I
made the early AM deadline. I've been working on this for too long...)
301'3
4/6/01 10:22 AM
If
tervi[[e
Tstab[ished 1857
FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
MARCH, 2001
City of Centerville
Cash, Investments and Debts
Checking Balance As
Financial Reports of
3/28/01 3.87% Interest $2,014,887
Plus Revenue in April $11,115
Less Expenses in March $65,143
I FIRST AR CHECKING ACCOUNT BALANCE
I $1,960,8581
INVESTMENTS
CD 3006093151 4;80% Interest Matures 01/12/02 $1,071
CD 4670 4.80% Interest Matures 12/30/01 $1,289
CD 15057 Matures 11/5/00 $194,186
CD 3370 5.20% Interest Matures 12/18/00 $124,428
Monev Market 1807180 5.36% Interest $331 ,202
Monev Market 1807113 5.36% Interest $123,296
FIRSTAR BANK - MARKET VALUE $775,4721
:AGUE OF MN
...ONEY MARKET 6.40% Interest $999,491
Bond 6.00% Interest Matures 01/28/09 $98,125
CD 7.00% Interest Matures 08/06/07 $96,000
Bond 6.35% Interest Matures 05/04/06 $100,142
Bond 6.95% Interest Matures 11/13/06 $101,219
MONEY FUNDS $145,014
SALOMON SMITH BARNEY - MARKET VALUE $540,500
INVESTMENTS $2,315.4631
ITOTAL CASH & INVESTMENTS
I $4,276,3211
$221,076
$223,550
ITOTAL DEBTS
$444,6261
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
I ACCT. # I
RECEIPTS
I JAN. I FEB.
MAR. 11 ST QTR.I YTD
31000 General Property Tax 15,438 0 0 15,438 15,438
32000 Soecial Use/Gradinq/BurninQ 0 60 317 377 377
32100 Rental/Liauor Licenses 110 320 540 970 970
32180 Plumbinq Permits 639 400 471 1,510 1,510
32200 Animal Licenses 40 48 15 102 102
32210 Buildinq/Mech. Permits 5,810 16,516 13,635 35,960 35,960
32225 Electrical Inspections 446 228 595 1,268 1,268
32250 Fees - Mailbox 50 75 125 250 250
32260 Antenna Leases 21,216 0 0 21,216 21,216
32300 Fees - Bldq. Site Maintenance 450 900 1,125 2,475 2,475
33401 Aid-Local Government 34,994 0 0 34,994 34,994
33402 Homestead Credit 55,001 0 0 55,001 55,001
33405 Fire Relief Aid 0 0 0 0 0
34107 Fees - Assessment Search 20 40 120 180 180
34780 Fees - Parks 0 0 0 0 0
35000 Fines/Forfeits 3,319 1,649 1,569 6,538 6,538
35101 Aid-Police State 0 0 0 0 0
36110 Special Assessments - Pre-Paid 60 0 0 60 60
36120 Soecial Assessments - County 0 0 0 0 0
36130 Admin. Enterprise Fund 0 0 0 0 0
36200 Miscellaneous Revenue 20 0 0 20 20
36210 Interest Earninqs 9,743 6,072 2,986 18,800 15,815
36235 Escrow Deposits 0 0 0 0 0
36240 Cable Commission Reimb. 0 0 0 0 0
36250 Fire Disl. Reimbursement 0 0 0 0 0
36270 Refunds/Rei mbursements 896 15 237 1,149 1,149
36280 Sales Tax Collections 0 0 11 11 11
36000 Newsletter Revenue 0 0 195 195 195
Totals 148,250 26,321 21,940 196,512 196,512
I ACCT. #1
EXPENSES
I JAN. I FEB.
MAR. 11 ST QTR. 1 YTD
41110 Council Expense 0 911 2,746 3,657 3,657
41400 Administration Expense 9,857 43,828 28,734 82,418 82,418
41410 Elections 0 0 0 0 0
41500 Financial Administration 1,500 0 0 1,500 1,500
41550 Assessinq 0 15,078 0 15,078 15,078
41600 Law/Leqal Services 3,236 3,684 4,188 11 ,108 11 ,108
41910 Planninq & Zoninq Commission 358 200 653 1,211 1,211
41940 Gov'l. Building/Plant 0 0 199 199 199
41950 Enqineerinq Services 0 236 920 1,157 1,157
42110 Police Administration 23,143 9,978 31,511 64,632 64,632
42280 Buildinq-Citv Hall/Fire Depl. 4,178 23,352 3,355 30,885 30,885
42285 Fire Protection 17,032 0 0 17,032 17,032
42400 Inspection - Building 212 6,785 5,632 12,629 12,629
42403 Inspection - Electrical 423 319 324 1,066 1,066
42500 Civil Defense 192 0 0 192 192
42700 Animal Control 0 0 0 0 0
43000 Public Works 3,706 12,368 14,343 30,417 30,417
43100 Hwv., Streets, & Roads 3,297 5,517 6,358 15,173 15,173
43140 Lona Term Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0
43220 Street Cleaninq 0 0 0 0 0
45200 Parks - General 636 3,009 5,477 9,121 9,121
45202 Parks - Areas 0 1,052 -1 ,446 -394 -394
45410 Comprehensive Plan 0 0 0 0 0
46000 Improvement Projects 0 0 0 0 0
46500 Economic Dev. Committee 100 55 36 190 190
49000 Miscellaneous 222 0 93 315 315
49240 Insurance 0 0 0 0 0
49390 Transfers Out 0 0 0 0 0
49995 Capital Improvement 0 0 0 0 0
Totals 68,092 126,370 103,124 297,586 194,462
CITY OF CENTERVlllE
REVENUE EXPENSES
%OF
BUDGET
2001 YEAR TO BUDGET ITEM
ACCT. # REVENUE BUDGET DATE BALANCE RECEIVED
31000 General ProoertV Tax 1,210,000 15,438 1,194,562 1%
32000 Snecial Use/Gradina/Burnina 1,500 377 1,123 25%
32100 Rental/Liouor Licenses 10,360 970 9,390 9%
32180 Plumbino Permits 2,000 1,510 490 75%
32200 Animal Licenses 150 102 48 68%
32210 Buildina/Mech. Permits 102,600 35,960 66,640 35%
32225 Electricallnsoections 4,000 1,268 2,733 32%
32250 Mail Box Fees 1,050 250 800 24%
32260 Antenna Leases 21,119 21 ,216 -97 100%
32300 Site Maintenance Fees 9,450 2,4 75 6,975 26%
33401 Aid-Local Government 25,280 34,994 -9,714 138%
33402 Homestead Credit 110,028 55,001 55,028 50%
33405 Fire Relief Aid 0 0 0 0%
34107 Assessment Search Fees 600 180 420 30%
34780 Park Fees 100 0 100 0%
35000 Fines/Forfeits 32,580 6,538 26,042 20%
35101 Aid-Police State 15,000 0 15,000 0%
36110 Soecial Assessments - Pre-Paid 0 60 -60 0%
36120 Soecial Assessments - CountV 0 0 0 0%
36130 Admin. Enternrise Fund 21,840 0 21,840 0%
36200 Miscellaneous Revenue 5,000 20 4,980 0%
36210 Interest Earninos 76,695 15,815 60,880 21%
36235 Escrow Deoosits 0 0 0 0%
36240 Cable Commission Reimb. 0 0 0 0%
36250 Fire Dist. Reimbursement 0 0 0 0%
36270 Refu nds/Reimbursements 5,000 1,149 3,851 23%
36280 Sales Tax Collections 0 11 -11 0%
36300 Newsletter 0 195 -195 0%
Totals 1,654,352 196,512 1,457,840 12%
%OF
BUDGET
2001 YEAR TO BUDGET ITEM
ACCT. # EXPENSES BUDGET DATE BALANCE RECEIVED
41110 Council Exoense 14,858 3,657 11,201 25%
41400 Administration Exoense 319,937 82,418 237,519 26%
41410 Ejections 0 0 0 0%
41500 Financial Administration 8,000 1,500 6,500 19%
41550 Assessino 14,250 15,078 -828 106%
41600 Law/Leaal Services 49,925 11,108 38,817 22%
41910 Plannino & Zonina Commission 1,540 1211 329 79%
41940 Gov't. Buildino/Plant 0 199 -199 0%
41950 Enoineerino Services 25,250 1,157 24,093 5%
42110 Police Administration 373,335 64,632 308,703 17%
42280 Buildino-CTtV Hall/Fire Deot. 17,300 30,885 -13,585 179%
42285 Fire Protection 68,128 17,032 51,096 25%
42400 Insoection - Bui/dino 92,401 12,629 79,772 14%
42403 Electrical - Insoections 0 1,066 -1 ,066 0%
42500 Civil Defense 600 192 408 32%
42700 Animal Control 300 0 300 0%
43000 PUblic Works 143,688 30,417 113,271 21%
43100 Hwv., Streets, & Roads 0 15,173 -15,173 0%
43140 Lana Term Maintenance 58,000 0 58,000 0%
43220 Street Cleanino 0 0 0 0%
45200 Parks - General 148,712 9,121 139,591 6%
45202 Parks - Area 0 -394 394 0%
45410 Comorehensive Plan 0 0 0 0%
46000 Imorovement Proiects 0 0 0 0%
46500 Economic Dev. Committee 6500 190 6,310 3%
49000 Miscellaneous 0 315 -315 0%
49240 Insurance 0 0 0 0%
49390 Transfers Out 122,000 0 122,000 0%
49995 Caoitallmorovement 189,627 0 189 627 0%
Totals 1,654,352 194,462 1,459,890 12%
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Cash Receipts
04/06/01 11 :04 AM
Page 1
Last Tran Batch
Account Dim Descr Amount Date Refer Comments Name
FUND 101
Act Type R Revenue
R 101-32250 Mail Box Fees $25.00 4/4/01 o 1668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
R 101-32210 Building/Mech. Permits $139.40 4/4/01 o BLDG PERM-1962 72RD ST 4-07-01
R 101-32225 Electrical Inspection $44.50 4/4/01 o ELECTRICAL PERM-1880 M 4-07-01
R 101-32225 Electrical Inspection $80.50 4/4/01 o ELECTRICAL PERM -1949 E 4-07-01
R 101-32210 Building/Mech. Permits $389.30 4/4/01 o BLDG PERM 7154 SHAD AV 4-07-01
R 101-32210 Building/Mech. Permits $20.50 4/4/01 o MECH PERM 7135 BRIAN W 4-07-01
R 101-32000 Special UselGrading/Burni $30.00 4/4/01 o BURNING PERMIT-L BROUS 4-07-01
R 101-36270 Refunds/Reimbursements $66.77 4/4/01 o JIM MARCH - INV #6187 4-07-01
R 101-32225 Electrical Inspection $22.50 4/4/01 o ELECTRICAL PERM 7135 B 4-07-01
R 101-32225 Electrical Inspection $22.00 4/4/01 o ELECTRIAL PERM 1743 ME 4-07-01
R 101-32300 Site Maintenance Fees $225.00 4/4/01 o 1668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
R 101-32210 Building/Mech. Permits $2.616.40 4/4/01 o 1668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
R 101-32210 Building/Mech. Permits $20.50 4/4/01 o MECH.PERM. 6877 DEER C 4-07-01
R 101-32210 Building/Mech. Permits $58.00 4/4/01 o BLDG PERM -7269 CENTER 4-07-01
Act Type R Revenue $3,760.37
FUND 101 $3,760.37
FUND 415
Act Type R Revenue
R 415-32350 Storm Water Drainage Fu $200.00 4/4/01 o 1668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
R 415-32350 Storm Water Drainage Fu $66.68 4/4/01 o UTILITIES - BATCH 1312 4-07-01
Act Type R Revenue $266.68
FUND 415 $266.68
FUND 601
Act Type R Revenue
R 601-34600 Water Meter Charges $276.00 4/4/01 01668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
R 601-37100 Water Sales $827.40 4/4/01 o UTILITIES - BATCH 1312 4-07-01
R 601-37100 Water Sales $253.50 4/4/01 o UTILITIES - BATCH 1312 4-07 -01
R 601-34400 Safe Drinking Water Fee $10.42 4/4/01 o UTILITIES - BATCH 1312 4-07-01
R 601-37150 Water Connect/Reconnect $1,300.00 4/4/01 o 1668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
Act Type R Revenue $2,667.32
FUND 601 $2,667.32
FUND 602
Act Type R Revenue
R 602-37250 Sewer Connect/Reconnec $1,750.00 4/4/01 01668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
R 602-34700 SAC Charges $1,150.00 4/4/01 01668 HUNTERS TRL - MEAD 4-07-01
R 602-37200 Sewer Sales $1,351.20 4/4/01 o UTILITIES - BATCH 1312 4-07-01
Act Type R Revenue $4,251.20
FUND 602 $4,251.20
UND 61 B
Act Type R Revenue
R 618-36230 Contributions and Donatio $39.00 4/4/01 o FETE DES LAC DONATION- 4-07-01
Act Type R Revenue $39.00
Account
Last
Dim Descr
$39.00
FUND 618
FUND 620
Act Type R Revenue
R 620-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues
R 620-36200 Miscellaneous Revenues
Act Type R Revenue
FUND 620
Grand Total
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Cash Receipts
04/06/01 11 :04 AM
Page 2
Amount
Tran
Date Refer Comments
Batch
Name
$60.00
$70.00
$130.00
$130.00
$11,114.57
4/4/01
4/4/01
o LE JOURNAL AD WINTER 2 4-07-01
o LE JOURNAL AD (WINTER 2 4-07-01
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Check Summary Register
Name
Check Date
10100 FIRSTAR CHECK ACCT
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
15599
1 5600
15601
15602
15603
15604
15605
15606
15607
ANOKA COUNTY
APA PLANNING ASSOCIATION
BENDER, TERESA
CITY OF ST. PAUL
CLEARWATER CREEK
CONNEXUS ENERGY
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP.
ELECTRIC PUMP, INC.
FS TEAM MANAGEMENT, INC.
GOTWALD, PAM
GRANGERS BUMPER TO BUMPER
HOMES BY JAMES
IMAGE PRINTING & GRAPHICS
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATI
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
MAC-MAY HOMES
MARCH, JAMES
MCLEOD USA
MEDICA
MENARDS-FORESTLAKE
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVIROMEN
MINNEGASCO.
MN STATE TREASURER
MONTANARI HOMES
NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE
OFFICE MAX
OLSON POWER & EQUIPMENT, INC
PALZER, PAUL
PRESS PUBLICATIONS
QWEST
RITE-WAY WATERPROOFING
S. W. WOLD
SITE SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED
SUBURBAN INSPECTIONS
SWIFT CONSTRUCTION
TIME SAVER
TORKLESON HOMES
WISCONSIN DEPART. OF REVENUE
XCELENERGY
Total Checks
MANUAL CHECKS
PATRICIA SCOTT
FIRSTAR TRUST SERVICE
TONY FLASPETER
IRS/COUNTY BANK
MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVENUE
PERA
DNR WATERS
W. W. GRAINGER, INC.
MPCA
TOTAL MANUAL CHECKS
TOTAL CHECKS
Friday, April 06, 2001
Page 1 of 1
Check Amt
$4,402.63
$476.00
$498.12
$81.98
$121.25
$396.42
$195.86
$1,131.58
$65.00
$400.00
$159.90
$200.00
$620.08
$29.00
$35.44
$200.00
$300.00
$529.59
$2,003.01
$55.35
$13,662.00
$4,419.97
$1,334.85
$200.00
$12.00
$879.36
$42.70
$75.20
$492.60
$273.07
$85.30
$200.00
$150.00
$578.34
$800.00
$228.75
$200.00
$482.44
$1,760.35
$37,778.14
1,395.00
350.00
20.00
4,100.55
728.59
1,308.17
228.65
63.35
23.00
8,217.31
45,995.45
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
00 CO
,j:>. CO
Ul I
A 0
m G'J
..m c
'- JTl
o
Ul
m
1J
I
I
m
.
$:
CD
;;0
'- m
)> 0
$: I
m ~
1J m
2:!
o
""''''''ifiifi
N W N N
000 0
o Co 0 0
o CO 0 0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
--.j
(j)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
CO
(]'I
CD
m
r
r
)>
Z
_0
I
m
)>
-i
I
m
;;0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
--.j
(]'I
1J
m
-i
m
;;0
Ul
o
Z
-i
m
o
o
~ ~
-..j i.n
.t>- (]'I
o ~
->. (j)
00 0
~ ~
->. ->.
wifiifiwm-,j:>.
N W N N (]'I 00
~ 0 0 0 -oJ ....lr.
o Co 0 0 <.n --.j
o OJ 0 0 I\.) -L
~ f:fl ~
N Co N
,j:>. ->. .t>-
WWff7W
000 0
N ~ N N
to (]'I to to
~ fA
->. ->.
to 00
,j:>. (]'I
m 0
<0 (]'I
~ fA
--.j --.j
00 ,j:>.
Co ~
(]'I
ff7
N
.t>-
~
->. W
o to
--.j 0)
Co ~
to (]'I
~ W
N N
(]'I N
N <.n
W 0)
~ ff7
co --.j
N ~
m co
(j) <D
ifi W
->.
-b9- .f::,9 iA -fA ""r\) .....
..... N ....l. -L CJ'1 a
co co co co 9 W
~ <.n ~ ~ --.j N
--.j N --.j --.j (j) ,j:>.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(j)
N
$: Ul 1J
00)>
1J 0 r
fii _~ hi
;;0 ;0
Ul 1J 1J
o ~ )>
z 22 c
o ~
)>
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
(j)
C-
O
m
r
W ~
N _N
ifi :".. W
to W (j)
~ ~ -""
<.n (]'I m
o (]'I --.j
W ifi
N N
ifi W N
to N ,j:>.
--.j 0 to
<.n Co ~
0->.<0
ifi ifi
W .t>- W
o N <0
W co (j)
m ~
(]'I (]'I N
ff7 ff7
->. ->.
o .t>-
o W
(]'I
o ,j:>.
o 0 0 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
000 0
(]'I ,j:>. co --.j
<0 --.j <0 N
$: c: 0 -< -i
)> mom ;;0
;;o_zo')>
O==_A~~
IrAO_Ul
r m :J> ;;0
$: ~ jj 0
m }> ~
~ $: ;;0
)> 0
;;0
-<
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(]'I
W
'-
)>
$:
m
Ul
<.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
to
o
Ul
~
m
o
CD
m
;;0
G'J
=!
$:
o
-i
I
-<
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
--.j
->.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
co
o
Ul
~
m
m
z
m
$: --<
)> A
22 ;;0
Cii
-i
m
z
Z
m
.
Ul
o
z
ff7
W
Ol
Co
N
W
->.
Ol
0,
ffi~-f;flfflf:flf:fl~O~
<0 _ W W W W _
woo 0 (]'lOW W
--.j woo 0 0 W ~
t ~ g g g g ~ ~
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0)
<0
CD
m
z
o
m
_:1:1
-i
m
;;0
m
Ul
)>
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
co
,j:>.
Ul
A
[!]
m
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
00
Ol
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
--.j
Ol
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
co --.j
(]'I (]'I
CD lJ
m m
r -i
r m
)> ;;0
Z Ul
o 0
I _z
m -i
)> m
-i 0
FR 0
;;0
ff7 ff7
~ ~ ~ ~ t5 ~ ~ ~
<0 Woo (]'lOCO 0)
!'.l Ol !=' 0 0 0 ~ c:o
to (]'lOa 0 0 <0 0
o (]'I 0 0 0 0 (]'I <D
ff7
->.
,j:>. ff7
OJ :-J
<.n --.j
.t>. <D
W ff7
W --.j
~ ~
o (]'I
W
~
W
co
W
--.j
~
<0
W W
->. N
->. N
o ,j:>.
W N
co co
A I
Z m
m .
CD $:
m CD
o ~ fg
~ 0 0
1J CD I
I gJ ~
-i m
2:!
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
to
->.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
N
OJ
$: 1J
o )>
1J r
I hi
~ ;0
Ul 1J
o )>
_z ~
'-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(]'I
W
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
en
to
c:
m
z
ff7
Ol
W
co
ff7 ff7
.t>. co
N !='
Co ->.
--.j ->.
ff7 ff7 ff7 W
(]'I W .t>. (]'I
COWOlN
-.1. ~ en (JT
W (]'I 0 0
$:
)>
;;0
o
I
'-
r
r
$:
(]'I
->.
,j:>.
Co
co
'-
)>
$:
m
Ul
<.
'-
o
m
r
"" "" ifi ifi
'"""'" -" N N .(;;fl
W :".. w to N
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(J) (j) 0 Co
to --.j 00 (J)
co
o
"" W W ifi
-.10. -" J\.) 1'0 -EA
f:fl ~ f:fl ~ W W -.1. -L ~ N
~ w ~ (JT ~ ~ ~ ~ N W
~ e ~ ~ 6 6 ~ e ~ ~
W en 0 0 N to W ,j:>. N ->.
ff7 ff7 "" ff7
(]'I W ,j:>. ,j:>.
W -"" N co
6> -L Co ~
to --.j (]'I 00
ff7WWififf7W
..... ......lr. W ~ ....lr. -l,
(]'I 0) .t>. 0 0 W
o -.I. ..p.. 0') ....lr. -L
<.n m ~ Co 0 (]'I
....lr. ~ 0 0 w 0
W
(J)
o
(]'I
~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o ~ ->. 0 0, 0, ~ 0, 0 0 0) 0 Co N
--.j N N 0 0 0 0 0 (]'I (]'I 0 to co (J)
"" ""
CJ1 0)
c:o W
->. ~
co N
'" W
to co
~ 0)
co N
W co
ifi ifi
->.
->. W
o po
W ->.
(J) --.j
ifi W
W (J)
to --.j
0, <.n
,j:>. .t>.
ifi
->.
~
->.
W "" Yl
W W ->.
CJ1 ,j:>. W
W N <.n
W ,j:>. co
ff7 ff7
-1. ....Jo. ifl ffi
(]'I ,j:>. Ol co
O(J)oo
~ ~ 0, ~
(]'I N ,j:>. --.j
~ W ffi ~ ffi ~ ~ ffi -EA f:fl ffi ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o ,j:>. ,j:>. (]'I ,j:>. ,j:>. !=' 0 000 ->. !=' ~ ,j:>. ,j:>. co
W W wow Co co Co ~ m ~ co N ->. Co
CJ1 (]'I (]'I co (]'I co W ,j:>. to --.j Ol -..j co to ,j:>. co N
~ ~ if-} f:A
....lr. .....l.. ~ Q)
(]'I N ,j:>. OJ
~ ......lr. 0, 0,
.t>. co W <.n
ff7 W
->. ->.
Yl "....J :".. 1jj
to W to co
o 0 :-J Ol
o 0, W
,j:>. Ol ,j:>. --.j
""
->.
ff7 ff7
,j:>. Ol
<C co
o N
-..j N
ff7 ff7
.t>. <.n
co N
o Co
->. (]'I
o
o
:-J
w
->.
-f;Affi--E:,A.f::Affiffi
NNW N --.j to
Ol N NOlO 0
N W WNW 0
Co <.n N Co en Co
co N N 00 OJ --.j
'" ff7
--.j Ol
->. ~
to ->.
0) ->.
""
co
o
o
o
W
0)
o
N
N
ff7 ifi
....l. -lo. -EA f:I7
....lr. .....lo. ~ Q')
C.J1 I\.,) en ....lr.
N ~ m
--.j co (J) en
ff7
->. ff7 ff7
--.j --.j ->.
<C (J) 0
0, N 0
<C (]'I 0
ff7
ff7 N
./>. ff7 "'-J
W N .t>.
0, Co W
N --.j N
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
./>.
--.j
o
o
o
_A
A
m
Z
Z
m
-i
I
""
->.
ff7
->.
~ ffi ~ ~ ffi tA
<C <C :".. :".. "'-J Ol
"'-J to <0 0 0 (J)
co ~ ....l.. W W w ""C
rv -L W (0 to 6 Q)
....lr. 0) W (0 Q) m '<
m
3
"tl
0"
'<
lI)
lI)
Z
c
3
IT
lI)
...,
l/O
Z
III
3
lI)
:E~
III 0
IOUI
lI) UI
-i
G)~
..., III
00-
UI _
(II <ll
"'T1
<ll
0.
-ill)
III ...,
><~
CIl
-i....
III 2!.
>< <ll
r
.,0
III C'l
>< ~
CIl
<ll CIl
C'l 0
:; C'l
;:;: ;.
'<-
:s:
<ll
0.
o.
III
..,
<ll
;:a
~
::;0
<ll
CIl
=r
~
CD-i
.., III
[><
<
o
C-
ia
III
-<
z
~
1J 1J
III III
'< '<
1J G)
~o
o. .s
0. ..
UI OJ
~ ~
~ m
~m
III p
.:J.-<
"'0
Q)
'<
"""C
o
n
-
-f
-<
o
'TI
n
m
z
-f
m
AJ
<
-
r-
r-
m
-
-
en
c
3
3
Q)
~
o
./>.
25
!2:
o
->.
W
1J 0
Q) ->.
<0
<ll 1J
$:
CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT
7741 Lake Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 784-7472
April 1 , 2001
Mr. Jim March
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Dear Mr. March
Below is an invoice for your share of the Centennial Fire District budget.
INVOICE
Quarterly Payment
Operating Budget
Depreciation
Relief Association
Common Area Charge
Capital Equipment
Total
12,681.00
0.00
645.00
706.00
3.000.00
17,032.00
Payment is requested by the 30th of the month. Each additional quarterly
payment will be billed accordingly.
Thank you.
Sincerly,
Milo Bennett
Fire Chief
CentennialXllnvoice 2000
CENTENNIAL FIRE DISTRICT
The 2001 Budget for Centennial Fire District is distributed by city as follows.
The calculations are based on the following percentages.
Centerville
Circle Pines
Lino Lakes
Total
Budget Items
Operating Budget
Depreciation
Relief Association
Common Area Charge
Capital Equipment
Total
Invoice amount by city
Centerville
Operating Budget
Depreciation
Relief Association
Common Area Charge
Capital Equipment
Total
Circle Pines
Operating Budget
Depreciation
Relief Association
Common Area Charge
Capital Equipment
Total
Lino Lakes
Operating Budget
Depreciation
Relief Association
Common Area Charge
Capital Equipment
Total
Total all Cities
12.00%
22.10%
65.90%
100.00%
422,700
o
21 ,500
23,534
100,000
567,734
Yearly
50,724
o
2,580
2,824
12,000
68,128
93,417
o
4,752
5,201
22,100
125,470
278,559
o
14,168
15,509
65,900
374,136
567,734
Quarterly
12,681.00
0.00
645.00
706.00
3,000.00
17,032.00
23,354.25
0.00
1,188.00
1,300.25
5,525.00
31,367.50
69,639.75
0.00
3,542.00
3,877.25
16,475.00
93,534.00
141,933.50
Quarterly Payments Due: January 31, April 30, July 31, October 31
CentennialXllnvoice 2000
Centennial Fire District
7741 Lake Drive
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
(651) 784-7472 - Office
(651) 784-2427 - Fax
April 3, 2001
TO:
City Council
City of Centerville
City Council
City of Circle Pines
City Council
City of Lino Lakes
FROM:
Milo Bennett
SUBJECT:
Ratification of expenditures and approval
for payment of expenses.
Your approval of expenses, as listed on the attached copy of
the check register, checks #12610 - 12628, in the amount of
$23,140.87 is hereby requested.
Centennial Fire District
Check Register
Page 1 of 1
DATE CHECK# NAME ACCOUNT AMOUNT
04/03/2001 12610 Arch Wireless 42240 - Telephone Expence 136.59
04/03/2001 12611 Capitol Communications 42110 - Other Maintenance 98.82
04/03/2001 12612 CCP Industries 42230 - Cleaning Supplies 230.35
04/03/2001 12613 Centennial Fire Relief Assn. 20900 - Payroll Deductions Pay. 900.00
04/03/2001 12614 Centennial Utilities 42251 - Station 1 - Gas 520.92
04/03/2001 12615 Circle Pines Office Products 42180 - Office Supplies 6.78
04/03/2001 12616 Cy's Uniforms 42120 - Uniform Expense 119.85
04/03/2001 12617 Emergency Apparatus Maintenance 42000 - Vehicle Maintenance 3,304.11
04/03/2001 12618 Fire Findings 42210- Subscriptions 40.00
04/03/2001 12619 International Assn. of Arson Investigators 42200 - Dues and Membership 130.00
04/03/2001 12620 Lino Lakes State Bank 41100 - Payroll Taxes 3,278.94
04/03/2001 12621 Loftier Business Systems 42110 - Other Maintenance 34.68
04/03/2001 12622 Milo Bennett 42220 - Travel, Conference, School 1,138.48
04/03/2001 12623 Minnesota Department of Revenue 41100 - Payroll Taxes 1,403.00
04/03/2001 12624 MN Chapter IAAI/Jeftrey G. Schadegg 40100 - Logistical Expense 180.00
04/03/2001 12625 Sentry Systems, Inc. 42110 - Other Maintenance 60.55
04/03/2001 12626 Verizon Wireless 45500 - FF Cell Phone Expense 124.60
04/03/2001 12627 Emergency Apparatus Maintenance 10102 - Capital EquipNehicle Ex. 11,389.20
04/03/2001 12628 Stacy's Specialty Stitching 42280 - Donations/Misc. Expense ~
Total $23,140.87
,
reM
INEER~.S~
Pfl^Y'
''''.or- ' "
_ J
. ~. Bonestroo
R Rosene
1i1I Anderlik &
. ~. Associates
Engineers & Architects
Owner: City of CenteNille 1880 Main St., CenteNille, MN 55038 Date: March 26, 2001
For Period: 10/26/2000 to 3/26/2001 Request No: 4
Contractor: Northdale Construction Co. Inc., 14450 Northdale Blvd., ROQers, MN 55374
CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
HUNTERS CROSSING
BRA FILE NO. 616-00-114
SUMMARY
Original Contract Amount $ 502,779.56
2 Change Order - Addition $ 0.00
3 Change Order - Deduction $ 0.00
4 Revised Contract Amount $ 502,779.56
5 Value Completed to Date $ 490,627.12
6 Material on Hand $ 0.00
7 Amount Earned $ 490,627.12
8 Less Retainage 5% $ 24,531.36
9 Subtotal $ 466,095.77
10 Less Amount Paid Previously $ 437,011.59
11 Liquidated damages - $ 0.00
12 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 4 $ 29.084.18
Recommended for Approval by:
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLlK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
jJPM~~~
Approved by Contractor:
NORTI::{DAtE ONSTRUCTION CO INC
~ <-;/ U:;? ~
U;"~
.
Approved by Owner:
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
Specified Contract Completion Date:
August25,2001
Date:
Request #4.xls
,
Contract Unit Quantity Amount
No. Item Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date
Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer - Centerville Road
1 Mobilization LS 1 13500.00 $13,500.00
2 T raffle control LS 1 2912.00 $2,912.00
3 Shouldering aggregate TN 50 24.45 $0.00
4 Clear and Grub Tree 2 500.00 2 $1,000.00
5 Silt fence, regular LF 200 2.00 $0.00
6 Remove and replace 36" CMP LS 1 1500.00 $1,500.00
7 Salvage and replace gravel driveway TN 20 17.07 $0.00
8 Connect to existing manhole EA 1 1500.00 1 $1,500.00
9 12" PVC, SDR 35, a'- 10' deep LF 250 2a.09 250 $7,022.50
10 12" PVC, SDR 35,10'- 12' deep LF 175 28.09 175 $4,915.75
11 12" PVC, SDR 35,12'- 14' deep LF 10 28.09 10 $280.90
12 12" PVC, SDR 35,14'-16' deep LF 265 28.09 265 $7,443.85
13 12" PVC, SDR 26,16'- 18' deep LF 5 30.54 5 $152.70
14 12" PVC, SDR 26, 18' - 20' deep LF 15 30.54 15 $458.10
15 4' dia. sanitary manhole EA 1 1394.73 1 $1,394.73
16 Manhole overdepth LF 3 99.97 3 $299.91
17 Adjust MH frame and ring casting EA 1 150.00 1 $150.00
18 Remove bituminous street SY 330 2.00 250 $500.00
19 Patch bituminous street SY 330 15.92 175 $2,786.00
20 Salvage and reinstall 12" CMP culvert LF 40 16.67 40 $666.aO
21 Improved pipe foundation LF 720 0.01 $0.00
22 Fiber blanket on steep slopes SY 600 2.08 $0.00
23 Seeding with topsoil and mulch AC 0.75 998.40 SO.OO
Total Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer - Centerville Road $46,483.24
Part 2 - Water Main. Centerville Road
24 Connect to existing 12" water main EA 1 750.00 1 $750.00
25 12" PVC, C900 LF 1062 23.86 1062 $25,339.32
26 8" PVC, C900 LF 35 16.71 35 $584.85
27 6" PVC, C900 LF 50 14.24 50 $712.00
28 8" gate valve and box EA 1 652.74 1 $652.74
29 12" butterfly valve and box EA 3 851.33 3 $2,553.99
30 Hydrant with gate valve and box EA 3 1a99.17 3 $5,697.51
31 Valve rod extension EA 7 143.49 7 $1,004.43
32 Fittings LB 3000 1.15 2500 $2,875.00
33 Improved pipe foundation LF 1100 0.01 $0.00
34 Sodding SY 700 2.55 700 $1,7a5.00
35 12" pipe restraint EA 20 69.64 20 $1,392.80
36 8" pipe restraint EA 4 39.85 4 $159.40
37 Seeding with topsoil and mulch AC 0.25 1018.64 $0.00
Total Part 2 - Water Main - Centerville Road $43,507.04
Part 3 - Services - Centerville Road
38 12" x 6" PVC wye EA 2 236.27 2 $472.54
39 12" x 4" PVC wye EA 2 229.a8 2 $459.76
40 4" PVC, Schedule 40 service pipe LF 40 11.22 35 $392.70
41 6" HDPE sewer service directional drill LF 156 42.02 150 $6,303.00
42 4" PVC, Schedule 40 riser pipe LF 10 17.47 10 $174.70
43 1" copper water service LF 90 8.59 80 $687.20
44 1" copper service directional drill LF 400 9.39 418 $3,925.02
45 Reconnect water service EA 1 178.76 1 $17a.76
46 Connect to existing sewer service EA 1 178.76 1 $178.76
47 1" curb stop and box EA 6 132.51 6 $795.06
48 1" corporation stop EA 7 143.16 7 $1,002.12
Total Part 3 - Services - Centerville Road $14,569.62
Part 4 - Sanitary Sewer - Hunters Crossing
49 8" PVC, SDR 35, 18'- 20' deep - jacked LF 60 246.99 60 $14,819.40
50 8" PVC, SDR 35,8'- 10' deep LF 350 16.25 350 $5,687.50
51 8" PVC, SDR 35, 10'- 12' deep LF 900 18.37 900 $16,533.00
52 8" PVC, SDR 35, 12'- 14' deep LF 300 18.37 300 $5,511.00
53 8" PVC, SDR 35, 14'- 16' deep LF 500 20.14 493 $9,929.02
54 4' diameter sanitary manhole EA 9 1362.87 10 $13,628.70
55 Manhole overdepth LF 56 99.97 53 $5,298.41
56 Improved pipe foundation LF 2000 0.01 $0.00
Total Part 4 - Sanitary Sewer - Hunters Crossing $71,407.03
Request #4.xls
,
Contract Unit Quantity Amount
No. Item Unit Quantity Price to Date to Date
Part 5 - Water Main - Hunters Crossing
57 8" PVC, C900 - jacked LF 45 143.24 45 $6,445.80
58 8" PVC, C900 LF 1330 14.05 1310 $18,405.50
59 6" PVC, C900 LF 810 11.58 814 $9,426.12
60 6" gate valve and box EA 2 490.86 2 $981.72
61 8" gate valve and box EA 4 652.74 4 $2,610.96
62 Hydrant with gate valve and box EA 6 1899.17 6 $11,395.02
63 Valve rod extension EA 12 98.49 12 $1,181.88
64 Gate valve wrench, 8'Iong EA 1 39.08 $0.00
65 Gate valve wrench, 3' long EA 2 23.11 $0.00
66 Hydrant wrench EA 3 29.50 $0.00
67 Fittings LB 3000 1.30 2500 $3,250.00
68 Improved pipe foundation LF 1000 0.01 $0.00
69 8" pipe restraint EA 24 39.82 24 $955.68
70 6" pipe restraint EA 16 30.24 16 $483.84
71 Insulation, 2" thick Sy 20 17.46 $0.00
Total Part 5 - Water Main - Hunters Crossing $55,136.52
Part 6 - Services - Hunters Crossing
72 8" x 4" PVC wye EA 37 76.63 37 $2,835.31
73 4" PVC sewer service LF 1710 6.64 1829 $12,144.56
74 4" PVC riser pipe LF 90 17.47 109 $1,904.23
75 1" copper water service LF 1730 5.76 1934 $11,139.84
76 1" curb stop and box EA 37 107.51 37 $3,977.87
77 1" corporation stop EA 37 67.05 37 $2,480.85
78 Curb box wrench EA 3 34.82 $0.00
Total Part 6 - Services - Hunters Crossing $34,482.66
Part 7 - Storm Sewer - Hunters Crossing
79 12" HOPE LF 330 17.51 330 $5,778.30
80 12" RCP, Class 5 LF 120 20.77 120 $2,492.40
81 15" RCP, Class 5 LF 80 22.14 80 $1,771.20
82 18" HOPE LF 215 22.91 215 $4,925.65
83 18" RCP, Class 5 LF 210 24.16 238 $5,750.08
84 Improved pipe foundation LF 500 0.01 $0.00
85 Catch basin EA 4 942.19 4 $3,768.76
86 Catch basin manhole EA 4 1371.39 4 $5,485.56
87 Pond outlet structure EA 1 1898.07 1 $1,898.07
88 12" RCP apron wltrash guard EA 1 534.52 1 $534.52
89 12" HOPE apron w/trash guard EA 1 254.43 1 $254.43
90 18" RCP apron wltrash guard EA 1 649.81 1 $649.81
91 18" HOPE apron wltrash guard EA 2 306.63 2 $613.26
92 Rock riprap, Class 3 CY 25 65.00 25 $1,625.00
93 Sodding SY 500 2.55 488 $1,244.40
Total Part 7 - Storm Sewer - Hunters Crossing $36,791.44
Part 8 - Street - Hunters Crossing
94 Mill bituminous strip LF 100 3.12 $0.00
95 Subgrade preparation RD STA 24 125.00 24 $3,000.00
96 Granular borrow (CV) CY 5000 9.71 5635 $54,715.85
97 Aggregate base, Class 5 - streets TN 3300 9.30 3450 $32,085.00
98 Aggregate base, Class 5 - trail TN 700 9.82 994 $9,761.08
99 Type 318 bituminous base course TN 700 27.51 822.28 $22,620.92
100 Type 41 B bituminous wear course - streets TN 700 29.64 $0.00
101 Type 41 A bituminous wear - trail TN 185 38.48 283 $10,889.84
102 Bituminous material for tack coat GAL 400 1.30 100 $130.00
103 Surmountable concrete curb and gutter LF 4400 6.66 4333 $28,857.78
104 Barricade EA 2 234.00 $0.00
105 4" draintile LF 4260 3.42 4105 $14,039.10
106 Geotextile fabric SY 9000 1.35 9000 $12,150.00
107 Seeding with topsoil and mulch AC 1.5 998.40 $0.00
Total Part 8 - Street - Hunters Crossing $188,249.57
Request #4.xls
No. Item
Total Part 1 - Sanitary Sewer - Centerville Road
Total Part 2 - Water Main - Centerville Road
Total Part 3 - Services - Centerville Road
Total Part 4 - Sanitary Sewer - Hunters Crossing
Total Part 5 - Water Main - Hunters Crossing
Total Part 6 - Services - Hunters Crossing
Total Part 7 - Storm Sewer - Hunters Crossing
Total Part 8 - Street - Hunters Crossing
Total Work Completed To Date
Request #4.xls
Unit
Contract
Quantity
Unit
Price
Quantity
to Date
Amount
to Date
$46,483.24
$43,507.04
$14,569.62
$71,407.03
$55,136.52
$34,482.66
$36,791.44
$188,249.57
$490,627.12
/
{
PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS
OWNER CITY OF CENTERVILLE
BRA FILE NO. 616-00-114
CONTRACTOR NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO INC
CHANGE ORDERS
No.
Date
Description
Amount
Total Change Orders
PAYMENT SUMMARY
No. From
To
Payment
Retainage
Completed
1 07/27/2000 09/05/00 184,945.15 9,733.96 194,679.11
2 09/06/2000 10/02/00 199,943.79 20,257.31 405,146.25
3 10/03/2000 10/25/00 52,122.65 24,531.36 461,542.95
4 10/26/2000 03/26/01 29,084.18 24,531.36 490,627.12
Material on Hand
Total Payment to Date $466,095.77 Original Contract $502,779.56
Retainage Pay No. 4 24,531.36 Change Orders
Total Amount Earned $490,627.12 Revised Contract $502,779.56
Request #4.xls
"
.11~ Bonestroo
..... Rosene
-- .
~ Anderllk &
. \J . Associates
Engineers & Architects
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity
Employer and Employee Owned
Principals: Otto G. Bonestroo. PE. . Marv;n L. Sorva/a. f'E. . Glenn R. Cook. f'E. .
Robert G. Schunicht. P.E. . Jerry A. Bourdon. P.E.
Senior Consultants: Robert W Rosene. f'E. . Joseph C. Anderlik. PE. . Richard E. Turner, P.E. .
Susan M. Eberlin, CPA.
Associate Principals: Howard A. Sanford. PE. . Keith A. Gordon, PE. . Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. .
Richard W. Foster, P.E. . David O. Loskota, P.E. . Robert C. Russek. A.I.A. . Mark A. Hanson. P.E. .
Michael TRautmann, PE. . Ted K.Field,. P.E. . Kenneth P Anderson. PE. . Mark R. Rolfs. P.E. .
David A. Bonestroo, M.B.A. . Sidney P Williamson, PE.. L.S. . Agnes M. Ring, M.B.A. . Allan Rick Schmidt. PE.
Offices: St. Paul. St. Cloud. Rochester and WillrT)ar. MN . Milwaukee, WI
Website: www.bonestroO.com
March 23, 2001
Mr. James March
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
RE: Invoice No.0016136IN from Twin City Testing
11CES Lift Station #4, Centerville
File No. 616-GEN
Dear Jim,
Enclosed please find the invoice from Stork Twin City Testing for serlices they provided on the
al)uve referenced project. The work involved testing the water in the water main extension for
MCES lift station #4. It is my recommendation to pay Stork Twin City Testing in the amount of
$71.5C! for services rendered.
Please call me if there are any questions or concems.
Very truly yours,
BON'ESTROO, ROSENE, A1"'\Jl)ERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
$~#~
Daniel S. Schluender
cc: Enclosure
2335 West Highway 36,. St. Paul, MN 55113,. 651-636-4600,. Fax: 651-636-1311
"
STO RI~@
INVOICE Page 10f1
. t:w.n Clt:y t:E!St:lnQ
c:arpl:ll'2ll:lan
..
REMIT TO: STORK TWIN CITY TESTING CORPORA nON
NW 7453
P.O. BOX 1450
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55485-7453
CUSTOMER NO:
03-CEN077
INVOICE NUMBER:
INVOICE DATE:
PROJECT NUMBER:
0016136-IN
03/21/2001
031058A
CENTERVILLE, CITY OF
C/O BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK
ATTN:DANSCHLUENDER
2335 WEST HIGHWAY 36
ROSEVILLE, MN 55113
PROJECT MGR.:
TERRANCE M. SCHMIDT
CUSTOMER P.O.:
NONE
PROJECT INFORMA nON:
MCS WATER EXTENSION
TO LIFT STATION 4
PROJECT #616 GENERAL
VISA & MASTERCARD NOW ACCEPTED!
FOR QUESTIONS CONCERNING
INVOICES CALL: (651) 645-360 1
FEDERAL ID# 56-2137150
ITEM NO.
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UOM
UNITS
RATE
AMOUNT
C8029
~M32
3
03/06/0 1
SAMPLING FROM JOB SITE
TRIP CHARGE
WATER TEST
HOUR
EACH
EACH
0.50
1.00
1.00
39.00
40.00
12.00
19.50
40.00
12.00
* * * AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER * * *
Net Invoice:
Less Discount:
Freight:
Sales Tax:
Invoice Total:
71.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
71.50
TERMS: TOTAL INVOICE DUE UPON RECEIPT. 1.5% PER MONTH INTEREST WILL BE CHARGED
ON ALL PAST DUE ACCOUNTS, PLUS REASONABLE COLLECTION COSTS, ATTORNEY'S FEES
AND COURT COSTS.
Jim March
"rom:
mt:
.0:
Monica Travis [monicasbeans@hotmail.com]
Monday, April 02, 20014:34 PM
Foto1758@msn.com; ray@raydevine.com; karla@raydevine.com; kathy046@aol.com;
terry.sweeney@isd.net; jthill@rcc.inc.com
jmarch@centervillemn.com
resignation
Cc:
Subject:
Dear fellow Fet De Lacs committee members,
I regret to inform you that effective immediately I must resign my position
on the Fet De Lacs committee. Due to health reasons I do not feel I could
be an asset to this committee. I will be requesting the Centerville Council
appoint a replacement as soon as possible.
Centerville is fortune to have all of you volunteering your time to make it
a better city. You should be proud of yourselves!
If at anytime you have questions in regards to anything I have been involved
with please feel free to call me (651)407-0018 or email me:
monicasbeans@hotmail.com.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
"'1onica Travis
Jet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
1
tervi{{e
Estaba.snecf 1857
1880 Main Street . Centervi[[e; 'JvfJ{ 55038
(651) 429-3232 .:Fa{ (651) 429-8629
April 3, 2001
Ms. Roberta Moreland
1540 Peltier Lake Drive
Centerville,:MN 55038
Dear Ms. Moreland:
It has been brought to the City's attention that several months ago an attempt to remove
the dead tree limb located on the southeast comer of your property was made and a stored
vehicle sustained damage due to same.
The City requests that both the tree limb and the inoperable, unlicensed vehicle be
removed from the property by April 14, 2001. The inoperable, unlicensed vehicle is a
violation of Section 135-140: Outside Storage, Ordinance #4 and the dead tree limb is a
violation of Ordinance #6, Nuisance.
The City has researched several salvage yards for your convenience. All salvage yards
require vehicle titles, wheels and operable tires. Most salvage yards will be charging fees
for picking up junk cars by spring. When you contact a salvage yard for pick up, it is
helpful to know the year, make and model of the vehicle. They will use this information
to determine if there is a fee for removal. Below is a list of salvage yards:
Jellison Auto Wrecking.... ...Jack...... ... ... ....(763) 434-6944
Hugo Auto & Truck............................ ....(651) 429-5420
Budget Towing Inc. ofS1. Paul................. ..(651) 771-8817
Failure to comply with the ordinances is a violation of the provisions of the ordinances
and abatement will be done. by the City. You will then be invoiced for the costs, if the
invoice is not paid the City may assess the cost to your property taxes.
If you need additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Mr. Jim March.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
c=~"",'.'<L:J ~L~
Teresa D. Bender
Clerk/Treasurer
Enclosures
CITY OF CENTERV.1LLE
COMMUNITY ACTION NOTICE
Complaint Number
471
Last Name IAnonymous
I First Name
Date Complaint Taken
4/3/011
Time I 11 :30 AMI
BY:
PART I. BACKGROUND
COMPlAINANT
011
Address
Phone # - work
Phone # - home
COMPLAINT INFORMATION
15401lpeltier Lake Drive
ADDRESS:
NAME (IF KNOWN):
IMoreland
Last
Phone
I I Roberta
First
Junk Vehicle ~ Weeds 0 Animal 0 Noise 0 Other ~
Explain
Dead tree in the yard for over a year, junk vehicle that tree fell on and other debris in rear yard near junk vehicle.
What type of Response is Required:
Complainant Response Required 0
Immediate 0 Time Permits 0 Complaintant Informed 0
RESPONSE METHOD:
Department Referred to:
(Department)
(Employee)
_'_'_'_'~'~'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_'_i_'_._'_'_~~'_'_,_,_~_,~,_,_,_,_'_'_'_'_'_I~
PART II. fOLLOW UP:
Action Taken IForwarned lette<-
Completed 0 Date of Action
Person Contacting Complainant: Teresa
Department:
Administration
~._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._.-._._._._._._._._._.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---.
Additional Information
ervi{{e
1880 Main Street . Centervil[e/ M'l{ 55038
(651) 429-3232 .:Fa?( (651) 429-8629
April 4, 2001
Mr. & Mrs. Tom Olson
7261 Main Street
Centerville,:MN 55038
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Olson:
It has been brought to the City's attention that a utility trail has been parked in the front yard of your
residency for over a year. This is a violation of Ordinance #4, Section 135-140: Outside Storage. A
copy of Ordinance #4, Section 135-140: Outside Storage is enclosed for your reference. It has also
been brought to the City's attention that an excessive amount of garbage/debris has accumulated in your
driveway, in front of the garage. This is a violation of Ordinance #6, Nuisances. A copy of Ordinance
#6, Nuisances is enclosed for your reference.
The City requests abatement of both violations within ten (10) days, April 14, 2001. If you fail to
comply with the provisions of Ordinance #4 and Ordinance #6, you shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Each day a violation exists, constitutes a separate offense.
If you need additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Mr. Jim March. Thank you in
advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
c=~_~.~~.._._~ x:{;.t-td~
Teresa D. Bender
Clerk/T reasurer
Enclosures
CITY OF CENTERVILLE
COMMUNITY ACTION NOTICE
PART I. BACKGROUND
COMPLAINANT
Complaint Number
461
I First Name
Date Complaint Taken
I 4/3/011
Time I 11 :30 AMI
BY:
last Name
. Address
IAnonymous
011
Phone # - work
Phone # - home
---.-.-.___._._.___._.___._._._._______._._._._._._._._'_'_'_._._._.~._._a_._._.~._
COMPLAINT INFORMATION
ADDRESS: I 726111Main Street
NAME (IF KNOWN):
10lson
Phone
last
IITom & Christie
First
Junk Vehicle ~ Weeds D Animal D Noise D Other ~
Explain
ITrailer containing signs parked in front yard. Large amounts of garbage in driveway, close to garage. Cars parked in the
front yard.
What type of Response is Required:
Complainant Response Required D
Immediate D Time Permits D Complaintant Informed 0
RESPONSE METHOD:
Department Referred to:
(Department)
(Employee)
PART II. FOLLOW UP:
Action Taken [Forwarded letter.
I
Completed D Date of Action
Person Contacting Complainant: Teresa
Department:
Adm in istration
Additional Information
,
tervi{{e
ruta6{isfied 1857
1880 :Main Street . Centervi{{e/:M'J{ 55038
(651) 429-3232 . :Fa;c (651) 429-8629
Apri14,2001
Ms. Betty Berg
7129 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Dear Ms. Berg:
It has been brought to the City's attention that recently a semi-truck cab has either been parked on the
street in front of your house or in the front yard driveway. This is a violation of Ordinance #4, Section
135-140: Outside Storage. A copy of Ordinance #4, Section 13 5-140: Outside Storage is enclosed for
your reference.
The City requests compliance of Ordinance #4 and abatement of the above stated item within ten (10)
days of receipt of this letter. If you fail to comply with the provisions of Ordinance #4, you shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day a violation exists, constitutes a separate offense.
City records also indicate that you have failed to register your lower, rental unit with us. This is a
violation of Ordinance #38, Housing Code: Registration of Rental Units. A copy of Ordinance #38,
Housing Code: Registration of Rental Units is enclosed for your reference.
The City requests compliance of Ordinance #38 within ten (l0) days of receipt of this letter. If you fail
to comply with the provisions of Ordinance #38, you shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day the
property is rented without a valid rental registration certificate on file, will be a separate violation. Any
person who rents out to another, any type of unit to be used for human habitation, without first making
out an application for a housing registration certificate shall be assessed a $50 penalty fee. If you are no
longer or never have rented the lower level of your home, please notify us and we will correct our
records.
If you need additional information, please feel free to contact myself or Mr. Jim March. Thank you in
advance for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
.___" ..~ /J....' ~-;-;J
C--:."'"'>-7'" . / ~A
v' / ~
Teresa D. Bender
ClerklT reasurer
Enclosure
,
CITY OF CENTER VlLLE
COMMUNITY ACTION NOTICE
PART I. BACKGROUND
COMPLAINANT
Complaint Number
481
Date Complaint Taken
4/3/011
Time I 11 :30 AMI
BY:
last Name jAnonymous First Name
011
Address
I Phone # - home
Phone # - work
_'_'_I_'_I_'_P_'~'-'-'-'-I_'_'_I_'-'-'-'-'-,-,-,-,-,-,_____._._____._______._._.___
COMPLAINT INfORMATION
ADDRESS: I 712911Main Street
NAME (IF KNOWN): Phone
!Berg I I Betty
last first
Junk Vehicle 0 Weeds 0 Animal 0 Noise 0 Other ~
Explain
Semi-Truck Cab parked on street or in front yard. Has been parked there off and on for over two (2) weeks.
What type of Response is Required:
Complainant Response Required 0
Immediate 0 Time Permits 0 Complaintant Informed 0
RESPONSE METHOD:
Department Referred to:
(Department)
(Employee)
-'-'-I-'_l_'_'_'_'_'_I_'_I_._a_I_'_'_'_'_a_._'_'~'_a_a_________._.___.___._._._._._
PART IIa FOLLOW UP:
Action Taken IForwarned letter.
Completed 0 Date of Action
Person Contacting Complainant: Teresa
Department:
Administration
_._.-._._._._._._._._._._.-.-.-._._._._._._.~._._._._.-.-.-----.---.-.-.-.-----.-.-.
Additional Information
....
I
NOT
APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Apri14, 2001
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Parks and Recreation Committee of the City
of Centerville held their regularly scheduled meeting on April 4, 2001 at City Hall, 1880
Main Street. Chairperson Doug Porter called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.rn.
Present:
Chairperson Doug Porter
Wayne LeBlanc
Karla DeVine
Tedd Peterson
Brian Walter
Absent:
Staff: Jill Lien
APPEARANCES
Mr. Jeffrey Johnson of the Centennial Soccer Club appeared before the Parks and
Recreation Committee to express interest in the use of the soccer fields at Laurie LaMotte
Park this summer. Mr. Johnson also shared his concerns with the size of one of the
soccer fields not being within regulation, the condition of the turf of the fields, and if
there were any possibilities of running irrigation to the fields. Additionally, the northeast
comer of the south field (adult field) has a slight incline, which restricts the playing on
that field. Mr. Johnson mentioned that the referees "walked I paced out" the width of this
field, and all had concurred that the field is not 50 yards wide. Standard regulation size is
50 yards wide by 100 yards long (50xl00). The youth field is fine the way it is, but the
adult field is not within regulation. Mr. Johnson stated that the Centennial Soccer Club
would use these fields for practice only. Typically use would be in the evening, Monday
through Friday. Hopefully next year, they will use it more for games.
Mr. Porter commented that the Parks and Recreation Committee is committed to making
the turf at LaMotte Park, and all of the parks, in excellent condition. He also explained
the future plans for utilization ofthe parks through programs offered through the YMCA
Day Camp and the Wargo Nature Center.
Ms. DeVine offered to meet with Mr. Palzer next week to "mark~out" the correct size of
the soccer field. Ms. De Vine will update the Committee at the May meeting.
Mr. Terry Sweeney (7154 Brian Drive) appeared before the Parks and Recreation
Committee to discuss the Draft Goal Directives Proposal presented by Mayor Swedberg.
Specifically, Mr. Sweeney wasn't pleased with the $75k addition to the Parks and
1
...
,
Recreation budget for recreational activities, along with providing safe and supervised
swimming opportunities at Centerville Beach. Mr. Sweeney clarified this is an Anoka
County Beach that the City of Centerville has nothing to do with. Additionally, as far as
the recreational activities, Mr. Sweeney doesn't want to see a duplication of what is
currently offered through the Centennial Little League and Soccer Club. The Little
League and.Soccer Club have thousands of kids already participating in softball and
soccer leagues. The Little League and Soccer Club have invested in our City parks, and
the City of Centerville should not try to separate from these clubs by duplicating
activities offered.
Mr. LeBlanc commented that Mayor Swedbergs goal is to provide activities for the
youth. He didn't feel the Mayor was trying to offend the Parks and Recreation
Committee. On the contrary, he is trying to promote the Parks and Recreation's goals of
offering activities for the youth. Mr. LeBlanc commented that possibly it is time to hire
a park coordinator.
CONSIDERA TION OF MINUTES
March 7. 2001 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes
Motion by Mr. LeBlanc, seconded by Ms. DeVine to approve the March 7, 2001
Parks and Recreation Meeting minutes. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Budget Figures / Re-assessment
The Committee discussed the corrected figures provided, and came to the following
conclusion for the Parks and Recreation budget.
Carry Over from 1999 Park Dedication Funds
Hunter's Crossing Park Dedication Funds
2001 Budget - Capital Outlay
Total Revenue
$31,675.00
$74,000.00
$50,000.00
$155,675.00
2000 Park Expenditures exceeding budget $ 7,101.95
2001 Expenditures thru February $0.00
Total Expenditures to date $ 7,101.95
Revenue less Expenditures $148,573.05
Pheasant Marsh Park Dedication Funds $138,600.00 *
* Possible phasing of park fees associated with construction
The Committee requested financial statements on a monthly basis.
2
I
The Parks and Recreation Committee would like the City Council to recognize these
figures provided through the recent audit as current Park Funds.
Skate Park
Mr. Peterson explained that he was at a conference put on by the League of Minnesota
Cities on Tuesday, and Skate Parks were a major topic of discussion at this conference.
Discussions related to Tier I parks confirmed what we had already know regarding
helmets, kneepads, height of equipment, etc. Mr. Peterson confirmed that the hockey
boards are adequate for "fencing". Signage will need to be addressed. Mr. Peterson will
follow-up on the insurance issues and will also contact SunRamp Solutions for a list of
Cities he can contact for references.
Motion by Mr. Porter, seconded by Mr. LeBlanc to recommend to City Council to
accept Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for laying concrete in the ice rink at Laurie
LaMotte Park, per the engineers specifications. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Committee opted to refer to the "Skate Park" in the future as a "Wheels Park".
Motion by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. DeVine to accept Requests for Proposals
(RFP's) for equipment/ramps for a future Wheels Park at Laurie LaMotte Park.
All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Ms. Lien explained that she had provided each member a copy of anything related to
Parks and/or Parks and Recreation areas in the Comp Plan. Mr. March had requested that
each ofthe members review it and make any changes or recommendations prior to the
meeting. He is looking for the Parks and Recreation Committee to specify exactly what
they want amended in the Comp Plan. Ms. Lien requested that any changes or
recommendations be forwarded to her as soon as possible. She will compile them and
then forward to Mr. March.
Earth Day
The Committee confirmed the plans for the Earth Day activities. Mr. Peterson will
purchase pop and trash bags while Mr. Walter will purchase cookies. All will be placed
at both parks and City Hall. The festivities will begin at 9:00 a.m. Volunteers can meet
at City Hall, Royal Meadows Park or Tracie McBride Park. Mr. Porter will be at Royal
Meadows Park, Ms. De Vine and Mr. Walter will be at Tracie McBride Park, Mr.
Peterson will be at Laurie LaMotte Park and Mr. LeBlanc will be at the Wargo Nature
Center with a table set up on behalf of the Parks and Recreation Committee. Ms. De Vine
will talk to Mr. Magill from Comer Express to see ifhe would be willing to donate the
use ofhis sign to the Parks and Recreation Committee for advertising for volunteers.
Committee Member Vacancies
After discussion, the Committee elected to conduct interviews at the meeting in May.
Ms. Lien will set up the interviews in IS-minute intervals with a start time of6:00 p.m.
3
I
\
M~_Liyn will also notice the newspapers, cable channel, reader board, etc, of the time
change.
Trail Map
Ms. Lien explained that she had received the latest version of the proposed trail map.
After discussion, the Committee was pleased with the proposed trail map. Mr. LeBlanc
will bring sample brochure styles to the next meeting for the Committee to review. The
Committee would like to establish a brochure indicating trails, parks, pedestrian
walkways, etc. for distribution.
Wargo Nature Center Activities
Ms. Lien explained that Mr. Murawski had faxed her a list of dates and times for summer
programs for the youth in Centerville. Mr. Murawski felt the Wargo Nature Center could
commit to every Tuesday from June 12 thru August 28th (with the exception of July 3rd).
The activities range from games, canoeing, kayaking, arts and crafts, pond study, snake
presentation, biking, swimming, ecology and nature scavenger hunt. The times could run
from 12:00 - 2:00 p.m, or from 1 :00 - 3 :00 p.m
After discussion the Committee determined which activities/dates would be held at each
park, and made the following motions:
Motion by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Ms. DeVine to recommend to City Council
approval of the expenditures for scheduled programs offered through the Wargo
Nature Center in an amount not to exceed $800.00. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
Motion by Mr. Peterson, seconded by Mr. Walter to recommend to City Council
approval of expenditures for promotion and advertisement ofthe Wargo Nature
Center activities in an amount not to exceed $500.00. All in favor. Motion carried
unanimously.
The Committee requested Ms. Lien place a full advertisement in the LeJournal, place it
on the cable channel and reader board in front of City Hall, and contact the school district
to see if the Committee could distribute a flyer with the children at school. If so, Ms.
Lien will create such a flyer and distribute accordingly.
Score Funds
Ms. Lien explained that she had spoke with Ms. Bender who informed her that there are
options regarding the Score Funds. Currently, the Recycling Coordinator is looking into
funding promotional items with those funds and requests that the Parks and Recreation
Committee not rely on these funds.
Requests for Proposals (RFP's) for Electrical at Laurie LaMotte Park
Ms. DeVine commented that Bonestroo (City Engineer) is scheduled to come out to
LaMotte Park again next week to finish the specifications for running the electrical to the
ball fields.
4
j .
NEW BUSINESS
Centennial Soccer Club - Use of Fields
Discussed previously.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Concession Stand / Shelter Building
Mr. Peterson explained he had requested this be added to the agenda. He wanted to
confirm with the rest of the Parks and Recreation Committee that the plans submitted for
the concession/shelter in the Outdoor Recreation Grant Application were just concept
plans, and not the actual plans that the Committee would be committed to. He expressed
his concerns that the concept plan did not include restrooms, drinking fountains, is not
ADA accessible and seems somewhat small. The Committee concurred that this is just a
concept plan that was needed for the Grant Application.
Outdoor Recreation Grant Application
Ms. Lien explained that each member received a complete copy of the Outdoor
Recreation Grant Application that had been submitted to the DNR on March 30th. She
mentioned the application consumed a great deal of her time over the last two (2) weeks,
and enjoyed working on it. This was on the agenda for informational purposes only.
Recommendation to City Council for Council Liaison
Ms. Lien explained that after speaking with Mr. March, she has come to the conclusion
that if the Parks and Recreation Committee desires a Council Liaison, they should make a
motion to City Council requesting they appoint a Council Liaison to the Committee.
Motion by Mr. LeBlanc, seconded by Mr. Walter to request that City Council
appoint a Council Liaison who is interested in attending the Parks and Recreation
meetings for the purpose of communications between the Parks and Recreation
Committee and City Council. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
YMCA Day Camp Program
Ms. Lien explained this was added to the agenda again for informational purposes only.
Ms. Katie Kubic ofthe YMCA had dropped off the brochures for the Day Camp to be
distributed at City Hall and for the Committee to review.
Parks and Recreation MontWy Report to Patricia Scott (LeJournal)
The Committee elected the following information be relayed to Ms. Scott for the montWy
newsletter: YMCA Day Camp, Wargo Nature Center Activities and Earth Day.
Set Agenda
5
'. \
1. Interviews - 6:00 p.rn.
2. Soccer Field
3. Skate Park
4. Trail Map Brochure Samples
5. Wargo Nature Center Activities
6. RFP's for Electrical at LaMotte Park
Motion by Mr. Walter, seconded by Mr. LeBlanc to adjourn the April 4, 2001 Parks
and Recreation Committee Meeting. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jill Lien
Staff Liaison
6